EGM reviewer,Brandon Justice, defends his stance on his review of Halo 4.
Many big review sites have given a score to a game that people disagree with, people suck it up and get on with their lives. It is pathetic that people are attacking and harassing the reviewer over giving Halo 4 a 7/10
most people are not attacking and harassing the reviewer because of the score but beacuse of the content of the review. The reviewer wrote the review based on his preferences and if you read the review he basically bashed on the game for been more like the other Halos and less like COD.
it's not like he gave the game 4/10, 7/10 is a good score , and he backs up his opinion with detail.
He clearly didn't assess the game on its own merits and instead let his personal musings influence what is supposed to be an objective review. The way he tries to justify his point regarding ironsights with his point about the addition of the controller scheme goes to show how little credibility he has in that regard. Still, it's obvious that he is in the minority when it comes to his views. He tries to make it seem as if he has a noble goal on mind with his criticism. We'll judge for ourselves whether or not the game deserves its critical acclaim.
yea he reviewed it based on his preference and universal fps standards and you halo fans tear him up based on your standards that you don't want to break from? who's the bigger a-hole here? many halo fans are so blind to their own knee-jerk fanboy reactions but when it has to do with any other fps they bag it for not being like halo lol which is all this reviewer is comparing halo 4 too. you guys are also blind that halo had essentially been the same game structure wise since halo CE. And it has gotten a pass from gamers and most reviewers just like COD had while other games without the same brand recognition get crucified for the same reasons that they don't innovate. I've been tied of this stupid trend because gamers and the industry are giving mixed signals to game developers and those game developers are creating games that fail because of it which is terrible because creating a game is such a risk. I wish gaming went back to the days when the internet was just dial up and not add much visit was being communicated to gamers and the industry because it was worth more then than it is now
He complained that the game didn't have iron sights and scripted moements. This sums up the reviewers thoughts in a nutshell. http://i736.photobucket.com... And the same reviewer gave Resident Evil 6 a 9.5. .....yeah. People here are exaggerating about "harassment" of the reviewer too. I looked at the previous pages of the thread. Anyone talking about the review is pointing out how bad most of his points are, making jokes, or being all "What did I just read?", not insulting him. I think excessive harassment and threats are bannable on GAF anyways.
It's just one review. There always seem to be that one or two reviews out there for any popular game that gets way too much attention. If people rely on reviews to base their purchases my suggestion is to read a bunch of reviews and see what is the common denominator. In the case of Halo 4 it seems by far and wide that most critics think it's a great game. When we focus too much on those one or two reviews we give those reviews more power than they deserve. Ever notice how Jim Sterling from Destructoid has a habit of reviewing big games and at the same time often causes controversy? He knows the power of influence and how to tap into this media frenzy. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Not everyone loves Halo or Zelda or Mario games, that's just how life is. You also have to consider that those big franchises will also have critics out there that will dissect those games more than your average ones. At one end of the scale you have people raving Halo 4 is a great game before even trying it, and at the other end of the scale you have people who are very eager to go to Metacritic and write down very low scores for the next Call of Duty game before even playing it as well. The bigger the game the more some people want to draw attention to it, either negatively or positively. That's the world we live in.
It doesn't have iron sights I kinda don't like that either. NoT saying I agree with the review but how do u get headshots.
Reviews are meant to be the sum of a persons opinion. Objectivity is impossible and for the most part isn't the point or particularly helpful. I've played many games that are technically outstanding that I didn't enjoy such as Mass Effect 2, being told objectively what that game is capable of doesn't show my real opinion of the game.
I could only read "butthurt fanboy" in your post. If you want a glowing review for popular games just go to IGN.
@wastedcells You get headshots by actually aiming for the head and pressing the trigger
LMAO @ this response backfiring. GAF ate him alive and literally exposed his complete ignorance to the Halo franchise. He wrote.. 'And since folks are so bent out of shape about my comment on iron sights, I'll elaborate a bit here, too. However, several of the key guns don't offer sight-focused views, meaning that you use your binoculars and immediately jump out to the standard viewing angle upon firing. It's very jarring, and smacks as a half-assed concession to folks who want that feature in-game' One of the responses, which is much longer hit it directly on the head what ANY Halo fan would have screamed. 'People were "bent out of shape" about your "iron sights" comment because it demonstrated a basic ignorance of the different shooting mechanics in Call of Duty and Halo--an ignorance that someone who reviews video games for a living shouldn't have. But, none of us are perfect, and some of these things may slip by someone who only casually plays the games (and at that point I would blame the editor for the poor decision of assigning such a person to review such a game).' 'You didn't make some brave step in journalism, nor did you stir some designer at 343 Industries to wake from his traditional Halo slumber. It's not even about our bias towards Halo games. Halo 4 could very well suck, and takes many, MANY cues from CoD that gives the average fan pause, to say the least. What you did was make a huge leap in logic by assuming that because Call of Duty is most popular, it is an objectively better design. Here's hoping you learn from this experience.' Loved it... Evil
It's funny that Halo has it's score knocked down for not being more like COD and only a few weeks ago Resident Evil 6 received low scores for being more like COD!
