Totally Not Corrupt Professional Objective Gaming Journalism DRAMA

[circ]

Wow. George Brotard may be a brotard, but that EGMNow Halo review is an abomination. Complaining that it doesn't have the "advances" of modern shooters...like linear maps, scripted events, iron sights (on sci fi space guns, lmao).

Can some one tell me what is so advanced about modern FPS? I don't know. The level and encounter design in Black Mesa, a remake of an old game, seems like it was made by a super intelligent, advanced alien race compared to CoDpiece.

I read the review too, and I took more notice of him mentioning that it was the same old shit, again. What, reviewers are supposed to drop 80 and 90+ on games just because it got done? This is like giving a competitor a medal just for showing up.

Meanwhile, I took a quick glance at the MC scores for Halo 4, and boy there sure are a lot of 100's. Really, one of the best games ever made, no faults whatsoever?

 

[Machocruz]

That's part of that thing I was talking about in another thread. Promote modern "enhancements(lol)," demote anything older than 2008; because that's the direction the industry (ie big publishers) wants to go. It's all part of the plan, even if the enhancements are horrifying :joker:

 

[circ]

Holy fuck he wasn't kidding: http://www.egmnow.com/articles/reviews/egm-review-halo-4/

These low points are openly exacerbated by the series’ staunch refusal to get with the times when it comes to game mechanics and level design, ignoring obvious enhancements like big-ticket sequences and proper iron-sights mechanics in favor of their age-old addiction to slow, methodical combat in unnecessarily large environments.

Ok more CoD defense squad uh, defense. He doesn't actually say he wants iron-sights, just the mechanics. And considering this is 2012, yeah, maybe he was expecting at least some QTE-action. And I'm not sure when slow, popamole combat in uneventful, large environs was ever interesting.

 

[DalekFlay]

Ok more CoD defense squad uh, defense. He doesn't actually say he wants iron-sights, just the mechanics. And considering this is 2012, yeah, maybe he was expecting at least some QTE-action. And I'm not sure when slow, popamole combat in uneventful, large environs was ever interesting.

I only played the original and parts of 3 at a friend's house, but my Halo experience is circle-strafing in large open areas with enemies that dodge around and aggressively try to pin me down. Also wacky vehicle shit. It ruined the FPS in the sense of putting them mainly on consoles with slower aiming and lack of verticality, but compared to CoD and modern day tunnel shooters they're fucking masterpieces.

 

[circ]

Yeah I wouldn't know, never played Halo and my last actual FPS game (not a so called RPG that is) played was CoD... 1.

 

[Machocruz]

Ok more CoD defense squad uh, defense. He doesn't actually say he wants iron-sights, just the mechanics. And considering this is 2012, yeah, maybe he was expecting at least some QTE-action. And I'm not sure when slow, popamole combat in uneventful, large environs was ever interesting.

What are "the mechanics?" Iron sights in most games are merely cosmetic or unnecessary. Zoom scopes are an exception. There is no need for aiming down the sights in an arcade game like Halo, and they have scoped weapons for longer ranges anyway. Seeing that Halo 4 doesn't look any zippier than the others, I'd rather have large environments, which where all the best battles in the first Halo took place.

Saying it's the same old shit is acceptable criticism. But this pointless "get with the times" attitude is just serving other masters, or the guy is simply a KoolAid drinker who is honestly convinced that current FPS design trends are the best thing going.

 

[Blaine]

I played the original Halo because, at the time of its release, playing split-screen with three pals was a novel and enjoyable experience. I lived in a series of military dormitories (and tent cities) back then, so there were GameCubes and XBoxes aplenty, but often a lack of Internet connections. These days, I stick to multiplayer, made-for-PC shooters with steep learning curves and extremely high skill ceilings such as Unreal Tournament, Tribes, and (very) recently Natural Selection 2. I like these types of shooters because you can play for years, learn something new every single session, grow tangibly more skilled over time, and there are no artificial aim-assist mechanics or any bogus control restrictions console shooters often feature.

I suspect Halo 4 is good enough at what it aims to do, although I personally disdain everything about it. I don't think it deserves a 9/10 from anyone for any reason, either. No matter how well made, slick and polished it might be, it's a fucking made-for-console rehash, lacking in innovation (I'm not talking about iron sights et al, I mean real innovation) with a bland, sterile setting that does no credit to the science fiction genre.

 

[Dexter]

Halo 4 got 7.0 (BAD score) because it's not awesome popamole enough?

 

[Oriebam]

I made that one after the fact. :D Let's see if I get another warning.

Can you show us the warning message as well?

yeah do it sea

 

[circ]

Ok, I'm sorry people. He's just retarded.

Doesn't make the 7.0 any less glorious though.

 

[sea]

I am disappointed that someone with a name as cool as "Brandon Justice" is such a fucking prat.

Oh, and the warning message was "don't spam caps lock." I think they couldn't figure out a legitimate reason to give me a real warning.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Someone mentioned they once got warned for "Moderator Sass". You know, in case you miss being grounded for backtalking.

 

[deus101]

Someone mentioned they once got warned for "Moderator Sass". You know, in case you miss being grounded for backtalking.

Glad that doesn't apply here.

HEY Jaesun YOU BLOW!

(I was going to call Dark Underlord but chickened out )

 

[Jaesun]

Heh it is wise to not arouse the wrath of the great DU.

 

[Machocruz]

Oh, and the warning message was "don't spam caps lock."

Yeah kaffir, fall in line. Stop "spamming" something that you only have to press once to work. This ain't no democracy of captilizationingism.

lulz. Orwell couldn't imagine this shit.

 

[Lubulos]

I played the original Halo because, at the time of its release, playing split-screen with three pals was a novel and enjoyable experience.

