The avante garde of the videogame 'journalism' cohort will call this piece of tripe 'thought provoking' in a sad, weak attempt of affirming their dreams of gaming journalism 'coming into its own'
While the readership of gaming blogs perform a collective facepalm.
What does it matter if he gave it 1,2,3,4 or 5 stars. What matters is what he said, most, if not all, of which is really spot on. I love Halo, but I don't love it to the point where I think everything about it is flawless. Halo 4 was a let down, simple as that.
Wow, the internet really does give ANYBODY the right to voice their completely and utterly wrong opinion. I've legitimately never cared about a bad review for a game i've liked, until now. I think he's just trying to stand out from the crowd by saying he hates the game, he probably really enjoyed it. You poor, sad moron.
This just sounded like the insane ramblings of a lunatic. Maybe ol' Tom was pissed that Bungie wasn't making this or something. He just seems to suck at multiplayer and must have wanted to take his frustration out on the game.
But this is a bad review because he clearly didn't go into it with an open mind. A good reviewer will play a game with the possibility of liking it. This guy clearly did not. Bad review. Bad reviewer. Bad website.
PS: I've played the game and all of his complaints are completely unfounded.
I read this review before playing the game. When I got to the Mammoth bit, I was ready to be disappointed by the lack of big-ass gun shooting. But then the big-ass gun did fire. Several times. And blew up some big-ass ships. And I was the one who fired it. And it was awesome.
Numbers aren't meaningless, dumbass. For whatever reason, these guys are on metacritic. Their troll review will bring down the overall score of the game, and many consumers turn to metacritic to judge the quality of a game. Numbers are meaningless when you're discussing personal opinion but this has to do with their desperate cry for pageviews bringing the perceived quality of the game down in the eyes of the average metacritic user.
"Furthermore, Halo 4 is missing the scoring mode that made the previous Halos so replayable. So what’s the point of the skulls that raise the difficulty level? The scoring system made this part of a risk/reward balance. They made the level harder, but they also raised your scoring multiplier. Why would I turn on skulls if there’s no scoring to be multiplied? Furthermore, you lost points when you died. In the pointless Halo 4, you just pop back up next to your buddy or at the last spawn point, none the worse for the wear, with no score to be penalized. Scoring was furthermore a great bit of instant feedback, along with all the little medals for feats. Halo used to be a gamer’s game. Halo 4 is just a game."
This paragraph right here is what is wrong. NOT with the game though, with the USERS! Why would you turn on the skulls if there are no points to multiply? The same reason you turned the skull on in the campaign, for a challenge!
I haven't even played Halo 4 yet. I look forward to seeing how it goes, but don't try to dismiss my comments because I haven't played the game, because I am not trying to comment on the game. You are asking Halo to CoD-ify itself. If you want to be rewarded after every action you make and every game you play, then you should be playing CoD. One of the reason Halo 2 had such a great online is because the gameplay was the only thing to keep you hooked. That and trying to regain that level 40 in Big Team Battle that you just loss. (Man I miss the days when people weren't coddled, heaven forbid you LOSE a level!) If you can't enjoy yourself without keeping score, either the game sucks, or you do!
I have no problem with a person giving a game a score that reflects their subjective opinion, but there's a HUGE caveat on that. If your site contributes to the metacritic score of a game, you absolutely have to be as objective as possible. If you want to give a review that's just your personal perception, it's important for it not to be ranked on metacritic, as a score this low for the sake of one person's opinion brings down the overall score that's SUPPOSED to be objective.
I cannot believe this review is taking seriously. I understand somebody can not like Halo but after all the work 343 has put in it's only worth a 2? I'm a huge PC gamer but Halo:CE was my original love interest and i've played and beaten Halo 4 and while not revolutionary in functions very well as one of the best console FPSs out there, simply giving it a 2 is not justice, bad review IMO
Why does this review matter? Clearly this is an attempt to make this site relevant in some way. So why not give a game that averages 80%+ on every other site 1 star. It's easy publicity. Good job!
Is this working? Do I have to register here? Ill find out.
A zero for Halo 4? Holy crap.
And the link to jorney? 2 1/2 stars?
I dont agree with either of those... For reasons ranging from disagreement, to knowledge of facts you must not have known, Rampancy has been a thing since marathon, as for Halo rampancy was detailed in Halo 2's instruction book, and cortana began showing subtle signs of rampancy in Halo combat evolved, more subtle cues in halo 2, blatant rampancy according to marathons laid out rampancy rules in halo 3, and its finally stated by name in halo 4.
But that being said.... Thank you.
I mean yeah, so you got some stuff wrong. You explained yourself every step of the way, so i can still very much find plenty of intrinsic value in what you had to say.
And I would much rather have someone who has the balls to say something like this about a huge AAA game, to say what he really feels, instead of the homegenized yesman crap i see everywhere else.
Even if i realize (thanks to him explaining himself thoroughly) That some of his statements were wrong, I do know, thats how he honestly feels. Which is a matter of increasing importance to me with matters as of late, what with doritogate and whatnot.
Thanks Tom. Dont change, I think Ill be sticking around awhile.