NowGamer Responds To ODST Criticism

The internet is alive with the sound of dissent, NowGamer answers back...

NowGamer did not expect the commotion over yesterday's 6.3/10 score for Halo 3: ODST for one very simple reason; that we're quite frankly stunned that the game has been averaging eights, nines and beyond.

Since publishing the review, furore has been exploding from every corner of the internet. So here, straight from the horse's mouth, as it were, Games Editor, Dan Howdle responds.

[Static-X]

It was a honest review..

[Razzy]

Love the last comments:

"NowGamer will never shirk from its responsibility in the face of pressure from either fans or publishers; to call it like we see it.”

[timmyrulz]

"Why all the criticism..?
It was a honest review.."

Exactly, just like the review that Gave MGS4 a 6 and edge's review that gave it an 8

[Kill Crow]

like Edge don't give the droids what they want, what do they do?

Lol, who'd even heard of nowgamer until last week ....

[Oner]

There is a BIG difference between 2-3 sites giving MGS4 questionable scores compared to MANY MORE sites giving Halo ODLC MULTIPLE low scores at MANY different score ranges.

[ultimolu]

Both of you stfu. The reviews given to MGS4 were bullsh*t reviews. That's not what I would call an honest review.

Nowgamer has reviewed games before and I'm pretty sure most of their reviews were posted here. Only a site who doesn't sing the praises of Halo is a fake site, right?

[ReviewsArePolitics]

"So when a reputiable magasine"

There are so many flaws in this that I don't even know where to start. lmao

[El Botto]

an immature 14 year fanboy who is too poor to buy himself a real console.

Period.

Nobody in his right mind would score MGS4 below a 9. MGS is simply EPIC, gaylo is simply generic shooter.

[ShadowCK]

No it wasn't, their review was absolutely pathetic. The reviewer might as well have just said, "...I don't like open world games..." and then slapped the score on.

He lost every shred of credibility when he said Gears's Horde mode is better simple because of Halo's lack of cover system. Tom Hopkins would you kindly shut the hell up?

[Chuck Norris KING]

chuck norris says
what a FLOP , i cant believe that bots buy this sh!t for 60 $ eww !!

[Dutch Boogie]

"Our opinion is that this should have been DLC". And rightful so. Halo 3: ODST is a good game but only worth a 7/10.

[StanLee]

This is a reflection of how review scores play too great a role in determining a games success and cast a shadow of suspicion over many review scores. Game reviews are wholly subjective. What one person finds repetitive and derivative, another finds engaging. We as gamers have to make our own determination as to the value each game provides. I still think games like Army of Two, Dark Sector, Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway and Turok are some of the more entertaining games I've played this generation but because of lackluster reviews were overlooked by gamers and I almost overlooked these games myself. I'm glad I took the time to make the determination of those games' value myself.

[Noob]

To be honest, I didn't expect this game to score over an 8 since it's essentially a $60 expansion, right? After seeing so many mixed reviews and opinions, I'm not sure what to think of this game anymore. Are people reviewing it as an expansion or a full game? And if they are reviewing it as a huge expansion, are they letting some things slip because the way they are approaching this game? I'm not hating on this game but that's just something I have been thinking about. I don't think it needs reviews to sell itself. The game already has a ton of pre-orders. Although I'll probably be skipping this one until it hits the bargain bin(not a huge halo fan to begin with), I am interested and more excited to see how Reach turns out.

[Christopher]

1. Yes, enjoyable games are oftentimes scored at a level that are then overlooked by the majority of the gaming populace. The problem is that this lower level is set so high that people are guided into only looking for the games that make it in the 8.1-10 scale and ignore the above average games in the 6.0-8.0 scale.

2. On the flip side, games are also scored at a level that is not reflective of the actual gameplay and result in jaded gamers for being told a game would be of a higher level of quality but didn't result in as such.

3. Army of Two is an enjoyable game, but a metacritic score of 74 for the PS3 version I played is about spot on. 74 isn't a bad score, it just means the game isn't very good or great. It's still enjoyable to play, it added a bit of new gameplay, but it had its faults and issues.

Dark Sector also scored a 72 and isn't the best of shooters. It's enjoyable, but definitely has its faults. A 72 is a good score for this game as well (again, played on the PS3).

[I am Legend]

IF you're a fan of HALO...then get it. It's a welcomed addition to the franchise. Bungie made it for the fans to keep us busy until Reach.

[heroicjanitor]

The game is just too fckin short... The only reason fanboys are fighting is because it is halo. Repackage modern warfare with the same multiplayer but a repetitive 5 hour campaign thrown in and would you give it a 9 again?

[gamesR4fun]

nothing more nothing less no other game this short on everything woulda scored so high not that it matters lets just hope not to many get fooled by the hype and that those who do buy it get 60 dolars worth of fun out of it eh.

[Godmars290]

Thing is if it wasn't Halo, imagine something like Section 8 with only 4-5 hours of gameplay, it wouldn't have been made. Not sold at $60.

[StanLee]

To those persons complaining about Halo: ODST's value. It's single player is as long as, if not longer than Infamous and it offers more value than that title with Firefight mode offering hours of additional play. There wouldn't be this criticism if Microsoft hadn't at first announced the game as a discounted expansion. It has more content than most retail games; that's a fact. Complaints about value and content are baseless. Funny how PS3 fanboys are championing Nowgamer when they scored the PS3 version of Batman: Arkham Asylum lower than the XBox 360's despite the PS3 version offering more content.

[Sarcasm]

"It's single player is as long as, if not longer than Infamous"
LMAO

That's a flat-out lie.

[raztad]

@StannLee

inFAMOUS is a 20+ hour game x2 if you rush it. I dont see how can you say it has the same length than a 4 hour game.

From the article:

“But even when compared alongside benchmark DLC, ODST does not fare well. Grand Theft Auto: The Lost And The Damned, as well as the forthcoming Ballad Of Gay Tony both offer significantly more gameplay and innovation and both are available for 1,600 MS points. It’s totally fair to say that, had ODST been downloadable for similar money, we would have been – a little – kinder, but even still, seeing nines appearing all over the place makes us very sad indeed. The pressure, it would seem, to score something based on the name it carries, rather than on its content has reached new levels of the absurd.”

