Giant Bomb Review

412 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 CommentsRefresh

Avatar image for xarox
Posted By XaroX

Halo 4 is the only Halo game where I haven't gotten completely bored with the campaign. +1 343

Avatar image for ntm
Posted By NTM

@GioVANNI said:

@TheKing said:

Not sure what's worse. The people complaining about the score or the Giantbomb defense force drones.

The people complaining about the score.

Both, as always. Not so much because they're doing it, but because there are always those groups of people, and they'll always say the same thing. It's getting really tiresome. I myself try to defend reviews sometimes even when I don't agree with the review (RE6 review on GameSpot), but I at least try to make it a little different than what you can typically find.

Avatar image for ntm
Posted By NTM

@jorelsantana said:

Why didn't Brad Review this game?

...Jeff clearly doesn't enjoy it as much.

Why, so it can get five stars? I think it deserves a five star rating myself, but to say that someone else should review it for you to be content is just dumb; plus, Brad would probably give it the exact same thing.

Avatar image for tarsier
Posted By Tarsier

@jorelsantana said:

Why didn't Brad Review this game?

...Jeff clearly doesn't enjoy it as much.

i dont think jeff should ever review games that he just isnt interested in. the game should be given to the person who knows what theyre doing. jeff clearly has never liked the multiplayer of halo. which im certain effected a large part of his attitude towards the game .. that said , i agree with the rating of 4 stars. the multiplayer is amazing, but the campaign was as disappointing as it always is. thought in new hands it would be batter, but nope.

Avatar image for jorelsantana
Posted By jorelsantana

Why didn't Brad Review this game?

...Jeff clearly doesn't enjoy it as much.

Avatar image for unholyone123
Posted By unholyone123

How did it come to this?

Avatar image for squiretuck
Posted By Squiretuck

Just a quick note on the info regarding spartan ops in the review. To say all the levels are ripped out of campaign isn't entirely accurate. Two out of the five are completley new locations and two have been reworked in different subtle ways, only the first mission appears to be the exact same enviroment.

Avatar image for carousel
Posted By Carousel

@bybeach said:

But Cortana now, she Scares me! I have never seen somone look so 45 years of age and yet so absolutely maturely HOT at the same time..Pubic hair up to her navel it seemed one pic I saw recently. I strongly suspect her biological clock is ticking...oh yeah thats right, it's the Rampancy I guess..I don't need to lecture Master Chief about it........did they cover those ed classes in Spartan school I wonders...

What the fuck.

Avatar image for alkaiser
Posted By Alkaiser

On one hand, I don't really care about review scores in general. It's about reading the content of the review and making your own decision based on the experiences and pros and cons listed by the reviewer.

On the other hand though, I do have to say I find it kinda funny how the scores tend to be really ambiguous in their meaning, especially when you're dealing with the mid-level scores. 3 stars can mean anything from "This game has some good ideas that are hampered by a few problems but is still an interesting experience," to "A fun game but too short for its own good and not worth the price," to "Don't play Fable 3. 3 out of 5 stars, skip this game."

Avatar image for honkyjesus
Posted By honkyjesus

If Halo fans would look critically at the scores from different sites you will be infer one basic thing, which is the game is apparently about as bad as a AAAA franchise game like this can be.

If you look past the history of the IGN's and Quarter to Three's, you will note that perhaps the game was made on money alone.

This isn't new, and the gaming industry has games in my eyes that achieve critical and consumer success without ever feeling like I am playing something. Sometimes games get too big for their own good, which is why military shooter fans like Halo's are angry at COD fans and they are angry at Battlefield's.

There are plenty of games in the revolving Call of the Gears of Halo on the Battlefield saga. This is nothing more than another one, made by a development corporation put together to push a product and play it safe.

Avatar image for blacklab
Posted By blacklab

Quick Look incoming?

Avatar image for giovanni
Posted By GioVANNI

@TheKing said:

Not sure what's worse. The people complaining about the score or the Giantbomb defense force drones.

The people complaining about the score.

Avatar image for korwin
Posted By korwin

Also... this comment section is fucking magical.

Avatar image for korwin
Posted By korwin

METAL GEAR?!?!

Avatar image for fiftiethmitch
Posted By fiftiethmitch

@SHADOSTRYKR: Reviews aren't supposed to be a be-all and end-all statement about whether everybody in the world will love a game or not, you need to find a reviewer whose tastes have proven to match your own and follow them. Not complain when someone else somewhere in the world gave a game one less star than some other, unrelated game and expect their opinions to change to match your own, or even the majority of others in the industry, otherwise what the fuck is the point of having different opinions? Stop putting so much weight in goddamn reviews, go out, get the game on release and form your own damn opinion.

Avatar image for visariloyalist
Posted By VisariLoyalist

@RedRoach said:

@Hellstrom said:

I'm confused as to how Halo 4 gets 4 stars, but Gears of War 3 gets 5? To be honest i don't get how any of the Gears of War games could get anything over 3 stars. They've always had weak plots, shooting mechanics, weak dialogue, and a weak multiplayer component,

Holy shit opinions. Gears of War 3 was awesome.The gameplay was refined to near perfection, the presentation was fantastic, it was well balanced, had ridiculous value with all the different modes, and was polished to all hell.

So have fun being confused with the amazing fact that people can think differently than you.

also I think I remember jeff addressing the issue of trying to compare reviews several times in the many podcasts he's been on that I've listened to. Each review is a moment in time as well as a personal opinion and the score is meant to be a shortcut for people who don't intend to fully consider the entire review (which is their prerogative).

Avatar image for thevideohustler
Posted By TheVideoHustler

Halo 4 has a Final Fantasy audience because of the hype surrounding this game.

You make Halo, and people will buy it, say it's amazing simply because it has the word "Halo" on the package.

Avatar image for truthtellah
Posted By TruthTellah

Alright, enough is enough, duders.

These comments must be stopped.

Avatar image for theking
Posted By TheKing

Not sure what's worse. The people complaining about the score or the Giantbomb defense force drones.

Avatar image for xrolfx
Posted By xrolfx

Lol @ commenters on this review.

Avatar image for redroach
Posted By RedRoach

@Hellstrom said:

I'm confused as to how Halo 4 gets 4 stars, but Gears of War 3 gets 5? To be honest i don't get how any of the Gears of War games could get anything over 3 stars. They've always had weak plots, shooting mechanics, weak dialogue, and a weak multiplayer component,

Holy shit opinions. Gears of War 3 was awesome.The gameplay was refined to near perfection, the presentation was fantastic, it was well balanced, had ridiculous value with all the different modes, and was polished to all hell.

So have fun being confused with the amazing fact that people can think differently than you.

Avatar image for laserbolts
Edited By laserbolts

Ok so after reading through alot of these comments I have to say this is the saddest review comments to date on giantbomb. Reading through this stuff just makes me feel better about myself.

Avatar image for billymethers
Edited By BillyMethers

The review score of this game makes me doubt the integrity of Giant Bomb.

I was expecting 2 or 3 stars. Media outlets pump up the scores of this game time and time again and it NEVER holds up. Play a halo game well after its release hype and it sucks and doesn't hold up at all.

That's my opinion. And anybody who wants to tell me otherwise, I DONT GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU THINK

Avatar image for crashtanuki
Avatar image for hellstrom
Posted By Hellstrom

I'm confused as to how Halo 4 gets 4 stars, but Gears of War 3 gets 5? To be honest i don't get how any of the Gears of War games could get anything over 3 stars. They've always had weak plots, shooting mechanics, weak dialogue, and a weak multiplayer component,

Avatar image for ghostiet
Posted By Ghostiet

@KaneRobot said:

I don't even see them as numbers, really. To me, a 5/5 is a "unless you really dislike the genre, you should definitely buy this...and even if you do dislike the genre, it could change your mind," and a 4/5 is a very well made, strongly recommended game with a few minor disappointing things thrown in that keep it just shy of a GOTY contender. A 3/5 is a "fans will probably like it, but try the demo," and anything below that is "avoid."

I would go even further and say that 3/5 is pretty much "I have no fucking idea what to think about this game - depending on the player, it's either GOTY or garbage".

The problem with Giant Bomb's score system is that it's idiosyncratic, but due to being a point system it not moron-proof.

Avatar image for grissefar
Edited By Grissefar

@ripelivejam said:

@Grissefar said:

@Tactical1 said:

Giant Bomb, the place where Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe is a better game than Halo 4.

Ha ! Ha ! How pissed would you have to be to make that argument?

Ha ! Ha ! Is this how you respond to every post?

Yeah, pretty much. Ha ! Ha !

Avatar image for deactivated-57d3a53d23027
Posted By deactivated-57d3a53d23027

@dicnose said:

@Tarsier said:

@dicnose said:

@Tarsier said:

@ValiantGrizzly said:

@Tarsier said:

@Mystyr_E said:

heh, it's funny: Gamespot, IGN, Destructoid, Game informer, they're like WOW dude! holy crap!

here it's like "ya know, it's good"

its because jeff is biased and always has been and he sucks at the multiplayer so it hinders his enjoyment levels. hes a racing game / fighting game guy not a FPS player he should stick to what his taste is and not give un fair reviews to other games. OF COURSE i am not assuming this is the case in this review. for all i know he could be right in not giving it 5 stars. but the past has shown that he is probly not.

he should have let drew or vinny review this game imo

I know I'm about 400 posts late in quoting this, but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

i mean, what ive said through this thread has been completely reasonable, the only way you could find fault in it is if you were assuming certain things and perceiving 'tones' that werent actually there. a lot of people assumed i was angry that this review was 4 out of 5 stars, and that i was an xbox 360 halo fanboy and raging at jeff gerstmann. if you read it without troll vision engaged you would see that there was nothing of that sort in any of my posts. but im glad you found one of them funny!

you're so clueless.

thanks dick nose

not the sharpest tool in the shed are you

No Caption Provided
Avatar image for ripelivejam
Edited By ripelivejam

@Grissefar said:

@Tactical1 said:

Giant Bomb, the place where Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe is a better game than Halo 4.

Ha ! Ha ! How pissed would you have to be to make that argument?

Ha ! Ha ! Is this how you respond to every post?

Avatar image for christilton
Posted By ChrisTilton

I'd be interested to know what Ryan Payton's plans were that MS wouldn't let him do.

Avatar image for deano546
Posted By deano546

I'm gonna rate the entertainment value for some these comments at 5 stars. Better than Halo 4 :)

Avatar image for m0rdr3d
Posted By m0rdr3d

What a rude thing to do by Microsoft... All these glowing reviews, people playing like crazy on Twitch, but I can't touch the game for close to a week!! ....To be honest, I run the risk of losing the hype by then.

Avatar image for grissefar
Posted By Grissefar

@Tactical1 said:

Giant Bomb, the place where Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe is a better game than Halo 4.

Ha ! Ha ! How pissed would you have to be to make that argument?

Avatar image for grissefar
Posted By Grissefar

@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.

Ha ! Ha ! That's really desperate, man.

Avatar image for mystyr_e
Posted By Mystyr_E

400th comment?

Avatar image for grissefar
Posted By Grissefar

@bushlemon said:

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

Ha ! Ha ! That's desperate, man.

Avatar image for cellardoor
Edited By Cellardoor

Sounds like a 3 star review with an extra star for minimizing potential fanboy backlash.

Avatar image for rorschach84
Posted By Rorschach84

Oh, man. And if I remember correctly, Jeff thought Halo 3 had a great story. I guess I'd better brace myself.

Avatar image for ryanpushor
Posted By ryanpushor

Didn't want to buy halo, but god damn this looks good!

Avatar image for bko
Posted By bko

Oh look, everyone's pissed off about stupid shit that doesn't remotely matter. Remember when reviews were resources instead of platforms for fanboys to freak out about 8.0 versus 9.0? Oh right, they still are in every category except video games.

Gamers are the worst. Phil Fish is right. Go fight over something important, you fat cheese dust-stained virgins.

Avatar image for redroach
Posted By RedRoach

@bushlemon said:

@RedRoach said:

@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

Of course I'm joking

In this thread it's really hard to tell.

Avatar image for tescovee
Posted By tescovee

@RanmaRanma said:

Jeff starts a lot of sentences with conjunctions.

That means he's Hooking up words and phrases and clauses.

Avatar image for dicnose
Posted By dicnose

@Tarsier said:

@ValiantGrizzly said:

@Tarsier said:

@Mystyr_E said:

heh, it's funny: Gamespot, IGN, Destructoid, Game informer, they're like WOW dude! holy crap!

here it's like "ya know, it's good"

its because jeff is biased and always has been and he sucks at the multiplayer so it hinders his enjoyment levels. hes a racing game / fighting game guy not a FPS player he should stick to what his taste is and not give un fair reviews to other games. OF COURSE i am not assuming this is the case in this review. for all i know he could be right in not giving it 5 stars. but the past has shown that he is probly not.

he should have let drew or vinny review this game imo

I know I'm about 400 posts late in quoting this, but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

i mean, what ive said through this thread has been completely reasonable, the only way you could find fault in it is if you were assuming certain things and perceiving 'tones' that werent actually there. a lot of people assumed i was angry that this review was 4 out of 5 stars, and that i was an xbox 360 halo fanboy and raging at jeff gerstmann. if you read it without troll vision engaged you would see that there was nothing of that sort in any of my posts. but im glad you found one of them funny!

you're so clueless.

Avatar image for kanerobot
Edited By KaneRobot

Everyone has their own interpretation of what these scores mean, it appears. I don't see a 4/5 as an "80%" or whatever, and I may be being presumptuous, but I don't think that's what the reviewers here intend either.

I don't even see them as numbers, really. To me, a 5/5 is a "unless you really dislike the genre, you should definitely buy this...and even if you do dislike the genre, it could change your mind," and a 4/5 is a very well made, strongly recommended game with a few minor disappointing things thrown in that keep it just shy of a GOTY contender. A 3/5 is a "fans will probably like it, but try the demo," and anything below that is "avoid."

