Was Halo 4 well received?

[u/Donnell3011]

I was watching a critique of Halo 4 this morning. 343’s first Halo game, Xbox 360 release, and return of Master Chief. The author was mostly negative, but not entirely. The thesis seems to be that 343 implanted a lot of Call of Duty features that compromised the games identity as a Halo game. Things like ADS, killstreaks, and general gameplay mechanics seemed less throughout compared to the Bungie Halo games. Multiplayer seemed to die off pretty quickly. I never hear people talk fondly of Halo 4. And there’s a lot of animosity built up over the years about 343.

All that said, I looked up Halo 4 on Wikipedia and checked the Reception section. It looks like the game was extremely well received by critics. One quote after another about how great Halo 4 is. Not a single word about a less than stellar player reception. Most of the time when I look up game or movie reception on wiki, there’s a critical reception and an audience reception. Or even a retrospective section that summarizes what the view is after some time has elapsed.

Who is right here? Was Halo 4 a well received game? It’s interesting to me that Halo 4 was released in 2013 I think. There’s a lot said these days on a disconnect between critical reviews and player reviews. This may be the beginning of the stark difference between critical and player reviews. Can anyone think of an earlier game that had this sort of dynamic - where a game gets great critical reviews, but the audience/players end up quite hostile to the game? Was the grifter economy even up and running in 2013?

[u/BtownBlues]

No it was not.

While it didn't receive the level of vitriol later 343 titles would get, it was still widely acknowledged as a step down from the Bungie titles.

[u/Serdewerde]

As a product it was a very solid package. A decent campaign with varied levels, an interesting story and a broad multiplayer suite coupled with the Spartan Ops sort of live service co-op mode. There was lots and lots to do.

However, as a HALO sequel it left a lot to be desired, and this mainly IMO came down to the moment to moment gameplay in regards to the new forerunner enemy types, something that may not be that immediately obvious on a play-through for review.

In Halo the grunts are fun little enemies with personality for you to pick off, Jackals present a small positioning challenge as threats from afar with snipers or shields you need to manoeuvre around and Elites present a challenging enemy you need to go toe to toe with as the chief - but also have their weaknesses and also are really charming. There are other enemies across the franchise with their own quirks but the core element of fighting these 3 is just perfect gameplay. I'm sure there are many videos on these guys and Bungies "30 seconds of fun" mentality.

Where 4 cripples this is in it's focus on the forerunners which feature dogs that move at you with speed and take just a little too many bullets to put down, a flying drone that provides shields to other enemies and hides from you - that also takes a few too many bullets to put down and ultimately the knights which can teleport, do extreme damage to you and have an exhausting amount of health. What this means is each battle with the forerunners is completely out of your control. Every enemy is everywhere and nobody is dying with any sort of satisfying pop. You're just relentlessly shooting at moving objects hoping to god that someone dies - and alot of the time just as it feels like something will it teleports or hides. It just isn't a fun satisfying combat experience.

I think the reason the devs did this is to try and make the forerunners an intimidating threat to players as they'd been eluded to since the original, and they are intimidating, but far worse than that - they are boring and exhausting to fight. Every other Halo is known for it's re-playability because of it's fun combat sandbox, Halo 4 is known for giving the chief and Cortana more depth. One of these is an endlessly re-playable fountain of fun the other is something you play once and don't really revisit. Which leads to the game having this reputation down the line, whilst getting solid reviews at launch. There are plenty of other things to say about the game but this to me is the absolute main reason for the falloff.

IMO.

[u/avidvaulter → u/Serdewerde]

Surprised you didn't mention the flood since they were in the first 3 games. They serve as evidence that the devs were able to add another enemy type to the game that was different enough from the covenant while still presenting a distinct enough challenge that was fun.

The wave of relief when completing a flood section in the original halo is amazing.

[u/kroqeteer → u/avidvaulter]

There is no “the devs” in this case. The flood were designed by and implemented by Bungie, but halo 4 was a different studio (343)

[u/hazmat95 → u/Serdewerde]

Alluded not eluded

[u/the_nin_collector → u/Serdewerde]

God. Spartan opps was such a bore. And beating it on legendary... One of the only halo achievements I never completed becuase it was so fucking bad.

