Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb Review

413 Comments

Halo 4 Review

4
  • X360

The new developers behind the Halo franchise successfully emulate the style of their predecessors as a new trilogy begins with Halo 4.

Armor customization is merely cosmetic, but there are some cool helmets and stuff to unlock.
Armor customization is merely cosmetic, but there are some cool helmets and stuff to unlock.

Did the new team at 343 Industries break Halo? No, not at all. Taking over the franchise from its creators at Bungie and creating a new, numbered sequel starring the Master Chief seems like the sort of daunting task that could have blown up the entire franchise if it had gone poorly. But the developers have executed quite well, developing a Halo game that gets that Halo feel down nicely while also playing around with the periphery of the experience in an attempt to modernize things a bit. Some of those new ideas work better than others, but if there's any actual issue with Halo 4 it's that the game plays it a little too safe. Master Chief starts the game surrounded by mystery, but it relies too heavily on the use of existing enemies and weapons, and by the end of the campaign it sort of feels like the Master Chief is right back in the middle of the same conflict and theater of war he seemingly left behind at the end of Halo 3.

The action opens with the Master Chief being woken out of his stasis only to find danger. Covenant forces have boarded his ripped-up ship and this whole mess is headed for a Forerunner planet called Requiem. Before too long a human ship called the Infinity joins the fray, giving you the standard factions of a Halo game. Mixed into this conflict is a new batch of enemies called the Prometheans. And tying it all together is a central bad guy known as the Didact. The story starts to head in some interesting directions. Your ever-present AI pal Cortana, for example, is falling apart due to being "alive" for more than seven years. As she breaks down, it's harder for her to maintain focus and help the Chief complete his tasks. It's also really interesting to put a face to the antagonists in a Halo game, rather than larger species or concepts like "the Covenant." That said, however, you sure do spend a lot of time fighting old enemies.

The most dramatic change you'll see on the enemy front is a floating Promethean Watcher that hovers above its allies, emitting beams that shield the Knights and Crawlers below. It'll also snatch any grenades you toss in their direction and fling it right back in your direction, which is sort of a jerk move if you ask me. But it also does a mean Doom II Arch-Vile impression by resurrecting some enemies after you take them down. In short, shoot the Watchers first. The other Promethean enemies aren't dramatically different from the types of enemies you've been facing in previous games. Crawlers can crawl down from the walls and the bipedal Knights can teleport, allowing them to warp away from the business end of your battle rifle and reappear behind you.

These mechs pop up in multiplayer and campaign.
These mechs pop up in multiplayer and campaign.

But you'll also face a lot of Covenant opposition, including Grunts, Elites, Jackals, and Hunters. Fighting these guys feels the same way it always has, for better or worse. The Grunts are total chumps, the Elites are fun to bash in the face, the Jackals are never left-handed, and the Hunters are large and slow. As before, the game mixes up your various enemies to serve them up in different configurations. On the normal difficulty, this doesn't make much difference, as you can just plow through the opposition the way a big, armored dude like the Master Chief should. On higher settings, the action gets a little more tactical, forcing you to poke out, do some damage, and hang back to let your shields recharge. Again, this shouldn't sound like much of a surprise to people who have played a Halo game before, but it's just another example of the ways that this new development team made a game that feels very similar to Bungie's work on the previous games. That said, the promise of landing on a new planet and the potential for new experiences and encounters that the change of setting could have allowed for makes the notion of spending what feels like most of the game fighting enemies from old Halo games a little unfortunate.

You'll pick up some new weapons along the way, and the Chief himself has been given some additional abilities. Most of the new weapons drop from the new Promethean enemies. They look great, and the first time you pick one up you'll see it sort of form together into a gun. It's a nice introductory animation that, thankfully, doesn't play out every time you pick up a weapon. While the new weapons look nice, most of them just plug right into the existing Halo archetypes. You'll see a shotgun, a pistol, a fully-automatic rifle, a single-shot rifle that fires three slugs at once (though one sniper-like megaslug if you're zoomed in), a new grenade type, and so on. The new weapons are disappointing for that reason. They don't feel like they fill any real need or plug into any gaps in the existing Halo arsenal. They're just more ways to do the same thing. The game also offers you the chance to pilot a large mech suit in a couple of spots, but taking a large, slow-moving armored guy like the Master Chief and slapping another larger, slower layer of armor around him for a couple of shooting gallery-like sequences isn't exactly my idea of a good time.

Thankfully, the Chief has some more movement options to keep the game running at a solid pace. You can sprint at will now by clicking in the left stick. This does a lot to speed up the pace of the game, as you might expect. But in addition to that, there's also an equipment slot that lets you use armor abilities, similar to the style of Halo: Reach. These include things like Promethean Vision, which lets you see through walls, or Active Camouflage, which gives you a Predator-style invisibility that the AI seems to be able to see right through most of the time. You can also equip abilities that let you deploy auto-sentries, use a large shield, and so on. Being able to sprint without having to equip that as your armor ability is terrific.

