Halo Wars: are you surprised by gamespot's review?

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]The fact that you have an obvious issue with people expressing differing opinions is solely your problem and one you will need to overcome if you plan to keep posting here - or going to game shops, it seems. After reading your last few posts, I find it hilarious that you should lecture anyone about maturity and manners.RandolphScott

Read this again.

"I said that the notion is stupid, not you. My harsh comment was directed solely at the notion, believe it or not, you're not the first one to come up with such an idea as I did hear it before. I did not, nor did I intend to, insult you in any way. Your argument, however, is fair game."

You need to let it go and stop insulting him and everyone else with a high post count. Most of us have been on this for years, our post count didnt jump to 10,000 overnight. The only reason you dont have a high post count is not because you have a life, it's because you are too neurotic and a-holish to stay in one place for an extended period of time. Read, nobody wants you around.

You need it more than me, I can tell.RandolphScott

Am I surprised? Yes. Do I think the reviewer wrote a fair review? No.

Metacritic - 82 (as you can see, Gamespot gave it the lowest score so far.)

I've never been a supporter of the notion that games exist in a vacuum. Doesn't really matter what platform it's on. Reviews should be informative to gamers - console or otherwise. They shouldn't assume that only console gamers are interested in it or that console gamers have never played anything on PC before. If someone makes a crappy PC Ninja Gaiden-type action game, it should be said that it's crap - not give it a pass because those types of games are rare on PC. Same goes for RTS games on consoles. UpInFlames

Take The Witcher for example, it got a high score but none of the websites mention that I may not get to play it for months because I have Vista, an OS that the game says it works on. So since the game doesn't exist on consoles (as of yet) would it be right for the review to say "If I had a 360 RPG and I bought it only to find out it doesn't work on all 360 elites, the game should be given a 4.5" I mean all it is is comparing RPG's across systems and throwing in the fact that since the game didn't work on all PC upon release so we can easily imagine the frustration of bringing home a console game and finding out it doesn't on only a certain type of system even though it says it should on the box.

If you object to that, and you're still not convinced you don't have to look farther than GS review policy and see that they state that games they review are reviewed as that system's games and in that genre and are compared to other games in that genre on other systems to a "lesser" extent. That I have no problem with and that is a fiar comparison. All throughout the HAlo Wars review, it states that if you're used to PC RTS's, then this game is going to be too simplistic for your tastes. That is a fair notion and the game shouldn't be penalized seeing as it's not a PC game and the grand majority of 360 players probably aren't die hard RTS fans

[QUOTE="Iceman8012"][QUOTE="Video_Game_King"]

The guys behind Age of Empires? Either way, something's up.

Video_Game_King

Keep in mind that I'm an old school gamer, meaning I'm hyping FF10 and the Nintendo Dolphin :P.

actually they made a few action-rpgs before halo and umm..thats it.it went myth flalen lords > ages of wolvves>soulblighter>metal age>oni>halo>H2>H3>halo wars>halo ODST

and somewhere in there comes marathon which again rocked sumthin fierce.

and those myth games are quite strategic and had lots of vlaue in them. its a shame they dont make another and all the XBL DLC for wars will not make me think its as good as myth was. really the franchise logo alone it what keeps it from burning like so many no name rts's before it. like think on it if this was say an rts called say "extinction" and had different units & structures (visually) would it still be a good game? and really the halo franchise is what keeps it afloat as its too simplistic for it to be good.

Actually as a supporter of PC games you must support the notion that games live in a vacuum. You read and don't seem to have a problem with PC review scores when all they are is a poor amalgamation of less than a fraction of total variables out there. They don't even come close to telling me the kind of experience I'll have with a game if i just meet the minimum requirements let alone my very own set up.

Take The Witcher for example, it got a high score but none of the websites mention that I may not get to play it for months because I have Vista, an OS that the game says it works on. So since the game doesn't exist on consoles (as of yet) would it be right for the review to say "If I had a 360 RPG and I bought it only to find out it doesn't work on all 360 elites, the game should be given a 4.5" I mean all it is is comparing RPG's across systems and throwing in the fact that since the game didn't work on all PC upon release so we can easily imagine the frustration of bringing home a console game and finding out it doesn't on only a certain type of system even though it says it should on the box.smerlus

No, I don't think that's even similar. That's a completely different issue. And unfortunately, as was the case with my two copies of Fable II, not all console games work on the consoles they are supposed to anymore. And just like your Fable II copy worked and mine didn't - a lot of people were able to play The Witcher on Vista even though you couldn't. The example I provided reflects this situation much better, I think.

