By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Halo 4 gets a 20/100 on Meta, proves eview system is broken.

MB1025 said:
curl-6 said:
Obviously I haven't played the game, but the review actually does seem to make coherent arguments. Having a very different opinion to the majority doesn't necessarily make someone a troll/fanboy. You can't just rule out a score because it doesn't concur with the majority.


An opinion is not a review. That is where 99 percent of these sites and people that follow them messed up.

 

The industry needs to adopt guidlines for reviews. Cut out the bias opinions (both positive and negative) and give people real reviews and not someones opinion.

That's just not feasible. Have you ever read reviews? They necessarily contain opinions because a reviewer is judging something (in this case a game). Fact is, people want different things from games, and there is no objective criteria about what these things should be, and reviews are going to reflect this fact.



Around the Network

if that guy gave last of us a 20/100, you'd be bitching too



 

 

Ah, Quarter to Three. I remember them. 

I'm pretty sure my scathing yet intelligent critique of their Journey "review" is still in said review's comment section over on the site (unless the guy deleted it like he did others). 

 

EDIT: as for the OP though, that's a joke. The score means nothing to that effect. 

 



Tom Chick, proof that some peoples 'opinions' can be wrong.

A review is meant to be as objective as possible, it's meant to tell you if the game's glitchy, long, short, varied, polished etc. Sure some things like the story, fun-factor, sound etc, will always be subjective but the majority of a review should be stating facts about the game and what the effects of them e.g. framerate, game length, play-ability, camera perspective and so on.

People who have read the review and defend it as the critics 'opinion' are moronic, what part of that awful review actually informed anyone about the game? Zilch. Why Metacritic uses a publication who's reviews are consistently poorly written and always troll popular and acclaimed games for hits is beyond me. GameRankings doesn't use shitty sites and is better for a ton of other reasons to boot, if you like accuracy and quality use that site instead.

-moderated Kasz216



Attention whores gonna attention whore.



Around the Network
ZaneWane said:
Pjams said:
It's a valid review, I read it and most of what it says is an indictment on not just Halo but all of the other money milking franchises that people are so brainwashed into feeding. And in no way is this review an indictment on metocritic.

Enjoy your game, no need to make pointless threads unless you actually have a point.

you are bad as reviewer


Your sig is shining example of the point I was alluding to, but hey no need to form your own opinion when you're so willing to let other people do it for you



 

well if all this guy does want is attention and hits. This thread has proven it works so stuff like this will keep happening. everyone complaining only has themselves to blame.



Actually I believe it's the opposite of proof that the system is broken. Some people will hate Halo, and probably have done from the beginning. This review therefore fits with the perfectly reasonable opinion of that segment of the gaming community.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

JustThatGamer said:
Tom Chick, proof that some peoples 'opinions' can be wrong.

A review is meant to be as objective as possible, it's meant to tell you if the game's glitchy, long, short, varied, polished etc. Sure some things like the story, fun-factor, sound etc, will always be subjective but the majority of a review should be stating facts about the game and what the effects of them e.g. framerate, game length, play-ability, camera perspective and so on.

People who have read the review and defend it as the critics 'opinion' are moronic, what part of that awful review actually informed anyone about the game? Zilch. Why Metacritic uses a publication who's reviews are consistently poorly written and always troll popular and acclaimed games for hits is beyond me. GameRankings doesn't use shitty sites and is better for a ton of other reasons to boot, if you like accuracy and quality use that site instead.

Problem is, a lot of those things you mention are subjective. I'll give you framerate, game length, and camera perspective as objective. Variety, polish, and play-ability, at least to me, are incredibly subjective and depends on what your background and expectation are. Further, while framerate might be objective, how this plays into a review score is subjective. If a game has minor framerate problems, how should this impact the score? 0.2 points, 0.5 points, 1 point, no points? Point is, while framerate issues can be objectively measured, the framerate problems might affect different people's assessment more than others.

Reviews are subjective. They depend on someone taking a position (an opinion) and making an argument for that position. Not to mention, they have to do this in incredibly limited word space, meaning they will not be capable of fully explicating their argument, hence, some of the ambiguity in reviews. Personally, I don't want a review to give me a bunch of objective facts. Not only would it be boring to read, but it would be incredibly limited in its scope. Point is, tell me whether the gameplay is good and how it compares to its competitors. I don't need to know for instance, "When you squeeze the right trigger, your equipped gun fires bullets at a rate of one clip per 4 seconds." That would be quite objective, but it doesn't really provide me with much info about the quality of the game.



JustThatGamer said:
People who have read the review and defend it as the critics 'opinion' are moronic, what part of that awful review actually informed anyone about the game? Zilch. 

So I'm a moron because I don't share your opinion? Gee, that's nice of you.

The review did make some informative points; it makes a coherent criticism of the game's level design, multiplayer mechanics, and lack of freshness.

It's not a  particularly well written review, but I don't think it's bad enough to be ruled out as baseless trolling.

And before any of you go ruling me out as a hater, let me just say that I plan on playing Halo 4 and I expect I will enjoy it very much.