This shield is one of the armor abilities you can equip.
This shield is one of the armor abilities you can equip.

Overall, the Halo 4 campaign is pretty good. It looks fantastic in some spots and it takes you to a lot of different-looking places along the way. It sets up a few story elements that won't pay off until later on in this new trilogy of games, but a lot of the story plays things very safe. At the opening of the game it feels like Master Chief and Cortana could be set off onto some great new mystery in a mysterious place where everything could be different. Instead you spend a lot of time fighting old Halo enemies and, by the conclusion of Halo 4's story, I felt like much of the promise inherent to this potentially new setting had been squandered. Maybe that's on me for wanting Halo to be something other than Halo, but without getting into the specifics of the characters and their fates, where things are left at the end of the game feels like a stopping point that sets you up for more of the same enemies and settings in the future.

The multiplayer side of Halo 4 brings in those new weapons and movement changes, so you can sprint there, as well. There are also additional armor abilities to play with and, overall, it feels like the team sat down with a recent Call of Duty game and found ways to plug some of those concepts into Halo. Some of them are cosmetic. Any points you earn during a match pop up right in the center of the screen. When you die, you get a killcam feed of the person that took you out. But some of them are more dramatic, like more customizable loadouts that let you pick your primary and secondary weapons, a starting grenade type, and a few perks, like shields that recharge more quickly, infinite sprint, the ability to scavenge grenades from fallen Spartans, and so on. As you play, you'll earn experience points that give you unlock points, but some items also have a level requirement before they can even be unlocked. So you'll have to play for a bit before you can start out with plasma grenades, and you'll have to play a little longer before you can equip things in all of your perk slots. Halo has done loadouts before, but this is a deeper, and ultimately, more interesting set of options. As before, you'll also unlock various armor pieces as you play, gain levels, or complete challenges. New helmets, shoulders, chest pieces, and so on are also available for you to play around with.

These portals teleport you around the planet in the campaign.
These portals teleport you around the planet in the campaign.

The modes you'll play when playing with the public are your typical sort of Halo modes, but with some changes here and there. Team Slayer (as well as some of the other modes) now allows you to call in ordnance after a set number of kills. Don't start freaking out, you're not calling in air strikes or UAVs or anything that dramatic. And it doesn't require you to earn all those kills in a streak. But when you fill an on-screen meter, it gives you the option to call in one of three different things. They might be weapons, like the SAW, a very rugged light machine gun. Or you might have the option to get an overshield, a temporary speed or damage boost, and so on. One time I got the gravity hammer, but was immediately killed before I got to run around and smash people with it. It's a cool little addition. Other modes include Regicide, which is a standard deathmatch mode but the lead player gets marked by an on-screen indicator and also has an additional bounty on his head. Killing the king gets you that bounty, but doesn't automatically make you the king--you need to be in the lead to wear the crown.

You can also get in and build your own custom matches with a variety of rules settings, and the Forge mode that allows you to alter the placement of items in the multiplayer maps (along with a set of Forge-only maps) also returns with some additional options, like the ability to fuse items together. And, as before, you can take your custom games, screenshots, and so on and share them with other players.

There's no wave-based survival mode in Halo 4. In addition to the campaign, the game also has a cooperative mode called Spartan Ops. This is an episodic series that follows a team of Spartans that work out of the Infinity, a large ship that shows up in the campaign. These episodes are going to be released for free on a regular basis as downloadable updates and will contain video clips that help set them up. The first such episode is included alongside the launching game, and as such that's the only one I can really review at this point. The story opens with a video showing Spartans reporting for duty on-board the Infinity. From there, you're tossed into a set of five missions. The locations are ripped from other parts of the game and are extremely combat heavy. And once you're past that initial cutscene, any additional dialogue is delivered via radio chatter. If you're into the combat of Halo and like playing with others against occasionally overwhelming batches of enemies, the missions are passable. But don't go in thinking that this is some sort of elaborate and unique segment of the game that's going to give you a campaign-level experience. It's a set of co-op missions with a loose story wrapper around it, nothing more, nothing less. You can bring in your custom Spartan from the other multiplayer modes and earn experience points by playing Spartan Ops, and there are mode-specific challenges to complete here, as well.

Shoot the flying dudes first.
Shoot the flying dudes first.

