Overwritten.net
Games => General Gaming => Topic started by: MysterD on Monday, July 05, 2010, 08:32:50 AM
-
NEW -- 11/7/2012:
Penny Arcade -> Microsoft says Halo 4 is not coming to PC; and PA's thoughts on it. (http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/halo-4-isnt-coming-to-the-pc-and-thats-a-mistake)
Halo 4 (X360) Reviews are rolling in... (http://www.overwritten.net/forum/index.php?topic=6846.msg115273#msg115273)
OLD:
Forbes -> Halo 4 = looks to have been leaked already. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/10/12/halo-4-leaked-images-spotted-on-reddit-while-microsoft-investigates/)
GiantBomb -> Brad Shoemaker on his first impressions with Halo 4. (http://www.giantbomb.com/news/the-skinny-on-halo-4s-campaign/4382/)
Microsoft creates new 343 Industries studio to take over the Halo IP (after Bungie's Halo: Reach). (http://xbox360.gamespy.com/xbox-360/halo-project/1103343p1.html)
-
Ughh. You mean there are going to be more mediocre sci-fi shooters based in that lame universe?
-
Ughh. You mean there are going to be more mediocre sci-fi shooters based in that lame universe?
Basically... ;)
We all know that Bungie's now signed with Activision and moving on, so I guess Microsoft decided somebody else would have to take over Halo franchise...
-
I'm waiting for the Halo cereal and lunchboxes.
-
I'm waiting for the Halo cereal and lunchboxes.
You mean they don't have these available yet? :o
C'mon...Fallout 3 (Collector's Ed) had a nice lunchbox, dammit... ;)
-
Rumor has it they are remaking the first Halo game using the Reach engine. (http://www.giantbomb.com/news/rumor-343-industries-remaking-halo-ce-on-the-reach-engine/2755/) Thats really what I was hoping for after I finished Reach.
-
What better way for a giant publisher to keep a studio on their leash? Start one themselves!
-
Ughh. You mean there are going to be more mediocre sci-fi shooters based in that lame universe?
I used to discredit the Halo franchise pretty badly, but I did enjoy Reach. It was certainly much better than the original Halo.
That said, the overall story arc of the series is pretty ridiculously stupid.
-
GiantBomb -> Brad Shoemaker on his first impressions with Halo 4. (http://www.giantbomb.com/news/the-skinny-on-halo-4s-campaign/4382/)
-
Forbes -> Halo 4 = looks to have been leaked already. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/10/12/halo-4-leaked-images-spotted-on-reddit-while-microsoft-investigates/)
-
Halo 4 (X360)
Reviews
METACRITIC -- X360. (http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/halo-4/critic-reviews)
Scored out of 10
Machinima - Inside Gaming Daily -> 10. (http://www.insidegamingdaily.com/2012/11/01/halo-4-review/)
Destructoid -> 10. (http://www.destructoid.com/review-halo-4-233109.phtml)
IGN -> 9.8 (http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/01/halo-4-review)
Polygon -> 9.5 (http://www.polygon.com/game/halo-4/2204)
OXM -> 9.5 (http://www.oxmonline.com/halo-4-review)
GameSpot -> 9.0 -- Written review; (http://www.gamespot.com/halo-4/reviews/halo-4-review-6399288/) Video Review. (http://www.gamespot.com/halo-4/videos/video-review-halo-4-6399294/?tag=Topslot;Halo4Review;Halo4Review)
VideoGamer -> 9. (http://www.videogamer.com/reviews/halo_4_review.html)
Worthplaying -> 8.5 (http://worthplaying.com/article/2012/11/1/reviews/87416/)
GamingNexus -> 8.5 (http://www.gamingnexus.com/Article/Halo-4/Item3735.aspx)
StrategyInformer -> 8.5 (http://www.strategyinformer.com/xbox360/halo4/reviews.html)
Eurogamer -> 8 (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-01-halo-4-review)
Edge -> 8 (http://www.edge-online.com/review/halo-4-review/)
ThunderBolt -> 8 (http://www.thunderboltgames.com/reviews/article/halo-4-review-for-xbox-360.html)
Scored out of 5
Joystiq -> 5 (http://www.joystiq.com/2012/11/01/halo-4-review/)
GamesRadar -> 4 1/2. (http://www.gamesradar.com/halo-4-review/)
G4TV -> 4 1/2 (http://www.g4tv.com/games/xbox-360/53696/halo-4/review/)
GiantBomb -> 4. (http://www.giantbomb.com/halo-4/61-35533/reviews/)
Escapist -> 4. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/10020-Halo-4-Review)
Scored out of 100
VentureBeat -> 90. (http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/01/halo-4-is-the-next-chapter-not-the-next-evolution-review/view-all/#s:08-27-12_spops-ep1mi3-the_challenge-26)
-
Ugh... IGN 9.8.
Seriously?
I haven't read any of the reviews nor do I care about this game, but ugh... Forbes article... ugh...
-
All the reviews are generally very positive at this point. Do you know something I don't? Yeah, Forbes article and all that. You may be right.
-
I don't trust IGN at all, but I read a pseudo-review on Ars Technica and it was pretty positive. Sounds like the new developer introduced some new ideas (and borrowed some from other games) that make it better than Bungie's previous iterations.