If you object to that, and you're still not convinced you don't have to look farther than GS review policy and see that they state that games they review are reviewed as that system's games and in that genre and are compared to other games in that genre on other systems to a "lesser" extent. That I have no problem with and that is a fiar comparison. All throughout the HAlo Wars review, it states that if you're used to PC RTS's, then this game is going to be too simplistic for your tastes. That is a fair notion and the game shouldn't be penalized seeing as it's not a PC game and the grand majority of 360 players probably aren't die hard RTS fans.smerlus

You could probably trace back my posts dating back to 2005 where I very much disagree with that particular GameSpot review policy. That's the reason why multiplatform PC games constantly get marked down even though the reviewer plainly states that it's the best version. For example, GregK flat out confirmed that the only reason that Oblivion got a lower mark on PC was because of other high quality PC RPG's. That's what I very much disagree with - same game = should recieve the same score. A game that somehow became better just because it was released on a certain system even though it is in reality an inferior version...that's just backwards logic as far as I'm concerned.

What if Halo Wars was released on PC at the same time? Should it have gotten a 6.5 on PC and a 8.5 on 360 even though it's the same exact game? I don't see how on Earth does that make any sense.

[QUOTE="Video_Game_King"][QUOTE="Iceman8012"] ummmmmmm....... did you guys lose memory to the fact that Bungie sold the Halo name to Microsoft after Halo 3 released. Yes they are working on ODST but they don't own the name anymore.aura_enchanted

Keep in mind that I'm an old school gamer, meaning I'm hyping FF10 and the Nintendo Dolphin :P.

actually they made a few action-rpgs before halo and umm..thats it.it went myth flalen lords > ages of wolvves>soulblighter>metal age>oni>halo>H2>H3>halo wars>halo ODST

and somewhere in there comes marathon which again rocked sumthin fierce.

and those myth games are quite strategic and had lots of vlaue in them. its a shame they dont make another and all the XBL DLC for wars will not make me think its as good as myth was. really the franchise logo alone it what keeps it from burning like so many no name rts's before it. like think on it if this was say an rts called say "extinction" and had different units & structures (visually) would it still be a good game? and really the halo franchise is what keeps it afloat as its too simplistic for it to be good.

I would love another Myth as well. They're strategy games though, by most categorisations at least.

As for Halo Wars, the demo convinced me (as a fairly experienced RTS player) that it's at least worth a purchase, unlike all the other console RTS attempts before it. Part of it is the Halo franchise of course but it's also the first one which manages to make a good balance between complexity and controls IMO - there's cover and secondary abilities but they're simplified so that the game still is very managable on a game pad. The skirmishes I played were actually quite fun and I could see myself spend a good amount of time playing with console-only friends whom I wouldn't be able to play RTSs with otherwise. The different commanders also seem like a cool feature, I hope they will be as much fun as the different commanders in DoW2.

It's not a game that will replace any PC RTS and I think the gamespot score is justified if the game is compared to the RTS offerings on that platform, but as a console game it's in its own league IMO, just based on the demo (I own BFME2 and played the demo for C&C3 on the 360). The last console RTS I actually enjoyed playing was the Populous: The Beginning port for the PS1, mainly because the port was excellent and the gameplay small-scale enough to work on a console.

When I played the demo, I thought it was fun, but it seemed a little shallow. Everything is so streamlined and you never feel any incentive to build in one direction or the other. Basically, every unit requires the same two basic structures and only has one path of upgrades. It really lacked the sort of strategic options you can typically find in an RTS.