The presentation end of Halo 4 is quite nice. The music is outstanding, breaking away from the franchise's past a bit by updating the sound and getting away from some of the overt monk chanting that one still tends to associate with Halo. It helps make Halo 4 sound like its own thing, and that goes a long way. Visually, Halo 4 has some terrific moments that really stand out, but it also holds up well on the technical end with a good frame rate, great lighting, and, for the most part, sharp texture quality. Again, these things help to make Halo 4 look and feel different from its predecessors, probably more than the gameplay does.

From the moment I saw Master Chief put himself back to sleep at the end of Halo 3, all I could think about was how his next adventure--if he would even have a next adventure--should be something dramatically different from the adventures we had already seen. Moving him out into the middle of nowhere and cutting him off from his allies is an idea with huge potential. So that's why I find the storytelling side of Halo 4 to be fairly disappointing. Within the first few hours you've fought enemies that go all the way back to the first game in the franchise and you've reconnected with the human race. That's not to say that the entire story is a bust--and it does set up some potentially interesting things for the next couple of games to address--but it's good that the developers have backed this story up with sharp, time-tested gameplay that gets enhanced in meaningful ways across all modes.

Jeff Gerstmann on Google+

413 Comments

Avatar image for sunjammer
Sunjammer

1177

Forum Posts

408

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 7

Edited By Sunjammer

Oh look at the Halo fans complaining about scores. That never happens.

As someone who also fivestarred Syndicate, if you can't appreciate what that game was doing, I honestly feel sad for you. Pearls for swine etc. That game has out-of-this-world fundamentals and knows exactly what it's doing and why.

Regardless, it's just Jeff's own fucking opinion so why do you even care that much. Lots of other reviews to read. Learn to research.

Avatar image for alorithin
Alorithin

143

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Alorithin

@evanbower said:

Enthusiasm is one thing... but was it really necessary that his enthusiasm lead him to a marketing pitch of Microsoft's next console, saying that it and Halo 5, which we know NOTHING about, are "must-own." I would never say that he was paid off to write that, I really just think he is immature and a bad writer. In lieu of anything interesting to say, he falls back on hyperbole.

After soaking in the new game, I am beyond thrilled to be so in love with Halo again, more than I’ve been since Halo 2. Halo 4 is a masterstroke everyone can and should celebrate, and its two guaranteed sequels instantly make the next-generation Xbox a must-own system, with Halo 5 its most anticipated title.

PR and marketing are not the same thing. Go listen to the 10/30 bombcast last hour again.

But this is semantics and opinions. Jeff wrote this on his own. Ryan got a professional editorial team to help him. I'd say Ryan's twitter is a much better read on the game than the IGN review if you are questioning his character.

Avatar image for nintendonaut
NintendoNaut

10

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By NintendoNaut

Never been interested in Halo--But glad to hear that 343's done good for the fans at least.

Avatar image for cptbedlam
CptBedlam

4612

Forum Posts

7

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By CptBedlam

@Alorithin said:

@evanbower said:

@Alorithin said:

Enthusiasm is one thing... but was it really necessary that his enthusiasm lead him to a marketing pitch of Microsoft's next console, saying that it and Halo 5, which we know NOTHING about, are "must-own." I would never say that he was paid off to write that, I really just think he is immature and a bad writer. In lieu of anything interesting to say, he falls back on hyperbole.

After soaking in the new game, I am beyond thrilled to be so in love with Halo again, more than I’ve been since Halo 2. Halo 4 is a masterstroke everyone can and should celebrate, and its two guaranteed sequels instantly make the next-generation Xbox a must-own system, with Halo 5 its most anticipated title.

PR and marketing are not the same thing. Go listen to the 10/30 bombcast last hour again.

But this is semantics and opinions. Jeff wrote this on his own. Ryan got a professional editorial team to help him. I'd say Ryan's twitter is a much better read on the game than the IGN review if you are questioning his character.

I'm questioning IGN's credibility as an outlet in general, I've done that for years. If you don't see how they are the industry's biggest PR whore, then you're truly one naive idiot. Exclusive reviews don't come without strings attached.

Avatar image for alorithin
Alorithin

143

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Alorithin

@CptBedlam said:

I'm questioning IGN's credibility as an outlet in general, I've done that for years. If you don't see how they are the industry's biggest PR whore, then you're truly one naive idiot. Exclusive reviews don't come without strings attached.

Yeah, and the GTA4 review was gross.

Halo 4 wasn't an exclusive review.

The entire industry is PR. If you don't accept that then you have no business being selective about integrity.

Avatar image for gerp
gerp

294

Forum Posts

500

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

Edited By gerp

@GnaTSoL said:

If it were any other franchise not changing the formula after numerous sequels, GB would have taken a dump on em.

As i recall they didn't dump on MW3 for being another call of duty game.

