Do you have any proof to back up your claim?

right, he didn't say it the worst, just that there is no game which deserves even a lower rating.

and there is no big difference between the football stuff or the game stuff because you don't have to see the teams winning to see which is better. it would be enough to watch their training to see which teams have a huge difference in quality. so maybe you can't watch the training of chelsea or aston villa to decide which team is better but you can decide it if you watch the training between chelsea and the small team playing in the lowest league.

yes you can say you like or don't like the story but in no way can't a reviewer who kows what he is doing not see that halo has very good controls, very good graphics, very good sound quality, very good multiplayer possibilities with spartan ops/multiplayer/co-op and more stuff which is simply good. and if you are not able to review the full package you have the wrong job.

i did hate killzone 2 but i believe i gave it still 76% because i know some stuff is simply good and even some stuff i don't like is nothing i can't really say it's horrible, i just don't like it.

i mean, just check the egm guy, he gave 70 and i'm absolutey fine with that, i did even defend him in another thread and i'm one of the biggest halo fans. but this guy is also reviewing the good points of halo and not only the bad points. if you read his review you will understand that it will be not great for you or that it will be like a 100 metascore game for you (like for me haha) but if you read this guy's review here it sounds horrible even for me and if i would believe this review and no other review i would never buy it.

Underline: Except, potentially, other games he has rated 1/5.

Italics: You lost me as to how any of that applies to gaming.

Bold: Games aren't just the sum of their parts. There are games that check all the boxes and just aren't any fun or have no spark. The best graphics, controls, and all the content in the world can't redeem a game if at its core its not a positive experience. For this reviewer, the lack of the originality that defined the first Halo was enough to undermine whatever positive  traits it possesses.

I don't see what the big deal is. This guy didn't like it, which is an opposing opinion to the majority. Just about every game in existence has someone that didn't like playing it. So what? And why do so many people care about a metacritic score? Why can't you just enjoy the game and not care what anyone else thinks, regardless of how well you think they make their argument? Move along, there are more important things to worry about.

Don't get the hype either.

As opposed to all the 'perfect' scores just one mere 20/100 isn't all that bad. We could also start a thread for every 100/100 score that is given... which is basically the same.

Just enjoy the game and if you seriously are offended by this the only thing you should do is ignore it. But a little too late for that...

Peace out...

yes as example controls should be a factor of a review, you simply shouldn't give a game a perfect score if it has bad controls and if you look at halo you simply have to see that that's something halo is good at and better as many other games.

and he can think what he wants as much as you, that still doesn't qualify him do this job. we all know gaming journalism has many flaws but do you think people study journalism and learn "if you write an article about a game/product everything has to be your own opinion and you don't have to try to write it at least in a way people can still understand if it's good or bad for them"?

like i said about the egm guy (i edited my post you quoted), he gave 70 for halo and i even defended him in another thread as one of the biggest halo fan but the difference between him and this guy here is, he wrote the article to explain to people if it is a good or bad game for them. for me his review reads exactly as i will love  the game. he pointed some stuff out as negative for him which i prefer in a game and people who think like him will understand it's maybe not a game for them. if you read this guy's review NOBODY will read out of it that it could be good for them. if i would only read this review i would think this game has to be a horrible experience for me so this guy absolutely failed to write a review in which he differentiate between different kind of gamers. if all people would fail as much as him dance games would get a 5% metascore because most reviewers don't like those games but they obviously don't deserve it if they are good in their genre.

HOLY FUCK the meta is 87 with a 2/10 amd a 5.8/10.

Meta is so fucking random. Never even heard of that quarter to shit site. That AV club review of UC3 now seems generous. Im glad that didnt drop any lower than 92. Borderlands 2 and ME3 seems to be the only real 90 meta retail this year. That sucks. Has there ever been a year with so few >90?

A reviewer isn't obligated to point out both positive and negative; if the reviewer feels that one major flaw derails the entire experience and makes it as a whole overwhelmingly negative, that's a fair assessment.

Besides, people could take away from this review that, "hey, it's more of the same, but I love it just the way it is, so that's fine." Others could understand it as "wow, it's just more of the same?  Not interested then." He simply didn't choose to pitch his review at fans who've already made the decision to buy it and just want to hear their purchase justified.

as someone who doesn't set much importance on reviews anyway and thinks that halo 4 looks awesome

i truly find it hilarious that many of the people complaining about these reviews are the same people that bashed the crap out of people who complained when uncharted 3 got low scores

in fact i think i actually remember a thread being made about the complainers

whatever