Halo 4 is half the game it should be

Oh, you go watch Zero Punctuation if you want to hear an old timer complain about regenerative health and chest high walls every time a modern shooter comes out.

Apparently he only looks at the bad, and his ratings are about how bad the game is. The less stars, the better

The mammoth fires its gun about four times you ridiculous idiot. Did you think those particle guns just spontaneously combusted? If your not going to pay attention then don't post a review

From here on, Tom, every AAA game you review will have multiple comments that say, "...And you gave Halo 4 a 1/5!?!?!?!"

Hah, that'll show 'em I'll right a shitty review for a fantastic game. Now back to Halo 4.

There is nothing wrong with IGN. Im not really 100% sure why everyone bashes them, sure, some reviews I dont agree with, but its that way with every website. Anyways, Im not saying the reviewers opinion doesnt have anything to do with it. But to be completly honest, it shouldnt. Its like if a person hates sci fi movies. Should that person be allowed to review games that are very science fiction? Tom Chick reviews everything, he doesnt have specific people for different genres. I believe thats why most of his 5/5's are little casual games. I would personally have a board of reviewers, 10 or 20 people, that all vote and its averaged out between them. I think thats a much more efficient way to properly review a game.

You moron are cutting the developers salaries! You are to dumb to recognize that. I don't even get why metacritics is listing this bullcrap. Yeah, now you get your clicks. Happy now, for ruining peoples hard work?

There is nothing wrong with IGN, but what they do is different from what Tom Chick does. They tend to do very straight forward reviews that don't really dig any deeper than surface level stuff. Everything tends to be, "the graphics are x good and the sound is y good, and therefore the game is z good." So if you are looking for a surface level review than IGN will serve you well. For myself, I would rather read something more akin to a critique that explores a games themes and how well those are themes are executed upon within the context of the gameplay. One of the main reasons I read Tom Chick's reviews, is because I tend to see eye to eye with him (though not all the time) when it comes to thing I appreciate in video games.

An example of a game that on the surface isn't so great but it executes pretty well on it's themes is Spec Ops: The Line. It doesn't really look, handle or perform very good (the graphics are sorta muddy, the reticle moves kinda squishy and the frame rate is inconsistent) but the ideas that it is trying to convey (the negative mental impacts of prolonged exposure to combat situations) is executed on very strongly. To me that makes this game more than the sum of it's parts and well worth playing. Much more so than if it had a boring Call Of Duty style point A to point B story.

Besides all that, a person who reviews GAMES is in no way limited by the MOVIES they enjoy. That being said, as far as a reviewer's preferences when it comes to story subject matter, should not necessarily apply. At least not in all instances and that is going to depend largely on the writer. An actual good writer whether they enjoy sci-fi or not, should be able to recognize quality sci-fi content even though it is in a genre the typically do not enjoy. My father generally hates science fiction movies but two of his favorite movies are Blade Runner and Alien, and to a lesser extent he likes A Clockwork Orange and the Matrix, because he appreciates good fiction even if it it's science fiction.

But your point does certainly apply to some reviewers. Some reviewers are more in the line of specialists. You will generally see particular people at particular outlets who review sports games or JRPGs or wrestling titles. These are games that typically have a very specific audience in mind when they are made and it will take a reviewer who is very familiar with these types of games to understand them in such a way as to be able to impart the type of information that will be applicable or useful to a person who wants to know if the newest game is worth their time. First person shooters on the other hand are the most popular type of games out there (as far as the "core" gaming audience is concerned), so a reviewer who enjoys FPSs should be in no way limited to what they can review in that genre regardless of what genre the story wrapped around it is.

Halo - Call of Tronduty

It's very interesting to see most people get up in arms about the low score that Tom gave to this game. It's as if the idea that a game could receive 1 out of 5 stars is offensive in of itself. I think that is silly.

If there is a Hell, Tom Chick will be there...bent over with Osama Bin Laden's cock in his ass while simultaneously sucking Satan's cock and pterodactyling Hitler and Dick Cheney's cocks...

what's worse than cancer of the AIDS? Tom Chick...