Avatar image for cptbedlam
CptBedlam

4612

Forum Posts

7

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By CptBedlam

@Alorithin said:

@CptBedlam said:

I'm questioning IGN's credibility as an outlet in general, I've done that for years. If you don't see how they are the industry's biggest PR whore, then you're truly one naive idiot. Exclusive reviews don't come without strings attached.

Yeah, and the GTA4 review was gross.

Halo 4 wasn't an exclusive review.

The entire industry is PR. If you don't accept that then you have no business being selective about integrity.

I want honest opinions (doesn't matter whether they match my own opinions or not). I don't think I get those from IGN. And I have plenty of business being selective about integrity.

Avatar image for deactivated-5f0e8dcf3078d
deactivated-5f0e8dcf3078d

289

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The number of butthurt comments is hilarious. The review said it was a good game, so why is there controversy?

Avatar image for monkeypox
monkeypox

4

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By monkeypox

normally I can't stand episodic content, but for some reason I really can't wait for spartan ops.

Avatar image for bushlemon
bushlemon

357

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By bushlemon

Hmm I think I'll buy WWE over this because they have the same review score

Avatar image for redsox44
Redsox44

525

Forum Posts

11

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By Redsox44

@Alorithin said:

@Redsox44:

I think the 2007 Jeff Gerstmann is very different from the 2012 edition.

I played through syndicate's single player on the PC and still don't see how he gave that game 5 stars. I think it was because of the candle he held for the Bullfrog Syndicate.

That game really did have one of the most fantastic co-op experiences of the generation, but yea I never played it alone.

Avatar image for cjduke
CJduke

1049

Forum Posts

16

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 6

Edited By CJduke

I still can not believe how quickly people will turn on Jeff and this site over a review of a game. All this BS talk about it not getting 5 stars, holy shit!? someone doesn't think Halo 4 is the best game ever! If you love Halo it is clear by Jeff's review you will love Halo 4 and your own enjoyment of a game is all that matters, doesn't it? I understand that people want to see games they like get great praise, that only makes sense, but the extremes people take it to are just ridiculous. It is not like he gave the game 1 star. Oh but IGN gave it a 9.8 so they are OBVIOUSLY better at reviewing games right?

Anyway, once again good review Jeff, I always appreciate your honesty. I have never really been into Halo too much, but I think Halo 4 looks like a lot of fun, if I had an Xbox I would be tempted to buy it.

Avatar image for christaran
ChrisTaran

2054

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 9

Edited By ChrisTaran

@Fluttercry said:

The number of butthurt comments is hilarious. The review said it was a good game, so why is there controversy?

Because, OMG DUDE, it is not perfect!

*rage*

/faint

Avatar image for alorithin
Alorithin

143

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Alorithin

@CptBedlam said:

I want honest opinions (doesn't matter whether they match my own opinions or not). I don't think I get those from IGN. And I have plenty of business being selective about integrity.

It's the same deal at IGN as it is at Giantbomb.

anthony giagos gave a 9.5 for Diablo 3. I trust him through GFWL Radio, Rebel FM, and the gamespy debriefings.

Colin moriaty gave mass effect 3 a 9.5. I don't trust him because of his starting the entitlement controversy on podcast beyond and this video in general http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgRP5_YKu0.

Jeff's opinion on some games swings enough that I use Arthur Gies as a form of second opinion on Jeff's diagnosis.

I flat out don't care what brad, vinny, ryan, or alex say about video games but I respect them for their honesty and good charm.

Know the people in the sites rather than grouping them under a banner.

@Redsox44: I did miss out on the syndicate co-op when the game was still hot. I picked it up past the learning curve and I under perform compared to the other agents.

Avatar image for redroach
RedRoach

1402

Forum Posts

249

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By RedRoach

Wow, I honestly thought this community was better than this. This is why Jeff hates reviews, they're no longer used as purchasing advise, but rather for validation of preconceived opinions. You haven't even played the fucking game so how can you "disagree" with a review? Sometimes other factors than what the game is have to be taken into consideration. Jeff enjoyed Halo 4, obviously, honestly there's not anything negative in the review. Except for one thing, that being Jeff wanted more of a departure from the older Halo games, and that's something I also want. That's probably why it's 4 and not 5, because its still very similar to old Halo games. Diehard Halo fans don't care, but I do, Jeff does, and so do a lot of other gamers out there.

Either way I'm still excited for Halo 4. It's one guys opinion on the internet, get over it fanboys. Also, if you compare game scores, especially if they're different genre's, you're a fucking retard.

Avatar image for thesoutherndandy
TheSouthernDandy

4157

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheSouthernDandy

@algertman said:

@mrfluke said:

@ImmortalSaiyan said:

@i77ogical said:

@CaLe said:

@i77ogical: That's quite an elaborate piece of fan fiction you've got going there. I've seen better though.