Also, both playable factions are very similar. There are some unique options, like the ability to add shields to your structures for Covenant forces, but overall each army has its version of a particular troop class that differs really in looks only. Allowing the Flood to be playable in MP would have helped. Some people say there is no sensible way to do this because the Flood don't gather resources, they don't build bases, etc. But I say, look at a game like Universe at War (also on the 360 - and it controls just as well as Halo Wars) where you have a faction that can gather resources by zapping up cows and humans. There is even a unit in this army that can infect human populations and turn them into hostile zombie like creatures. This is not so different from the Flood. Had Ensemble really had the mind to, they could have easily made the Flood into a playable faction. Instead, you have two factions that feel the same, but look different. The Flood could have at least breathed some variety into this game.

Neverthless, I think a lot of people who don't typically play RTSs will enjoy this. It's diet RTSing for the console gamers out there. I think keyboards will always be better for this genre (just as controllers will always be better for just about everything else), but there are still some quality attempts, like the aforementioned Universe at War, available on consoles. Games like UaW show that while you will have to simplify the controls for console, you don't need to simplify the gameplay. I think Halo Wars may be guilty of the latter, and I won't be surprised if a couple of sites call them on it. But I haven't played the final game, so none of these opinions are set in stone.

Ish_basic

Its nice when someone makes the post you were going to make, only even more in-depth, QFT.

The controls and the cutscenes are basically the game's highlights IMO, and I don't see much that is really an improvement over C&C3. It lacks variety, it lacks replayability, and most of all in overall value. I could see myself renting this game, but with all of the other titles coming out around this time I'll have to pass on a buy. I'm perfectly happy with Command & Conquer 3, especially given that it has so much eye candy (Natasha anybody) for me to look at

I'm perfectly happy with Command & Conquer 3, especially given that it has so much eye candy (Natasha anybody) for me to look atHiResDes

No, I don't think that's even similar. That's a completely different issue. And unfortunately, as was the case with my two copies of Fable II, not all console games work on the consoles they are supposed to anymore. And just like your Fable II copy worked and mine didn't - a lot of people were able to play The Witcher on Vista even though you couldn't. The example I provided reflects this situation much better, I think.

UpInFlames

That Fable II situation was nonsense. It took a full install on my XB360 to play the game properly, which is unfortunate given how good the game actually is.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]I've never been a supporter of the notion that games exist in a vacuum. Doesn't really matter what platform it's on. Reviews should be informative to gamers - console or otherwise. They shouldn't assume that only console gamers are interested in it or that console gamers have never played anything on PC before. If someone makes a crappy PC Ninja Gaiden-type action game, it should be said that it's crap - not give it a pass because those types of games are rare on PC. Same goes for RTS games on consoles. smerlus

Actually, most of the PC reviews I've read tell you explicitly what kind of performance to expect from the minimum requirements. Many actually give examples of various performance levels. Regardless, PC gaming is and always will be a scalable experience because the number of possible hardware configurations is literally infinite.

I prefer variety to come from different ways to use units rather than a lot of different units. The Covenant are quite different from the UNSC if you looks at the units more in-depth - they're generally weaker but have some interesting special abilities on their stronger units (for example the honour guard's cloak) and their best units are absolutely monstrous, in contrast to the UNSC that fields a more uniform army. As long as the multiplayer stands the balance test - which I'm actually not too convinced about right now - Halo Wars is the only console RTS I could even consider playing online and that adds a lot of value to the game, for me personally at least. .inoperativeRS

Well the scarab is an absolute beast. I have no idea what it would take to bring one of those things down (because the AI is so terrible in the demo, they never last long enough to build one). But I put up one of those for fun, and it's just insane. Granted, it ties up a huge amount of assets and has a hefty resource cost, but if you get one...with resource sharing, it might just be worthwhile for teams to dump resources at a "Scarab base." I'm not sure if 3 Vultures would be enough (which is roughly the Marine equivalent of the Scarab's total cost).

But this is definitely a game that's encouraging you to micromanage battles, whereas often with an RTS, if you get caught watching a fight, you're gonna get ganked. This game wants you to pay attention to all the little skirmishes, so that when that anti-infantray shows up, you can just speed your Warthogs in there and run them over before you lose your ODSTs, for example. That's cool - I like this emphasis on battling vs base-building, and I think it will draw in a lot of people who don't typically play RTSs. But I still don't think the factions are varied or numerous enough. The special abilities help a lot, but they would help even more if upgrade options actually had multiple paths.

