How is a reviewer wrong when they state their opinion?
"ignorants to hate..."
What? WHAT? And you attempt to comment on some one elses ignorance?
review pretty much hits the nail on the hammer as why halo 4 is bad, it doens't capture the awesome that was halo 1 or 2, then it does worse at being a new halo then halo 3 or reach, weird writer didn't mention the lack of a good forge mode this time around, which could have been fun for at least custom matches, but we don't get that with halo 4.
Matthew, don't be jealous just because Playstation has exclusives in every genre of gaming and not just FPS's.
The Halo franchise is getting boring to a lot of people, not just game reviewers. Microsoft should've let this dying horse go instead of beating it with a stick.
Those negative reviewers gave good reasons for their average or negative scores. You should read them. They aren't retards just because YOU disagree with them.
Just got done playing it. NO INNOVATION WHATSOEVER. Copied game mechanics from CoD, that's it, nothing more. So we got a compromised version of Halo, which used to be a competitive even playing field, but is now a cushy "everyone can have fun, even if you suck" title. A 7.5 tops. Reviewers were too afraid to be tough on this game.
Because a reviewer isnt telling us his opinion of the game. I dont read reviews of video games because I wonder how that person feels about the game, I read them because it informs me of what to expect or if I should even give this game a chance or not. A reviewer shouldnt let his personal opinion get in the way of a great game.
Ok people, since when do we read reviews to know peoples opinions on things. And its one thing to have an opinion, its another when that opinion is completly irrational and obviously not well thought out. Thats like saying "Black people suck" yeah, thats an opinion. But many people consider that wrong. Not to say that saying Halo sucks is the same as being racist.. just an example.
ahh score to get attention, you're supposed to score the game against is competitotrs in the market and halo no matter what is still above avarage
Mad about video games.
Just like to point out that rampancy has always been around before Halo 1 in fact, Bungie's old FPS series marathon was about an AI that goes Rampancy. More or less Small AIs (an AI that can learn) learns so much stuff their "brains" overload it starts to happen wend they've been around for seven years.
Wow! What a terrible review. I think metacritic need to rethink where they get their reviews from. Admittedly I took the bait, as I like to see the complaints from the lowest scoring reviews but instead of finding what was bad about the game I found out what was bad about the review (He didn't like it, aw boo-hoo). If this wasn't just for the hits the title wouldn't be what it is. Also, recommending people play Halo:Reach instead doesn't make your review any more credible.
I hate shooters, therefore this review pleases me.
...but the mammoth DOES fire it's bad ass gun. What does this brain-dead reviewer think the target locater was for?... how did he figure the giant promethean weapons were getting blown up... Magic? God?
Why is this site even averaged on metacritic/gamerankings alongside other professional review sites?!
I think they're attention whoring via negative reviews. I boycott Quarter to 3 and encourage you to do the same!
lol
This dude have idd a good taste in games
Ah Tom chick, I'd lost track of you! GiantBomb showed me the way. Thanks for this - it's the critical perspective I knew was out there, but couldn't find. I will still play the game, as I like halo. But it can wait.
It's a shame that evenhanded prose like this can be considered controversial.
I love this review. Man how many halos do you need to tell a story. Keep buying that crap so you can get the ending in Halo 13
To be honest, I agree. More or less. Ok, if you play for story, then you would know that Cortana's state is very interesting (shes really old for an AI, and she absorbed the first halo's data core, she should be so rampant she cant function, yet there she is, going slowly insane... and very much alive). But ive seen lots of reviews that mention how the weapons arnt anything new, how the new enemies (the ones that, lets face it, supposedly inspired the covenant!) arnt really all there and just sort of exist. Thats not what we were sold when Halo 4's plot began to emerge. Im sorry if that upsets people, but I feel a little upset that Halo 4 is halo 1 with glowing things. I wanted to be facing enemies so advanced that the chief was barely able to survive each encounter and had to develop new strategies using new weapons. However, Im glad flood wernt in it. After all, we are talking about a super advanced civilization here. Flood wouldnt stand a chance and 4,5 and 6 are opportunities to create something new and exciting.
I dont play multiplayer (i know, thats bad) so i cant comment on the coop or the unlock system. But it does sound a little too much like everything I dislike from CoD. I liked being on an even footing and winning or loosing because I was better or worse than others.
I hope halo 4 turns out just to be an introduction. Hopefully more of Cortana's unique situation will be explored and the Prometheans will turn out to be more than elites with pets and toy helicopters.
All in all a very interesting point of view, and one that, as a halo fan (and a fan of the lore as well as the action), I can see a lot of sense in. Please stop attacking him and stop to think about what he is saying. You will see that its true. While its a sequal, sequals require inovation, or they are just clones...