It's 5 (?) years of experience with this site, so ... it's historical fiction if anything, haha.

Giant Bomb has failed as the site it wanted to be. It had to be sold because it doesn't sustain itself. The main reason it has failed, IMO, is Jeff Gerstmann. Imagine Andy Rooney running 60 Minutes. It doesn't work. Too many gamers want to enjoy gaming. Giant Bomb is the sour site that makes fun of gaming in the news articles, finds the jaded attitude in an industry that is meant to be fun, to take us away from crappy real life when we want to.

I've sat by while JG gave Fallout 3 a 4 star review. I've seen this rerun too many times. Giant Bomb the IDEA is a great thing. Jeff's execution of it isn't.

What are you going on about? Jeff just thinks the is disappointing but still a solid Halo game. It just is not as different as he would have liked. Jeff does like Halo 4 and many games. Most of them not being fighting games or driving games.

yep agreed, if jeff really was jaded about this game then the score would have been 3 stars and he would have damned the game more for having covenant in the game. ultimately i look at this as a 4.5 star review. but they dont do half stars. because at the end of the day, the content in the review shows that jeff ultimately liked the game, just its a bit too familar than it should be for a game thats praised as the start of a new and different trilogy and it was stated from frank o connor that the covenant was majority gonna be in the first level and then we switch over to the Prometheans. so to hear that the covenant is in the game a lot IS disappointing

dont look at scores too much, like in the podcast jeff said ultimately forza horizon is the better game (5 stars) but he will end up playing need for speed (4 stars) more.

and complaining over the fallout 3 score, that game was a buggy, janky mess, and it had a crappy main storyline.

4 Stars was all this game was ever going to get from Jeff. 5 Stars would have put him up with the review trash like IGN or Destructoid and 3 Stars would have came off as Jeff trying to hard to hate it or trolling the review score for hits. 4 Stars was a safe zone and the way GB review scores works gives him a lot of wiggle room to use it.

What?? Can you explain to me how giving the game a perfect score makes those reviewers trash? So not only are people crapping on Jeff for his review, but we're also crapping on people who gave it a super high score? What the hell is wrong with you people?

I read Hamza's review and it was well written and well supported. He has just as much right to give the score he gave as Jeff does to give it a 4. I'm probably going to like this game more then Jeff, letting somebody like Drew review it, who's a fan, might have made more sense, but Jeff reviewed it and he supports his score with good reasons that for HIM make the game a 4/5 (which by the way IS A GREAT SCORE!). You can't ask for any more then that.

For the people dumping on him or freaking out, get your head out of your butts and look around the net, if you need to be validated by a review there's plenty of people who can help you out. Luddy at Joystiq gave it 5/5 and wrote up a great review.

For the people dumping on reviews like that, you're just as bad.

Avatar image for evanbower
evanbower

1253

Forum Posts

221

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 9

Edited By evanbower

@Alorithin said:

@evanbower said:

Enthusiasm is one thing... but was it really necessary that his enthusiasm lead him to a marketing pitch of Microsoft's next console, saying that it and Halo 5, which we know NOTHING about, are "must-own." I would never say that he was paid off to write that, I really just think he is immature and a bad writer. In lieu of anything interesting to say, he falls back on hyperbole.

After soaking in the new game, I am beyond thrilled to be so in love with Halo again, more than I’ve been since Halo 2. Halo 4 is a masterstroke everyone can and should celebrate, and its two guaranteed sequels instantly make the next-generation Xbox a must-own system, with Halo 5 its most anticipated title.

PR and marketing are not the same thing. Go listen to the 10/30 bombcast last hour again.

But this is semantics and opinions. Jeff wrote this on his own. Ryan got a professional editorial team to help him. I'd say Ryan's twitter is a much better read on the game than the IGN review if you are questioning his character.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.. A few things here. I don't see how your "PR and marketing are not the same thing," statement is relevant. The word "marketing" still has meaning outside of talking about a company's divisions, and in that sense what Ryan McCaffrey wrote reads like marketing, i..e in the interest of sales of Microsoft products. Again, I don't think it reads that way because of payola, but because he is a bad writer. Secondly, he got a professional editorial team to help him? What exactly does that mean? He works for a professional editorial team.. and his work was probably edited and critiqued by his peers before being published. Jeff too, works on a professional editorial team, and his work surely went through the same process. Why does this mean that IGN's review gets to be poorly written, and his feelings are apparently better represented on his Twitter?

Avatar image for cptbedlam
CptBedlam

4612

Forum Posts

7

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By CptBedlam

@Alorithin said:

@CptBedlam said:

I want honest opinions (doesn't matter whether they match my own opinions or not). I don't think I get those from IGN. And I have plenty of business being selective about integrity.