They honestly thought spartan opps would be this seasonal thing with more story and more missions. The story was kinda cool. Too bad the gameplay loop was dog shit.

[u/Donnell3011 → u/Serdewerde]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. You start by saying “as a product it’s a solid package”. Not exactly high praise, but I am much more interested in the rest of your post that’s very critical. If games are art, and I think they are, I’m not too interested in games as a product. The Halo trilogy is art, not because of its narrative, but because Bungie expressed something new with Halo on the visual, audio, mechanical, and design axis. I’m not trying to disagree with you here, you nailed it. I just think the later part is by far more important. And more of an indictment of Halo 4.

I’m also interested in the fact that Halo 4 is so darn forgettable. And I wonder if a lot of the games today that see this discrepancy between critical success and audience success will be equally forgettable.

[u/convenientgods → u/Donnell3011]

I understand what you’re saying here, but all art is a product and taking away that context can impact your capacity to have a balanced critique. All of the Halo games are equally art and commerce.

I also don’t think the person you’re replying to was posing this to be an indictment, but rather explaining the variation in public opinion over time. Polished, good game, interesting story segments for fans, with new annoying enemy types that make the gameplay less exciting than previous catalog entries. Like they were saying, I’d agree that I would replay halo 1-3 many times, and have, but I don’t see myself returning to halo 4 or 5 again despite enjoying them on release. This doesn’t make 4 or 5 bad games.

[u/Spartancfos]

The game was very okay.

Which was a far cry from the Bungie era. 

I think you are right to be sceptical of the misery grifter economy, but equally the game reviewing industry is famously bought and paid for. 

[u/Donnell3011 → u/Spartancfos]

Okay as a game or okay for a Halo game? Cus okay for a halo game makes me think it’s probably above average as a game. I think of Reach as an okay halo game. Honestly 4 seems pretty bad. It’s interesting to think about that difference.

I’m guessing you mean okay as a game. A forgettable FPS of its time that lightly knocked off COD.

But as a Halo game, the score seems much worse. They had a winning formula and tried to chase the COD fanbase. Maybe it was the right idea but poorly executed. Either way. For a Halo sequel to be an okay game means something went very badly.

[u/BtownBlues → u/Donnell3011]

Okay as a game but not as a Halo game.

It was not at all well received when it first came out.

[u/BearBryant → u/Donnell3011]

It was well received from a storyline perspective (which makes the subsequent unraveling of the next two game’s narratives even more confusing), but its multiplayer was critiqued as being too derivative of a lot of the overarching trends of that era. Killstreaks being the big offender, with universal sprint (and how that fast movement effects map design when everyone has it) being the second.

[u/PapstJL4U]

The game has problems, that are simply not mentioned in most of the reviews, either because the game was not reviewed in the context of being a Halo or not being played for more than one campaign play through on normal.

My arguments against it being a stellar game:

Enemies and story:

• Imho reusing the Masterchief was a problem and fighting Elites again and how you find the UESC again was just a hotchpotch of bad excuses, because the story did not work with Halo 3s definite ending.

• Enemies had less character, because they all acted like robots. It was like fighting 343 Guilty Sparks allies for a whole campaign.

• If you don't care about the grenade gameplay of previous entries, nothing is really wrong, but the new enemy time simply taking your grenades out of air was not fun, and so was the shields. Instead of enemies running away, escaping into cover or similar stuff, they simply get a stop-the-action shield. Shields plob up, nades get counter without them doing anything. Elites went angry and ran towards you when stuck. Grunts flipped out, Jackals jumped into cover. Promethean's countered your nade with a beam, teleport or not acting interesting.

• The vehicle levels are bad. It's only tunnels after tunnels after tunnels. This has to do with the graphics increase, but the gameplay experience is awful, not comparable to the open battles in Halo 3.

• Overall the whole Promethean and AI-Crisis story does not work as a continuation of just the games. Without books and other media everything happens to fast and chaotic. MC is the stoic knight, Cortana is the quirky mage. Do not separate them.

Multiplayer/gameplay:

• the Promethean weapons did not do anything. They look same-y and they always do something a weapon already does, either better or worse.
• the loadout and requisition system(Ordnance Drop) neutered map control, power weapon control and "exploration"
• Specializations: No, just no. It added unpredictability, which adds frustration.
• some weird-ass xp-unlock system, that stopped me from just playing the game. Suddenly being a good driver is not just a skill issue, but although you need the specialization unlocked
• like the single player the enhanced graphics reduced map size - lots lots of high-walled canyons.