Yes, I thought it was a little unfair that the reviewer compared it to other RTS on the PC when instead he should be comparing it to RTS games on the consoles. Other review sites were looking at the game from a console point of view which is the reason why they gave the game a positive review. Either way I like the demo as I played the skirmish for hours and I can see some depth in the gameplay. klusps

While I see where you are coming from, I believe that if a game comes out today, it should be compared to every game ine the genre that came before it. it isn't like those who have Halo Wars don't have access to play those games on PC it is compared to.

[QUOTE="inoperativeRS"]I prefer variety to come from different ways to use units rather than a lot of different units. The Covenant are quite different from the UNSC if you looks at the units more in-depth - they're generally weaker but have some interesting special abilities on their stronger units (for example the honour guard's cloak) and their best units are absolutely monstrous, in contrast to the UNSC that fields a more uniform army. As long as the multiplayer stands the balance test - which I'm actually not too convinced about right now - Halo Wars is the only console RTS I could even consider playing online and that adds a lot of value to the game, for me personally at least. .Ish_basic

Well the scarab is an absolute beast. I have no idea what it would take to bring one of those things down (because the AI is so terrible in the demo, they never last long enough to build one). But I put up one of those for fun, and it's just insane. Granted, it ties up a huge amount of assets and has a hefty resource cost, but if you get one...with resource sharing, it might just be worthwhile for teams to dump resources at a "Scarab base." I'm not sure if 3 Vultures would be enough (which is roughly the Marine equivalent of the Scarab's total cost).

But this is definitely a game that's encouraging you to micromanage battles, whereas often with an RTS, if you get caught watching a fight, you're gonna get ganked. This game wants you to pay attention to all the little skirmishes, so that when that anti-infantray shows up, you can just speed your Warthogs in there and run them over before you lose your ODSTs, for example. That's cool - I like this emphasis on battling vs base-building, and I think it will draw in a lot of people who don't typically play RTSs. But I still don't think the factions are varied or numerous enough. The special abilities help a lot, but they would help even more if upgrade options actually had multiple paths.

That Fable II situation was nonsense. It took a full install on my XB360 to play the game properly, which is unfortunate given how good the game actually is.Grammaton-Cleric

Man, I'm still totally bitter about not being able to play that game - it was a big reason why I bought a 360 in the first place. I spent hours fiddling with it (as a PC gamer I was certainly familiar with such a situation and I was willing to invest time to fix it, but you just don't have much options on consoles when it comes to stuff like that), but I just couldn't get it to work. Amazon sent me a replacement copy free of charge, but no dice. Couldn't even install it. So I was forced to return both copies for a full refund. I don't know what the patch fixed, but I'm still too worried to buy it again. Waiting for the PC version seems like a sensible answer, but after having played the original game both on Xbox and PC, I'd much rather play Fable II on the 360. It just feels better, for some reason.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]That Fable II situation was nonsense. It took a full install on my XB360 to play the game properly, which is unfortunate given how good the game actually is.UpInFlames

Man, I'm still totally bitter about not being able to play that game - it was a big reason why I bought a 360 in the first place. I spent hours fiddling with it (as a PC gamer I was certainly familiar with such a situation and I was willing to invest time to fix it, but you just don't have much options on consoles when it comes to stuff like that), but I just couldn't get it to work. Amazon sent me a replacement copy free of charge, but no dice. Couldn't even install it. So I was forced to return both copies for a full refund. I don't know what the patch fixed, but I'm still too worried to buy it again. Waiting for the PC version seems like a sensible answer, but after having played the original game both on Xbox and PC, I'd much rather play Fable II on the 360. It just feels better, for some reason.

What if Halo Wars was released on PC at the same time? Should it have gotten a 6.5 on PC and a 8.5 on 360 even though it's the same exact game? I don't see how on Earth does that make any sense.

Actually, most of the PC reviews I've read tell you explicitly what kind of performance to expect from the minimum requirements. Many actually give examples of various performance levels. Regardless, PC gaming is and always will be a scalable experience because the number of possible hardware configurations is literally infinite.

I could'nt care less what a reviewer thinks about a game, the great thing about life is that we are all individuals with individual taste.

