Can I ask why? Metacritic collects reviews to build an average score right? So even the bad reviews (and i mean in terms of score, not content) should be included. As should both impartial and personal reviews. If metacritic just publishes good scores the even when a game is really bad, people will buy it based on the score alone (or thats what we are told, on the whole scores have a very poor correlation to sales). Did you know that metacritic also has reviewers who are paid to give good scores only? And also ones that are refused games before release if they give a poor review? Thats not good. Even if you hate this guy rather than just disagree with this review, you have to admit that its all him. He isnt paid to send this game down. I adore halo and read the books as well as play the games. I still agree with lots of things in this article. I disagree on some of them too. Its one persons review, and its valid. Therefore metacritic has a duty to post links to it and to this site. If only to say "this site is bad/good, so [do the opposite of] what they say".
tom chick is a hater. that is all.
Judging a game based off of what you want it to be instead of what it is.
Genius logic.
I don't even like the Halo series. This is just bad reviewing.
Completely agree with everything this reviewer said ... and I still love the game. If you liked Halo1, this game will take you back in a good way.
you lied in this review but thats cool. i didnt even played the game watched a walkthrough lol. you do get to shoot the big weapon on the mammoth thing. also im pretty sure they mention the rampancy thing in halo3 but maybe im mistaken. i do know it has ben mentioned in the books however.
Is your argument seriously that "every other review gave it at least 7/10, so your opinion that it is lees than that doesn't make sense"? Because every other review gave it 70% or above, does that make 70% the new 0% or something? That's just idiotic.
Good on ya Tom! You're one of those rare reviewers with balls and a mind of their own who is prepared to express an honest opinion and not follow the mainstream sheep. Keep up the good work!
its good to hear someone speak their mind on this. Halo 4 is really just more of the same.
The exaggerated score aside, this is a terribly written review that, having played the game, really doesn't provide any sort of objective explanation of how it plays (and while reviews are opinions, it's also their job to relate exactly what is being reviewed.
I hope nobody avoids the game because of this review-- there are valid reasons, but this block of chatter doesn't provide any.
Sihdir!
There ARE quantifiable aspects of games. Hence my example stands, just as there are quantifiable aspects of almost anything. Now, the FEELINGS one has, the emotional resonance, is non-quantifiable, so he is free to feel it is the worst game in human history.
For example, say I am reviewing a car. It can be the most well made car of the year, with the best parts and most excellent features, but I can still personally think it is hideous. DESPITE my perception of ugliness or beauty, I am a liar if I don't acknowledge the excellence of the product's craftsmanship regardless my own dislike. Thus, a true quality review is a marriage of the quantifiable and the intangible; the overall feeling of the reviewer juxtaposed against the quantifiable.
Thus, the review is still a farce, a poor judgment regardless. He cannot deny the quality of the visuals, the audio, the technology - especially on seven year old platform - without being a liar. (But he can certainly dislike the art direction.) Therefore, his complete disregard for the tangible and entire focus on the subjective is only representing 50% of the product. Thus, his associated score simply cannot be taken credibly. If this was the standard for reviews - only acknowledging what you feel, entiely ignoring the physical reality - than EVERYONE'S opinion would be publishable, regardless of any reality at all.
The player doesn't fire the bad ass gun. The player holds a target designator and waits for someone else to fire the bad ass gun.
One little thing you are doing in this review. You compare it too much to the older games in the series. This is the beginning of a new trilogy with a new studio. You should treat it as such: Treat it as you would treat the first game.
Is this review even serious?
What a tool.
He didn't just hate Deus Ex, he retrospectively compared it to 9/11. Now that's a well reasoned person with opinions you can trust to be objective and rational.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm saying that pretty much every and I mean every website has given it a 7/10 and above, its even averaged out at a 87 on metacritic. Therefore there is no way this is a 0/10 game which, like I said, implies that a game is a broken unplayable mess which it is clearly not. Even if the reviewer doesn't like Halo that still doesn't explain this review or the score because reviewers are supposed to be objective. Good day.
While I agree that the Mammoth mission could have been much, much better,the gun was fired. Multipletimes. Don't blame the game if you weren't paying attention.
The absence of firefight certainly has my teeth on edge but here's hoping it's re-introduced to Halo 4 in the future. Spartan Ops, while nice, aren't even close to as fun though I really appreciate the effort 343 are going to, to bring continuous content (so far; keep it coming).
You're right. Scoring is a sorely missed feature.
I don't understand the hatred that copied game features get like the load outs and kill streak rewards in multiplayer. So what if it came from CoD? If a
game has a good feature I'm plenty happy to see it in another game.
Why wouldn't you want the best of everything? You're wrong. Halo 4 doesn't visit a Halo installation. It's a shield world. Flood weren't meant to be anywhere near a shield world. It was designed to protect its occupants from the destruction wrought by the firing of the Halos. Rampancy is
a thing. AI's DO have a lifespan. These are facts out of cannon (the extended Halo universe outside of the games - like star wars, buffy etc.) Facts explained in quite a lot of detail and that make a lot of sense, first introduced in Eric Nylunds novel The Fall Of Reach published and released in 2001. 6 years before GLaDOS ever went crazy. You've got me on System Shock, though the idea of an AI going rogue isn't something that can really be owned by one
person/company/fictional universe. I recommend that if you intend to review
something and 'rag' on it's story or features, that you at least do some
research.
Cortana was always hot :-)
Another thing I agree with is that the new enemies have no personality whatsoever compared to the covenant but, again, if you have any idea of the EU then you'll be excited to see the Forerunners and their toys.
Quite unfair to have seemingly bland, generic enemies for every other gamer
though. Step it up a bit next time 343.
The new guns are kind of cool but I don't understand why the Forerunners were bad ass and had energy weapons and giant installations and can
build planets but I still have to reload their energy shotgun a single round at a time. Ammo instead of, say, a charge pack? For energy weapons? Seems like lazy cross design.
What do you get when you combine covenant guns with human guns?
The end of your entire race apparently.
Explains why the flood wiped
the floor with them.
The game is really short.
But.
BUT.
I played through the campaign with a friend in
6 hours and while all is said and done - even taking my gripes into account - it was THE most intense xbox 360 campaign experience I have had since I played straight through Gears of War 1 & 2 in 2 days. The best thrill ride on my xbox so far with a very well-constructed, emotional story relevant to this particular Halo game as well as spectacular graphics and brilliant cut
scenes (don't hate me, it had to be mentioned).
I can't wait to see what 343 bring us next for Halo
And I can't wait to do it all on legendary
A review is supposed to be an objective explanation so that other gamers can get a grasp for the game.
This isn't a review. It's the bleating mating call of an attention whore.
Hi, i'm going to be unique and be "that guy" that reviews a great game and say it's bad.
Now let me find a bad game and say it's the stand out game of the year.
Congrats, I just saved you a year of reviewing games. Pay me later.