Respect to those guys at Nowgamer and Arstechnica. They are not afraid to say their opinion. Looking forward to them as a source of reviews.

[Christopher]

Okay, now you're crazy. inFamous is a good 12+ hour game on the first time through, another 8+ hours if you play the other axis (evil or good). This doesn't count playing it on harder difficulties.

Halo 3 ODST, based on all reviews, is a 4-6 hour campaign, and that's stretching it.

One of the few times I've actually clicked the disagree button, but your first comment in that regards is just plain false. I thought in your first comment that you were talking about single player and multiplayer, but just single player? No way. Sorry, disagreeing full force on that comment.

[starvinbull]

If we were talking about a full game at a reasonable price then less than 7 would not be justified.
When there's so much about the game to criticize, however good it is, 9 just wouldn't seem right.

[JonnyBigBoss]

7/10? Maybe $40? We've been arguing this for almost a year now.

[Redempteur]

this is pathetic .. i'm 57 hours in infamous and i'm 96% on the trophy total ( in 3 hours i'll have my plat ).
i doubt the single player of ODST will top that ...

[evrfighter]

"Halo 3 ODST, based on all reviews, is a 4-6 hour campaign"

The thing about that is. Halo is the consoles version of CS. It's going to be played more online than anything else.

[pixelsword]

THAT'S THE TRUTH.

I don't know this site, but that's EXACTLY how I feel.

[beardpapa]

I sense a fanboy that argues inFamous' play length to be equal ODST would also be a fanboy that argues that Sony fanboys were dumb to pay $$ for the demo called GT5p, but that ODST @ $60 is completely justified.

/s

[Millah]

A review site thats willing to give their honest opinion on an overhyped expansion? Blasphemy.

[thesummerofgeorge]

ODST as long or longer than infamous? Really, you're stickin with that one huh?

[ShadowCK]

Their review was absolutely pathetic. The reviewer might as well have just said, "...I don't like open world games..." and then slapped the score on.

He lost every shred of credibility when he said Gears's Horde mode is better simple because of Halo's lack of cover system. Tom Hopkins would you kindly shut the hell up?

[darthv72]

nothing more nothing less. The first complaint from non fans of the series is that it is considered an expansion. Under what criteria does an expansion get its definition?

Why does an expansion not warrant such a score as a full game? Is one of the requirements to be given a respectable score that the game must NOT be of an expansion/spin off. I would actually use the term spin off instead but in reality it is a stand alone game so be it expansion/spin off, sequel whatever...the game is a full game. It has a beginning and middle and an end.

There have been several sequels released that would be best described as expansion as well considering that a sequel "expands" on the storylines of the previous title. Is it because the cost is $60 that it doesnt deserve the scores of 8 and 9's? Since when did $$ have a factor in the way a game should be reviewed? If the game is fun and has differences that sets it appart from others then it should be reviewed on those instead of the proposed value people seem to think it is worth.

Thanks to the internet, any gamer can be a critic and for the most part...we all are. Credibility comes into question when a review favors something people dont feel the same about. It also comes under fire when these opinions are not in favor of something people feel differently about. It is the way things are. Reviews used to mean something when there was only a handful of credible reviewing publications. Now it is a joke...a shell of its former self with no more reliability.

I miss the days when a review made you excited about a new game coming out because it was those publications who got to taste things before any of us. Now it just pains me to read reviews from all manner of unknown sites which are basically blogs about their impression of the games. The only real review publications I can recall had any clout were gamepro, egm, nextgen, OXM, PSM and Nintendo power. You had 3 dedicated to their consoles and 3 that were to remain neutral.

I miss those days that will forever be gone because the power of the web has made every game playing person with 2cents into a reviewer capable of spreading their opinion to those looking for both good and bad.

[HolyOrangeCows]

"Someone at Bungie has been playing Gears Of War 2’s Horde mode relentlessly and although there are some subtle but welcome adjustments to the rules such as shared lives, this game mode, without a cover system, just isn’t quite as tactically inclined as its Epic Games counterpart and by that token, less compelling"

He's talking about the STRUCTURE of the two modes.

[aceitman]

the man is right i like halo but this is just a rippoff its should have been dlc like they said at the beginning no they know it will sell y its halo as long as people buy into it it will keep going dont buy until its 20 $

[prowiew]

I think magazines and gaming sites should stop reviewing mega games. You review one, then you need to explain and justify your review because of fanboys. Either way, people will buy those kind of games. Me included.

[Shepherd 214]

"Half Life 2 alone would have been worth the cover price" LOL, at the time the orange box was released, Half Life 2 was three years old on a dated Source engine. Sorry but i can get Half Life 2 for free on PC, much less pay $60 for a three year old game that i personally dont like very much. Most of the game is you running around alone in a big empty place stacking boxes to solve puzzles and using The-Force-in-a-gun to kill soldiers. Not a bad game at all, but not amazing either.

Anyways, im a Halo fan, i have a good job, so if i am correct, 2+2 equals ODST in my 360 the day of release.

[IaMs12]

SO people are giving it a lower score merely because of the price point? OK we all agree its not worth the $60 for it but still doesnt mean it doesnt deserve a good score, unless well it does suck. But from what ive been hearing its getting it because of the price and length... hmmm does that mean its still a bad game? NO, but doesnt mean its awesome.

Judge it on the gameplay and mechanics not how long/short, make note yah its short not worth 60 but can still say its amazing, unless well they really think it sucks.

[Mr_Bun]

If someone is starving to death, and you give them a piece of bread, it will likely be the best piece of bread they have ever eaten....likewise, 360 fans are starving for exclusives this year.

[Tinted Eyes]

Best. Analogy. Ever.

[Pennywise]

So would that make PS3 only gamers over-indulgent?