Actually, Perfect Dark and Golden Eye did that before Halo. Especially Perfect Dark was fun as hell with all the crazy weapons (like every old, well made fps). All I see now are automatic rifle or plasma guns.

 

[Machocruz]

Actually, Perfect Dark and Golden Eye did that before Halo. Especially Perfect Dark was fun as hell with all the crazy weapons (like every old, well made fps). All I see now are automatic rifle or plasma guns.

And in between those two was the PS1 version of Quake 2. Had a blast railgunning my friends off ladders.

 

[Blaine]

Actually, Perfect Dark and Golden Eye did that before Halo. Especially Perfect Dark was fun as hell with all the crazy weapons (like every old, well made fps). All I see now are automatic rifle or plasma guns.

Yes, I know. I played GoldenEye once or twice as a teenager on other people's consoles, but I never owned an N64 myself. As a kid I had a Game Boy, an SNES, a Virtual Boy (heh), and later a PS1, then finally a PS2 the year I turned 18. I started banging around on a PC in 1985, but never had an NES.

In other words, for various esoteric reasons playing Halo split-screen was a novel experience for me personally, and it's the only console shooter I've played at any length. I've pretty much always preferred PC shooters.

My favorite PC shooter as a youngster was Blake Stone: Aliens of Gold. I've played all the classics though: Doom, Quake (had two-PC LAN matches in my military school dorm), Hexen, Rise of the Triad, Duke Nukem 3D of course, and so on.

 

[Phelot]

Once again, Bungie remains supreme!

 

[felipepepe]

Actually, Perfect Dark and Golden Eye did that before Halo. Especially Perfect Dark was fun as hell with all the crazy weapons (like every old, well made fps). All I see now are automatic rifle or plasma guns.

And in between those two was the PS1 version of Quake 2. Had a blast railgunning my friends off ladders.

Yeah, nowadays things like the glorious laptop gun (laptop, gun & deployable sentry turret) would get laughed by REALISTIC shooters were you play as Wolverines that automatically heal bullet wounds on the run...

 

[Wyrmlord]

Georgie isn't wrong when he says the industry sees a 70 as shit. Whether that is right or not is of course another question, but he's right about the perception.

All numbers at the end of reviews are stupid anyway.

Maybe I am the crazy one, but just seeing a score of 70-79 for a game used to be enough to encourage me to check a review for a game and subsequently buy it if the review was enticing (eg. Bloodlines, Tropico,.etc). Back when I was 12, I used to check gaming sites every day. So pretty much all new releases tended to get scores in 50s or 60s. Seeing a 70-ish score made me think, "OK, so this game must really stand out."

It's also a matter of which editorial staff. In early 2000s Gamespot, the PlayStation would largely be distinct from the PC staff. While the Playstation staff typically gave inflated ratings - 10/10 to games they liked, 9/10 when indifferent, and 8/10 when they didn't like the game ( ) - the PC staff did not. Scoring above 9.0 happened about two or three times a year. So 7-pointers and 8-pointers were really the gems for which you had to hunt.

And I think it differed by genre as well. The people assigned for adventure game reviews were the harshest critics of adventure games, for some reason. An adventure game lucky enough to score 6/10 was established as an above average adventure game. A shame, because it COULD give the impression that all adventure games were worse than shooters, since an average shooter could at least hope to score a 7 or 8.

Basically, despite not even being an mega-oldfag like George Broussard, somehow I remember it was not that long ago that a 7 or 8 would be a good rating. Anybody else?

 

[Average Manatee]

Someday soon we'll firmly shatter the 10/10 barrier and any decent game will be required to get 11/10 reviews. 9.5/10 will be for shit games no one should play.

 

[thesoup]

Georgie isn't wrong when he says the industry sees a 70 as shit. Whether that is right or not is of course another question, but he's right about the perception.

All numbers at the end of reviews are stupid anyway.

Maybe I am the crazy one, but just seeing a score of 70-79 for a game used to be enough to encourage me to check a review for a game and subsequently buy it if the review was enticing (eg. Bloodlines, Tropico,.etc). Back when I was 12, I used to check gaming sites every day. So pretty much all new releases tended to get scores in 50s or 60s. Seeing a 70-ish score made me think, "OK, so this game must really stand out."

It's also a matter of which editorial staff. In early 2000s Gamespot, the PlayStation would largely be distinct from the PC staff. While the Playstation staff typically gave inflated ratings - 10/10 to games they liked, 9/10 when indifferent, and 8/10 when they didn't like the game ( ) - the PC staff did not. Scoring above 9.0 happened about two or three times a year. So 7-pointers and 8-pointers were really the gems for which you had to hunt.

And I think it differed by genre as well. The people assigned for adventure game reviews were the harshest critics of adventure games, for some reason. An adventure game lucky enough to score 6/10 was established as an above average adventure game. A shame, because it COULD give the impression that all adventure games were worse than shooters, since an average shooter could at least hope to score a 7 or 8.

Basically, despite not even being an mega-oldfag like George Broussard, somehow I remember it was not that long ago that a 7 or 8 would be a good rating. Anybody else?

Yeah. In my younger days, in the magazine I was buying at the time, it was like this
90+ = must buy
80-90 = great, awesome, but missing something to be a 90+
70-80 = pretty good, but a bit unpolished or lacks in something
60-70 = only for the fans of the genre
else = shit.

 

[groke]

Once again, Bungie remains supreme!

I'd like to imagine they're watching this debacle, laughing gleefully, while working on a new Myth/Marathon/PiD game (but momentarily pausing to rub the faded Microsoft logo branded into their neck and glance out the window just in case).

 

[Weierstraß]

Aaaah! What's this creepy thing? It's a like a corridor, but wider! What the hell is going on?! Shit game, 7/10.