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.

jamesmarkus87 said:
When I wake up in the morning, I'm sure that Halo 4 will be dropped to 84 on Metacritic thanks to some random "publication" giving it a 0.5 / 10.

Ha! 0.5....I'd be impressed if someone went that low. : )

Seems like they usually stop at a 1.0/10.0



Around the Network

Maybe the site is a troll but the problem isn't that they're giving a low score, it's that Metacritic converts their five-star system to a 100-point scale linearly. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way in practice because on the 100-point scale the low end is rarely used even when it's needed. I rarely see anything below 40, and even 40 is reserved for the most horrific games. That would be two stars if we used linear conversion. Point is, if on the 100-point scale the actual scale is pretty much 40-100, it makes no sense to convert one star to 20.



kain_kusanagi said:
Dark_Lord_2008 said:
Milked franchises like Halo, Final Fantasy, Call of Duty, Resident Evil, etc need to be called out. High reviews of mediocre games have been paid for by the developers. Popular mediocre games get high review scores spreading propaganda resulting in more sales from the brainwashed consumers. Good on this guy for speaking out against the corruption that is rife in the video game industry. The same game with a coat of new paint with a hefty $60 price tag that looks and plays like DLC.


Milked huh?

As a Halo fan I'll have another tall glass of that milk. I think Final Fantasy, Call of Duty, and maybe even Resident Evil fans would say the same about their favorite series.

I personly can't get enough Halo and wish new entries would come out twice a year. I'd subscribe to Halo if it meant I'd get more of it.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's garbage or there's a vast conspiracy to boost it up.

I'll take a barrel ful of milk.



who cares? just play the game



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

Zkuq said:
Maybe the site is a troll but the problem isn't that they're giving a low score, it's that Metacritic converts their five-star system to a 100-point scale linearly. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way in practice because on the 100-point scale the low end is rarely used even when it's needed. I rarely see anything below 40, and even 40 is reserved for the most horrific games. That would be two stars if we used linear conversion. Point is, if on the 100-point scale the actual scale is pretty much 40-100, it makes no sense to convert one star to 20.

the issue is that everyone is using the 100 point scale incorrectly. Because then it is essentially a 40-100 point scale.

which would mean, a 40 = 0 stars, 52 = 1 star, 64 = 2 star, etc. I think people need to learn how to use scales correctly. Obviously metacritic can't force this. But, videogames seems to be the only industry with this issue.



Around the Network

While I haven't played Halo 4, I actually agree with the main point of the negative reviews; that Halo has mostly been the same old gameplay with a fresh lick of paint since Halo 2.

I'm not saying it needs iron sights, scripted sequences and all that crap, but I think it's a legitimate complaint to want more from a once revolutionary franchise than retread gameplay (however good it is) with shinier graphics.

Halo 1 was a true innovation, and that exciting spirit of charting new territory, which is a big part of what made it so great, simply hasn't carried over into its sequels, and that's a crying shame.

I enjoyed Halo 2 and Halo Reach, they're quality games, but I yearn for the day that Halo will wow me again instead of just showing me prettier shaders.



curl-6 said:
While I haven't played Halo 4, I actually agree with the main point of the negative reviews; that Halo has mostly been the same old gameplay with a fresh lick of paint since Halo 2.

I'm not saying it needs iron sights, scripted sequences and all that crap, but I think it's a legitimate complaint to want more from a once revolutionary franchise than retread gameplay (however good it is) with shinier graphics.

Halo 1 was a true innovation, and that exciting spirit of charting new territory, which is a big part of what made it so great, simply hasn't carried over into its sequels, and that's a crying shame.

I enjoyed Halo 2 and Halo Reach, they're quality games, but I yearn for the day that Halo will wow me again instead of just showing me prettier shaders.

It's interesting that you say that becuase I've though each Halo game has added just enough without changing too much.



From the same people who gave Zen Pinball 100/100.

No joke



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

On the other hand, there will be many 90+ Reviews Microsoft had payed for.



Another Sony biased Site gave Halo 4 a 55.

Lol if this continues i can see Last of Us and God of War getting 4s and 5s out of 10s from MS biased sites.