Nice Halo 2 Just Got 7.0 On PC 0.0

What the...http://au.gamespot.com/pc/action/halo2/review.html?sid=6171591&tag=topslot;title;1

7.0

o_0 wow

Seems a bit low considering the Xbox version got 9.4, oh well, that's GameSpot for you.ryan_returns29

Actually, I'd expect a console-licking site like Gamespot (no offense!) would give it higher. I guess I was wrong.. I respect this site, though, and even pay for it.

I've never played Halo and probably won't since I didn't enjoy the Halo 1 PC demo, so no opinions on that except the ones I said in the other Halo 2 rating thread 

Seems a bit low considering the Xbox version got 9.4, oh well, that's GameSpot for you.ryan_returns29

Yeah, almost 3 years ago. Halo2's Xbox graphics in 2004 was abysmal compared to PC graphics, and after 3 years, you can't even compare it.

[QUOTE="ryan_returns29"]Seems a bit low considering the Xbox version got 9.4, oh well, that's GameSpot for you.Dracunos

Actually, I'd expect a console-licking site like Gamespot (no offense!) would give it higher. I guess I was wrong.. I respect this site, though, and even pay for it.

I've never played Halo and probably won't since I didn't enjoy the Halo 1 PC demo, so no opinions on that except the ones I said in the other Halo 2 rating thread

I've changed my previous statement, just found out that Jeff reviewed the game (yeah, the Xbox fanboy guy). 

[QUOTE="ryan_returns29"]Seems a bit low considering the Xbox version got 9.4, oh well, that's GameSpot for you.syx

Yeah, almost 3 years ago. Halo2's Xbox graphics in 2004 was abysmal compared to PC graphics, and after 3 years, you can't even compare it.

Then why do games like Ocarina of Time get 8.9 on the Wii? Don't bother saying that they mark it by the standards of the time because they mark the Wii's Virtual Console games by today's standards. 

Wait, are you serious? :|

If you are, that's pretty shocking, considering they gave it a 9.4 on the Xbox.

EDIT: Sure, Jeff is biased against Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony... maybe he just gives tough reviews regardless of the platform.

Wait, are you serious? :|

If you are, that's pretty shocking, considering they gave it a 9.4 on the Xbox.

EDIT: Sure, Jeff is biased against Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony... maybe he just gives tough reviews regardless of the platform.

Funkyhamster

Everyone knows that Jeff really hates Sony and Nintendo now and loves the Xbox 360, you can tell because he overrated some Xbox 360 games yet he underrated a lot of Wii and PS3 games. 

Seems a bit low considering the Xbox version got 9.4, oh well, that's Jeff's bias for you.ryan_returns29

Because, Im guessing, that the people who rate Xbox games dont rate PC games. By all means Halo on PC is below-average compared to the other PC FPS out there. On xbox, which has a beefy controler and lower standards, it could of easily gotten a 9.0+. My friends have Xbox and they play halo nonstop. I ask them why they like it and I never get a straight reply. To me, after playing bf2, bf1942, CS:S, and HL2, Halo has nothing special. Its the most unrealistic, plain, and straight out boring FPS to me.

[QUOTE="ryan_returns29"]Seems a bit low considering the Xbox version got 9.4, oh well, that's Jeff's bias for you.Swiftstrike5

Its the most unrealistic, plain, and straight out boring FPS to me.

I picked up the original not long ago and played it on PC and thought the exact same thing, but being on the Xbox doesn't make a difference because if there are good as FPS games on the PC, then they will most likely come to consoles as well (you can see that clearly with the X360). What I'm saying is that if Jeff were to say review a 'Halo 2 Redux' on the Xbox 360, he would give it a higher score, but since the game is on the PC he will automatically give it a lower score. I honestly think the game should have been somewhere in the early to mid 8's but 7.0? That's just appauling.

Halo 3 will have very similar gameplay to it's predecessors yet I bet that will receive a score somewhere in the 9's.

