IGN gives Halo 4 a 9.8

[Glorious Leader]

I always find these conversations funny. I'm sure I could look through IGN reviews and find a game they rated highly that each of you like. They gave D3 an excellent score. D3 must be trash then? They give Mists an 87? Bought and paid for? I mean I could also go ahead and list major games they gave bad reviews to. Duke Nukem Forever got a 55% I guess you can't always buy a good review?

[schippie]

Good god... IT'S THE END TIMES. I'm gonna go die crying now.

Halo is a solid 8 - 8,5 (based on metacritic scores) what makes it funny in that review is the clear bias towards the modern military shooters. Thats what makes it laughable or more sad, looking at so many things from that site. Just as a reference that same site gave mw3 a 9.0 same reviewer. I dont mind if a site sticks to their rating system and becomes more like ign where they give every game a rediculous high number.

Also one nice thing to keep in mind out of quite a few polls over the years and even studies it has been proven again and again that anything below 8,5 isn't even bought anymore. Making us the biggest cause of the ratings being so high.

But when you are able to say halo should be more like cod you have seriously missed a few key points and are not the person that can objectively review a game.
Not that any site has been able to do that since .. well since there ad revenue (based on games) are the games they also review.

[skatblast]

Wow i cant believe the 9.8.... its hard to tell if they were paid or what. I was a big fan of halo 1,2 and 3. Not so much After. Hopefully this one lives up to the "9.8"

[Deleted]

I will find outmyself if its worth the 9.8.

Ordered my Halo 4 edition Xbox 360 yesterday.

[RoninaThorstone]

I like Halo but WHERE IS THE PC VERSION! i know its an xbox only game but i think they will earn alot of extra money if they make a PC and ps3 version too!

Feel the same way about dust514

[Rennadrel]

1up gave it an A- either way it shouldn't matter. As a kid reading through PC gamer and other mags I figured out it matters more what they say is good or bad with the game than the number or grade at the end. I have seen some games with major issues get high scores and other games with not very many bad points get low ones.

Skyrim received very high ratings and lots of praise from the gaming community as well as reviewers, yet there are a lot of things about it that don't make it a game worthy of all the high ratings it got, including the bugs.

Also, ratings don't make or break a game unless you are a CoD and Halo loving fanboy who thinks that review scores and graphics that were good in 2008 make a game great. Halo has by far one of the worst turn over rates of any franchise I have seen. Within a month of release, there were oodles (as in ~40 copies) of used copies of Halo 3 and Reach sitting on the shelves at the local EB Games. It doesn't matter how well a game sells either, if it can't keep player interest for very long then clearly it's not a good game.

[Deletedaccount1]

Halo died after Reach launched. Killed the competitive scene, hacked scoreboards, etc. Also the gameplay was just terrible. Halo 4 is just a new skin of Reach.

[Rennadrel]

I always find these conversations funny. I'm sure I could look through IGN reviews and find a game they rated highly that each of you like. They gave D3 an excellent score. D3 must be trash then? They give Mists an 87? Bought and paid for? I mean I could also go ahead and list major games they gave bad reviews to. Duke Nukem Forever got a 55% I guess you can't always buy a good review?

D3 certainly proved not to be worth of good ratings, considering how many people have stopped playing the game. Also, I loved Duke Nukem Forever, while it wasn't great, it certainly beats the tired old style of Halo and CoD games. I'd rather play Metroid Prime or something though, shooters with lots of adventure are way more enjoyable then straight forward design games with a very weak story and linear gameplay.

[Edge-]

Halo died after Reach launched. Killed the competitive scene, hacked scoreboards, etc. Also the gameplay was just terrible. Halo 4 is just a new skin of Reach.

Oh, you've played through it already? How did you get a copy of it 4 days before release?

redit: Though to be fair, apparently there are already 500+ people playing the multiplayer right now lulz.

[-aiko-]

Halo died after Reach launched. Killed the competitive scene, hacked scoreboards, etc. Also the gameplay was just terrible. Halo 4 is just a new skin of Reach.

Uh....no? Not sure where you're getting that comparison.

[Hellishreaper]

Halo died after Reach launched. Killed the competitive scene, hacked scoreboards, etc. Also the gameplay was just terrible. Halo 4 is just a new skin of Reach.

Im glad we have one of the reviewers who has already played the game here to tell us what halo 4 is like before it was released.. O WAIT

[Rennadrel]

Uh....no? Not sure where you're getting that comparison.

Not sure if you could disprove it since the game isn't out yet. I don't like pre-release reviews personally though, they cause people to raise or lower the expectations for games that might or might not be worth playing.

[Foosha]

Well, judging by the scores all around, 9.8 seems a tad high, but not "omgz 343 payed themmmzzz!"

