I find the number system itself so god damn inane. How can you compress a 30-hour experience into a single digit? If these people would sit down and read what the guy wrote, they might learn something.
That was always the hardest part for me. I would always write everything out and then be forced to slap a number on it. But there's so much behind that number that you can't see from a distance.
A racing game that's rated an 8/10 might not be the best game that year, but is a phenomenal racing game and a great one in that series. An action game that's a 7/10 could be a better overall game, but has to have a lower score due to retreading a lot of familiar ground and being the millionth sequel for it.
The number system (as well as the review system as a whole: see my thoughts on MP earlier in this thread) is inherently flawed but due to the way people work is necessary. We all bitch at the people who instantly scroll down to read a number and THEN read the review (if they even do), but they make up the majority of readers sadly.
I totally agree that we need reviews like that. It's what initially led me to Sterling's reviews, because I thought Ass Creed games were shit as well and I was starting to think that I was the only one who thought so.
To be perfectly honestly I could give two shits about Firefight and campaign scoring being removed. I barely ever played Firefight and even then I only really played it in short spurts to break up sessions of multi-player. Firefight for me was in the same vein as mindless shooting galleries like Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor in that it got boring for me quickly. Campaign scoring I never got the point (haha, puns) of in the first place.
Firefight is no big loss, but campaign scoring was fun if you were meh about Halo's story but liked playing the game. With skulls added and points it was more fun than just playing the game for the hell of it. I liked being virtually rewarded for my time.
"Quarter to Three uses a five star scale. One of the reasons I avoid percentage ratings is that too many people associate it with grade school, where anything below a 70% is a failing grade. Any scale where only the top third of the ratings is considered acceptable is a broken scale. Which is fine for children doing multiple choice questions about The Scarlet Letter, isosceles triangles, or the capital of France. But adults evaluating entertainment should be afforded the full range of any ratings scale."
Eh I call horse shit on the scoring mode complaint. Who fucking cared about scoring ever? Skulls are just fancy sauce challenges with or without scoring. And complaining Rampancy's a thing? Dudes butt hurt about something.
I liked campaign scoring because it gave the campaign an added level of replay value. You could choose to ignore it but it was there if you wanted it. It seems like a pretty easy thing to implement, so I'm curious as to why 343 decided to get rid of it. Not a huge loss, but it does mean that I'll play the campaign less.
Is it bad if I stopped reading that one guys review when he basically made "playing a little Halo" sound like the bad part? You play Halo...to play Halo. Would it be cool to have the Mammoth shoot? Sure, set-pieces and flashy lights and all that jazz but I wouldn't exactly make "playing a little Halo" out to be the last in the order of things to enjoy in a Halo game.
Except I just read the review to see how it panned out and it read like "But mommy! The other one has this! I want that one instead!". It may have read like he was sincere in meaning what he said, but none of that seemed to come from an objective stance. That sounded like butthurt about the exclusion of some modes, which then bled into the rest of his "enjoyment" of the game.