I completely agree with you. I don't want anything following call of duty lame duck formula. This reviewer has bad taste even though it's his personal opinion. If you can't relate to gamers then you shouldn't write reviews based on games. Gaming journalism died a while ago. Where's my Genesis at?
HOLY CRAP!!! This article went straight to a forum post .. DAT NEWS !! He not a real journalist, its his opinion I dont care what he says /whole situation #moveon
It is quite obvious that a reviewer will "review" a game based on his preferences, don't you think?
The bottom line is that Halo is HUGE series and millions of people are going to play it and enjoy it til the next one comes out and no score is going to change that. It could have gotten a 1/10, i'd still give it the benefit of the doubt and likely wouldn't be disappointed. the next 25 hours are going to be very loooong.
He's made it clear that he doesn't like open level design, which means that he was never going to like Halo 4, as all the Halo games have been known for open "sandbox" spaces that allow for dynamic firefights. Let's face it: Some people really prefer the more linear, scripted design of games like COD. As this reviewer puts it, having to traverse open environments and fight enemies that don't instantly die from 2-3 bullets is a "chore". Unfortunately, there are a lot of gamers who think this way.
if im correct didnt every site do that to warfighter? cod is the new standard like it or lump it. me personally i was duped into buying black ops but that was the last cod i bought. its terrible and im so glad i didnt waste my money on mw3. watch as blops2 gets high scores across the board even though its just more of the same. reviewers are a joke plain and simple.
Yeah, yeah. Lay on the typical "DURR HURRR He is tah cal of dooty fan! His opinin invalidz" crap. He criticized it for having a stale formula and not innovating enough. The same people who agreed with MOH:W reviews are now whining for the same reason. Halo fanboyism is so sickeningly strong on the internet.
A reviewer has to judge a game on what it is and not what he as a person wants it to be i.e "cod" this is halo not cod
The minute he bent to criticism and tried to justify his review, he invalidated his own review.
If you want a reviewer to be completely without bias get a robot to review games, ppl cant control what they like and dont like with a press of a button.
So what if he reviewed it based on his preferences and opinion? He's not stopping you or anyone else from buying it. Man, lots of people are sheep these days, and only care about reviews and not thinking for themselves.
The fact that the guy wanted Halo 4 to more like CoD is why he is getting dissed. What's funny is the CoD series actually takes a lot from Halo, like the aim mechanic, theater mode and matchmaking. It would be like giving Uncharted 4 a 7 because it's not Gears of War enough.
the aim mechanic? sure about that one?
What aim mechanic are you talking about here, exactly?
yeah, i'm not sure what you mean by aim mechanic either. COD uses iron sights, halo doesn't. unless you mean auto aim, but all console shooters have had that since before either series.
Whether or not 7/10 is a "good" score is irrelevant. Scores practically are meaningless due to the different attributes that tally up to it depending on the reviewer. His opinion is clearly not the kind that warrants such criticism because it can be applied to ANY game REGARDLESS how well made or polished it is simply because they don't "agree" to it's mechanics. Secondly, too many people keep defending reviews (usually when it is negative to the opposite camp) and then give them benefit of the doubt with "opinion" rights. If that was the case any editor that would want to bring down the score will send the worst possible reviewer for that game and it would be accepted regardless. Doesn't exactly make the XX score is "good" argument a valid point anymore, right?
I agree that scores are only there for people that are too lazy to read. How many times have I read a review that was very good and informative but the score did not match what the reviewer had said, its almost as if the reviews put the score there because they are forced to. Personally I wish they would remove all scores from reviews so that more people would actually read instead of looking at a single number.
agreed and i've said this before, on Metacritic/ Rottentomatoes a 7/10 or 70% means a damn good Movie or Album but in the videogame world it's a piece of sh!t and isn't worth the time of day, why is that ? in fact I remember 10 years ago a 7/10 meant "this is a great game if you love the genre it's worth picking up" a 6/10 was a rental , now for some reason a rental is an 8/10 game and everything below is avoid. One of my favourite games this gen is Folklore and that got tons of 7's and 6's, same with Blue Dragon I really enjoyed that game but it received 5's 6's and 7's/ 10. That and having read the article the guy gave a pretty fair statement, he pretty much said if your a fan of the series your gonna love it. Which is what a 7/10 score is, so the question is why do fans care if there gonna love the game regardless ??