[Anon1974]

I've been chipping away at Sam and Max, but there haven't really been any exclusives on the 360 this year to speak of, and I'll be skipping this one as well as I don't do XBL anymore so it's just not worth it to me.

Cograts to NowGamer to sticking to it's guns. I like that they take a benchmark for the genre and use that. When you look at it that way, there's no way an expansion like Halo ODST could stack up against a classic like The Orange Box. That's where you have to question some of the other reviews, like IGN.

IGN Gave ODST 9.0 and Orange Box 9.5 and you have to ask, "Really? Are you really saying Halo ODST gives gamers almost the same experience and value as with The Orange Box? Because, based on your own review, I find that a little hard to believe."

[militant07]

so your saying exclusive give a better taste to the player ?

and im multiplatform and i dont see ps3 full of exclusive, i havn't bought any exclusive for ps3 this year, and only going to get uncharted and low chance demon soul

and so i only own 1 360 exclusive for this year (Halo 3 ODST) and will buy L4D2

[nycredude]

Militant

Just because you didn't buy any Ps3 exclusive and you close your eyes it doesn't mean there aren't any.. fact is Ps3 has had at least 3 or 4 very good exclusive this year already and in the next month or so we will see at least another 6. By the end of the year there will have been almost one for each month of the year of 2009.

[YogiBear]

Wow, that was some deep metaphorical sh*t. And I completely agree.

[ultimolu]

Well said.

And militant, something must be very wrong with you if you haven't bought any PS3 exclusives.

Who are you fooling?

[rockleex]

Talking about bread.

Your name is very fitting. ^_^

[ceedubya9]

Why are people still hung up on this exclusive stuff? Exclusives are nice, but the vast majority of people playing games don't care about exclusives. Good games, are good games, exclusive or not.

There are plenty of good games, exclusive and multiplatform combined that 360 only owners have to look forward to. And if they are as jealous and starved for PS3 exclusives as people try to claim, then maybe they'll just buy a PS3.

[Millah]

Mr Bun>>>>>>> ;>Confucius

[I am Legend]

no big deal.

[bobdog626]

Microsoft should kiss Bungie's feet from here on out for Halo ODST.It saved there @$$ many time's and is doing so right now.For those of you who say it's to much for the game.They did not have to make it.Thank you Bungie for another Great Game.

[mastiffchild]

Oh Bob. Bungie might have made MS happy but that doesn't for a second mean they also made this game, at this price with nearly a full disc of content most of us already paid for once purely for fan service.

No, they didn't have to make it but they didn't do so for you, me or any other fan of the series but for money-it's the first REAL Halo cash in, imo, and whatever the quality of the new content there simply isn't enough of it to support 9/10- scores which is exactly why it will average out somewhere below that even with the Halo name and all that brings attatched to it. We all know how many angry Haloites will have attacked Nowgamer over their review here but, imo, their text and IGN's text to accompany a 9/10 score do not differ that much. IGN found pretty much the same failures as NG didn't they? So how do the scores differ so wildly?

It's because it's a Halo game, imo, and while I imagine the low eights it will end up with as a meta average is prolly about right rather than this 6.3 or the 9s it's had, some sites have avoided annoying a vast and rabidly loyal fanbase by being a little soft on Bungie for the faults of ODST as a package.

Last week they gave Batman AA a 9plus over at IGN and waxed lyrical about it all through the review with any qualms being just tiny nitpicks. However, all the reviews of ODST that arrived at 9 and above seem to have contained a litany of complaints similar to Nowgamers 6.3 review contained-now, if we're really honest does it sound like it really pushes the quality of AA this time out with so many widely acknowledged faults? Surely not and many will feel that some sites have been making rods for their own backs with perfect scores for less than perfect games for a while. GTA4 is a game widely felt to be overrated that got ten out of ten nearly everywhere while gamers often felt it a let down-many Halo fans even felt Halo3 had some over generous scores too and in this environment you do get the feeling some franchises are favoured and possibly because of their big support among gamers and vast importance to either a big console manufacturer or a very powerful dev/publisher. In other words most of a sites readership AND most of it's advertising revenue!

I'm not saying everyone is a bent reviewer. No, I don't think it's always done so cynically but the subconscious pressure to keep people sweet with an overly fair score must be pretty huge sometimes and I feel goes some way to explaining why, not just, ODST seems to have gotten some remarkably high scores even when reviewers have found a job lot of widely agreed upon faults in it.

And, for me, had I been reviewing the game the biggest issue would be "is this game finally the cash in on the Halo name that we've feared?" and right now it looks a little more than likely that it is to some extent and so we get some up and down reviews. As I haven't played it I won't comment on the quality(though to look at both the bisuals and combat seem pretty close to Halo3)and, anyway, it's more the fact that most of us already paid for a large part of this a while back as DLC, the campaign seems way too short and the biggest single draw seems to be a mode that's been done before elsewhere(not that Firefight won't be fun but we've seen a ton of games marked down for not innovating).

So I suspect that Bungie and MS have with the pricing of this game finally given in to the temptation(which must be massive)to cash in on their biggest franchise-this isn't to tide gamers over benevolently til Reach arrives at all, it's just to keep the money rolling in while they develop it!Honestly, at $40 I wouldn't raise an eyebrow and suspect ALL the reviews would be 8.5 or above but full retail? Looks like a cash in to me.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

ODST is slightly above average.A good game.
Not AAA status tho, like the Award winning GOTY Uncharted 2: Among thieves.

[Dorwrath]

No matter how good Uncharted 2 is it won't get GOTY. We all know what will get game of the year and it's neither Halo or Uncharted related.

[hobokiller]

What is your GOTY then?

[dustgavin]

Game of the year is going to Uncharted 2. 360 fans are just hoping it will be Modern Warfare 2 because it is multi-platform.

[jack_burt0n]

Wow read the whole thing that is the best f**king smackdown I have ever read. Ppl emailing him must have really pissed him off, thats what happens when fanboys eat their own good on you nowgamer dude.

Gay tony twice as long 1600 points

God damn unless ur ability to count the money in ur wallet has ceased its about value and initial pricing, not if the game is any good ffs!

