Reviewers like him should not be allowed in the video game industry.

I thought Halo 4 was good, but not great.Better than Halo 3 for sure (which I would have given a 7/10).

While this score is definitely odd, I don't think you can damn EGM based off one writer's opinion. Sequels get a lot more scruinity and that may be unfair, but that's the environment with critics and long running series.

Maaaaaan, the reviews were even written by the same guy.

I suggest you take out your frustration on one Brandon Justice, rather than the whole of EGM.

Yep, that's why I named him. But I have to call out the whole of EGM because Brandon Justice isn't just some random reviewer who got some random games to review that sliped by the editors with some bad scores. He is an executive editor and responsible for EGM in general. He IS EGM.

You are entitled to your opinion and tastes I'm not going to argue about the what I think is the best game of 2012 and you don't. Instead take a look the scores below and consider EGM's insane scores.

Halo 4

IGN - 9.2/10

Gamespot - 9.0/10

Game Trailers - 9.0/10

Games Radar - 9/10

EGM - 7.0

Aliens Colonial Marines

IGN - 4.5/10

Gamespot - 4.5/10

Game Trailers - 5.9/10

Games Radar - 5/10

EGM - 9.0

Compared to the respected opinion of the internet's most trusted review websites EGM is on another planet in a dimension where bad games are good and good games are bad. EGM is from Bizarro World.

I haven't played either game, unfortunately, so I can't really comment on the greatness of either. Although I suspect Halo 4 is much better.

But just because a critic has different tastes from one's own doesn't mean he's a poor critic. As long as a reviewer articulates and substantiates his opinions, there is absolutely no problem in my eyes. There is a big difference between bad taste and bad criticism.

If he honestly has this bad of taste in games then why did EGM hire him and make him an executive editor. He should be reviewing hotdog stands not video games. His opinion the the opposite of the rest of the trusted and respected websites. Look at the list of scores below.

Halo 4

IGN - 9.2/10

Gamespot - 9.0/10

Game Trailers - 9.0/10

Games Radar - 9/10

EGM - 7.0

The problem is, they're in metacritics 'circle' for ratings - so every damn game that comes out, promises to give them millions of hits if they're the 'odd ones out' - face it when you head to metacritic and see a new game you're interested in scoring badly - it's the negative reviews you pay more attention to when everyone else is praising it and scoring it well, and conversely if everyones slating it, its the one positive review that gets the attention for better or worse.

Additionally if they're the only ones that score a game high, there's also the chance that the developers/publishers will mention the media outlet in press releases or by adding their name, score and short comment to future trailers and in some cases, the boxart.

Then reviewers can hide this fact under thinly veiled excuses like 'personal opinion'.

A friend of mine is currently working on a reviews website where the score for each element is decided from an average of several reviewers, not just one - limiting the changes of the final score being unfairly weighted in either direction - once they're live i'll be reading all my reviews there - giving a single person the 'prestige' of deciding a games score is just too open to abuse.

As i mentioned in another thread, review/news sites are given far too much power for something which is generally just the opinion of an average joe.

Well, to be honest I don't really trust any of those sites.

But again, his taste in games isn't really the point. It's his professionalism. A critic's job isn't to reflect majority opinion; neither is it to conform to fans' expectations. His job is to have a professional opinion and to articulate that opinion to his audience.

Pretty sure that score is for PS3 version. The Xbox 360 version is a zero.