GAMESPOT should change the way they review games, because many gamers who use this site have simply lost respect and faith in video reviews. Two or three gamers should play the whole game, have a meeting, then write a review together. Instead of one individual just playing through part of the game, writing a quick review then moving onto the next one !

It's a great time to be a gamer.

Decades Of Gaming.

I could'nt care less what a reviewer thinks about a game, the great thing about life is that we are all individuals with individual taste.

GAMESPOT should change the way they review games, because many gamers who use this site have simply lost respect and faith in video reviews. Two or three gamers should play the whole game, have a meeting, then write a review together. Instead of one individual just playing through part of the game, writing a quick review then moving onto the next one !

It's a great time to be a gamer.

Decades Of Gaming.

DecadesOfGaming

It is very similar, you're trying to compare a game that comes out on a one system to games that come out on another system that could either play the game far better or far worse and that has a wide amount of input options to play the game with. You're very willing to accept the positives of your favorite platform but unwilling to accept the negatives.smerlus

No, it's simply that I see those two issues as completely different things altogether. The comparison simply doesn't make sense to me. Again, the real comparison would be if someone made a crappy Ninja Gaiden type action game for PC and everyone gave it a pass because it doesn't have to compete with Ninja Gaiden. My point is that it frickin' does have to compete with Ninja Gaiden because I'm a PC gamer who--gasp!--has played Ninja Gaiden and anyone assuming that because I'm a PC gamer I am somehow oblivious to Ninja Gaiden's existance is dead wrong and has no right for such an assumption in the first place. Such reviews spread misinformation and have no real relevance to gamers. This PC action game has to be compared to other similar games - regardless on what platform it is released. I am very much aware that gamers, critics and the industry as a whole is propagating this supposed platform divisions, but I am very much against it because it only leads to misinformation.

Halo Wars is an awesome game on the 360, but it's crap if you have a PC. How can a game be awesome and crap at the same time? It's either one or the other.

Applebees doesn't get compared to some restaruant were the dinners cost $150 a plate, Ford Focuses don't get compared to a brand new lexus and Batman Begins doesn't get compared to The Godfather.smerlus

Exactly. Comparing a Focus to a Lexus would be like comparing an RTS to a FPS. Comparing a Focus to other cars within its cIass, on the other hand, is the right way to go about it which then equates to Halo Wars being compared to Dawn of War II, for example, because they both belong in the same genre.

[QUOTE="smerlus"]It is very similar, you're trying to compare a game that comes out on a one system to games that come out on another system that could either play the game far better or far worse and that has a wide amount of input options to play the game with. You're very willing to accept the positives of your favorite platform but unwilling to accept the negatives.UpInFlames

No, it's simply that I see those two issues as completely different things altogether. The comparison simply doesn't make sense to me. Again, the real comparison would be if someone made a crappy Ninja Gaiden type action game for PC and everyone gave it a pass because it doesn't have to compete with Ninja Gaiden. My point is that it frickin' does have to compete with Ninja Gaiden because I'm a PC gamer who--gasp!--has played Ninja Gaiden and anyone assuming that because I'm a PC gamer I am somehow oblivious to Ninja Gaiden's existance is dead wrong and has no right for such an assumption in the first place. Such reviews spread misinformation and have no real relevance to gamers. This PC action game has to be compared to other similar games - regardless on what platform it is released. I am very much aware that gamers, critics and the industry as a whole is propagating this supposed platform divisions, but I am very much against it because it only leads to misinformation.

Halo Wars is an awesome game on the 360, but it's crap if you have a PC. How can a game be awesome and crap at the same time? It's either one or the other.

Applebees doesn't get compared to some restaruant were the dinners cost $150 a plate, Ford Focuses don't get compared to a brand new lexus and Batman Begins doesn't get compared to The Godfather.smerlus

Exactly. Comparing a Focus to a Lexus would be like comparing an RTS to a FPS. Comparing a Focus to other cars within its cIass, on the other hand, is the right way to go about it which then equates to Halo Wars being compared to Dawn of War II, for example, because they both belong in the same genre.

I could'nt care less what a reviewer thinks about a game, the great thing about life is that we are all individuals with individual taste.