[negative]

FAIL

[ceedubya9]

I don't have all of the maps, so I may give it a shot. So the game may be of more value to me than others that have been playing Halo 3 every day and already have all of the maps.

[thor]

This is so true.

Nobody's saying it's a bad game, but every review agrees that it has some shortfalls, as well as lacking in content to boot.

How can you honestly compare it favourably to the FPS greats of Half-Life, Bioshock etc. when it's 4 hours long, has many other problems other than length, and is running on an outdated engine? I thought that standards went UP over time, meaning that a game of Halo 3 quality won't get quite the same score as it would have 2 years ago.

[I am Legend]

Opinions...opinions.

[YogiBear]

I played it and I liked the original Halo better.

[starvinbull]

A game of Halo 3 quality would score less over time if and only if, it's on the PS3.

When I saw the scores for Killzone 2 and they were lower than Halo 1, 2 & 3 I was gobsmacked. Is Killzone 2 really not that good? I thought. Then I played it, and clocked it, and loved it.

In a few years time when we all look back and see what games scored and what games are still playable and enjoyable the PS3 will be considered an under-appreciated machine with under-appreciated games.

My most played games this generation are PJM, LBP and KZ2. Every PS3 owner or 360 owner should make an effort to get into 1 or 2 of those games, if nothing else to see what the fuss is about.

The PS3 has games that my girlfriend can play, as well as her younger siblings (9,10) and even when older relatives come round we might play buzz or Motorstorm 2. Reviewers need to wake up and treat the 2 big consoles as equal.

[Dorwrath]

I never bother paying attention to reviews at all, simply because reviews on either side of the gaming industry have their own agendas and are never neutral when doing a review.

Comparing a game to The Orange Box shows how lame the reviewing is if they use that game as a benchmark.

The Orange box was like, what five full games boxed together? The only time you can use The Orange Box as a comparison is when they compare it to other multiple game packages.

Not saying that The Orange box sucked or anything, it was awesome and an amazing value for money. it just shouldn't be used as a benchmark for game that are not multiple games in one.

[jimmins]

...because they cost the same!

[Christopher]

Gotta disagree.

They're reviewing games for the quality of the game and for how much you can get out of it for the price listed. The orange box contains multiple shooter games for the same price as ODST, and those multiple shooter games are all high quality games. Comparing it to what ODST is offering in regards to the money you're spending, it's very fair to score the game as such.

It doesn't hurt also that Halo ODST only offers a little bit more above and beyond its predecessor, whereas The Orange Box brought Half Life 2 with the latest episode to the console and added new games (TF2, Portal).

When I'm looking for games, I'm looking to make sure that the game I'm going to play doesn't feel like the last one in the series I played. I can go home and just play that game, don't need to spend the $30-60 on the new one if that's the case.

[Dorwrath]

That shows the level of intelligence if it's based on cost. lol

[nycredude]

Dude what don't you understand here. It's not rocket science. For the same price (when Orangebox was new, it's only like $20 now) the two package cost the same. One (Orange box) kills the other in contecnt AND length!

If a BMW cost the same as a Hyundai would you still buy the hyundai over the BMW?

Edit: Disagree? I guess we have some retards in here or maybe just a Hyundai Fanboy... Didn't think they exist.

[Dorwrath]

Thats fine, but if your basing it on value for money then nothing, coming out in the future can offer the same value for money. Your never going to beat the value for money that The Orange Box offers.

No game reviewed after The Orange Box can get a 10 simply because they don't offer the value for money the Ornage Box does. Sorry 5 in 1, you can't beat it. Halo can't, Uncharted 2 can't nothing.

[jimmins]

It's not just based on cost.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that ODST is quite average. As you rightly point out, Orange Box is exceptional. Some sites have given ODST scores approaching Orange Box's 9s/9.5s/10s - astonishing I know. The fact that ODST is a full price game makes those scores even more astonishing...

[Dorwrath]

Whether it's quite average or not isn't the point and I'm not arguing with you over it.

If they had review COD4 and gave it a 10(Whether they did or not, I donno, cause I don't read any review web sites.) If they used that as a benchmark, then I would have understood it. 1 game vs 1 game, however a package of 5 games vs 1 game game is retarded.

[Double Toasted]

I didn't understand what you were saying at first, but after you explained it, you definitely present a valid argument with an even more valid explanation. I would leave on a high note if I were you, lol, I'm kidding.

[Christopher]

Value is one of the items to be rated, not the only. But, it was the obvious one that brought down Halo 3 ODST in this review, along with the fact that half of what was offered already exists in the 2-year old Halo 3.

As far as your argument over 5 games vs 1, I can see your point in breaking them all down individually. But, then you also have to remove what's 'Halo 3' from 'Halo 3 ODST' as well in the true comparison.

Nit picking it that far only gets you nowhere, IMHO. That's why the games are reviewed based on what's released as a whole and not what's individually provided in the package (TF2 vs Halo 3, for example).

Also, in their response they only covered one element of the review. The review actually had multiple issues with the game itself, not just the overall quantity of game provided.

[Ron_Burgundy]

Uncharted 2 among itself is GOTY

while Halo RRoDst is game of the rear

[rawd]

now play us some jazz flute

[Bumpmapping]

HAHAHA!

[pumpkinpunker]

nowgamer who?

why is this guy repeating his initial review in some sort of editorial form if he's not a fanboy or trying to generate publicity?

you don't like the game. you wrote a review saying so. the majority of major gaming publications completely disagree with you. I disagree with you. move on.

all said and done, everyone I know is stoked about this game.

[ultimolu]

Yes, cover your ears and la-la to the wind.

[goromei]

Remember the good old days when we could actually trust review scores? It used to be that when a game scored an 8 or higher, that meant it was good. No ifs and buts about it.. No fanboyism.. no politics.. just honest opinions.. But, now..

[Christopher]

Competition breeds fanboys?

[Baka-akaB]

i dont even remember those days at all personally .