I remember 5/10 was supposed to be worth giving a try if you liked that style of game, most games mags that reviewed games i used to read like "Amstrad Action" said even a 4 was worth a try. I have a feeling its the reviewers fault this happened because every "popular" game gets a 9/10 most times and ppl just expect every game they like to get the same.Like i said yesterday reviews should not have scores at all anymore they are worthless.
@Eyeco very true about the unstable scoring system today, lots of games I don't like get 9's and other games I like get 7's, scores don't give me the information i need. reading game reviews these days and getting what you need to know is like codebreaking, for example I look for "convoluted story", something that I like but is listed usually as a negative, it's like the complaint of this EGM reviewer about "open environments", someone who likes them could adjust it as a positive in the overview of the review.
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. I wouldn't have minded if he gave halo 4 a 7.0, but the reasons he came up with are just frustratingly ridiculous.
Did you even read his review...the dude wrote it with the mind set that he is not a Halo fan. Bias has no place in reviewers hearts and this dude should have told his editor that he will not review H4 fairly so get someone else to do it. I am glad that he is getting called out for it, he wanted to generate hits now he has them - Do not start fires that you can not put out. The Call of Duty influence is now infesting our reviewers SMH - according to this guy next gen all FPS have to be clones of Call of Duty or get bad scores.
I would rather a nice mix of Halo fans and non-Halo fans review it than just people who absolutely love the series. If you're reading reviews to decide if you're going to buy a game or not, wouldn't you want views from different perspectives? People are so quick to forget that the "CoD influence" is what used to be the Halo influence a a few years back. And 7/10 is not a bad score. Cmon son.
The only way to get reviews without bias is either employing the borg or robots, everyone has different tastes and cant look at things with complete neutrality no matter how hard they try it is impossible.
So to review a game you 100% have to be a fan of the series or your opinion is invalid ?
A halo fan would be more objective about his beloved franchise. He wont praise a game that underachieves. The only people critics that review Madden are Madden fans. You don't give it to a guy that prefers FIFA. If you are a die hard CoD fan and you get to review Black Ops 2 that sucked in your opinion, you would say it sucked and not praise it for what it's done right
So since your a fan wouldn't that be bias positively towards it ? This is crazy.. Bias will always be there. I don't like olives and love bacon so do you think i would like a veggy pizza or all meat ?
Don't be stupid, read his response, see how VERY wrong he is. To give Halo iron sights is to ruin halo's gameplay. Halo has weapons balanced out for Close medium long range. THe reviewer wants that to change, ie - Ruin/cod up Halo Now...EGM sucks major dick anyway, they hired Hiphopgamer for ****s sake. The master of BS.
People need to read this guys review, then they'd understand the criticism hes earned. GM created the Cadillac Escalade. It didn't come with the disclaimer: Go here go there, Drive here drive there, Don't drive off road, Use this as Luxury, Don't put the baseball, basketball, softball teams in it, No, you can use this Sports Utility Vehicle as you wish! THIS is Halo, its a sandbox game that doesnt lead you by the Nose! The reviewer wants Halo to turn into a scripted set piece experience: Take that guy out Take the shot Go here Go there Go Go Go! Go over there...No, go over there, now! Take the Heli out, No, not with that but with that glowing RPG...yeah I know you can take the Heli out with that but We (the game) scripted you to hit it with this & the Heli is going to circle in the same pattern over & over again & we'll (the game) hold everyting up until you hit that Heli, then we'll allow you to progress! The reviewer wants Halo to regress not progress! See, we've had scripted games in the 70's, 80's, 90's...its 2012: Let us play the game the way we want(Cadillac Escalade: GM made it capable of many things, use it as you wish), not the "movie game" youre telling us to play!
Scripted scenes = cutscenes. So I find it hard to see how he can complain about the lack of scripted scenes...
The core issue here isn't the score or even that he has a different opinion than most. Its that they chose someone to review the game that obviously doesn't even begin to understand Halo and its gameplay. It's the same reason people got upset at Ebert for saying games aren't art. Its obvious from Ebert's comments that he doesn't play games, doesn't understand why them, and is thus completely unqualified to make a comment on them. Likewise, Its obvious from this reviewers comments that he doesn't play Halo, doesn't understand the game, its systems or why people play it, and is thus completely unqualified to make a comment on it, let alone review it. It would be like giving Diablo 3 a low review score because the game gives you tons of loot, instead of just one or two swords like Zelda. Or like bashing StarCraft for requiring too much strategy, or bashing Grand Theft Auto for not having a linear, mission based campaign. Understand now why people are upset with the review?
Wouldn't you think people would be going on about that 5/10 score Halo 4 got instead of the 7/10 one. Seems silly to me
Disagrees really. Oh for the love of god guys, come on, it makes more sense to be p***** off at a lower score then a 7/10 which isn't that bad http://n4g.com/news/1112850... Go take your anger out on that review, thats the one which deserves it
People aren't hating on the score, they're hating on the review itself, this guy wanted halo to be another COD clone and lowered it's score because of stupid reasons like not having iron sights.
eyah right, you sony fanboys would be crying like little school girls if someone gave a ps3 exclusive like uncharted 3 a loe review. Waht happens when a ps3 exclusive gets below an 8? Sony fanboys attack saying "biased, paid off reviewers, there is a conspiracy against sony, American media hates sony, reviewers are morons, I think its much better and its a 9, bla bla bla." but give a xbox exclusive below an 8 and those same cry baby ps3 fanboys are in every article defending the reviewer and the score. 'its his opinion, he has a right, bla bla bhla." I find it funny to see so many sony fanboys defending a horrible biased review when they attack any and all legitimate reviews that dont give a ps3 exclusive(even the bad ones) over an 8.
um uncharted 3 did get a "loe" review score. clearly got a C+/A+ from some site, which spawned into the same situation Halo 4 is in, only Uncharted 3s score was worse, but by GOD a 7 and the 360 boys are ready to kill someone...
People don't understand big sites like IGN were paid to review it good. The halo 4 early review copy contract was posted online and the contract stated they weren't allowed to review it below 9.5 until after it releases.. Obviously these sites want to be the first for the traffic so it was rated highly because it had to be, his review may not have been fair however the others may not be legit..
And that was proven fake almost after it appeared.
Proven fake by a gaming site that has no credibility
Do the Uncharted 3 reviews ring any bells? Like how when it was scored lower than Uncharted 2 everyone on this site started complaining saying EVERY REVIEWER was Anti Ps3 and obviously paid by Microsoft.
Yep: http://mega64.com/2012/04/0... I remember it well.
This is exactly why big sites always give big games great scores because they are afraid of the backlash. Whats funny to me is most of the people talking about the reviewers score haven't even played Halo 4 yet but there they are telling someone who has that his review is wrong. Halo fanboys. Worst fanboys of them all.
Amen Abash! People have to little in their lifes when stuff like this makes them tick....I actually feel sorry for them.
the review should stop reviewing games awful review it was. his points are exactly the games he gave higher.
Xbox fangirls cry more than PS3 fanboys. I never seen a PS3 fanboy attack a site this much, just for a one 7 score! LOL! He has some good points its his opinion respect it!
You realize you just trolled, right?
Good points? Bashing Halo because it isn't another COD clone doesn't seem like a good clone to me
Yeah, but the review was awful. It was basically him having a rant because the game isn't CoD. If you can't review a game on its merits, you shouldn't be reviewing it. Halo 4 is a great game, and its worth shouldn't be diluted by some snotty, smug douchebag reviewer that thinks he knows better than a majority of gamers.
@ abash, completely agree. 7/10 isn't a bad score, and honestly, it's not gonna change any ones mind if they're buying the game or not. I have no problems with someone who's taste doesn't include Halo 4 being a 10/10. It's just his opinion, it's not a fact. People disagree all the time with review scores. Back when Mario 64 came out it was a 20/10 on most peoples radar, and though I did like the game, I like Crash Bandicoot more. People need to realize reviews are "guidelines" and not the end all be all.
Attacking and harassing a reviewer or anyone for that matter is never in the right. However, judged as a journalist I believe this EGM reviewer is at fault- if his track record proves to be as inconsistent as some have suggested then I think letting him go is something his employer should seriously consider. His fault is that 1) He is a journalist for a major publication in the industry, and is therefore held to not just to a higher review standard, but higher journalistic standard. 2) To my understanding this "journalist standard" is a complex balance of the writer's opinion and objective presumed reaction from the potential audience. This reviewer has a good critical eye, but based on his peers' consensus on the same title, is not being OBJECTIVE- he failed to create the correct balance. Let me digress- one strike out does not deserve any serious repercussions (from either EGM or the community). That does not change the fact that this review was a "strike out". No attacking, no harassing, simply stating my opinion (not fact). BTW please don't hold me to a journalist standard, just the N4G thread one is ok-
He shouldn't have to respond to criticism in length. The review should have already explained himself.
It is just hard to believe that a reviewer could think that Halo 4 falls right under Brink and right above the Game of Thrones game. He is an embarrassment to the industry and has made a mockery of himself on twitter.
Gamers are the number 1 reason why the gaming industry is taking a turns to the worst year after year.
this whole thing it's so embarrassing....
For the reviewer yeah. I bet he feels like the last guy picked for dodge ball.
He got picked last because he couldn't even dodge a wrench.
"That being said, the campaign was essentially: 1.) OMGZ!! We're under attack/have to escape/have to stop so and so. 2.) Go blow up that shield generator/push that button/ kill a bunch of dudes! 3.) Now run back through the level and kill even more of the same 8 dudes!" really? and how is this different to COD, a game the reviewer was praising.