2004: Halo 2- 9.4. Half-Life 2- 9.2. Half-Life won Game of the Year 2004

Yes, yes, I know. I am going to copy and paste the exact same reply I had in the other thread, but I feel that I need to point this out to EVERYONE because, apparently, they don't understand this simple concept. Once again, PC gaming doesn't have higher standards. Here's why:

It's because GameSpot's old rating system was so horribly flawed. They didn't give games scores based off overall experience, but instead, marked individual categories. If Lair came out now, it would've gotten maybe a 6.5. It would've been higher than Haze, but Haze would've been better. The thing Halo 2 had over Half-Life 2 the sound, and that's what gave it the higher score. So the score went up because of that. Also, there were two different reviewers, so it's not going to be accurate. Those two things alone just kills that silly argument, as if a score was everything. Also, for the worst games of 2003, Game A got a 3.3, while Game B got a 3.6. Game B was considered worse because it was worse in the game play department. GameSpot had a terrible rating system before.

Twilight Princess for the Wii got an 8.8. Twilight Princess for the GameCube got an 8.9. The Wii version is considered to be the superior version because the GameCube version got higher marks for the sound.

Thank God GameSpot changed their rating system.

Oh yeah. Half life 2 is light years ahead of Halo 2 thoughscreamingdoom

I agree with this statement. However, that doesn't mean I think PC gaming has higher standards.

The rating is based on the platform: 9.5(Wii) =/= 9.5(PS3) =/= 9.5(360) =/= 9.5(PC).

Review the FAQ.

This also goes to show that GTA4 does not have GOTY on lockdown. Does it have a good chance?? yes. But it can still lose.Hockey_Slayer

Once Little Big Planet, a console exclusive, gets a 9.5 and Game of the Year, this stupid "PC gaming has higher standards" will be even sillier.

On top of that, Super Mario Galaxy and Crysis got a 9.5. Super Mario Galaxy got Game of the Year 2007. ZOMG! :roll:

you cant go off numbers alone...pretty much anything above a 9 has GOTY chances. also half life 2 is better than halo 2.

also pc shoots have higher standards. gamespot quote about halo 2 "Halo 2 for Vista is a solid game that probably won't appeal to anyone who's played any recent high-profile PC shooters" halo is an average shooter compared to pc shooters, plain and simple.

Oh yeah. Half life 2 is light years ahead of Halo 2 thoughscreamingdoom

you cant go off numbers alone...pretty much anything above a 9 has GOTY chances. also half life 2 is better than halo 2.

also pc shoots have higher standards. gamespot quote about halo 2 "Halo 2 for Vista is a solid game that probably won't appeal to anyone who's played any recent high-profile PC shooters" halo is an average shooter compared to pc shooters, plain and simple.

darkmagician06

Like how Call of Duty 4 got XBox 360 Shooter of the Year over Halo 3, despite Halo 3 getting a better score.

Key word being recent. :|

you cant go off numbers alone...pretty much anything above a 9 has GOTY chances. also half life 2 is better than halo 2.

also pc shoots have higher standards. gamespot quote about halo 2 "Halo 2 for Vista is a solid game that probably won't appeal to anyone who's played any recent high-profile PC shooters" halo is an average shooter compared to pc shooters, plain and simple.

darkmagician06

[QUOTE="screamingdoom"]Oh yeah. Half life 2 is light years ahead of Halo 2 thoughmsoftburney

[QUOTE="darkmagician06"]

you cant go off numbers alone...pretty much anything above a 9 has GOTY chances. also half life 2 is better than halo 2.

also pc shoots have higher standards. gamespot quote about halo 2 "Halo 2 for Vista is a solid game that probably won't appeal to anyone who's played any recent high-profile PC shooters" halo is an average shooter compared to pc shooters, plain and simple.

DeathScape666

Like how Call of Duty 4 got XBox 360 Shooter of the Year over Halo 3, despite Halo 3 getting a better score.

