EGM responds to Halo 4 review criticisms

http://www.examiner.com/article/egm-responds-to-halo-4-review-criticisms
soo yeah… check it.

It’s to make it seem like Halo fans are the bad guys and they’re the victims. They were just grabbing for page views and this “explanation” is just doing the same.

The reply is just as bad as the review. This is an “executive” editor? Seriously? I grew up with EGM and it was always well respected. It’s sad to see what it’s turned into (which goes well beyond the Halo 4 review debacle).

Will read later. Right now his justifications seem hypocritical since he gave MW3 a 9/10.

While I still fully disagree with him, I do give him respect. At least he was able to back up his feelings and statements. Everyone’s allowed to have their own opinions.

While i agree it should get at least an 8, 7 is a fair score. If anyone should explain its the moron that gave it 2/10

Iron Sights in Halo destroys the canon and is really unneccesary.

Each weapon scope, with one, is hardlinked directly to the Spartan HUD, making a 100% accurate reticle anywhere.

And gameplay wise, Halo’s scoping system is fit for each weapon. By that, I mean that close range weapons, obviously, don’t have/need scopes. Put a scooe on the AR and a lot of different things happen, the weapon is changed. Its unneeded and really messes up some of the ways the weapons work.

[deleted]

It’s laughable that he even has the nuts to say halos campaign is repetitive due to the mission objectives. By what he said CoD should score a -5 at the minimum.

> While I still fully disagree with him, I do give him respect. At least he was able to back up his feelings and statements. Everyone’s allowed to have their own opinions.

I don’t respect him because he bashed the fanbase for “not liking change”, yet he essentially wants Halo 4 to be another carbon-copy of Call of Duty.

He criticized the game for, at parts “having me shoot the same 8 types of enemies over and over again.” Didn’t this guy give MW3 a 9/10? I’m not gonna draw any other similarities (because they are entirely different games - take note journalists/reviewers), but isn’t that contradictory of his rating system? 8 enemies, each that has different roles on the battlefield. He’s complaining about that while rating a game 9/10 that has…well, two types of enemies? I can only think of the basic enemy armed with an assault rifle and a juggernaut in Call of Duty.

I still think it’s dumb the guy compares the two (COD vs Halo), but if you must, complaining about the enemies in a game with multiple variations (hell,even two entirely different species with the Covenant and the Forerunners), each different in every way and both having many enemy types, loses it steam when you praise a game with only two; a russian with a gun and a dude in a bullet-proof suit.

It isn’t the fact that he had certain problems with the game that some of us don’t, its that he gave it SUCH a low score for his “reasons”…I expect 7’s from games like Resident Evil ORC. Even without playing this game at least looks like a 8- 8.5; like someone on here mentioned. Then when someone asked him how he liked the multiplayer, he replies that he would give it 9-9.5.

So hes also contradicting what he wrote! (first EGM reviewer, forget his name).

I’m all for fair opinions…but fair…I don’t see much of that going on in EGM and I"m hoping they don’t rub off on other notable reviewers and start a very bad trend =/

hahaha

yet games like GOW have THE SAME FLAWS outlined in the review but they score in the 90ies?

pathetic, I said it once and I will say it again…Nowadays the eve of the release of a new great title is not a time to look in awe and enjoy but a time to “be cool” and be the first to say "it sucks“

They’re just fishing for views now. The guy wrote a stupid review and people called him bad names for it, and it should have ended there. But now they’re just milking a dead cow.

> They’re just fishing for views now. The guy wrote a stupid review and people called him bad names for it, and it should have ended there. But now they’re just milking a dead cow.

pathetic

I will reserve my judgment on his points until I can play the campaign for myself. Not because I think I might agree with him but because without playing it you can’t really give him evidence to counter his points. Also if this is the criteria that he reviews games by then cod should be a 5 or lower.

> > While I still fully disagree with him, I do give him respect. At least he was able to back up his feelings and statements. Everyone’s allowed to have their own opinions.
>
> I don’t respect him because he bashed the fanbase for “not liking change”, yet he essentially wants Halo 4 to be another carbon-copy of Call of Duty.

He’s allowed to have his opinions. I definitely don’t agree with him, but that doesn’t mean either of us are right.

> Iron Sights in Halo destroys the canon and is really unneccesary.
>
> Each weapon scope, with one, is hardlinked directly to the Spartan HUD, making a 100% accurate reticle anywhere.
>
> And gameplay wise, Halo’s scoping system is fit for each weapon. By that, I mean that close range weapons, obviously, don’t have/need scopes. Put a scooe on the AR and a lot of different things happen, the weapon is changed. Its unneeded and really messes up some of the ways the weapons work.

Hell, ironsights are starting to disappear form the modern abttlefield. An IR laser is mounted on the front of the gun, which is picked up by an IR sensor on the soldiers helmet, which is displayed on an eyepiece, giving a projection of where the gun is aiming. Exactly like Halo, only its happening now.

Just as bad as the review from the guy who didnt know how to play Skyward Sword.

Iron Sights would not work in a game like Halo.