Firstly: If were going by the modern usage of AAA review scores, 8 isn't a good score. Anything that gets a 6 is staggeringly boring, 7 is regular boring, 8 is average, and 9 and 10 are good scores. Secondly: I personally don't consider opinions stated under duress or under the criticism suppressing shroud that is today's excuse for "video game journalism" as honest ones. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe all the footage I've seen won't look boring if I'm the one holding the controller. Thunderbolt review - 8/10 And it reads really well. I feel like mentioning I haven't written a review of Halo 4 for any publication. That is all.
See the reason I can't put any stock into your 8/10s is because it's exactly what I said: they straight up are being hipsters and hatin' to hate. Their reviews are literally based under one of three pretences "why u make moar Haloz, bro?", "why you no make this bungie Haloz, bro?" "why you make this CoD, bro?" If it isn't one, it's the other. I'm sorry but no legitimate game critic can base their review on "this game didn't need to exist" because it does exist and that's why you're reviewing it. As for a "Bungie" halo? WTF does that mean..because Reach exists too unfortunately and the only things "not Halo" about Halo 4 are the changes from Reach. A legit complaint here is the musical score so I will give them that. As for the CoD changes? If these changes weren't there they'd complain about lack of innovation. It's lose/lose. Just to pull a couple quotes from that review to show why it holds no water: "What could an increasingly fatigued series offer at the tail end of a console’s lifespan? Halo 4 does not answer this question, it merely dismisses it." -Journalist has done no background research on the Halo universe and clearly does not care about its deep and rich stock of stories and content. Not that he is required to do so for reviewing a game, but if he wants to comment on how a "fatigued" series can come back with more he should have gotten a better understanding of the universe. That fatigued word is a joke as well but we don't even need to list off all the other gaming staples with 10x the iterations. "Staying true to Reach’s redevelopment, the battle rifle is an efficient single-shot companion that will likely remain most players’ first choice of weaponry. The war-waging machine he is, Chief never once pauses to consider why his old trustee no longer fires bursts." -I pretty much stopped reading here. I mean I read on a bit but then I was like wait a minute... This is a reviewer, who has claimed to play the game but doesn't realize that A) the DMR is not the BR and B) the BR is also in the game? WTF? No, just no. There is no legitimacy to this review.
Isn't that entire paragraph staggeringly obvious, though? I mean, everything it says was obvious well before we saw a single frame of in-game footage. It was obvious from what we knew about the game well in advance: sprint for everybody, loadouts, ordnance drops, faster kill times. I don't even disagree with any particular, I just don't see the point in quoting it like it means something. It's redundantly restating something that has been posted in this very thread about two hundred times.
Chrs' counter point to you shuman fits is what I'm talking about with perspective. You are rejecting reviews and words from people who do not align with your views and making excuses as to why those words are not to be trusted. So any "good review" (and I didn't realize you were the expert on AAA review scores and what classifies as a "good score" when every single metric for rating a game from those sources has 8 as a good game) is obviously "under duress" and not trustworthy but any review with a negative opinion (and even the reviews with negative opinions had more positive ones that you were choosing to ignore) is not "under duress" therefore reliable. As soon as you start segregating ideas like that you close your mind off from changing. As you said, maybe you will change your mind when the controller is in your hand but please just stop trying so hard to kill everyone's buzz just because you can.
Chrs' counter point to you shuman fits is what I'm talking about with perspective. You are rejecting reviews and words from people who do not align with your views and making excuses as to why those words are not to be trusted. So any "good review" (and I didn't realize you were the expert on AAA review scores and what classifies as a "good score" when every single metric for rating a game from those sources has 8 as a good game) is obviously "under duress" and not trustworthy but any review with a negative opinion (and even the reviews with negative opinions had more positive ones that you were choosing to ignore) is not "under duress" therefore reliable. As soon as you start segregating ideas like that you close your mind off from changing. As you said, maybe you will change your mind when the controller is in your hand but please just stop trying so hard to kill everyone's buzz just because you can.
OK, someone change the topic pl0x. We can talk about the water, or about Smackdown settings if that horse isn't dead enough for you.
**** reviews altogether. How about that? Someone else in the thread said Reach was their favorite Halo game. It's my least favorite game. In the "what remake would you like to see?" thread, someone said Paradiso. I would rather have no remakes ever than have that included. See my point? Someone else can say **** all they want, but it doesn't hold weight over my opinion. I'll decide for myself, on November 6th.
Quoted for truth. This post is so good that no one should post after it, so that people who enter this thread will never forget. Seriously, though, agreed with completely. Including Paradiso.
It's called an asymm objective map. you know, like high ground. 1-flag? asymm territories? that thing.
Yet one-flag and one-bomb are gone Anyway, can't wait for the bulletin, should be a QnA if I'm not mistaken.
Declaring any review beneath a certain score to be wrong doesn't come off as a little close-minded? Unless you're specifically talking about the review sites I've mentioned, in which case, again: Giant Bomb. At the very least The Thunderbolt review gets points for not echoing the others and saying something that the other wouldn't and can't. I only read the multiplayer portion, and that's the quote that stuck out to me the most. Duke: Why the hell do you have to be so critical? Jay: I'm a critic! Duke: No, your job is to rate movies on a scale from "good" to "excellent"! Jay: What if I don't like them? Duke: That's what "good" is for. — The Critic, Pilot I'd be absolutely delighted if you wouldn't be so obvious when you try to stifle an opinion you don't agree with. Do I tell people in this thread to shut-up with their gushing praise because they're killing the genuineness of people with objective, useful information about the game? No. I'd very much like you to refrain from advising anyone in this thread on whether they can share their opinion. I of course extend this to the entire merrymaker clout.
What's the point of showing these reviews other than trying to annoy people? We've already made up our minds, so why not just stop, there's no point.