Good lord , the lowest u would go is4/5?? What the hell is wrong with you man, have you no soul? Are you a machine? Functional does not equate good!

All they did was copy and paste a bunch of scripts from call of duty, and made halo of duty. Spartan Ops is by far the most pointless addition to any game. Playing legendary by your self is undoable, and unenjoyable, despite the fact there is no penalty for respawning. There's just no balance with in this game. They just added a bunch of flashy gimmicks and variables and took the true Halo skill set entirely out of the equation. Nerfed the gauss hog, nerfed the scorpion, nerfed the banshee, made the ghost unbelievably good, made the basic turret unbelievably good, made all automatic weapons an instant kill that a BR or DMR can barely compete with close range. WTF happened to being able to 4 or 5 shot (depending on game mode) a charging assault rifle before he even removes your sheilds. That was skill. This is a bunch of gimmicky bullshit suggested by some Microsoft overseer that wanted this one to appeal more to children, and sell the most copies this christmas, rather than cater to the true MLG fans of Halo. SORRY 343 YOUR NOT GONNA BEAT BLACK OPS 2 SALES BY BEING A BUNCH OF COP OUT GIMMICKY CUNTS

And the mammoth fires its gun after you pointlessly and pedantically point a LASER AT SOMETHING OMG OMGOMG YOU MADE IT FIRE WOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWW stupidest shit ive ever done.

The reboot was better, reach was better, 3, 2, combat evolved was better, FUCKIN ODST was better.

We'll simply have to agree that we disagree, friend, because I feel your example is a validation of everything I said. Preferring the inferior Testarosa is absolutely a reasonable call for Top Gear to make, because that is a call on their feelings, which is a PART of, not the total, reviewing process. (Also, the Murciélago is a Lamborghini, not a Ferrari.)

I would be very surprised if they then used that personal preference as justification to lower the Murcielago's score overall, especially to the degree to which Tom has here. Get what I mean? The preference of the Testerosa isn't a reasonable justification to completely ignore the good aspects of the Murcielago.

If that was an accepted form of judgment and comparison, we would have a lot of reviews like this: "I like the taste of oranges, so I'm giving this apple a two out of ten because I like oranges more." Uh...what? You're supposed to be judging it based on the qualities of an apple in general, NOT JUST how you feel about it! A natural affinity or dislike for something is not good enough justification to ignore all the aspects that make it what it is in a credible review.

In other words, Tom can review any way he wants, but any argument that he has objectively reviewed this piece, acknowledging and IGNORING his feelings as relevant to the topic as a whole, is tenuous at best. To Quote Wikipedia: "The term 'critique' derives, via French, from Ancient Greek κριτική (kritikē), meaning "the faculty of judgement", that is, discerning the value of persons or things."

Considering the value of something is only partially subjective, a review that only focuses on the subjective is one I greatly resist taking seriously. Best to you!

So I actually did a little research this time and as far as I could tell it was the F40 vs the 458 (I am still confused as to what i was thinking with the Murc').

But anyways, you make a valid point. Although I do think this just comes down to semantics. If he just called his article a critique and not a review the debate would be done. I think this all speaks to a bigger issue that game journos face. Should what they do in the conventional review scenario, actually be considered a product review? If it is, does that cheapen the medium? Personally the idea of reviews of any artistic medium hasn't really sat well with me ever since I started taking my own art more seriously, and as I have began to view others work with a more critical eye. The thought of reviewing a painting (and even consumer art mediums like books and movies) on a 5 or 10 point scale feels kind of ugly. Although I have no issue with saying how much I enjoyed a book or movie and even giving it a numerical value as long as whoever I tell this to understands it is my opinion. Some one may really enjoy something I dislike, and that's cool. I personally do not enjoy the Halo games all that much because it does not do well the things that I like in games and the things that it does really well, are things that I generally care much about. I'm not trying to say "I'm right, and every one who loves Halo is wrong." It's just my feelings about a piece of artwork (I do believe crafting excellent game play is an art form). And artwork is completely subjective.