Metacritic aggregate score (52):90/100
Game Rankings aggregate score (35): 89.27/100
G4: 4.5/5
1up: A-
Eurogamer:8/10
Gameinformer:9.25/10

I mean, the worst score I've seen is 80% or 4/5 8/10 etc. General consensus is that it's amazing.

[Buu]

IGN gets material for their website from game developers. It's really not a good marketing move to piss off your providers by giving low ratings to their games, regardless how much they deserve it.

I haven't played it yet, but I do know never to trust scores on such websites/magazines.

People defend sites like IGN, saying they are not mercenaries and sell-outs, and are honest about their opinions.

But really? How retarded they must be to actually give honest reviews? We all know how people with honest reviews are cut by companies.

Both honest reviewers and reviewers considered too small. Kotaku have a funny history of love/hate with developers, as they deemed worthy/unexpressive from time to time.

[Irony]

Seems like the big reviews sites are giving it rather high scores, while less known reviewers are giving it anywhere from 5-8.

[Belize]

Halo is a solid 8 - 8,5 (based on metacritic scores) what makes it funny in that review is the clear bias towards the modern military shooters. Thats what makes it laughable or more sad, looking at so many things from that site. Just as a reference that same site gave mw3 a 9.0 same reviewer. I dont mind if a site sticks to their rating system and becomes more like ign where they give every game a rediculous high number.

Also one nice thing to keep in mind out of quite a few polls over the years and even studies it has been proven again and again that anything below 8,5 isn't even bought anymore. Making us the biggest cause of the ratings being so high.

But when you are able to say halo should be more like cod you have seriously missed a few key points and are not the person that can objectively review a game.
Not that any site has been able to do that since .. well since there ad revenue (based on games) are the games they also review.

Yeah, I posted a response to the article, saying the exact same thing how the guy is biased towards MMS, and that comparing Halo and CoD is the same as comparing Dirt 3 and Mario Cart. It's silly.

[Remilia]

Yeah, I posted a response to the article, saying the exact same thing how the guy is biased towards MMS, and that comparing Halo and CoD is the same as comparing Dirt 3 and Mario Cart. It's silly.

Well, at least in my opinion. If you're going to compare a game, you should be comparing with two of the same genre. In this case, Halo and CoD are both FPS. They're different in it's own right, but saying it's completely silly isn't really true.
What's silly is comparing Halo with Mario Kart. Comparing across genre is when it get's really silly and what a lot of people somehow do.

[Glorious Leader]

But that's the thing I'm sure I could pick out a game that each of you likes on an individual basis, look it up on IGN or metacritic see the "paid" journalist give it a good review and then should I easily dismiss it as shit? I'm still looking forward to halo regardless of what the IGN score says. I never liked cod style of fps (much prefered bf3) but I absolutely loved Halo 3 multiplayer. Team swat baby. I look forward to that all over again.

---------- Post added 2012-11-03 at 09:30 AM ----------

D3 certainly proved not to be worth of good ratings, considering how many people have stopped playing the game. Also, I loved Duke Nukem Forever, while it wasn't great, it certainly beats the tired old style of Halo and CoD games. I'd rather play Metroid Prime or something though, shooters with lots of adventure are way more enjoyable then straight forward design games with a very weak story and linear gameplay.

It was okay. I bought it for 5 bucks on steam or in a bin somewhere can't remember. For 5 bucks it was good. Didn't really hold my attention for longer than that though.

Here's a question for the general community though. Were review sites ever trusty? I used to read pc gamer alot when I was younger and had a sub for it. They said D1 was great and it had a demo disc with it and they were right Diablo 1 was great. Same for Diablo 2 which had a huge spread in one of the magazines. They did that with LOTS of games I loved. So did they just get to much money?

[Deleted]

It's just part of score inflation, everything below an 8 is considered bad these days which is ridiculous, what is the 0-8 for in that case? 0-5 scales are much more fair than 0-100 or 0-10 as then it's all very simple: 5 = Excellent, 4 = Very good, 3 = Good, 2 = Average, 1 = Insufficient, 0 = Bad.

What is the point of IGN's 0-10 scale if they always press in a comma in there to push it upwards? If the game isn't perfect then it's a 9/10 or lower, but they just add 0.8 to the score. It makes no sense.

[ara]

It's just part of score inflation, everything below an 8 is considered bad these days which is ridiculous, what is the 0-8 for in that case? 0-5 scales are much more fair than 0-100 or 0-10 as then it's all very simple: 5 = Excellent, 4 = Very good, 3 = Good, 2 = Average, 1 = Insufficient, 0 = Bad.

What is the point of IGN's 0-10 scale if they always press in a comma in there to push it upwards? If the game isn't perfect then it's a 9/10 or lower, but they just add 0.8 to the score. It makes no sense.

To be honest reviewing a game by giving it a score from 0-10 is stupid to begin with. You can't quantify how good a game is like that unless you have really specific criteria.