Key word being recent. :|

[QUOTE="darkmagician06"]

you cant go off numbers alone...pretty much anything above a 9 has GOTY chances. also half life 2 is better than halo 2.

also pc shoots have higher standards. gamespot quote about halo 2 "Halo 2 for Vista is a solid game that probably won't appeal to anyone who's played any recent high-profile PC shooters" halo is an average shooter compared to pc shooters, plain and simple.

DeathScape666

Like how Call of Duty 4 got XBox 360 Shooter of the Year over Halo 3, despite Halo 3 getting a better score.

Key word being recent. :|

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="darkmagician06"]

you cant go off numbers alone...pretty much anything above a 9 has GOTY chances. also half life 2 is better than halo 2.

also pc shoots have higher standards. gamespot quote about halo 2 "Halo 2 for Vista is a solid game that probably won't appeal to anyone who's played any recent high-profile PC shooters" halo is an average shooter compared to pc shooters, plain and simple.

darkmagician06

Like how Call of Duty 4 got XBox 360 Shooter of the Year over Halo 3, despite Halo 3 getting a better score.

Key word being recent. :|

.2 is barely a different, yet Hermits seem to love claiming ownage for Halo 2 not getting Shooter of the Year in 2004, despite it getting the higher score. Explain that. Please.

[QUOTE="darkmagician06"][QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="darkmagician06"]

you cant go off numbers alone...pretty much anything above a 9 has GOTY chances. also half life 2 is better than halo 2.

also pc shoots have higher standards. gamespot quote about halo 2 "Halo 2 for Vista is a solid game that probably won't appeal to anyone who's played any recent high-profile PC shooters" halo is an average shooter compared to pc shooters, plain and simple.

DeathScape666

Like how Call of Duty 4 got XBox 360 Shooter of the Year over Halo 3, despite Halo 3 getting a better score.

Key word being recent. :|

.2 is barely a different, yet Hermits seem to love claiming ownage for Halo 2 not getting Shooter of the Year in 2004, despite it getting the higher score. Explain that. Please.

This also goes to show that GTA4 does not have GOTY on lockdown. Does it have a good chance?? yes. But it can still lose.Hockey_Slayer

This should be obvious to any one with common sense anyway (not talking about you) because does anybody seriously think that THPS3 got GoTY or ever had a chance? No, just because it got a 10 doesn't automatically mean it's the best game that year.

Half-Life 2 had replay value it came with Half-Life Team deathmatch and capture the flag and CSS. So if you ask me Half-Life has the most replay value. And you say the story is not as good, will that's all opinion based, I happen to love the Half-Life story and I'm a big fan so for me Half-Life2 blows Halo out of the water, and really don't complain about story when comparing to Halo. :roll:Hockey_Slayer

I bought Halflife 2 on its release date for $55, which was strange because that's the only PC game I've ever bought which cost more than fifty dollars. I had to go through the God awful expience with Steam.

I never said that Half-Life 2 story was bad, I merely stated that Half-Life 1's direction was leaps and bounds better. Halo 2 had a unique, compelling, complex and immersive storyline - saying otherwise is pure ignorance.

Half-Life 2 should win game of the century. That game was perfect in every aspect.Rocky32189

I'm only 2/3 done with the game, but I still say hell to the no. It's a lot of fun, but Game of the Century? ...Well, first of all, we're only, like, 8 years into this century.

[QUOTE="Hockey_Slayer"]This also goes to show that GTA4 does not have GOTY on lockdown. Does it have a good chance?? yes. But it can still lose.bobbetybob

This should be obvious to any one with common sense anyway (not talking about you) because does anybody seriously think that THPS3 got GoTY or ever had a chance? No, just because it got a 10 doesn't automatically mean it's the best game that year.

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]Half-Life 2 should win game of the century. That game was perfect in every aspect.DeathScape666

I'm only 2/3 done with the game, but I still say hell to the no. It's a lot of fun, but Game of the Century? ...Well, first of all, we're only, like 8 years into this century.

