GB: Now guys, you don't really call a reviewer 'retarded' for not agreeing with the review or score; that too if you belong to the games industry.
I don't think it was cool to call the guy retarded for his opinion. Although I also don't think it was cool for that backlash of the other guy saying, "Not sure if the lead designer for DNF should be critiquing anything at all." Do people even realize what they had to work with on that game? How many times it got remade and redone over the years, switching studios, and they had to piece it all together to make a game? I think it turned out just fine when looking at all that. It wasn't perfect by any means but it was still a fun game.
I could easily call him retarded for some of the level designs in Duke Nukem Forever. I honestly feel that things like this are why reviewers can't be honest in their reviews with big games like Halo. Fans arn't the only problem, people working in the gaming industry are ones aswell
The problem is sucky reviews from clueless people that fault Halo 4 for not changing to play like other "modern" COD clones such as Homefront or Killzone 3 (not 2, just 3) with overly-scripted "big" set pieces, waves of easy to kill respawning drone AI coming from monster generators until you advance to a point that switches the reinforcements off, very tight linear "haunted fun-house" type tunnel levels, and iron-sights. If somebody doesn't like Halo4 for legitimate reasons (serious technical issues, confusing objectives, a story that makes no sense, seeming incomplete, not having much content, major bugs that break the game, just being graphically ugly) that's fine. But when they fault it because they just don't like Sci-fi or want COD controls, or think that green means power rangers, well...that's a really stupid opinion that is useless to the person reading the review.
Some people's opinions are retarded. There are people who think the Earth is about 6-9 thousand years old... it is their opinion, and their opinion is retarded. George Broussard doesn't have much room to talk though since DNF sucked.
duh reviewers are paid off either directly or indirectly. Corrupt world fellas, dont buy games based off reviews.
EGM's review is what it is. It won't stop ONE Halo 4 fan from purchasing the game in a few days. The fact that Broussards Tweet made news means it will sting EGM. I could careless because once I play through the game I go back and look at the reviews. If EGM really was completely off the mark then let's see that they gain from it. Evil
Whoever disagrees that in this industry lots of reviewers are paid off then theyre naive. Even our politicians are paid off, you dont think video game reviewers are?? Are they not corruptible? Take the red pill, the world is full of shadiness, under the table deals, and payoffs. Reviews are great to see pros and cons of games, thats the only reason i even use metacritic. When a game releases I'll skip the 100s and 90s and go straight to the reviews at the bottom of the list to see what the consensus is as far as what's BAD about said game. Then ill work my way upwards and for my own conclusion based on what ive read.
I'm not saying reviewers arn't paid off guys, I'm just saying people who are supposed to be professional slagging off reviews they don't agree with, it's the reason why no one likes to say anything about games in general, not Halo 4, despite something being true, it puts them under pressure. I understand if he just said "I disgaree with this review because...." but to call someone retarded.
Are we seriously complaining so much about a 7? I've seen other sites give it a 5 / 10. A 7 is by no means a "bad" score. If you're a fan of Halo, what do you care if every site gives it a 2 / 10. You're gonna buy it and play it anyway, right? So again a 7 is a good score because there are obviously flaws that the fans will deny, as with EVERY game. So what do you care.
I am not saying George is correct but the fact is these reviewers need to have their influence checked at the door. Before anyone screams that the EGM review won't change things consider how often unqualified reviews (no standards) and reviewers (no standards again) are able to unjustly influence the gaming public. Sooner or later the game community needs to be policed so that people with a big mouth and a platform cease their undue impact on gaming in general. Think about how many games were ruined because developers and publishers were more interested in pleasing some pimple faced mealy mouth at IGN instead of focusing on the fanbase. Sellout publishers and developers are also to blame and they need to clean their own house but this overly powerful gaming press consisting of mostly unqualified big mouths needs a sound slapping and a new seat in the back of the damn bus.
the reviewer over at egm gave halo 4 a 7.0 for all the wrong reasons. basically, he wanted a carbon copy of a call of duty game- iron sights, michael bay-esque cliche moments, small environments, etc. as for me, I won't be visiting EGM anymore after this review. I wouldn't have minded if he gave halo 4 a 7.0, but the reasons he came up with are just frustratingly ridiculous.
woah @palseomerus kz3 was not really a COD clone; large set pieces do not make a COD clone; personally I never found halo 1,2 or 3 all that great so I doubt I'd enjoy the 4th one were I to own it, plus on the note of killzone on kz2 reviews slated it for having it's own identity and not being enough like cod;so for kz3 thy changed the controls etc and then reviewers had ago for it being more like COD which they had previously said they wanted..also if they really ad that much of an issue with COD gameplay why does everywhere give it such high scores EVERY year even when it's unbalanced crap..... not saying 7.0's abad score btw it's not its quit good infact but I saw OPMUK gave AC3 a 7.0 and there's no way that's only a 7. Reviewer seemed to think it played like AC1 and was layied ut similar yet more tedious and boring don't know what game he was playing but it was a different one to me
For example, the whole part involving toilets - I'm talking about both types of waste that leave the body that were meaninglessly implemented into the game.
"like other "modern" COD clones such as Homefront or Killzone 3 (not 2, just 3)" lol, delusional fanboy spotted. hypocrit denial fanboyz are the worst, everytime a biased review is killing a great AAA ps3 exclusives with A 5/6 "bububu it's opinion, bububu it's a good score" and when a guy give a 7 (for a game with ton of 8) they are crying everywhere, insulting reviewer, etc
@Evil: Can't believe I actually agree with you for once. The world must be ready to end. @edonus: The issue I see with your suggestion, though it is an intelligent one, is that it would mean no one could really say anything about anything. Art critics who can't draw a circle wouldn't be able to talk about art for example. I think what needs to change is not the reviewer's knowledge of game design, but the entire reviewing system itself. Scores need to be removed completely and reviews need to be changed to have only 3 fleshed out points. Those being "What I like about this game," "What I don't like about this game," and finally "What I would have personally liked to see in this game." If reviewers reviewed a game like that, sites like metacritic wouldn't exist (as far as games are concerned anyway), reviews wouldn't be able to be used as leverage in any way, and problems like these wouldn't exist. That's why I like any reviewer who doesn't give a game a numbered score because it makes the review a lot more clearly an opinion to be taken with a grain of salt than somebody who thinks they have some kind of power to affect game sales and public perception. **EDIT** There should be a 4th section actually. "The bugs/glitches I personally experienced playing this game." And it should be written in that perspective because not everyone experiences the same bugs. For example, I never had the backwards flying dragon in Skyrim.
I remember when 7s and 8s were the norm for really good games. Both EGM and Nintendo Power gave such reviews in their magazines... Mind you this was back in the late 80s.
Yeah comes off as a big douche, but hey he did ship Duke Nukem Forever after all.
He has the right to call him anything he wants. Maybe he doesn't believe it was a honest opinion but a excuse to over analyse for whatever reason. It's not the first time anti Halo people jump at the chance to review halo. Edit They both have rights and calling names might not be right but it was in response to a reviewer hating a franchise and reviewing it to advertise his opinion and to purposely hurt the rep of halo and that wasn't the right thing to do hense the name calling.
He has the "right" to do it, but the question is, was it actually the "right" thing to do? Lol, see what I did there?
@Snookies12 someone had to do it the guy is clearly retarded he just wanted to piss people off so EGM could get some hits on the webpage but is EGM even relevant now? im just saying
LMAO You know what's funny? If this review was about a Sony exclusive your opinion would be completely the opposite and you would be calling him a whiny Sony fanboy. 'to advertise his opinion and to purposely hurt the rep of' This is called projection and is exactly what you do to Sony. There's a lesson in there somewhere. On Topic: As a professional, he should respectfully disagree and counter the reviewers points. If done properly it makes the reviewer look unknowledgeable and foolish and helps maintain the dignity and integrity of the dev. Far more effective than name calling.
Snookies12- Why wouldn't it be right either way? it's freedom of speech he can say whatever he wants. Now in this day and age everyones feelings get hurt if you even utter something bad about something is a different story. I agree with the Duke guy for calling this guy out. Hell I would keep coming saying he should shut up and go play COD if he actually wants these things implemented into Halo...and IS retarded for even wanting these things implemented in the first place.
ahha so you dont think its ok to criticize a hit seeking reviewer giving halo a unjustified low score, but it it was uncharted 3 you yourself would call him a moron probably or talk about how he was paid by MS or is a conspiracy against sony. HAHAHAA
Are you talking to me? Why would you think I would say something like that? You have no basis for your accusation. I would have no problem with someone who didn't like Uncharted 3. Everyone has their own opinion after all. Though that's not what this is about, it's about Halo 4, which I'm sure is an amazing game.
7 is a low score now... Why bring Uncharted 3 up though, were talking about Halo. Someone always has to bring up Unchaerted don't they... What about that guy who give it a 5/10....THAT my friend is a hit seeking website.
@ Snookies12 Good. I didn't like Uncharted 3. Part 2 was way better imo.
I haven't played the game yet, so I can't input my opinion. If the DNF dev played it, and disagrees, he has every right to call the reviewer retarded! You can call the president retarded, this is a free country.
If the game was crap, then scrap it and do it properly. They didn't do that, and still released it as a 60 dollar game, so therefore they can be targeted. Personally when writing or doing anything, if its not good I won't put my name on it, period. Why? Because if its crap, I don't want to be associated with it. They felt proud of Duke Nukem, and it was a rip off. Not going to baby them and say "its okay you almost made me waste 60 dollars, it wasn't your fault." No, because it was their fault.
I don't think a game review should be solely based on an opinion because your reviewing a game for the world to decide on that game. A game review just as the Halo 4 review should be based on how well the game is overall and based more on is it what the Halo fans are dying to have? That's probably a yes based on what I've seen so far.
How can you possibly have a review without opinion? The only perspective a reviewer can have is their own, they can't possibly review it with a mind to what some imaginary other person might want...that's ludicrous. Do you really think all Halo fans want exactly the same things? Which criteria should he judge on if not his own? What you've just outlined is such a bizarre notion, I'm surprised you actually typed it and that someone agreed.
@dennett316 Just read this. It no where says a review is solely based on an opinion. It's an evaluation. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/w...
Brandon Justice wants iron sites for Halo....LOLZ
I think it is ironic that reviewers consider themselves to be above reproach, and somehow not subject to the same critiquing the so willingly dishout. I agree that using devisive language is not the way to prove ones point (unless you are running for political office apparently). Reviewers should be reviewed IMO, but only through an objective lens, and they should be called out when their subjectivity is apparent.
All reviews are subjective...there are no, and will never be any, purely objective reviews. The very notion is idiotic. There would have to be some sort of standard game that all others could be measured against in order to come to an objective viewpoint on a game. With so many different genres, concepts, ideas, game styles, art styles, etc...there's ZERO possibility of there ever being an objective standard of what a game should be.
Reviews arnt just opiinons matter of fact reviews are more in the case of solid facts at what makes the game good and bad bbuggs etyc.. opinion should never really enter a review as it would cloud the score... i loved two human but the as far as the story and game play goes i wudnt give it past a 5 or a 6... im not going to give it a 9 or 10 simply cuz i loved playing it :) ur not reviewing it for urself ur reviewign it for potential customers so clouding it with biased judgements makes for a bad practice
As if reviews are opinion anymore XD
I think he's right for calling him retarded and I think it's awesome the guy called him out. Simple as that. But I do know that I'll be dusting my Xbox off and shoving my PS3 to the back for a while to play halo.
Taken from the review: "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". And again: " Fans of the game will have a blast here, and the multiplayer is something special, but if you expected Halo 4 to keep up with the Joneses, you might be disappointed." Obvious COD head reviewing one of it's main competitors?
George has always been a tool. Not surprised
I agree with George Broussard.
Same here and if you look at the Halo 4 EGM review comment you'll see me calling out Brandon Justice on numerous occasions.
So I saw. "OMGOMGOMG, HALO DUZNT HAZ IRON SITEZ! ET NIIDZ IRON SITEZ! ET NIIDZ MOAR SKRIPTED E-VENTZ." For those of you wondering, YES, those were actually some of Brandon's ACTUAL problems. He also criticized it for HAVING WIDE OPEN AREAS. 0_0 Man needs to be fired for being stupid, methinks. And, yes, I actually agree with George Broussard. Criticize him for DNF all you want, but let's not forget that he was responsible for the awesomeness that is the Duke Nukem character and, most notably, DN3D. So he had a bad game. So what? He's had many more good ones.
I agree with him too. Game developers are people too and it's only a matter of time before they start calling out stupid reviewers. The word retarded is a bit harsh, but not because the reviewer in question wasn't an idiot.
Yeah but they should be more professional about it for one. And two they are going a little far lately. Remember Duke Nukem? Their PR started black listing anyone that said anything negative about it....and guess what? The game actually did suck, so reviewers were justified. EA backlashing negative reviews about MOH, again its not just a few publications saying it, its ALL of them saying it. Again reviewers were justified. This one I can understand. Its some guy trying to get hits by bashing a popular game, but why is it the guy behind a terrible game getting mad and not the studio that made the game? My point is, yes reviewers can be bought and not truthful, but so can the developers. They want to filter as many positive reviews as possible to, so its not entirely fair for them to go around and say all the negative sites are retarded....
Twitter summarization articles are retarded
It's only the EGM reviewer, he clearly is retarded if he can't make a review unbiased and says the game is terrible because HE doesn't like it instead of the game just being bad. There is a difference between a game being bad because of bad gameplay mechanics and a game being bad because of personal opinion....he clearly reviewed on his beliefs and not on the gameplay mechanics.
I am sure this reviewer will just hide behind the notion that he is stating his "opinion." The days of professional reviews are long gone and I am glad to see game developers start calling people out.
lol @ "days of professional reviews are long gone" I'm just trying to think of that time when those professional reviewers were awarded professional videogame reviewer degrees from an accredited institution, and that they actually applied some system of objectivity across the board according to some agreed upon set of standards and best practices to the material they were reviewing instead of sounding like invested fanboys in some capacity each and every time. Though, I suppose its possible I'm just too young to remember those days.
All this over a 7 out of 10. You'd think it was a 3 or something lol
The score didn't bother me, it was the content of the review that bothered me. Knocking the game for not being more like COD, or knocking it for having too many similar game mechanics to previos Halo games... And yet EGM gave AC3 a 9.5 and that game screams same mechanisms as previous games.
That highlights some of the major problems with reviewing this generation. 1. Scores don't reflect the impression of the review. (A game gets a 6 but the review sounds like an 8, or vice versa.) 2. Reviewers don't maintain any sort of standards taken from one review to the next. (Games that get crapped on for not being innovative enough, or evolving enough from the last iteration, while other franchises are praised for remaining "true to [their] roots.") 3. Allowing personal bias to color the review too much. (Scoring a franchise or genre too high or too low because it does or doesn't fit the viewer's personal preference.) All of these things are so rampant, it makes the majority of reviews pointless to rely on, whereas in past generations virtually ANY review would be reliable. And I hate that cop-out "reviews are just opinions." Yes, they're supposed to be objective opinions, not personal ones. Doctors give opinions not based on their personal feelings, but professional observation; even so, they can still disagree on things. Instead of making excuses for bad reviews and reviewers, it's about time the industry starts demanding some standards. Reviews, unfortunately, aren't getting any LESS important; if they're going to count, let's at least make sure they're something we can count on.
get used to it. all fps reviewers now think cod is the set standard which is sad.cod is a casual pick up and play arcade type game and i wouldnt count it as a competitive hardcore game at all. anything that isnt cod gets slammed and if it tries to be cod it gets slammed for copying . its a no win situation and the media are making fools of themselves imo
@hardcore The exact same thing could be said about halo its casual and easy to play thats why its popular so why not compare them they are shooters neither are hardcore
Retard may have been a strong word, but Broussard is right. The guy from EGM reeked of giving it a bad score just because he doesn't like Halo. I bet he would have rated it even lower had he not been working for EGM.
the reviewer WAS RETARDED, halo 4 is nowhere near that low score, and anyone who agrees with him is also a low life fanboy,
Broussard was out of place, completely as a public figure. I believe the EGM review basically dismissed Halo 4 because it wasn't CODified and I have to question that score, when this same reviewer claims Dishonored actually had an involving narrative (that's a joke, especially when he claims Chief's silent protagonist style was outdated and Corvo NEVER SPEAKS). But to call him retarded is out of place.
So, some guy loses credibility because he doesn't agree with everyone else? Yah, makes no sense. I guess he would have gained "credibility" by copy and pasting some praise worthy regurgitation and slapping the same number on the front as everyone else. The guys job is to review the game and state his opinion and score, not to assimilate with every other reviewer. If he does not like the game then so be it. That's exactly how reviews should be.
Missing the point. The overarching point in his review was that it was too much NOT like CoD. Comparing apples and oranges in your review and then saying oranges aren't as good as they could be because they weren't more like apples is idiotic. Review the game on its own merits, not based on what other games are or are not doing.
I agree completely. The guy wrote a bad review more than anything. He should have based it within the game itself and not among the comparison of others. The guy is not retarded though, he just writes underwhelming and inconsistent reviews. Yet, the majority that are complaining are not even reading the review so that skips the entire argument. Gamers are jumping in on the usual bandwagon of attacking low review scores. The score isn't even low enough to warrant a complaint so that's completely irrelevant on its own grounds. My main gripe is that the guy scored it a 7 and "lost credibility" based on that score. I can understand the criticism of his sporadic review, but not his score. It's just the typical mob mentality we always see with big releases that annoys me.
Hey mister designer as a token of gratitude please take that turd from duke.
His tweet response was: Not sure the lead designer of Duke Nukem Forever should A) be throwing around the word retard B) critique anything at all lmao owned
Wow, people still say, "owned"... I'm getting too old for this generation.
@Relientk77 It was a burn of epic proportions. Although, I still have to question the reviewers professionalism. Sure, the lead designer was WAY out of line. But that follow up response is immature, and just further implicates the fact the games journalism is so flawed, as any internet jackass can review a game. If the reviewer were more professional, he would have said calmly that it was his opinion, and sorry that he (the lead designer) didn't agree with it. Also, as a game reviewer, it is you job to hand out constructive criticism. If he didn't like Duke Nukem, fair enough. Doesn't change the fact that his OPINION of Duke Nukem isn't the same as everyones also. So, in closing, they are both as bad as each other.
Halo 4 doesnt deserve that current 89 metacritic score because this game is better than Reach (and Reach has 91). So Halo 4 is as good as MW3 on score? I lold.
maybe thats because reach got higher than it should perhaps ....
I only have about 10 reviewers i trust and 2/3 's have given it a score in the 90+ range , that's all that matters to me . However what i don't agree with is reviewers using a game that has good ratings to expose themselves by giving it a score that disagree's with the majority . I'll play the game first to see if the 70/100 is justifiable.
I don't believe it was called for with the name calling, but EGM had to be called out. I will take the words of a game designer over the words of a reviewer any day. It takes more brains to make a crappy game then it does to write a good review and Brandon Justice couldn't even do that right. The review criticizes Halo for not being more like COD. Are we to expect Low scores from this idiot because Killzone 4 is not COD enough? I say call this trash out now before he puts a tarnish on other great FPS franchises for not being COD enough.