Kinda weird considering the god awful port of the original got a 9.GSZX

yeah..but really though,it should only got 6.5+ something..guess you have to see whose the reviewer are..and who they work for.. 

I'm not surprised. Honestly it should have gotten 8.9 at most on the xbox.

Who really wanted this game anyway? It'll probably sell like crap. Vista + 3 year old game = fail.darklord888

Yeah I rented it for Xbox, played of for a day or two and never tounced it again.  A waste of 9 bucks.

Who really wanted this game anyway? It'll probably sell like crap. Vista + 3 year old game = fail.darklord888

Good review, albeit a bit biased imo.

Reinforces my beliefs about console games, too: they may be good over there on console, but that doesnt mean they can hang over here on PC.  We are the diehard gamers of the world, and while we may enjoy dabbling in consoles and sitting side by side talking trash to our friends as we smoke them in a game of Madden, we know that the best, most complex, and most diverse selection of games remains with the PC!

K, Ill step off the soapbox now.

[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]

[QUOTE="ryan_returns29"]Seems a bit low considering the Xbox version got 9.4, oh well, that's Jeff's bias for you.ryan_returns29

Its the most unrealistic, plain, and straight out boring FPS to me.

I picked up the original not long ago and played it on PC and thought the exact same thing, but being on the Xbox doesn't make a difference because if there are good as FPS games on the PC, then they will most likely come to consoles as well (you can see that clearly with the X360). What I'm saying is that if Jeff were to say review a 'Halo 2 Redux' on the Xbox 360, he would give it a higher score, but since the game is on the PC he will automatically give it a lower score. I honestly think the game should have been somewhere in the early to mid 8's but 7.0? That's just appauling.

Halo 3 will have very similar gameplay to it's predecessors yet I bet that will receive a score somewhere in the 9's.

[QUOTE="ryan_returns29"][QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]

[QUOTE="ryan_returns29"]Seems a bit low considering the Xbox version got 9.4, oh well, that's Jeff's bias for you.-CheeseEater-

Its the most unrealistic, plain, and straight out boring FPS to me.

I picked up the original not long ago and played it on PC and thought the exact same thing, but being on the Xbox doesn't make a difference because if there are good as FPS games on the PC, then they will most likely come to consoles as well (you can see that clearly with the X360). What I'm saying is that if Jeff were to say review a 'Halo 2 Redux' on the Xbox 360, he would give it a higher score, but since the game is on the PC he will automatically give it a lower score. I honestly think the game should have been somewhere in the early to mid 8's but 7.0? That's just appauling.

Halo 3 will have very similar gameplay to it's predecessors yet I bet that will receive a score somewhere in the 9's.

this is the pc gaming forum. You won't get flamed. Besides most people agree with you, well atleast I do, Halo 3 hasn't shown me anything special yet.

I liked Halo 1 (the way they used music in this game was revolutionary. Honestly play this game without music and you won't enjoy it.)but Halo 2 was really overrated IMO. On the pc that game would've gotten a lot lower and it did. 

7.0 might be a little too high (pro-console bias dripping over into pc ports?????????) but jeff was spot on with this line:

Halo 2 for Vista is a solid game that probably won't appeal to anyone who's played any recent high-profile PC shooters.

that pretty much sums up halo perfectly

A review is an opinion and because of that there will be personal prejudice. Take a look at the guy who reviewed neverwinter nights 2 from 1UP.

P.S. I still can't believe 1UP took that NWN 2 review down, even though I completely disagreed with the reviewer. But it was absolutely stupid to take it down.

The review was not good at all. He said something about controller users having an advantage over mouse uses and that is garbage. The controller does have a slight auto aim but so what it's not a mouse where you point and click. It's a lot easier to get a headshot with the mouse conpared to the controller since auto aim tends to drag to the body. It actually takes a lot more skill to get a headshot with the controller.