GAMESPOT should change the way they review games, because many gamers who use this site have simply lost respect and faith in video reviews. Two or three gamers should play the whole game, have a meeting, then write a review together. Instead of one individual just playing through part of the game, writing a quick review then moving onto the next one !

It's a great time to be a gamer.

Decades Of Gaming.

DecadesOfGaming

Wait... you couldn't care less what a reviewer thinks, and we are all individuals with our own taste, but you think Gamespot should change the way they review games? Why? Because you do not agree with the reviewer's opinion? Do you realize you are contradicting everything you said? It sounds like what you are really saying is video reviews are only valid if they agree with your opinion.

Foxhound_Fox.. I appreciate you informing me about your own games, but more to the point, there will always be a percentage of youngsters who use this site that will watch video reviews and dismiss a game if the reviewer awards it with a low score. My point is Simply don't let other gamers make your mind up for you.. Like I said.. 'We are all individuals, with individual tastes'.

allbatrossdrums.. lol.. yeh thats correct, personally I don't give a hoot what someone else thinks about a game, I like to make my own mind up thanks because I'm the one spending the cash.. And yes your also correct that I think GAMESPOT should change the way they review games. Youngsters are easilly influenced. An in depth open video review/discussion completed by more than just one gamer from different back grounds with different tasts would certainly be more valid and benificial and convincing than say a review from just the one gamer. But that's just my opinion. Your welcome to your own.

look at Raving Rabbids for the 360 and the Wii, the Wii version was rated higher because it took advantage of the control scheme, which is a benefit of the Wii. Same exact game on both platforms yet one was better because of a certain platform's strengths. Same exact thing with RE 4's PC vs console versions. The PC version didn't take advantage of k/m controls so it was rated lower. Halo CE on xbox and PC... it was said that halo was one of the best FPS on consoles ever and when it hit PC it was meh. It is so easy to see that a game could be good on one system and bad on another either due to strengths and weaknesses on systems or just genre saturation.smerlus

I am talking about a game which is equal or at least very close in quality on both platforms. Resident Evil 4 was a horrible, horrible PC port, it wasn't even close in terms of quality to the console versions. Of course it got lower scores, deservedly so. Halo: Combat Evolved, on the other hand, was meh when I played it on Xbox and it was the same kind of meh when I briefly checked it out on PC - it was the same game therefore the platform had no bearing on its true quality (from my personal point of view). Those who found it excellent on Xbox didn't change their minds when they played it on PC, either.

a crappy game is always going to be a crappy game so i don't know what you expect to accomplish with saying that a garbage ninja gaiden game would be great on PC. It still has to play good, look good and be stable just like every other PC game has to to be considered a good game on PC regardless of how many games there are in that genre.smerlus

So we are in agreement then? Yeah, games have to be good regardless of platform. You're the one advocating free passes to subpar games simply because of what platform they're released on and the distribution of different scores to the same exact game.

However if the next devil may cry comes out on PC only and looks good, plays well and is very stable, they can say that it's the best hack and slash on PC and give it a 9 but when it comes over to consoles and it goes up against ninja gaiden, god of war, bayonetta, ninja blade, it may only be better than 2 of them therefore it might get a lower score.smerlus

Yeah, they can and they probably will - but I'll still disagree with such a practice. Like I said before, I am very much aware that it's a widely used and accepted practice. :wink:

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]That Fable II situation was nonsense. It took a full install on my XB360 to play the game properly, which is unfortunate given how good the game actually is.xsubtownerx

Man, I'm still totally bitter about not being able to play that game - it was a big reason why I bought a 360 in the first place. I spent hours fiddling with it (as a PC gamer I was certainly familiar with such a situation and I was willing to invest time to fix it, but you just don't have much options on consoles when it comes to stuff like that), but I just couldn't get it to work. Amazon sent me a replacement copy free of charge, but no dice. Couldn't even install it. So I was forced to return both copies for a full refund. I don't know what the patch fixed, but I'm still too worried to buy it again. Waiting for the PC version seems like a sensible answer, but after having played the original game both on Xbox and PC, I'd much rather play Fable II on the 360. It just feels better, for some reason.

