I was wondering if we could have a word from one of the guys at 343 regarding the current Metacritic score?
For those unaware, there have been a couple of sites giving Halo 4 low scores that are completely unjustifiable and a cursory glance at the content of these reviews shows how little they understand, not only Halo, but the concept of actually writing an objective review.
Case in point, this website below gave Halo 1/5. This is the same chap that gave the likes of Uncharted and Journey 2/5 and trolled several other big name games. He also stated that he thought Halo 4 was the first Halo game to have 4 player co op!
Why should websites such this and EGM carry weight with Metacritic? Isn’t there something you guys at 343 can do to bring the issue of integrity to Metacritic’s attention?
Maybe I shouldn’t take MC seriously, as clearly, the system is flawed if these dubious websites are allowed to influence the overall score of what has, for the most part, been reviewed as an excellent game.
From what I’ve read on the review, and the looks of this webpage http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/11/04/halo-4-is-half-the-game-it-should-be/
, this is just some guy who jotted down all the reasons why he didn’t like the game during “that time of the month” because the game was just one big cutscene, and no gameplay, the game would still get at least the score that “quarter to three” gave it.
I can just as easily make a website and rate games, it doesn’t mean I’m honest, or an expert, or that I’m not just upset with the game, or biased. And no weight should be lent to this one clown’s opinion.
reviewrs are just people expressing there opinion, none is objective and some deliberatley give out good reviews for better plublicity.
don’t look at the scores, look at what the reviwers are saying and take from that what you will, what i’ve noticed that even though the reviwers are giving good scores the common downside to halo 4 is that its a halo game, they’re pretty much critizing it for being what it is so if anything the reviews can be taken as a complement.
reach didnt have god awful review sites that shouldn’t be allowed on metacritic giving it a 20 , and idiots named justice giving it a 70 because and i quote ‘it doesn’t have iron sights and huge set events’
in other words its not call of duty
> reach didnt have god awful review sites that shouldn’t be allowed on metacritic giving it a 20 , and idiots named justice giving it a 70 because and i quote ‘it doesn’t have iron sights and huge set events’
> in other words its not call of duty
This is true, and the Reach figures were on 99 reviews, Halo 4 is currently 62, I don’t get the 20 score, that was a silly review.
I feel most of the middle range or the extremely negative review were bashing it on stupid reasons. Like it not carrying modern mechanics, or the play style, or the multiplayer being different to CODand it should be COD. It’s a shame because I don’t know how Metacritic get away with being associated with half of these sites and can justify these -Yoink- scores.
the review wasnt the worst Ive seen, that being said it definitely wasnt the best.
why the tron comparison? I really people would contrast more often.
yes orange is used a lot, the reason why is because orange is blues complamentary color, simple as that.
spartan ops is a bad idea? ever heard of replayability?
the best thing the reviewer said was right at the end.
although halo 4 has some really cool features and all, the truth is that a lot of what made halo so good in the first place has been either changed signifigantly (CTF) or has been completely removed (firefight, dual-weilding, race gametype, etc).
> the review wasnt the worst Ive seen, that being said it definitely wasnt the best.
>
> 1. why the tron comparison? I really people would contrast more often.
> 2. yes orange is used a lot, the reason why is because orange is blues complamentary color, simple as that.
> 3. spartan ops is a bad idea? ever heard of replayability?
>
> the best thing the reviewer said was right at the end.
>
> although halo 4 has some really cool features and all, the truth is that a lot of what made halo so good in the first place has been either changed signifigantly (CTF) or has been completely removed (firefight, dual-weilding, race gametype, etc).
sorry but firefight, duel wielding race gametype weren’t in halo in the first place…and all they did was make the flag undroppable …i heard nothing but good things about that on the mlg live stream, they were really diggin it saying that it had a good impact on gameplay
that review was from someone who bashes games because they are popular. This can be easily deduced from his track record. there is a word for these kinds of people, Ill leave it up to you to figure it out.
> > reach didnt have god awful review sites that shouldn’t be allowed on metacritic giving it a 20 , and idiots named justice giving it a 70 because and i quote ‘it doesn’t have iron sights and huge set events’
> > in other words its not call of duty
>
> This is true, and the Reach figures were on 99 reviews, Halo 4 is currently 62, I don’t get the 20 score, <mark>that was a silly review.</mark>
That’s not a silly review. He clearly states it’s subjective, just like every review should. I hate when they claim to be objective. Moreover, there’s no universal scale for reviews. That’s why these points are so pointless, let alone aggregates. For example, in my personal scale:
0 - 100% abomination
2 - very bad
5 - decent game, worth playing
8 - very good
10 - masterpiece
Problem is, alot of interviewers are being bribed or payed for giving bad/good scores, not to mention some of them are being very biased and comparing them to other games. They need to be reviewing the game, NOT comparing it to other games.
> Hey there,
>
> I was wondering if we could have a word from one of the guys at 343 regarding the current Metacritic score?
>
> For those unaware, <mark>there have been a couple of sites giving Halo 4 low scores that are completely unjustifiable and a cursory glance at the content of these reviews shows how little they understand, not only Halo, but the concept of actually writing an objective review.</mark>
>
>
> http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/11/04/halo-4-is-half-the-game-it-should-be/
That review could have been better, but it brings up valid points. Not liking a game doesn’t automatically make someone a troll or “biased”. It takes a special kind of butthurt to try and stifle an opinion just because it says something you don’t like.
> Why should websites such this and EGM carry weight with Metacritic? Isn’t there something you guys at 343 can do to bring the issue of integrity to Metacritic’s attention?
>
> Maybe I shouldn’t take MC seriously, as clearly, the system is flawed if these dubious websites are allowed to influence the overall score of what has, for the most part, been reviewed as an excellent game.
>
> Can we have your thoughts on this please 343?
Because Metacritic isn’t important, and scores aren’t important. And even if it were, only someone with weak convictions would demand people only say nice things about things they like.
For games rated “M for Mature”, I’m not seeing a lot of maturity in this discussion.