Why ? because i'm used to my favorite genre of game being scorned , mocked or snobed by many western journalists , as far back as the days of the snes and megadrive . That would be jrpgs .

More than a decade of "bla bla bla Story is generic!!!" "it's to animu et we dont like animu!!" etc . When most of the games of other genres they played , especially back then , hardly had any story , and when they did were well were generic ... especial dungeon crawlers .

And with of course the occasional , no constant nod or high five to Square .

The ps3 was also hardly the first console to receive press negativity based on cost or brand dislike . I can't swear it was widespread , without internet access back then ... but i remember some pretty nasty reviews of SNK games on neo geo cartridge or Cd .

Those amounted to "bla bla bla street fighter" or "bla bla bla the cartridge is too expensive" .. and hardly some glaring flaws or issue with some of the games themselves . Neo geo CD version ? Now they'd moan about loading time when they still kept the same level of quality , better audio with cd , and a normal price .
Yet oddly wouldnt find it as big an issue in later inferior and still plagued with load times ps1 versions . Go figures .

Anyway in short , dont trust reviews blindly... at most follow some writers and sites if they actually have the same taste you do . Personally i just take facts and infos from those , when they actually have them and arent rant exercises , or glorified BJ .

[DigitalAnalog]

Never in my life has there been so much commotion on ratings between Uncharted 2 and ODST.

"Uncharted MUST BE 10/10"
"ODST MUST BE 7/10!"

"Uncharted is OVERRATED"
"ODST IS UNDERRATED"

"360 fanboys are complain about this score"
"PS3 fanboys are butthurt about this score"

"7/10, this website is run by PS3 fanboys"
"9/10, this website is run by 360 fanboys"

"2 years, ODST gets a 9.0"
"2 years, Uncharted 2 gets a 9.5, haha!"

Oh the never ending comments. This calls into question the reviewers themselves garnering this much attention!

[bobdog626]

I see where your getting .Halo ODST should have been a full game in its self.60dollar's is a bit hi for this. I would have charged 39.99 for it and downloaded the map's on XBL.It's all Dark on halo too.LOL

[Double Toasted]

but besides that, what I don't understand is if said game isn't on your preferable gaming platform, why does the game bother you. People are acting like the Halo community owes them something. And what I mean by the Halo community, I mean everyone who loves and promotes it. And its mostly PS3 extremist who don't like Halo and go overboard with their outcry towards the game. I can go to one site where Halo 3 and Folklore both scored a 9, but if you look at the sales of both games Halo 3 is at 10 million + while Folklore is probably less than 200,000. Who can you blame for this? The scores are the same so there really isn't any way you can spin it.

[nycredude]

I don't mean to disagree but you guys should expect more than a 4 hour sp campaign out of a $60 game. Just think about it for a second before you rant. No one is hating on Halo, it's just that this is a money grab and is probably funding Halo Reach.

If any other game this or last gen had a single player of 4 hours and old maps with one mp mode, what do you think the reviews would be? Be honest.. you know as well as I do it would get ripped apart by the media!!!!!!

[Double Toasted]

the people who don't own a Halo game, but own a 360 or everyone else? Besides that, why do you care? I prefer Gears, but do you see me crying like a baby because it doesn't do as well as Halo?

[Sarcasm]

Did you even read the article? This is probably one of the best articles of the industry. No fake BS. No under the table payments. Straight and in your face. Even if you disagree with the review score, the writer clearly is against all the BS that's plaguing the video game media.

[Double Toasted]

giving them hits. They're becoming popular from Halo, its the "in-thing" to bash Halo. If NowGamer does something thats remarkable, I hope someone puts it on N4g and I can give them credit for being a unique gaming web site, until then I'll get my news elsewhere. The only reason I give Destructioid a pass is because I use to visit their site, but its been a few months.

[PaulLFC]

You say this as if the site was trying to become popular by posting the review - it wasn't.

All the review is is one person's honest opinion of the game after he'd played it, and because of the "low" score, which I should point out is still classed as above average, and has been fully justified in the actual review text and the subsequent response, the review has been blown out of proportion on here.

[K-man00]

this is coming from an x-box site. what a shock.

[jimmins]

The site itself covers multiple platforms - PS3, X360, PC, Wii etc

[dredgewalker]

I play Super Robot Wars and even if its scores badly and is repetitive i still get kicks from it cause it has all my favorite old school robots i loved as a kid so it maybe the same with Halo fans. So even if im a PS3 fan i dont want to spread FUD about a game that i will never have a chance to play since i dont own a 360. Dont let others tell you what is a good or a bad game, its up to you wether to make that purchase or not. Peace.

[crillyconlig]

that the game is scoreing the same as many extremly good top quality games with out having the same polish, lengh and inovation. the scores are unjustified

[bobdog626]

But without Halo right now Microsoft would be Finished so let Micro and Bungie have this go round.As you can see its making Sony more Aggressive and that's a Possitive thing.Bubble's if im Right.

[Isaahc]

I wonder if jim sterling still think that "PS3 fanboys are the worst", this situation takes cake at pure fanboyisme. A dlc that I think should has been scored as a dlc not as full game, Their review was a honest review. I never felt like it deserved all those 9+ scores, but I guess it can't be helped since its Halo. You give a honest review with a moderately fair score, You are classified as a bias reviewer. 4 hours game and only three new multi maps and 60 price tags hmm... as a gamer we should be able to draw line between wrong and right.

[divideby0]

omg...so the game is meh...live with it...
This game does NOT have 60 bucks of VALUE..period..
The sites who gave the game a high score are the ones that count on advertisement revenues

[JEDI WOLVERINE]

5 hour campaign - which will be replayed alleast once more
MULTIPLAYER - i havent got any of the map packs for Halo3 so this will consume days of my time online - (i clocked in about 3000 games online for Halo2)
All for £29.99 (in england) = Bargain
If value is classed as hours played on a game then im gonna be in for a treat.
Expand away!

Off topic - Altough Killzone et all are nice FPS's - its Halo that
has the game mechanice pretty much perfected and EVERY gun has a place depending on the situation.

