Kind of the same. I think on its own, Halo 4 is still a very solid title definitely worth the investment of a full $60. But as a halo fan, I feel it falls flat, and a lot of little annoyances have turned it into a game that I simply get frustrated with whenever I play it. But that's my very personal perspective, and I try to keep that out of a professional review, where I'm supposed to see things from more than one side.

I disagree that a professional reviewer should keep their personal perspective from reviews. As a reader, I would much rather the reviewer primarily gave their perspective, with explanation. That doesn't mean they will not consider other points of view, but a good review is a very personal thing. The best reviewers are widely read because people care what they think. They are not widely read because people care what they think people will think. Aggregate websites, like metacritic, can serve the function of balancing overall opinion.

[quote]I disagree that a professional reviewer should keep their personal perspective from reviews.[/quote]I can see the point you're making here, and I very much agree with your thoughts on aggregate websites, but I have to disagree. What sets a professional reviewer apart from a less-professional review is filtering out one's personal perspectives. My experience with a game will be different than someone else's experience, and I can't (for example) rip on a racing game's deep car customization mechanics because I personally don't care for them and don't like racing games in general. To someone else, being able to customize the visuals of their in-game vehicle could be extremely important. As a professional reviewer, I have to recognize what a game does well and what it does bad from a more objective standpoint.

I'm seeking to understand why you're so averse to the idea of injecting personal perspectives. In journalism, in a general sense, I would agree with you. When reporting the news you should be as impartial as possible. Reviews, however, are not the same. They do not [i]have[/i] to follow the same rigorous rules. Readers know that they are evaluations, rather than solid facts. I italicized have in the previous paragraph because I realize that journalism does not always allow free expression. If you are writing professionally you may need to consider the paper you are writing for, and the intended audience. A newspaper review might have a more heavy emphasis on features, than opinions. What I want to emphasize is that your belief that "What sets a professional reviewer apart from a less-professional review is filtering out one's personal perspectives" is wrong. There is more than one way - and I do not believe good writing is as result of silencing the self, I believe it is in embracing it. Also for sake of illustrating a more passionate approach [url=http://addicted-gamers.com/2012/11/11/halo-4-xbox-360-review-a-shadow-of-its-former-self/]here[/url] is a Halo 4 review that I co-wrote (I did the multiplayer section). It got a good number of hits and was well received, but more importantly I enjoyed writing it. Too often schools suck the life out of writing, by imposing strict rules and structures. Just be careful you don't sacrifice your self, and your passion.

Ok, I really appreciate your different take on this, but it looks like we're on different pages here. My review was a general review of the overall game. I was analyzing strictly whether it was worth someone's money or not. I'm trying to be polite about this, but your review of the game's multiplayer section is more of an opinion piece on the philosophical effects of this game's particular multiplayer experience. You reference things like a particular Halo 2 team, a "Skinner box economy," and care packages are so specific that few people outside a particular audience are likely to understand them. A review should be accessible and easy to be approached by a wide variety of readers. Your review might be very understandable to a hardcore Halo and shooter enthusiast, but someone who's only heard about Halo and wants to know whether Halo 4 is any good won't find your review as easy to understand. What you've written is more of an opinion piece. And there's definitely a market for that, but it doesn't belong in a review. Anybody can spew their opinion about a game (and I'm not suggesting that's what you've done here) but a reviewer has to do more than that.

I think both are definable as a review. To clarify, I think what you wrote is good (I am sorry that I was misleading when I said "a good review is a very personal thing"). None of my posts were directed at your review, they were all directed at your philosophy, which seems very narrow-minded.

Well, if my philosophy comes across as narrow-minded, then that's intentional. As I said in my first post here, I'm a college student studying journalism. In fact, this is my senior year and I'm very close to declaring journalism as my major... this is a field I've passionately studied in for years and I've been thoroughly educated about. I'm not calling myself Walter Cronkite, but I'd like to think I know a lot more about this than someone who hasn't studied the field at all. (Again, I'm not specifically talking about you, just people in general.) Sure, maybe my philosophy is biased. I'm biased against the notion that IGN gets paid money to give "unreasonably" high scores to games like Mass Effect and Call of Duty. I'm biased against the suggestion that I've heard from so many people that "you can't trust what critics say" when the latest Adam Sandler trash gets unfavorable reviews. I'm biased against the idea that for some reason the training and education and experience that reviewers have undergone in order to get to the point where they work for a major publisher has somehow made them loose "good taste" and turned them in to a "pack of haters." Furthermore, I'm really sick of so many unprofessional people giving their "reviews" of things online. I know it's impossible to prevent that completely because (thankfully) the internet provides us with the means to distribute our opinions much more broadly than any other medium. But at the same time, it also means the people who have no idea what they're talking about, but happen to be saying something popular can gain plenty of support based purely on their popularity, and thus bad (or at least uneducated) ideas can easily spread. And as a journalist, it's my job to provide accurate information, not just present the "word on the street" as fact.

I don't believe there is one strict definition of what a professional reviewer needs to be. I would agree that they need to meet a certain standard of written communication, and should be trustworthy, but beyond that it is all very subjective. I personally would rate whether people want to read it quite highly. As for your ability to appreciate racing games... I would acknowledge that you are not a big racing game fan and write from that point of view, rather than attempting to get inside a mindset you do not fully understand. That is insincere. Failing that, if you really felt unable to adequately review the material you should not review it at all. Most professional reviewers do not have that problem because they are intimately familiar with, and passionate about, their chosen field. It is this passion and the force that comes with it that I believe characterizes the best writers.