I have played with both and i would say none have an advantage over the other. The mouse is easily more precise but the controller is just as good once you know how to use it.

way over-rated. CS is a bagillion times better.BenTheJamin

You mean CS as Counter Strike? You have to be kidding me. Bungie just isn't able to make a good PC port of their games. Combat Evolved was also a lot worse than original Halo. Halo3 PC port will be also a waste of time. If you want to play Halo you have to stick to xbox/x360

What a lot of you seem to be missing is the fact that Halo 2 got a 9.4 three years ago on a console that didn't have much in the way of online first person shooters, a lot of people said the campaign wasn't that great, but the multiplayer was something different for Xbox, so it got a better score for bringing something new to the table for Xbox players.  When it comes to the PC, there are already a TON of online shooters that are deeper, better paced, prettier and don't have auto-aim, so Halo 2 gets no brownie points for innovation, instead it falls under the "just another shooter" category.

   Could really care less what the name on the box is, I'm tired of MS shoveling out these obsolete ports of games that were never intended for the PC after they hijacked the original Halo, that's enough reason for me to leave it on the shelf.  And no, I don't hate MS, have an original Xbox and a 360, I'm just not going to waste my hard-earned money on a port of what is now a sub-par game.

I really don't see a problem with the rating.  In fact a lower rating probably would be levied if it lacked the 'Halo' name.

I played Halo on the Xbox (primarily multiplayer over LAN) and bought Halo PC when it came out.  Big Mistake.  At the time my computer could easily handle the game, but it was still obvious it had major problems with the port, as framerates were WAY below what they should be for a game with those visuals.  Fooled once, there is no way I will shell out any money for Halo 2 PC.

While I can't comment on how well the Halo 2 port went, at this point in time I can say that Halo 2 PC looks...well...bad.  I have little experience with Halo 2 on the Xbox, but I have played enough to know the gameplay is not overly impressive or revolutionary.  Poor graphics, non-impressive gameplay...why exactly would this title get any sort of high rating?  If a non-Halo titled game was released that was identical to look and gameplay I am positive it would be mostly ignored, and probably score more like a 6.0.

It is been my long standing belief that Halo became so popular because there was no other options.  Once you move the PC world thats no longer the case, and Halo 2 simply doesn't stand up to PC competition.  

What a lot of you seem to be missing is the fact that Halo 2 got a 9.4 three years ago on a console that didn't have much in the way of online first person shooters, a lot of people said the campaign wasn't that great, but the multiplayer was something different for Xbox, so it got a better score for bringing something new to the table for Xbox players. When it comes to the PC, there are already a TON of online shooters that are deeper, better paced, prettier and don't have auto-aim, so Halo 2 gets no brownie points for innovation, instead it falls under the "just another shooter" category.

Crzy1

QFT.  

That says it best 

[QUOTE="Crzy1"]

What a lot of you seem to be missing is the fact that Halo 2 got a 9.4 three years ago on a console that didn't have much in the way of online first person shooters, a lot of people said the campaign wasn't that great, but the multiplayer was something different for Xbox, so it got a better score for bringing something new to the table for Xbox players. When it comes to the PC, there are already a TON of online shooters that are deeper, better paced, prettier and don't have auto-aim, so Halo 2 gets no brownie points for innovation, instead it falls under the "just another shooter" category.

CashMcL

QFT.  

That says it best 

I actually just played Halo 2 on the Xbox after over a year. The game is a really fun multiplayer game and that is why so many people play. It actually has more players than any PC game even after 3 years.

It's basically the same on the PC and the mouse has no auto aim. It's just another shooter but a fun one.

I actually just played Halo 2 on the Xbox after over a year. The game is a really fun multiplayer game and that is why so many people play. It actually has more players than any PC game even after 3 years.Deihmos

Bad single player campaign + autoaim in multyplayer.

why should it get more than 7.0?

