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.