COD Waw online was an MP40 fest,with this weapon used in all/any situations.
On Halo its all about balance and thats why it is and continues to be at the top of the genre.

[TwistedMetal]

All you have to do is base it on the facts that the graphics are not good, the gameplay is halo 3 basically, the game has little content, and its anothere fps doing nothing special or different. this game should not be getting 9's and thats that. fun factor can be said about any games so people sayeing oh the game must just be fun so it gets a 9..... no it doesnt these are games we are playeing and they all are fun. bungie has basically did a rag tag food stamp game and priced it at full price and are getting away with it and going to release anothere halo game next year as well...

[SPANKYERAZZ]

A few things.
Nowgamer was minding its own business writing a review for its readers & it was N4G that stirred a big thing out of this ( they will no doubt delete this post as it seems its a habit ) .
Dan Howdle's main point he has stressed on the Nowgamer forum is that the game looks bloody awful & isn't very good. People seem to be missing this & focusing on side issues of cost & fanboyism. N4G seem to be encouraging this fanboy name calling & its frankly pathetic.
The review is a good one & tomorrow if you play the game you can make your mind up for yourself. & then, if you agree that it is way over rated you will know that next time you want an honest review with a scoring system that is intelligent you can check in on Nowgamer . As was stated in the previous thread Nowgamer is a site with many of the uk's best games journalists contributing regularly from many award winning magazines .
Thank you for your time.

N4G, can you please leave this post here ? Thanks : )

[Kyur4ThePain]

They need to stop scoring games with numeric values. I don't 8.9 a game. Or 9.5 a game.
I BUY a game, RENT a game or IGNORE a game. Simple. And that should be the how games are reviewed.
3 possible conclusions....BUY, RENT, IGNORE.

But nooooo. Where the fck would all the traffic come from if we made it so simple and elegant?

Screw reviews. All of them.

[Baka-akaB]

it isnt a problem of numerical or worded value . people just give too much importance to scores when they can be fudged by subjectivity , personal agendas , corporate agendas , or sheer idiocy and botched job .

Reviews are supposed to be tools , to decide a buy , rent or pass .

When crap like Metacritics appears , and when everyone becomes some sort of missionary with PR stunt , and they holy console bible to promote , it becomes a huge marketing tool and some sort of brainwashing technique .

Judging a game by counting the amount of good or bad reviews , including sites you never liked to begin with , instead of one-two trusted source , is f*cked up in every possible ways .

[The_Nameless_One]

At least they had the balls to give it the review they wanted to and not go by the generalized consensus.

[The BS Police]

"Whenever we score a game, our scale runs from 0.1 to 10.0. And we take whatever the benchmark in that genre and specifically on that format as a place to start. Is it better or worse than this? Does it offer as much as this? Is it as fun or engaging as this? Is it as pretty as this?"

When you review a game it should be reviewed on it's own merits, not compared to anything else.

[Kyur4ThePain]

I would love for them to show me the 100 things they use to judge a game.
This kind of sht REALLY gets under my skin.

[Baka-akaB]

Exactly , you dont need to compare it to other games to see if ODST or whatever other game is worth something .

You could refer , give a nod or mention another game if it's for some extras credits , or minor maluses ... but not as the pivotal point of your review

[jimmins]

You clearly didn't read the review.

[Baka-akaB]

you clearly didnt get my point instead . i'm refering to his point , not actually the review wich i agree with for the most part .

On its own or compared to anything , i dont think ODST is worth the fuss and scores it gets . For both economics or quality related reasons .

[RAM MAGNUMS]

You aint nobodies Biotch!

Hows it feel to be a rebel to society?
your 1 step closer to being a ps3 fanboy!

Everything.

[SPANKYERAZZ]

I believe he was using these other games as examples to clearly explain a review many people yesterday simply didn't want to understand. And yet, you clearly fail to understand again. This site makes me want a cigarette . grrr . lolz

[SPANKYERAZZ]

You're really... ehm? .... somebody . lol

[get2sammyb]

Finally. Someone speaks sense on this matter.

[Chainblade]

He's right. OSTD is an expansion for a full price...compare with the orange box...or uncharted 2...

[tiamat5]

Only Microsoft could make a glitchy,expansion grade,short and ugly game, sell it for $60.00 and everyone buys it with out even flinching.And then people have the nerve to complain that Infamous and Uncharted 2 are 12 and 10 hours respectively even with Uncharted 2's robust mulitiplayer? I have come to realize that Halo has become like Mario, a played out, over milked concept that people keep giving scores not because it is a good game but rather because it is what it is. In other words it is a Halo game therefore it must be good.It's the same concept that X-play goes on. I predicted that out of all reviwers that they would have given it a perfect score. And lo and behold i was right.But I just wasted my time writing this.No matter what anyone says they are going to buy the game anyway so I don't know why I waste my breath

[spongeboob]

And this is the reason why the majority of sites give Halo 9+. And it is also the reason why you can't trust reviews. They don't want to upset the millions of Halo fanbabies.

[bjornbear]

Good article, perfectly logical justification.

Too many 9's nowdays...reviewers are TOO generous for some games, and too harsh on others...no balance =/

[tehk1w1]

You know how many professional game sites justify their reviews?

That's right: none of them.

They post their review, and that's that. They expect people to call them idiots, morons, fanboys, etc. etc. etc. but that's what their job is.

[Yomiro]

Like the guy say..." time will tell"...I Think MS is shooting themselves on the foot with all these Halo titles.

[Shadowolf]

As crillyconlig stated, that is the issue. Outside of all the fan bashing from HALO haters, HALO 3: ODST is scoring high ratings no different than game that clearly have far more polish and I believe that is where the outcry stems from.

After our play-through of HALO 3: ODST I was quite interested in how the major review networks would review this game. Because the game industry is growing by leaps and bounds unfortunately sometimes corners are cut and due-processes get overlooked. When reviewing any game there must be a standard barrier to use as a gauge. As time passes that standard barrier begins to grow due to technological advances in gaming.