[QUOTE="CashMcL"][QUOTE="Crzy1"]

What a lot of you seem to be missing is the fact that Halo 2 got a 9.4 three years ago on a console that didn't have much in the way of online first person shooters, a lot of people said the campaign wasn't that great, but the multiplayer was something different for Xbox, so it got a better score for bringing something new to the table for Xbox players. When it comes to the PC, there are already a TON of online shooters that are deeper, better paced, prettier and don't have auto-aim, so Halo 2 gets no brownie points for innovation, instead it falls under the "just another shooter" category.

Deihmos

QFT.  

That says it best 

I actually just played Halo 2 on the Xbox after over a year. The game is a really fun multiplayer game and that is why so many people play. It actually has more players than any PC game even after 3 years.

It's basically the same on the PC and the mouse has no auto aim. It's just another shooter but a fun one.

Never said that it wasn't fun, just that there are other, better options on the PC.  If you look at the Half-Life 2 suite of games (HL2, HL2 DM, CS:S) they offer so much more and are at a budget price now and don't require you to upgrade to Vista to play them.  There are numerous other games out there as well, UT2K4 still shines in the multiplayer arena, BF2 and 2142 are great team based shooters and there are WAY to many single player FPS at budget prices at-the-moment to even think about buying a 3 year old game being marketed as "new".  7.0 may be a little high, not really sure how the PC port worked out, but like others have said, if it didn't say "Halo" it probably would have ended up with a lower score if it's the same game I used to play on the Xbox.

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]I actually just played Halo 2 on the Xbox after over a year. The game is a really fun multiplayer game and that is why so many people play. It actually has more players than any PC game even after 3 years.Makari

It's how they count the numbers. Bungie shows who is online right now but in the last 24 hrs there were almost 200,00 unique players each for both games. Really impressive for an "average" game.

Halo > UT 2004 if you ask me but not close to BF2 and 2142.

[QUOTE="CashMcL"][QUOTE="Crzy1"]

What a lot of you seem to be missing is the fact that Halo 2 got a 9.4 three years ago on a console that didn't have much in the way of online first person shooters, a lot of people said the campaign wasn't that great, but the multiplayer was something different for Xbox, so it got a better score for bringing something new to the table for Xbox players. When it comes to the PC, there are already a TON of online shooters that are deeper, better paced, prettier and don't have auto-aim, so Halo 2 gets no brownie points for innovation, instead it falls under the "just another shooter" category.

Deihmos

QFT.

That says it best

I actually just played Halo 2 on the Xbox after over a year. The game is a really fun multiplayer game and that is why so many people play. It actually has more players than any PC game even after 3 years.

It's basically the same on the PC and the mouse has no auto aim. It's just another shooter but a fun one.

What? Counterstrike alone has a bigger community. 

In my opinion, don't flame me...I just think it'll happen. But halo 3 is pretty much just halo 2 with slightly vamped up graphics, yet I reckon it'll score in the 9.0's...pretty strange in you ask me.-CheeseEater-

It might be getting high scores on Xbox because Halo is sort of the seller for xbox. Maybe since microsoft released Gears Of War, they will drop Bungie and push on other games as sellers for xbox. Last thing GS would want to do is anger microsoft =) 

[QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="CashMcL"][QUOTE="Crzy1"]

What a lot of you seem to be missing is the fact that Halo 2 got a 9.4 three years ago on a console that didn't have much in the way of online first person shooters, a lot of people said the campaign wasn't that great, but the multiplayer was something different for Xbox, so it got a better score for bringing something new to the table for Xbox players. When it comes to the PC, there are already a TON of online shooters that are deeper, better paced, prettier and don't have auto-aim, so Halo 2 gets no brownie points for innovation, instead it falls under the "just another shooter" category.

mismajor99

QFT.

That says it best

I actually just played Halo 2 on the Xbox after over a year. The game is a really fun multiplayer game and that is why so many people play. It actually has more players than any PC game even after 3 years.

It's basically the same on the PC and the mouse has no auto aim. It's just another shooter but a fun one.

What? Counterstrike alone has a bigger community. 

I highly doubt it. The game sold over 10 million copies plus it supports coop.