It's the same deal at IGN as it is at Giantbomb.

anthony giagos gave a 9.5 for Diablo 3. I trust him through GFWL Radio, Rebel FM, and the gamespy debriefings.

Colin moriaty gave mass effect 3 a 9.5. I don't trust him because of his starting the entitlement controversy on podcast beyond and this video in general http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgRP5_YKu0.

Jeff's opinion on some games swings enough that I use Arthur Gies as a form of second opinion on Jeff's diagnosis.

I flat out don't care what brad, vinny, ryan, or alex say about video games but I respect them for their honesty and good charm.

Know the people in the sites rather than grouping them under a banner.

@Redsox44: I did miss out on the syndicate co-op when the game was still hot. I picked it up past the learning curve and I under perform compared to the other agents.

Nope, huge difference. Polar opposites even. GB is not in the exclusive review business. IGN is. In fact, IGN is one of the few outlets left in that shady business.

You obviously don't have any clue about how the industry works.

Avatar image for redroach
RedRoach

1402

Forum Posts

249

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By RedRoach

@bushlemon said:

Hmm I think I'll buy WWE over this because they have the same review score

I hope you're joking, because if not it means you're a mindless idiot who can't form his own opinions and see's every game with an equal score as having the exact same quality

Avatar image for daveyo520
Daveyo520

7766

Forum Posts

624

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 12

Edited By Daveyo520

Can't wait to get it.

Avatar image for cptbedlam
CptBedlam

4612

Forum Posts

7

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By CptBedlam

@Alorithin said:

@CptBedlam:

Why are you stuck on exclusive reviews? They are transparent when they happen.

Way to resort to base insults too. Glad the mud goes deeper.

They are not transparent about the score obligations attached to exclusive reviews (most of the time it's "at least 8.5" or something in this region). It's shady as fuck and any editor-in-chief who is fine with that sort of stuff instantly disqualifies the whole outlet in my eyes.

Also:

"We haven't even told you the story of how IGN's Colin Campbell, mentioned above and a winner of the GMA's "Games Industry Legend" award, is directly implicated in the practice of covertly selling review scores for advertising – something this writer can verify from first-hand personal knowledge."

http://wosland.podgamer.com/the-wainwright-profile/#more-14177

Avatar image for bobtoad1
Bobtoad1

65

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Bobtoad1

Speaking as someone who really wanted Halo to move beyond Master Chief, I agree with you, Jeff, that they seem to be playing it a bit too safe with the story and content. I'm a little surprised to see you gave it a 4, as the review reads a little lower in my opinion. If you're out there reading this, could you maybe elucidate the reasoning behind that? Is the story still of high enough quality to be enjoyable, or is the gameplay just sharp enough to carry the whole thing to a higher level?

Avatar image for alorithin
Alorithin

143

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Alorithin

@CptBedlam:

Hilary Goldstein isn't even in IGN anymore.

Avatar image for cptbedlam
CptBedlam

4612

Forum Posts

7

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By CptBedlam

@Alorithin: I don't fucking care about some Hillary whoever she is. I care about the shady practices going on at IGN. They are still doing exclusive reviews, they are still the biggest PR whore of the industry.

Let me make it clear that I don't hate everyone at IGN. Greg Miller is an alright dude. But I can't trust any reviews from that publication because of their business practices.

Avatar image for hashbrowns
Hashbrowns

690

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

Edited By Hashbrowns

I have no interest in challenging Jeff's opinion, but there is one phrase he uses here in speaking about Spartan Ops that's got my goat.

"If you're into the combat of Halo and like playing with others against occasionally overwhelming batches of enemies, the missions are passable."

So if I like how the game plays, I'll enjoy playing more of the game? That's... useful information.

He's used this kind of qualifier very often, and particularly when speaking about the Halo franchise. You won't hear him say "if you're into the combat of Call of Duty" for example, it's implicit in those reviews that the combat is good, yet there's always an odd implication that Halo's combat is only for "some people". Again, there's nothing wrong with him preferring one to the other (and no game is for everyone), but his opinion is serving as a premise for his critique, not the conclusion drawn from it.

As far as combat "feel" goes, for my money, there isn't another shooter in Halo's league. CoD, Battlefield, Killzone; they're good, but they aren't even close to as good. That's carried through every game in those series, much the same as it has with Halo. That's my opinion, of course, but in a time when many critics and fans seem exasperated by the glut of rigidly scripted modern military shooters that are more interactive cutscene than a game, it's strange that a flexible, dynamic sandbox scifi shooter like Halo is still somehow called "generic" by so many. Every legitimate complaint leveled at the modern military shooter; no player agency, no replayability, dull AI, bleak visuals, narrow restricitve level design... I can't help but think "you could give Halo a shot".