The Fable II problem has never been fully explained but many, many people reported constant freezing issues with the game that persisted and were not fixed with replacement discs. The problem was random because it affected both newer and older XB360 models. I have a fairly new system (my third, F You Microsoft) and it kept freezing up, usually after only a few minutes. Bear in mind that all my other games work just fine.

Installing the game completely solved the problem.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]That Fable II situation was nonsense. It took a full install on my XB360 to play the game properly, which is unfortunate given how good the game actually is.UpInFlames

Man, I'm still totally bitter about not being able to play that game - it was a big reason why I bought a 360 in the first place. I spent hours fiddling with it (as a PC gamer I was certainly familiar with such a situation and I was willing to invest time to fix it, but you just don't have much options on consoles when it comes to stuff like that), but I just couldn't get it to work. Amazon sent me a replacement copy free of charge, but no dice. Couldn't even install it. So I was forced to return both copies for a full refund. I don't know what the patch fixed, but I'm still too worried to buy it again. Waiting for the PC version seems like a sensible answer, but after having played the original game both on Xbox and PC, I'd much rather play Fable II on the 360. It just feels better, for some reason.

How large is your XB360 HD? I can pretty much guarantee that installing the game will completely solve the problem because I could literally only play for minutes at a time before the game would lock up. After the install the game never froze again.

I recently nabbed a 120 GB for my XB360 and I've got to say, it's the only way to play if you can swing it. Not all games improve but titles like Fable, GTAIV (and Lost and the Damned) and even SFIV really seem to benefit from the option of a full install.

Regardless, I hope you get the chance to play it soon. I just recently sunk my teeth into the game and beat the main quest and there is still so much I have to see and do. If you enjoyed the first one I think you'll enjoy the second.

Are lareg[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]That Fable II situation was nonsense. It took a full install on my XB360 to play the game properly, which is unfortunate given how good the game actually is.Grammaton-Cleric

Man, I'm still totally bitter about not being able to play that game - it was a big reason why I bought a 360 in the first place. I spent hours fiddling with it (as a PC gamer I was certainly familiar with such a situation and I was willing to invest time to fix it, but you just don't have much options on consoles when it comes to stuff like that), but I just couldn't get it to work. Amazon sent me a replacement copy free of charge, but no dice. Couldn't even install it. So I was forced to return both copies for a full refund. I don't know what the patch fixed, but I'm still too worried to buy it again. Waiting for the PC version seems like a sensible answer, but after having played the original game both on Xbox and PC, I'd much rather play Fable II on the 360. It just feels better, for some reason.

I didn't see it coming especially since other sites gave it some relatively good scores.

How large is your XB360 HD? I can pretty much guarantee that installing the game will completely solve the problem because I could literally only play for minutes at a time before the game would lock up. After the install the game never froze again.Grammaton-Cleric

I have a 60GB HDD, but as Skylock confirmed, I just couldn't get it to load up properly nor install it. All my other games work.

[QUOTE="smerlus"]

I am talking about a game which is equal or at least very close in quality on both platforms. Resident Evil 4 was a horrible, horrible PC port, it wasn't even close in terms of quality to the console versions. Of course it got lower scores, deservedly so. Halo: Combat Evolved, on the other hand, was meh when I played it on Xbox and it was the same kind of meh when I briefly checked it out on PC - it was the same game therefore the platform had no bearing on its true quality (from my personal point of view). Those who found it excellent on Xbox didn't change their minds when they played it on PC, either.

a crappy game is always going to be a crappy game so i don't know what you expect to accomplish with saying that a garbage ninja gaiden game would be great on PC. It still has to play good, look good and be stable just like every other PC game has to to be considered a good game on PC regardless of how many games there are in that genre.smerlus

So we are in agreement then? Yeah, games have to be good regardless of platform. You're the one advocating free passes to subpar games simply because of what platform they're released on and the distribution of different scores to the same exact game.

However if the next devil may cry comes out on PC only and looks good, plays well and is very stable, they can say that it's the best hack and slash on PC and give it a 9 but when it comes over to consoles and it goes up against ninja gaiden, god of war, bayonetta, ninja blade, it may only be better than 2 of them therefore it might get a lower score.smerlus

Yeah, they can and they probably will - but I'll still disagree with such a practice. Like I said before, I am very much aware that it's a widely used and accepted practice. :wink: