PSN to SEN: Time to rage quit? - DarkFeed
19 hours 33 mins ago
Ah yes, another Halo game. Like 'em or not, the franchise is showing no signs of slowing down. Bungie brings us Halo 3: ODST this year, utilizing a little more creative freedom with Master Chief out of the picture.
It's a solid game -- a little bit of the old along with all the new stuff. Definitely a must-try for Halo fans, or even those looking for an enjoyable multiplayer shooter.
Hopefully this is the last late review you have to put up with / we have to push out.
The story basically follows a squad of Orbital Drop Shock Troopers, an elite military branch of UNSC. You play as an ODST recruit appropriately named "Rookie," as he is deployed over New Mombasa with fellow troopers. In the opening cutscene, which was released well before the game, we watch shit hit the fan as a Covenant ship enters slipspace, trying to get away from Master Chief, who's all up in the Prophet of Regret's business. This event scatters the ODST pods throughout the city below, separating the Rookie from his more experienced comrades. He wakes up six hours later, and the game picks up from there.
New Mombasa, a husk of what it once was, is now your playground. This open world thing is new to Halo, and Bungie made sure players would not feel lost. As you wander the remnants of New Mombasa, there are plenty of hints that you may utilize to find your way, separate from the little blue compass diamond we're so used to seeing. Hitting "up" on the D-pad brings up icons indicating unlocked doorways, and a 3D, fully interactive city-wide map marks marks your next destination, enemies, supply caches, and so on. An ODST's weapons of choice are the M7S SMG and M6S Magnum -- an effective combination. Your starting arsenal is enough to carry you through the entire game without ever having to trade up (or down), but the city offers a wide selections that might inspire memories of Halo-past.
News story attached to:
Comments
Review scores are the worst; people develop tunnel vision and become increasingly focused on numbers, thus glazing over the review itself... if they bother reading at all. Have you noticed everyone's been saying, "9.5 TOO HIGH OMFG WHINE" and not, "I do not agree with this reviewer's points because..."?
Scores have always been the least important part of reviews for me, but Metacritic (owned by CBS, the same group that acquired GameSpot for $1.8 billion) is just deluding everyone into thinking the score is it.
Hey, the review praised it? Great, I disagree based on experience, and that alone is irrefutable.
The fact is, some people are not as hardcore as others, they won't play with the sole intent of skipping each cut-scene and seeing how fast they can decimate everything. While everyone games, we're not all the same.
There's no need to start trying to issue slams saying that people who have actually played the game would know better. She played the game and completed it (RTFA), there's no pre-req in our reviewers to be anal about every facet of gaming, we account for new players, for fans of the series and casual players.
Ease up, she didn't kick your dog and leave the fridge door open.
Now that you've replied though, you're off with your claim, you're justifying that people can simply judge reviews based on scores not on content because they have experience with the game and are then entitled to make claims that the reviewer never actually played the game. Blind judgement should never be applauded as it encourages people to run around with blinders on attacking anything without accountability to their own claims "Well I didn't read it but the score seemed wrong so they must be wrong and so my claim that they never played the game must be right because I never actually looked into things beyond the score".
It's fine to have people all up in arms with both sides on the table, it's another to just make it a one sided thing. "I didn't rtfa and I don't have to because I played it and the numbers seem high even if the content of the article may seem to indicate where they came from with the final score" It's fine if you want to run that way, just don't expect people to listen to anything you say in return. In the end it's a circle of people plugging their ears going "nononononononono" until they all pass out.
There's a reason I don't come to Gamegrep, this seems to just highlight it.
Whether or not people listen to you is, again, something irrelevant. People have posted WORSE in other review articles...IN THIS WEBSITE ALONE, REALLY not getting why this is a big deal.
Your selective blindness should be marked, I never said you actually slammed the piece I said you were justifying that (re-read my statement that you quoted, it's ok I can wait). There's a difference, you should understand that without trying to take it out of context and make yourself a victim.
"I'm just trying to explain that "it's ignorant to judge the game's quality without reading the review" is not ignorant when someone's actually played the game. Doesn't make the review any less credible at all."
You're justifying the actions, don't backpedal and steer the conversation another way because you don't like where your words are going.
I never said I was running away I was noting how this highlights the common low points in commenting. People refuse to respond to actual statements and dance around them like politicians.
I am justifying--judge reviews--claiming that the reviewer never played the game?! Well you lost me, I ACTUALLY RE-READ my comments to see where I (or said it was ok to) deemed either the review OR the reviewer as something demeaning, but I don't see it anywhere. Swing and a miss.
Second quote:
I had to kinda point out the little flaw in the quote you were supposedly keeping "in-context". How does THAT translate into "judging the review's quality" again? I mean, my words are GOING somewhere...just don't know where you're actually taking them.
I'm not justifying or propagating "ignorance" anywhere. All I've been saying is that if you played the game and you disagree with the general scale/rating of a game that you own then it doesn't really matter much how the reviewer came to that conclusion, does it? Doesn't really hurt the review (or reviewer), and it's still credible towards people who DON'T own the product. By that logic, anyone who has read the score of a review and even THOUGHT of saying "god, this game deserved more/less" as they passed the page on a magazine should be considered an idiot? Seriously, thanks for blowing it out of proportion.
This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.