Since the original HALO there has been new FPS games that have exceeded the games before it and looking at our current generation of FPS titles the playing field is extremely competitive. Developers oftentimes spend 2 sometimes 3 yrs bringing their latest FPS titles to fruition and a lot of these games are packed with all kinds of new mechanics in order to create a more visceral and immersive experience - sprinting, cover-systems, bullets that penetrate through thick walls, knife kills, slow-mo kills, insane graphical details on weapons and surfaces, massively destructible environments, the list goes on and on. New standards are always trying to be set and because of this some reviewing networks need to re-examine their review systems and re-examine why they do it in the first place.

The truth of the matter is, HALO 3: ODST is not on par with many of today's top notch shooters and it is disturbingly obvious. It is a fun game which fans will enjoy but let's not forget that when rating a game there has to be a standard in which it is judged.

[Obama]

That's the reason why some major gaming sites (esp US ones) gave ODST a free pass. If they give it a low score they would have angered the fanboys. One more thing...when so many less well known sites gave ODST a low score, you have to start wondering if ODST is really a great game or not? Even IF a few of these sites are bias, the majority isn't.

[Shadowolf]

@ Obama,
You make a great point. When unknown sites give HALO 3:ODST a low score while all the major rating networks give it high marks, it does make you wonder, "Who should I believe?" Who really has an agenda to take my money and who is out to honestly and fairly give me a review based on today's top-notch gaming standards.

Despite all the so-called gaming networks giving reviews gamers need to take play it safe in situations like this and rent titles they are unsure. Because nothing is worst than expecting this over-the-top experience by spending $60 on a product that you are unfortunately disappointed in.

For a title like HALO 3: ODST which is the 4th installment of the franchise (outsid of HALO WARS) you have to ask yourself has this title truly evolved? For hardcore HALO fans it probably doesn't matter, however if you are a fan of the FPS genre and you thought HALO 2&3 were decent then you might be in for a rude awakening with HALO 3: ODST.

What truly can't be emphasized enough is the games experience. HALO 3: ODST plays so much like the installments before it that you sometimes think you are playing HALO 3 with a weaker Master Chief.

[Darrius Cole]

Can you imagine what would happen if IGN gave ODST a 6.3? The internet would be ON FIRE. Their website would be ON FIRE. They would hemmorage about a million 360 fanboys. So, they give it an 8 or a 9. Just as Gamespot will give it an 8 or a 9. These sites simply can't afford to lose the frequent users that would no doubt go elsewhere if they gave a Halo title a 6 or a 7.

[crazyturkey]

I want to see all of those sites that gave this game 9+ scores show us how their rating system works because I don't get it. One example is IGN with giving ODST a 9 for graphics......really? IGN made it too easy to argue their review.
Sometimes it might be good to compare one game to another in order to make a more fair judgment, not based on franchise name alone.

[NoxiousD]

I love the review I have played the copy intended for reviews that my friend had gotten a hold of. I am glad that finally someone stepped up to the plate and said what they really thought. Bungee made the wrong choice of announcing this as a full game. The hype for this hasn;t been as overrated as it was for Halo 3, its actually been pretty calm this time around. Let's just hope sales tell a great story of how greed can ruin a franchise..

I mean im gonna let you finish the fight and all, but Killzone 2 was the best FPS game period- Kanye West

[SPANKYERAZZ]

I hear that because of the games lacklustre appearance live action montages were made as videos & any in game footage was touched up to a degree beyond hidef.

Also , review code was not released in the uk . Instead reviewers played the game in a swanky place with free food & drinks served by busty blondes. You have to ask yourself why.

[NoxiousD]

Game of the year!!!! help Master Cheif make flawed hardware for consumers then give lame excuses when they should have stuck with software!!! and lets overcharge consumers with outdated hardware and game disc DVD 9 for the win!

[SPANKYERAZZ]

Hi, not sure if this is in the correct open comments section as this site sends me all over the place. Anyway, this isn't really about the 360's hardware issues. It is about the game itself , & bizarrely about the Nowgamer website & its review & reviewer. Need to keep on topic or you will just wind people up. Both consoles are great, but microsoft as a publisher in this instance seem to be pulling a few strings. I'm sure Sony do it to. Its just that this time it may be a bit obvious come tuesday

[ItsIncognito]

The funny thing is when this game would be released on the PS3 it would be shot off and get allaround 4's and 5's. The most funny thing is the game media pretends they are not biased but their actions prove otherwise.

In the end this will effect the industry because it gets more and more common.

Onother thing;
I have never ever seen a movie preview. The movie gets shown when it is ready, this should apply to games also. This in return will result in a lot of flops but in the end there will be less games but the games will be of higher quality. Isn't that wat we all want for our 60 bucks a quality game.

[00000000000000000001]

A game should not be judged on length alone, because it was short he gave it a low score, bad call!

[SPANKYERAZZ]

Please don't just blurt stuff out on this or any forum without fully reading and understanding the article or review you wish to comment on.

[artsaber]

So if you buy ODST without caution and reason, don't complain of the $60 raping that you have gotten if you wait outside in the rain @ a midnight launch to get it.

NowGamer is trying to help some of you simpletons, and you're too dumb to realize it. I salute NowGamer and ARSTech for the honesty, and not buckling to whining fanboys. It has been confirmed that the content vs. price tag doesn't add up. Only folks breaking par is non-Halo3 owners.

But honestly, I am glad this happened. MORE exposure to the goody bag grabbing reviewing sites needs to be brought about. IGN, Gamepro, Edge, whoever... I am glad this has awakened people to this extent. Halo ODST at $60 sets a VERY BAD precedence for games to gamers. I GUARANTEE you that Sony will not try this shyt. I REFUSE to buy a $60 expansion pack on any console.

NowGamer states:

“Disturbingly, having read a broad cross-section of ODST reviews, these crucial points – longevity, value for money, repetition, dated visuals, recycled content – feature in pretty much everything I have read, but in the rose-tinted world of Halo, these are apparently unimportant trifles that should in no way bar the game from being rated alongside Halo 3, Modern Warfare, Orange Box or BioShock. Time will tell. Those buying the game and expecting a 9/10 experience – one that can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the greats – are likely to be disappointed."