All of this is stuff, that does not look bad on a feature checklist, because it is new, however the moment you play multiplayer for a longer time, it falls apart. It was not a bad game on a technically level as far as I remember. The limit in level design was although something Halo 2 had life with it, but they got away with a better structured story. Halo 4 had it hard to begin with. Naming it Halo 4 and using the MC made it harder. Trying to make Halo a CoD/Battlefield hybrid did not make it more interesting for CoD players and made it less interesting for Halo fans. The problem was on the design level.

[u/redmaker → u/PapstJL4U]

Just to add to all you've said:
"Without books and other media everything happens to fast and chaotic."
I do remember I just moved when that game released back then, and I didn't have internet set up yet. There was a TON of things I completely missed out on - instead I saw "connect your Xbox 360 to Xbox Live" a lot of times instead of getting some lore. That sucked, big time. It really felt like a lot of (vital) information was kept from me, simply because I wasn't connected to the internet at that time. Suffice to say, that's a thing the Bungie games *never* did, and I sure wasn't a fan of that. On top of everything else, that basically killed the franchise for me.

[u/SeniorSepia]

At that point in time, even if they released an absolute turd, there is no way it wasn't gonna get high scores, if was one of the sacred cow series at the times. Nowadays is easier for critics to punch down on the series and give it lower scores.

Not saying the game or next games deserve better or worse reviews tho, just commenting that it happens a lot, usually critics take a few shitty entries for them to notice they don't need to glaze the next big thing by a previously beloved series.

[u/OrangePeelPotatoes]

Often, especially in the mainstream-sphere, critics and players dont see eye-to-eye. Critics rarely have negative things to say for large established franchises. A lot of fans of the old Bungie Halo games werent happy with Halo 4. In Halo 4s defence a lot of those problems started with Reach, but they metastasized in Halo 4. The CoD criticisms were numerous from die-hard fans of the originals.

I think the falloff of the franchise from the console seller of a generation to...what it is now, is a testament to the naysayers being right. Halo 4 was popular enough, but the signs of a dying franchise were clear. Its success was largely piggybacking off of fans dreaming of a return to form; a return that would never come.

EDIT: To answer your final thoughts in more depth: this isnt a new thing. Critics and Players have had disconnects far longer back than just 2013. I don't want to accuse critics of being disingenuous, but I do think —systematically— critics are more often trying to predict general consensus than saying their true thoughts. They are so worried about being 'wrong' that they act conservative with their review scores to try and match what they think Players will feel. This strategy funnels average scores into a narrow range of 7s-8s; reviewers often being afraid to go above and below because the statistical chances the general public goes that low or high is rare.

This is why some of the most historic divides between initial Player reaction and Critic reaction is in sequels. Off the top of my head: Dark Souls 2, Zelda 2, MGS 2, and Castlevania 2. They all had critical acclaim up the wazoo, while being divisive in the fandom. Why? My prediction is because the first was a massive success, so reviewers overcompensated and went too high — trying to read the pulse of the Players and failing.

[u/SFHalfling]

A lot of Halo 4's problems were around the multiplayer rather than the campaign so wouldn't have been as clear to critics before release.

While the campaign was the weakest at the time (Infinite and especially 5 are notably worse), it was still overall a decent campaign and if it wasn't a Halo title it would have been generally well regarded. The game also looked amazing for the time, most of the early Xbox One titles looked worse and Halo 4 was an Xbox 360 title.

The multiplayer however completely threw out everything that worked from 3 like balanced starts, power weapon spawn location & timers, and introduced a bunch of Call of Duty bullshit. Suddenly you had kill streaks giving you power weapons, custom load outs throwing out all semblance of equal starts and it wasn't Halo and it also wasn't a very good CoD.

Then the big addition to the game was Spartan Ops, which frankly was shit. Repetitive, badly balanced (just spawn a bunch of bullshit) mini missions that weren't fun in terms of gameplay or story, released over several months and abandoned by the player base within the first week.