With that in mind, I don't find anything controversial about the score, and I'm as pumped for this game as I ever was. I question some of the scores on this site here, sure...and come to think of it, it's usually Jeff's reviews, even though I probably identify with his taste in games more than any of the other guys here. I'd be lying if I said knowing the personalities of the reviewers here didn't help you interpret what the review / review score "really" means. That's actually part of the reason I put more stock in reviews on this site compared to most others...feels like I have a stronger understanding of what the reviewer is trying to get across.

But if people are upset, they need to relax. This score isn't going to change anything, just like "great but not incredible" scores NEVER change things for major releases. People aren't going to suddenly not buy it just because it got 4 out of 5 here.

Avatar image for bushlemon
Posted By bushlemon

@RedRoach said:

@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

Of course I'm joking

Avatar image for mrfluke
Posted By mrfluke

@Slixshot said:

@jonny126: From what I took, people are upset that the game was given 4/5 stars which they see as an 8/10. In other words, because of the American grading system, we see that as a B- which is not something to ride home about, but to be fair, is still pretty good. However, (while I still haven't played Halo 4), I'm going to assume it deserves better than that. However (again), GiantBomb only has a 5 star scale, and doesn't do halfzies, so if Jeff was set on not giving this game a 5 star rating, then the next best option was 4 stars, even if he would've wanted to give it 4.5. That's for the people upset with Jeff.

Then there are the people who are upset with the people upset with Jeff. They say "What? You were expecting 5/5? Get off Jeff's back. His review is fine. So what if other sites were giving it 10's. It's his opinion!" Another valid argument, but that still doesn't make the other side of this war wrong.

People have a right to question Jeff and take his review in whatever manor they want. But it's also his right to say what he really thinks. So what if he didn't like it as much as everyone else? Play the game yourselves and disagree (or agree) with his opinion. The end.

Oh and one final note on the side of the first guys I was talking to: Did he really get as much enjoyment out of Halo 4 as he did with NFS and WWE? He must really been done with Halo after 3.

you are the smartest dude ive seen in these comments lately , neither "GB White Knight" or "GB Troll"

bravo, seriously, no bullshit

also i wouldnt say its due to being done with halo, its just these guys are kinda done with the fps genre for the time being as its been over saturated with people trying to get some of that cod money. halos gameplay still stands out cause no one really has tried to replicate it and its been about 2 years since reach and 5 years since halo 3

also you shouldnt look at the scores like that, that he enjoyed halo 4 the same as nfs and wwe, they have said numerous times they wished people didnt make those assumptions with the scores because it only factors to an extent, its more about the content of the review than the score.(hence saints row the third, a 4 star game, almost beat skyrim, a 5 star game, for goty last year)

Avatar image for xbox420
Posted By Xbox420

Jeff loves FPSs wtf are some of you guys talking about? Halo is a tired-ass franchise and needs to do more to earn 5 stars.

Avatar image for tarsier
Posted By Tarsier

@ValiantGrizzly said:

@Tarsier said:

@Mystyr_E said:

heh, it's funny: Gamespot, IGN, Destructoid, Game informer, they're like WOW dude! holy crap!

here it's like "ya know, it's good"

its because jeff is biased and always has been and he sucks at the multiplayer so it hinders his enjoyment levels. hes a racing game / fighting game guy not a FPS player he should stick to what his taste is and not give un fair reviews to other games. OF COURSE i am not assuming this is the case in this review. for all i know he could be right in not giving it 5 stars. but the past has shown that he is probly not.

he should have let drew or vinny review this game imo

I know I'm about 400 posts late in quoting this, but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

i mean, what ive said through this thread has been completely reasonable, the only way you could find fault in it is if you were assuming certain things and perceiving 'tones' that werent actually there. a lot of people assumed i was angry that this review was 4 out of 5 stars, and that i was an xbox 360 halo fanboy and raging at jeff gerstmann. if you read it without troll vision engaged you would see that there was nothing of that sort in any of my posts. but im glad you found one of them funny!

Avatar image for thebostonpops
Posted By TheBostonPops

@Tarsier said:

@Nadril said:

Kind of disappointing that it's just "more halo". Not like I care, I don't even have a 360 and I've not played Halo since the 2nd one, but some of the early footage looked to be a bit different from the original trilogy which was interesting.

Good news is if you're a Halo fan you'll probably love it. 4/5 makes a lot of sense overall.

i can see that its more than just 'more halo' by watching trailers and gameplay videos. jeff didnt piss on the new mortal kombat game for just being 'more mortal kombat'.. and i would say that game was much more of the same than halo 4 is. there is a massive amount of evolution in this game.

i don't know if you understand the words you are using here

Avatar image for thebostonpops
Posted By TheBostonPops

some of these comments are amazing