Good job NowGamer!

[artsaber]

"we’re quite frankly stunned that the game has been averaging eights, nines and beyond."

"for our score, as far as we know there has not been one single counter-argument to any of the individual negative points made in the text.”

“Unlike Halo 3, which lasted me personally for months, ODST is incredibly short, pales visually by current standards, is repetitive, and offers nothing beyond the experience you might have if someone carved off a third of said game, popped it into a blender and drip-fed you the results. We’re merely pointing out its obvious shortcomings."

“Our opinion is that this should have been DLC. The fact that it’s not makes the price of entry simply too high.

(“But even when compared alongside benchmark DLC, ODST does not fare well. Grand Theft Auto: The Lost And The Damned, as well as the forthcoming Ballad Of Gay Tony both offer significantly more gameplay and innovation and both are available for 1,600 MS points.")

Of roughly five hours, two are spent repeating the same objectives, one tromping through a level hub and the other two split between watching uninteresting, albeit well-acted cut-scenes and standard Halo combat. Said combat IS fun, as is the game’s Horde-inspired Firefight mode. With a score of 6.3, we’re not saying that die-hard Halo fans won’t get some kind of kick out of this, just that they will most likely be battling their own love for the franchise with the distinct impression that nothing has really happened of any significance in the last two years”."

You may applaud now for one of the few sites who had enough BALLS to stand up and do an honest hype-free review. Every point made by the reviewer was solid and undisputable, and strangley enough agreed upon by some of those soft-shoe 9 score review sites.

[thetedster]

Good to see that someone has balls to defend his opinion of the game.

[Thoreau]

buy odst, if not, don't buy it.

[rbluetank]

they other review site or scared they will not get exclusive inside information for "REACH" and ect... from M$. there is alot of dirty back scratching going on here. lol i will be renting this game a couple days after release... $60 is way overboard for a "DLC"

[Qui-Gon Jim]

I like that NowGamer is taking a stand against the skewed review process that is so prevalent. They're right, it's gotten to a point where people take any score lower than 8 to be a terrible game, when in fact, an 8 should represent a very good game. A 6.3 should be seen as an above average game. One that is fun to play, and is worth checking out. 9 and 10 should be reserved for the truly GREAT games.

Look at games that have scored in the 90's on Metacritic. A game that scores 90 or above should be worthy of being grouped in with games like Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Metal Gear Solid, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Grand Theft Auto III, Goldeneye 007, Resident Evil 4, Bioshock, etc. True Legends. It should be able to stand in the company of those giants without feeling shame.

[xg-ei8ht]

So basically you boot up ODST and you've finished the game.

[Ldubbz]

Of course nowgamer will answer back; they just got more publicity than ever! Nowgamer? Right.

They were up there with all the big boys before this review right? Nope. I never heard of em, did u?

Its their opinion, and they're entitled to it, but do they actually feel like anyone cares what they said about the game? How many game boxes can you point to that quote their scores? Zero? I thought so.

EDIT

Also...I dont seem to see their score on Meta? Could it be a conspiracy? Well, Eurogamer Italy did give it a 6 and they posted that. I guess its because....not even Meta knows who the hell they are?

[PaulLFC]

Well some people have heard of the site, do you think every site starts off with the userbase of IGN? Nope.

Apparently no-one cares what they think of the game? Well, the 197 comments so far on here about the review would seem to say different.

And them not being on Metacritic is not "a conspiracy", it's because the people behind the site also publish many magazines in the UK (GamesTM, 360, Retro Gamer, Total PC Gaming, etc), and Metacritic takes scores from the magazines, not the website. I'm sure that was mentioned in these comments somewhere actually.

[Ldubbz]

but 197 comments on N4G mean nothing; anyone here will tell you its the most bogus articles that sometimes get the biggest hits. I would think you sound smart enough to grasp that concept.

As far as Nowgamer is concerned, I think they're totally entitled to their opinion. But for people to act as if they are the only ones willing to tell the truth simply because they gave a low score to a highly-anticipated game, namely a Halo game, is BS.

Since they have YET (if ever) to be established as say IGN, 1up, Gamespot, EDGE...or even a Destructoid, Kotaku, or Giant Bomb, their review holds less weight. Thems just the rules.

I can easily make my own website or blog, and give games whatever review scores I like. It doesnt mean its gonna be the least bit influential. You and I both know the only people that care about this score are the ones that wanna see Halo go down in flames...for whatever sick reason.

Joe Gameplayer isnt looking at 1up, IGN, CVG, and EDGE give Halo a 9, and then stumble upon nowgamer and say "Hey! Wait a minute! This website I never heard of before is saying the game sucks!" Just not happening.

[PaulLFC]

I see what you're saying, with them being a somewhat unknown site their review might not be given as much notice, but I think that anyone who has read the review and the subsequent response from Dan would see that it seems to be a fair and balanced review, and the reasons for the lower score are discussed extensively.

It's even said that some other reviews make all of the same points (short campaign, sub-par graphics, possibility of the price being too high, etc) yet still see fit to award the game 8s and even 9s. Now I don't know if I'm being slightly biased what with not being much of a fan of FPSs, but if a game, any game of any genre, does have these problems, then I wouldn't feel like it was worthy of a 9 out of 10, and I think that's what the review has tried to point out.

I saw a line from Edge's review earlier which went something like "These problems can be forgiven. This is Halo." Now I'm sorry, but what is that supposed to mean? Should that mean that if the next GTA turns out to be below the standard we'd expect, it should still be given high scores "because it's Grand Theft Auto"? I'm a big football (soccer) fan, and for a long time here in the UK, Konami's Pro Evolution Soccer series was considered the be all and end all of football games, regularly scoring 85+. Then they started producing increasingly underwhelming games starting a couple of years ago, and their review scores dropped. A game shouldn't be immune to criticism simply because of the brand name attached to it.

[R4mpage]

I feel like publishers/fans have influence on a game's score.