Some of things Nintendo does reminds me of some braindead tourist in a big city. I'm not sure how else to put it, and I wish they would start speaking something other than Engrish.
If you think there is something up with this review, you may as well think the same with IGN's and Machinima's. The Machinima review, not sure why they do reviews as everything is bought for coverage on their site, is done by a Halo fanboy who couldn't ever see anything but gravy with Halo 4. Some of these reviewers have been wined and dined by Microsoft Defense Force for several months, even the early reviews were often done at Microsoft HQ. The weirdest of the reviews has to be The Game Station's Youtube review, in which you are told the review by the site's Halo expert who is wearing a Halo 4 shirt.
If you always enjoy games that are this big, then there are tailor made reviews just for you. It does appear there is something not so sweet with the game, and not even Microsoft can control the outlook and pattern of reviews at this point.
I am just not sure that banking on those that will give big games big scores will be enough to justify the strategy of letting the game out to reviewers a week early.
Oh well, when is the demo out/sarcasm?
halo 4 is not a 1 out of 5 simple as that.
And Halo 4 is not a 5 out of 5, simple as that. Do you get the general idea here? It seems like Halo 4 plays like a product put together by a corporation, by a development team patchworked together for one business purpose, which is to make money with the Halo name.
Not a biggie for me, I haven't played it yet and I cancelled my preorder when I heard about the DLC and season passes before the game was out. Cancelled Borderlands 2 for the same reason, I don't buy half games and I don't think $60 is cheap for a foot in the door to what a developer made for a game.
If you want big games getting big scores there are sites for that.
If you think there is something up with this review, you may as well think the same with IGN's and Machinima's. The Machinima review, not sure why they do reviews as everything is bought for coverage on their site, is done by a Halo fanboy who couldn't ever see anything but gravy with Halo 4. Some of these reviewers have been wined and dined by Microsoft Defense Force for several months, even the early reviews were often done at Microsoft HQ. The weirdest of the reviews has to be The Game Station's Youtube review, in which you are told the review by the site's Halo expert who is wearing a Halo 4 shirt.
If you always enjoy games that are this big, then there are tailor made reviews just for you. It does appear there is something not so sweet with the game, and not even Microsoft can control the outlook and pattern of reviews at this point.
I am just not sure that banking on those that will give big games big scores will be enough to justify the strategy of letting the game out to reviewers a week early.
These games like Hotline Miami are getting kind of old. It has come to the point that retro/indie games are so popular that they have become pretty things to talk about. I was reading a review on an unnamed site for Doom 3 BFG and they directly said they cut down the score for that because it was reviewed on merits of gaming for today's games. A week later they give Hotline Miami a perfect score. So, the question is, why does a new game that looks like a 1992 game get a pass while a game advertised as an HD update is flamed?
The infamous, "Let's all be unique and like everything at the same time" kind of belongs in the conversation. Same goes for the weird folks who play Halo to be different from those who play FPS military online games. Except, Halo is an FPS military online game. You are a robot that is seven feet tall, can jump twenty feet in the air, and totally bones a hologram who appears to get her logic from cleavage.
Log in to comment