I recommend checking out Edge-online.com. What Edge does that I love is that there are no names on articles. Everything that appears in the magazine and on the site is considered to be from the editorial unit and they stand behind everything they do. They have incredibly tough standards and the quality of the writing is of the highest caliber I have found yet. I hope you enjoy it as well.

I agree with this.
I was reluctant with halo 4, because of the new developers, but I bought it and played it through.
It is by far the worst halo game, and I will think twice before going anywhere near future halo games.

Good lord, what a hackneyed review... This is an awesome game, you get to pilot some great gear on land and in the air and all this guy can do is gripe about it... And yes, you do get to fire the gun on the mammoth, you'd think that somebody who supposedly played the game would have realized that...

I just LOVE how we have sign in to down vote

I'm gonna post this once and just get all this all out of my head at once while it's still there.

The issue with the score isn't that it clearly shows his dislike of the game, it is basically saying that there is something fundamentally wrong with the game, that it is broken. A 2 star would've better gotten his point across, but what he's saying is that the game is basically of no value: That there is next to nothing that the average person will enjoy in the game. The graphics lack in quality and glitch, the music is terrible, the voice acting is worse and the gameplay contains so many glitches that on top of the lack of playable content, it is just unplayable. THAT is what a 1/5 implies. This is not objective, he is basically pointing at the game and saying there is nothing of value, just nothing. The people who made the game should be ashamed of themselves. This is ET the video game all over again.

Next, a bad review does not a failing game make. Last I checked Halo 4 made $300 million in the us on it's first week. Just like most movies, games will be made as long as they sell. Hence, why Call of Duty is still having games made on a yearly basis.

On that note, Halo is Microsoft's Mario, Sega's Sonic, Arcade Game's Pacman, and Sony's something-or-other (I seriously couldn't think of a go-to franchise, but there are many great ones). It's the go-to and most recognizable franchise for the console. Honestly, they would be stupid NOT to keep it going, from a sales standpoint.

"Dallas News - Comfortably familiar, refreshingly new" - This, a thousand times this. We seriously need to destroy the concept that every game needs a numerical value to deem what it is worth as a game, and just say what it will mean to the average gamer.

To those complaining about the campaign...seriously? Very few halo games had any sort of emotional impact (Reach was close, but lacked any real character development to make me care), which is what everyone used to complain was wrong with halo. Now that we have it, it's a problem. Quality over quantity, the game was relatively short, but was totally worth it. That was the first halo game since halo 1 where I just had to keep going. It actually replicated the scope of halo 1. You were just throw in into this situation and have very little idea what's fully going on. Now you're getting shot at, enjoy! That's half of what made halo 1 so damn fun, the pacing. To put it bluntly "Bitch you don't get time to dwell on what just happened, time to get shot!", and I just love that feeling with halo. Not every game, but halo 1 and 4 pull it off quite well (again, Reach was oh so close).

Now let's not get what Halo stole from CoD and vise versa, but here's this. Halo 2 invented the modern match making system, and CoD 4 popularize perks and upgradeable weapons in multiplayer, fact.

Halo 4 is tied for one of the best halo games, and ranks up there with some of the best fps games out there (in my opinion, I really don't care if you don't agree) because it's "Comfortably familiar, refreshingly new" to put it in lament's terms. It may not be as good as Team Fortress 2, Half-Life 2, CoD (not saying which one, but I played CoD 1 to no end back in the day), Killzone, or Dues Ex (not a fan, but I know many who are), but it is what it is. Halo. It's a mother fucking new halo game. If you're going to lament about how the game is more or less or the same, please start disliking other franchises for doing the game. I bought halo 4 because it's HALO. Read that again: Haloooooooooo. I didn't pick this game up expecting it to be a different shooter. I wanted my god damn halo, and I got it and then some.

Lastly, while sales often determine if a franchise will continue, the do not always reflect on the quality of the game. Tiny wings on ios has around 7 million purcahses, does that make it better than canabalt? Hell yeah! (kidding, I love them both equally) But that's my point, sales does not always equal quality, it may just mean hype.

Blarg I am done!