On the whole, though, and aside from that one pet peeve of mine, this was a good review. Thanks, Jeff.

Avatar image for fiercedeity
FierceDeity

364

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By FierceDeity

*Ahem*

8.8

:D

(I was actually pretty upset when Jeff reviewed Twilight Princess. Majora's Mask was (and is) my favorite game, and Ocarina of Time was the first great game I ever played. So I desperately wanted TP to be good. That having been said, I certainly didn't post comments bitching about that review or anything, like some have here)

Avatar image for bunnymud
bunnymud

765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By bunnymud

Could someone PLEASE photoshop the image where Jeff gives a game 1 star and replace the one where he is giving this game a thumbs up!

That would sum up this thread

Avatar image for dgtlmeatloaf
dgtlmeatloaf

21

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By dgtlmeatloaf

Im not to sure I like the idea of an unlocking system for halo, halo 3 multiplier was fun just because it was fun, I never thought "gee it wouldn't it be great to have upgrades and perks". In Halo was always fun to just sit down an play a game of online multiplayer, even If i sucked. Now it seems like It will be trapped into the hyper competitive call of duty style form and I'm not to physicked about that. sadly I'm not to sure I will pick this up. Oh and no firefight was also a terrible Idea in my mind, It was so fun playing with the kids in my dorm. By all means I hope this game does well (it will), and maybe I will buy it, I just need to see more multiplayer, footage

Avatar image for palaeomerus
Palaeomerus

379

Forum Posts

42

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Edited By Palaeomerus

I think they tossed firefight to build the more mission oriented Spartan Ops coop stuff (which sounds like an episodic variation of COD's Spec Ops modes). I'll probably miss the Horde mode style waves with bots stuff too but maybe having more structure and goals beyond "hold out" will be fun and replayable too. I kind of wonder if MS might release a Firefight mode as DLC eventually. If not you can always still play Firefight on Reach. I do hope they don't take the Halo 3 online off anytime soon though.

Avatar image for oy
Oy

314

Forum Posts

1224

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 16

Edited By Oy

damn was hoping for something clever. way to blow a universe of possibilities...

Avatar image for joey8bit
joey8bit

14

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By joey8bit

It will be a delight to tea-bag someone in that mech.

Avatar image for robaota
Robaota

415

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Robaota

These comments are great. But I think that they don't do enough differently from previous iterations.

Avatar image for deactivated-631f5ebbad058
deactivated-631f5ebbad058

263

Forum Posts

20

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 2

Oh look, they made... another one of these.

Avatar image for shinjiex
ShinjiEx

793

Forum Posts

7

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

Edited By ShinjiEx

Halo 4? meh!

Avatar image for tireyo
Tireyo

6710

Forum Posts

11286

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 17

Edited By Tireyo

Sounds like it's a blast.

Avatar image for enigma777
Enigma777

6285

Forum Posts

696

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Edited By Enigma777

Dat ass.

Avatar image for gramblor
gramblor

38

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By gramblor

@GnaTSoL said:

If it were any other franchise not changing the formula after numerous sequels, GB would have taken a dump on em.

Really? What are some examples?

Avatar image for evan_buchholz
evan_buchholz

163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By evan_buchholz

@Palaeomerus: uh

Avatar image for scaramoosh
scaramoosh

216

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By scaramoosh

I thought Halo was alright up to the flood and then I quit. I thought Halo 2 was dog shit and tbh the Online didn't impress me because the PC had far better. I thought Halo 3 was basically more of the same and was bored of the franchise then and haven't tried it since.

Is Halo 4 any different or should I just not bother?

Avatar image for gelf513
gelf513

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By gelf513

These comments might seriously be the funniest thing I see on GB this week.

Avatar image for redroach
RedRoach

1402

Forum Posts

249

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By RedRoach

@Hashbrowns: Jeff is like that with most games. It's the same reason he didn't like challenge mode stuff in the batman games. That kind of thing just doesn't interest him. He Likes the combat of batman, but doesn't like challenge rooms, it's the same.

Avatar image for cavemantom
cavemantom

273

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By cavemantom

OOOOOOOOOOOH THANK YOU JEFFFFFFFFFIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Avatar image for xmegadethxsly
xMEGADETHxSLY

484

Forum Posts

302

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By xMEGADETHxSLY

this score is UNEXCEPTIONABLE. im going to start my own Website With Hookers And Blackjack.

Avatar image for crono
Crono

2762

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 6

Edited By Crono

Halo 4-Stars.