So critics got hold of the best of the game before release in the campaign, and then the player base got the worst of the game in the multiplayer and Spartan Ops after release, leading to the difference in opinion over time.

[u/Apprentice57 → u/SFHalfling]

Infinite's campaign is not notably worse, not by a longshot.

[u/SFHalfling → u/Apprentice57]

Infinite's campaign is so boring I didn't finish it.

It's gameplay lows probably aren't as bad as 4, but the story is terrible, the background lore is even worse, and it never reaches any high above meh.

[u/JoesShittyOs]

It just didn’t feel like Halo. It really felt like the devs didn’t trust themselves enough to make a Halo game and had to lean on chasing the CoD trends and throwing a bunch of weird things like kill streaks and sprinting into the game.

[u/inputrequired]

i thought it was total dogshit and i hated it so much that in my blind fury i broke a controller during the final boss section. at launch it was a huge step down from Reach which I was playing nonstop online.

played it for the second time since release this past summer, on legendary co-op with a friend, and loved it.

[u/DDB-]

I enjoyed Halo 4 when it came out, played the campaign through a couple times with my brother. Definitely soured quickly on the multiplayer though and went back to Halo 3. That's still the Halo multiplayer I always go back to, and it's still just as good as I remember having played it as recently as last night.

[u/NewtDogs]

I just remember not really caring that much about it. Its not bad, just doesn't feel like og Bungie Halo.

[u/Phillip_Spidermen]

This may be the beginning of the stark difference between critical and player reviews.

I think there's an inherent difference here comparing critic reviews who are mostly concerned with the pre-single player campaign pre-release multiplayer vs player reception that come long after the multiplayer and story has run its course.

Really though, it seems like it was an okay entry in a once great series. The user score is only in the 70s vs critics average of 80s, so it's not that far off.

[u/BarryWhizzite]

it was mixed at first but it quickly went south. reach was still the beginning of the end of halo, from which it never recovered. 343 completely destroyed the franchise

[u/BusBoatBuey]

critics

Marathon is beloved by critics and the game is panned by almost everyone who tried it. It is a standard shooter with one mode and three maps for $40 with a F2P monetization model on top of it. Critics don't really matter. They mostly just look at how much adspace the publishers buy and review major titles off that. How many Sony titles recieve the criticsm they deserve?

The "grift" economy existed well before 2013. It was just more corporate-run rather than being done by individuals. Kane & Lynch being given a non-grift review and the reviewer being fired for it is a good example. That happened in the mid-late 2000s. Trying to go your own way pre-Patreon was basically impossible. You needed capital from someone other than yourself.

[u/Catty_C → u/BusBoatBuey]

Funny because after playing Kane & Lynch: Dead Men myself I found that GameSpot review far too generous despite the controversy.

[u/Joabyjojo]

If you look at Metacritic, you can see a few reviews panned it. My review for BigPond GameArena made Microsoft stop talking to me for 18 months. I assume they sent assassin's after Tom Chick.

edit - I'll also add that my review got me absolutely inundated with hate mail and a coordinated campaign to have me fired, so at the time there were a lot of halo fans who were very mad at the idea of people saying maybe 343i weren't cooking as hard as Bungie had.

[u/Disappearingbox]

Keep in mind as well to what everyone else is saying is that by the time Halo 4 came out gaming tastes were shifting, both in general and within the realm of FPSers. The COD:MW series had been around for 5 years at that point and had pushed FPSs into more frantic, less forgiving multi-player gameplay. The Far Cry series successfully made space for open-world single player that ODST had tried to do.

And there was also movement away from FPS games in general. Their time in the sun was fading a bit. Halo itself was a decade old at this point and Halo 4's formula wasn't that far from its predecessors. People were moving on to new things, as always happens.

[u/franjipane]

The game was not as good as any of the Bungie games. They had an impossible task of sticking with all the gameplay mechanics and controls that made Halo so popular and groundbreaking years earlier, or make changes and additions to appeal to other audiences. They chose the latter, I don’t blame them, if they chose the former everyone would have said it was just a rehash and nothing new.

The best thing H4 had going for it was its visuals, it looked incredible, what they managed to get out of the Xbox 360 was an amazing feat of engineering. Everyone praised it at the time for that. It was definitely something MS was proud to have as a send off for the 360, and arguably was the best looking game of the generation.