Re: Do You Think We'll See "Halo 4" On Xbox 360?

by HellJumper Sat Jul 03, 2010 2:27 pm

Sonji wrote:http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/princeofpersia

Look at how the reviews drop.

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/toystory3

Look at how the reviews dropped. And that's a film

True,but review scores are not based off oppinions.Most arent atleast.Not from the big reviewers like IGN,Gamespot,Game informer ect.

Like I said,reviews are the only thing that holds weight in game debates.They are official.

And in the future,show some game reviews.Because I have yet to find a game that has many reviews with much different game scores.

Reveiwers review all game aspects.They just dont say "I thoguht this game was udderly boring" and if they did say that,then they will explain Why it is boring.

by SlySonji™ Sat Jul 03, 2010 2:30 pm

But it is all opinion. Let's say you and me are reviewers. You say FFVII sucked and then you explain it. I say it was amazing and then I explained. Its opinion. Also, I edited the links. I just realized they were movies. There are two games and a movie. One of them is the very game you are defending.

by HellJumper Sat Jul 03, 2010 2:38 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_3_ODST

Look at the reviews at the bottom.

All of those low scoring reviewers you showed on metacritic arent professional reviewers.That why there score doesnt weigh that much on metacritic averages.Sites like IGN,Game Informer,gamespot ect hold alot more weight on average scores and all of these major sites have scroes that are close to eachother.Why you might ask?Because all of these sites generally arent biased and are alot more professional

Ive seen biased reviews from many small sites,but are they creditable?Hell no.

Reviews can be biased,and reviews can be over harsh or overrated.That is why you shoudl trust major gaming sites,instead of the small random ones.

by SlySonji™ Sat Jul 03, 2010 2:41 pm

Really? I don't see how IGN is more valid than any other review site. The only reason they weigh more is because they are the most popular. It still proves my point that reviews are opinions. Being biased is giving your opinion for something isn't it? It is still an opinion no matter which way you decide to cover it up.

by HellJumper Sat Jul 03, 2010 2:48 pm

Sonji wrote:Really? I don't see how IGN is more valid than any other review site. The only reason they weigh more is because they are the most popular. It still proves my point that reviews are opinions. Being biased is giving your opinion for something isn't it? It is still an opinion no matter which way you decide to cover it up.

You got to be kidding.Ive seen reviewers give ODST super low scores because of biased and stupid reason.Ones that pretty much call out "fanboy".So you say "why does IGN's scores more valid than these reviews",I just told you.

Alright then,ill just make my own review of Killzone 2

Killzone 2 sucked.Super boring with sterotype characters

Gameplay:Average,all you do is shoot the same enemies

Sound:Music sucked and was awfulyl boring

Story:Very boring story,tosn of sterotype characters and Rico.......

Controls:Horrible too.They ruin the game

Lasting Appeal:The game just plain sucked

Score:2/10

Now,which review is more valid,mine or IGN's

by SlySonji™ Sat Jul 03, 2010 2:50 pm

Well, IGN's is more professional, your opinion is just as valid as theirs. Do you know what a fact is? A fact is something that can be proven. It is impossible to prove that ODST is a good game. And that review of yours is an opinion. You thought it sucked.. I liked Killzone 2. In fact, I enjoyed it. You give it a 2/10. I give it an 8/10.

Definition of Opinion:

a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "I am not of your persuasion"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?"

a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; "his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page"

public opinion: a belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people; "he asked for a poll of public opinion"

Also, give me the biased reason.

by HellJumper Sat Jul 03, 2010 3:01 pm

*sigh* you cant understand my point at all.My point wasnt that reviews arent oppinion,its that average review scores only are the only thing that hold weight in a game debate.THAT IS ALL.I donnt understand why you have such a hard time understanding that.

Im done seeing as you cant undersand what I am saying

by SlySonji™ Sat Jul 03, 2010 3:03 pm

HellJumper wrote:.Reviews are the only logical factor in game debates,everything else is oppinion.

You were saying?

Anyways, I honestly do not believe Bunjie when they say that this is the last Halo game. I'll bet my money on a new one, by Bunjie, in the next 5-6 years.

by HellJumper Sat Jul 03, 2010 3:05 pm

Sonji wrote:
HellJumper wrote:.Reviews are the only logical factor in game debates,everything else is oppinion.

You were saying?

Yup,you still dont understand.You didnt understand that post and your not understanding what I just explained.

Think about what im saying.Think about a debate between 2 games.

oh and btw,I wouldnt have given Killzone 2 a 2/10 score.I was just giving an example.

by SlySonji™ Sat Jul 03, 2010 3:07 pm

I know what you are saying. But I'm talking about the post that I quoted. Also, reviews aren't really a way of determining if a game is good or not. For example ODST has a score of 83. I think the game is complete and utter crap.

by Angelus the Wraith Sat Jul 03, 2010 3:46 pm

Sonji wrote:For example ODST has a score of 83. I think the game is complete and utter crap.