Halo isn't my thing. I tried the first 3 and found them to be boring. I tried to get into them but just found them to be subpar FPS games. Also, aside from adding dual-wielding in one of them, they all felt exactly the same. Other than the graphics, they all feel identical to me. If someone equalized the graphics of all of the Halo games I guarantee I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between any of them.

Avatar image for audiosnow
audiosnow

3926

Forum Posts

729

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By audiosnow

It's turned out exactly as I expected it would.

Firstly, I'm a big Halo single player fan. I played the original to death, thought 2 was an unbecoming follow-up, and considered 3 a worthy sequel to 1 and more than enough to apologize for 2. I loved the direction of ODST but thought they could have taken it farther, but think it on par with 1. Halo Reach reminded me of playing through 3 for the first time: it was like finding money in the pocket of a coat you haven't worn. I even thought Halo Wars did a great job of bringing an RTS to the console, and while I didn't care for the story or characters I found the gameplay pretty awesome.

So understand where I'm coming from when I say I expected Halo 4 to be a "very good/great" (7-8.5 of 10) game. You don't risk your prize horse, even when your prize horse needs to risk injury in order to win, and 343 followed that rule. Since the first Halo, every other Halo has played nearly exactly like it. So far I considered that perfect. It was like playing giant expansions for Halo CE, which, when you're talking about superb, beautifully-tuned gameplay, is great! ODST changed its level arrangement, and stealth mattered a little, 3 added equipment and Reach refined it, but the core is identical throughout.

Halo's pure shooting holds up much better in my eyes than Call of Duty's. I played the stuffing out of MW2, but had to force myself to finish MW3 and I'm not picking up BO2; twitch-based ADS and RT isn't fun for me anymore--no offense intended to those who enjoy it. I hadn't reached (no pun intended) that point after finishing Reach, and can easily see myself enjoying Halo 4's gameplay, but even so I want something else.

Halo is steak and steak is delicious, but I've had a lot of steak these past twelve years. If 343 seasons Halo 5 unusually enough to excite my tastebuds again I'll jump back in. Until then, I'm off the shooter.

Avatar image for palaeomerus
Palaeomerus

379

Forum Posts

42

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Edited By Palaeomerus

Well Brandon Justice over at EGM Online gave it a 7 for not being enough like COD. In his comments on Facebook he says that Halo should do iron sights, get rid of the big empty "soulless" areas, stop with any backtracking, have enemies that die quick instead of some bullet sponges (faceless on shot tangos like COD) and have scripted set pieces that change the environment (I assume he means shoot outs on crashing planes and buildings falling down.). So Halo is not enough like COD and therefore it is old fashioned and outmoded. Yet he gave Rage a 9.5. Weird.

Now I wonder how much Tom Chick is going to hate Halo 4?

Avatar image for gnatsol
GnaTSoL

875

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By GnaTSoL

To be clear, I don't hate how GB reviews, I just wish they would lay off the non-reinvention argument against games with sequels, especially if they have their following. Cause guess what? I'd do the same thing 343 did with Halo 4. They kept it as Halo but improved it. Leave that need for something surprisingly new for a new franchise. If it works why break it? Just improve it.

Could it be argued that it's a small improvement? Yeah, but check the quality as much as the perceived fun factor. Halo cuts above lots others.

So rest assured!!!!! It is because of that quality and that QUALITY alone why this game did not get a 3/5 from GB boss Jeff. Halo really pushes their presentation.

And if anybody mentions RE6... Know that the GB crew have been negative towards that game before it even arrived. I think Brad was sorta optimistic but the dude buys into his peers opinions more often than not. Not to say RE6 deserved better but....

Avatar image for palaeomerus
Palaeomerus

379

Forum Posts

42

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Edited By Palaeomerus

@Evan_Buchholz said:

@Palaeomerus: uh

Well said old bean! Bravo! Hear hear! Cheerio, tup tup, and a hearty handshake to you! You're the toast of the rotary club!

Avatar image for xerxes8933a
xerxes8933a

226

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By xerxes8933a

It's a good review, and I can see exactly why someone would give it 4 instead of 5. It does everything it set's out to do without flaw, but it's just not enough. I'll be skipping it, for the same reason I skipped AC3 and will be skipping Black Ops 2. I've already played this game, and I prefer uniqueness in my games over stability and polish.

Avatar image for palaeomerus
Palaeomerus

379

Forum Posts

42

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Edited By Palaeomerus

@scaramoosh said:

I thought Halo was alright up to the flood and then I quit. I thought Halo 2 was dog shit and tbh the Online didn't impress me because the PC had far better. I thought Halo 3 was basically more of the same and was bored of the franchise then and haven't tried it since.

Is Halo 4 any different or should I just not bother?

I don't much care either way. I hear that Farcry 3 has boobies and a bow though.