Halo: Reach had a pretty fun campaign, but I think the universe overall is pretty lame. I'm not interested in the game very much, but I'm sure my stepson is going to want it.
-
I understand the scores like 9.0.
But 9.8 is just near perfection. I am sure the game is good, but nearly perfect?
-
Honestly, I don't think you can take review scores that literally.
-
Review scores seem to be more like a mood thing.. Like when I'm starving, a stale cookie could be like a 9/10!
IGN reviews seem to be like that; the dude reviewing Halo 4 is a major Halo fan and has been starved since Halo Reach, which in Halo fan terms is like a season-long famine.
-
Honestly, I don't think you can take review scores that literally.
I do think these extreme scores are influenced. Exclusive interviews are often scored significantly higher than the norm.
-
Fair enough, but I was referring to the "9.8 is too close to perfect" thing. I remember there being a big argument about it when someone rated something 10/10 at AOG, and I think that, to most people, 9.5-10/10 translates more into "Awesome/really fucking good" rather than "Perfect/Flawless"
-
Well if it is a 10 point scale then yes. But a 100 point scale is different. That's a 100 points variation. Why would you have so many different points on the scale unless you really wanted to be expressive about how well you think a game stands? So if it is a 100 point scale and someone subtracts only two points, then yes, it seems like you are saying the game is nearly flawless in its genre.
Whereas something like a 10 point scale or a 20 point scale is where yes, 9.5-10 translates to "Awesome/really fucking good".
This is why these morons at IGN deserve only a 10 point scale. They are so moronic, they don't understand the responsibility a 100 point scale brings.
I personally think a 10 or 5 point scale is best. Less headaches for the editing staff.
I remember Gregg Vederman (former EiC at PCGAMER) talking about how him and Garry Whitta have had tons of arguments over a game deserving a 79 or a 78.
So yes, you can take review scores that literally, when they are gauging it on such a huge scale.
It is like a three point scale that says bad, ok, or great... vs 10 point scale that says a piece of shit, terrible, quite bad, bad, below average, average, above average, good, very good, excellent. The more points you add to your scale, the slipperier the slope.
OK, that post was much longer than I intended. I really don't care about this stuff anymore. Games journalism sucks, because I feel I am smarter than these guys when it comes to these things.
-
Well if it is a 10 point scale then yes. But a 100 point scale is different. That's a 100 points variation. Why would you have so many different points on the scale unless you really wanted to be expressive about how well you think a game stands? So if it is a 100 point scale and someone subtracts only two points, then yes, it seems like you are saying the game is nearly flawless in its genre.
Whereas something like a 10 point scale or a 20 point scale is where yes, 9.5-10 translates to "Awesome/really fucking good".
This is why these morons at IGN deserve only a 10 point scale. They are so moronic, they don't understand the responsibility a 100 point scale brings.
I personally think a 10 or 5 point scale is best. Less headaches for the editing staff.
I remember Gregg Vederman (former EiC at PCGAMER) talking about how him and Garry Whitta have had tons of arguments over a game deserving a 79 or a 78.
So yes, you can take review scores that literally, when they are gauging it on such a huge scale.
It is like a three point scale that says bad, ok, or great... vs 10 point scale that says a piece of shit, terrible, quite bad, bad, below average, average, above average, good, very good, excellent. The more points you add to your scale, the slipperier the slope.
OK, that post was much longer than I intended. I really don't care about this stuff anymore. Games journalism sucks, because I feel I am smarter than these guys when it comes to these things.
You know, I don't know why anyone even uses a 100 point scale. Like, it doesn't even matter at the end of the day. 9/10, 9.8/10, I can't see the difference being all that huge when you're deciding to buy a game or not.
-
Yea I say 5 point scale is fine. Who cares.
-
Unless we're talking about Orcs Must Die! Everyone needs to know that game scores a 1,000,000/1,000,000.
-
What's the point of having a 10-point scale when it ends up subdivided into 100 gradations with a decimal point anyway? Just make it a percentage scale already. Or go the other way with stars and half-stars. There's a 10-point scale that can't be subdivided further.
-
What's the point of having a 10-point scale when it ends up subdivided into 100 gradations with a decimal point anyway? Just make it a percentage scale already. Or go the other way with stars and half-stars. There's a 10-point scale that can't be subdivided further.
Yup, I just mean an actual ten point scale, no decimals allowed, or 5 point with half points awarded. You really don't need anything more in-depth when it comes to video games.
-
I like the 5-point scale best:
5: Absolutely love it!
4: Like it a lot.
3: Like it.
2: Don't like it.
1: It sucks.
-
I like the 5-point scale best:
5: Absolutely love it!
4: Like it a lot.
3: Like it.
2: Don't like it.
1: It sucks.
Do you like having half-stars allowed in your 5-star system?
I do, personally.
-
Do you like having half-stars allowed in your 5-star system?
I do, personally.
It's a five point system as he defined it. Allowing half points would pretty much make it a ten point system, negating the entire thing.
-
"5.5: I absolutely Love it and a half!" :P
I'm usually able to assess a game that I'm playing and give it a numerical rating. That rating is arbitrary to anyone but me since it's a relevant rating to my perspective and experience with it.