Your thinking is correct.

by SlySonji™ Sat Jul 03, 2010 3:53 pm

by **TRF** Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:00 pm

Sorry, HJ, but I'm going to have to go with Sonji on this one. Mainly because I hated ODST. Silly

Reviews are opinions. They may be more detailed opinions, but they're still opinions. Look at a game like Resonance of Fate. It's an incredibly complicated, tactical, hardcore RPG. I've seen reviews where the reviewer just finished the incredibly-Westernized Final Fantasy XIII, and they thought RoF was too hard and too punishing. Meanwhile, I know people who are hardcore RPG fans who love the game to death. You don't think reviews are opinionated? This review was clearly swayed by the reviewer's preference towards watered-down JRPGs.

Look at White Knight Chronicles. It scored terribly but I know a lot of people that like it, including myself. Why are we "wrong" and the reviewer is "right"? Because we don't have a degree in journalism and we don't work for a gaming site or publication?

Reviews are generally just well-explained opinions that go with a score for people who don't want to read. The score is just as opinion-based as the review because it is based off of the review using numerical factors that the reviewer feels best represents his or her enjoyment of the game. Even a reviewer will tell you that a review is his or her own opinion.

by Teckno Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:06 pm

TRF wrote:Sorry, HJ, but I'm going to have to go with Sonji on this one. Mainly because I hated ODST.

Reviews are opinions. They may be more detailed opinions, but they're still opinions. Look at a game like Resonance of Fate. It's an incredibly complicated, tactical, hardcore RPG. I've seen reviews where the reviewer just finished the incredibly-Westernized Final Fantasy XIII, and they thought RoF was too hard and too punishing. Meanwhile, I know people who are hardcore RPG fans who love the game to death. You don't think reviews are opinionated? This review was clearly swayed by the reviewer's preference towards watered-down JRPGs.

Look at White Knight Chronicles. It scored terribly but I know a lot of people that like it, including myself. Why are we "wrong" and the reviewer is "right"? Because we don't have a degree in journalism and we don't work for a gaming site or publication?

Reviews are generally just well-explained opinions that go with a score for people who don't want to read. The score is just as opinion-based as the review because it is based off of the review using numerical factors that the reviewer feels best represents his or her enjoyment of the game. Even a reviewer will tell you that a review is his or her own opinion.

Well TRF, that can bite you back in the ass. Because, not to long ago you were explaining it was a horrible game to HJ, When its was HJ's opinion. I agree with you, but now you just admitted you cant attack ODST.

by **TRF** Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:56 pm

Teckno wrote:
TRF wrote:Sorry, HJ, but I'm going to have to go with Sonji on this one. Mainly because I hated ODST.

Reviews are opinions. They may be more detailed opinions, but they're still opinions. Look at a game like Resonance of Fate. It's an incredibly complicated, tactical, hardcore RPG. I've seen reviews where the reviewer just finished the incredibly-Westernized Final Fantasy XIII, and they thought RoF was too hard and too punishing. Meanwhile, I know people who are hardcore RPG fans who love the game to death. You don't think reviews are opinionated? This review was clearly swayed by the reviewer's preference towards watered-down JRPGs.

Look at White Knight Chronicles. It scored terribly but I know a lot of people that like it, including myself. Why are we "wrong" and the reviewer is "right"? Because we don't have a degree in journalism and we don't work for a gaming site or publication?

Reviews are generally just well-explained opinions that go with a score for people who don't want to read. The score is just as opinion-based as the review because it is based off of the review using numerical factors that the reviewer feels best represents his or her enjoyment of the game. Even a reviewer will tell you that a review is his or her own opinion.
Well TRF, that can bite you back in the ass. Because, not to long ago you were explaining it was a horrible game to HJ, When its was HJ's opinion. I agree with you, but now you just admitted you cant attack ODST.

Yea, I was explaining I thought it was a horrible game. Obviously he's allowed to enjoy it.

by solidstudios Sat Jul 03, 2010 6:16 pm

i believe TRF has just ended this argument Very Happy

by Guest Sat Jul 03, 2010 6:54 pm

meh if they do it proves microsoft/xbox is a one trick pony

by **TRF** Sun Jul 04, 2010 2:04 am

tahmidk wrote:meh if they do it proves microsoft/xbox is a one trick pony

Yes, because Halo, Gears of War, Fable, etc. are all the same.

by Reaper Sun Jul 04, 2010 3:19 pm

If they do make another Halo they should make it like Halo CE, an actual sci-fi shooter instead of a hollywood style action blockbuster.

by Franko Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:20 pm

halo CE was AWESOme if they are makin a halo 4 make it like halo CE but with a different guy

by BlackStigma Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:47 am

Bungie already said that they are making Reach like Halo CE.

And they are using a different guy now.

by **Zillah** Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:33 am

BlackStigma wrote:Bungie already said that they are making Reach like Halo CE.

And they are using a different guy now.

\

The beta wasn't like Ce. Scratching Head

by **TRF** Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:02 am

Zillah wrote:
BlackStigma wrote:Bungie already said that they are making Reach like Halo CE.

And they are using a different guy now.
\

The beta wasn't like Ce.

The beta was multiplayer. He means the campaign will be open world, like CE.

by Sponsored content