Half-Life 2 had better graphics. Halo 2 had everything else.DuDisNow

better game play?! hahaha

anyway it should NOT be assumed higher score = GOTY

[QUOTE="DuDisNow"]Half-Life 2 had better graphics. Halo 2 had everything else.BTBAM127

better game play?! hahaha

anyway it should NOT be assumed higher score = GOTY

[QUOTE="DuDisNow"]Half-Life 2 had better graphics. Halo 2 had everything else.BTBAM127

better game play?! hahaha

anyway it should NOT be assumed higher score = GOTY

And it should NOT be assumed that PC gaming has higher standards than console gaming when there's no real evidence to back this up.

[QUOTE="BTBAM127"]

[QUOTE="DuDisNow"]Half-Life 2 had better graphics. Halo 2 had everything else.DuDisNow

better game play?! hahaha

anyway it should NOT be assumed higher score = GOTY

you cant go off numbers alone...pretty much anything above a 9 has GOTY chances. also half life 2 is better than halo 2.

also pc shoots have higher standards. gamespot quote about halo 2 "Halo 2 for Vista is a solid game that probably won't appeal to anyone who's played any recent high-profile PC shooters" halo is an average shooter compared to pc shooters, plain and simple.

darkmagician06

riight... because the Xbox version was out like 4 years after the PC version :roll:

[QUOTE="DuDisNow"][QUOTE="BTBAM127"]

[QUOTE="DuDisNow"]Half-Life 2 had better graphics. Halo 2 had everything else.msoftburney

better game play?! hahaha

anyway it should NOT be assumed higher score = GOTY

because halflife is the most in-depth shooter, with the most brain-poundign puzzles ever

and the AIs are damn good

because halflife is the most in-depth shooter, with the most brain-poundign puzzles ever

and the AIs are damn good

shadow_hosi

because halflife is the most in-depth shooter, with the most brain-poundign puzzles ever

and the AIs are damn good

shadow_hosi

[QUOTE="DuDisNow"][QUOTE="BTBAM127"]

[QUOTE="DuDisNow"]Half-Life 2 had better graphics. Halo 2 had everything else.msoftburney

better game play?! hahaha

anyway it should NOT be assumed higher score = GOTY

If you are directing this comment towards me because of what I said to you earlier. Will what you said was not opinion based. You said Half-Life 2 had no replay value when it comes with CSS and HL2:DM, so it has tons.Hockey_Slayer

[QUOTE="Hockey_Slayer"] If you are directing this comment towards me because of what I said to you earlier. Will what you said was not opinion based. You said Half-Life 2 had no replay value when it comes with CSS and HL2:DM, so it has tons.msoftburney

[QUOTE="screamingdoom"]Oh yeah. Half life 2 is light years ahead of Halo 2 thoughDeathScape666

I agree with this statement. However, that doesn't mean I think PC gaming has higher standards.

A better game got a lower score....that's pretty much the definition of higher standards. If PC didn't have higher standards then Half-Life 2 would have gotten a higher score than Halo 2, plain and simple. You blaming the ratings system is a joke too. I've read the other thread and it's one pathetic line of reasoning after another.

A game gets the score it deserves, period. Ratings system as an excuse is laughable.

Um...No? World of Warcraft won 2004 GOTY.

I don't know if someone has already said this, I didn't read through all the posts.

Um...No? World of Warcraft won 2004 GOTY.

I don't know if someone has already said this, I didn't read through all the posts.

BearEatsMan

Sorry, I meant Shooter of the Year.

However GS' current review system doesn't directly come from "experience" either. GS' new, less accurate review system can be weighed in any given favor at the whim of the critic. It's a double-edged sword. They can ignore some excellent things about the game and focus on one issue (or one thing they didn't like) and give the game a poor review. Plus, about the PC games having higher standards, they might not now, but they certainly did before. Read any review site's scoring standards and you'd see that they do, and they should seeing as optimizing for a wide range of available hardware is more complicated than developing solely for one platform. I guess it's helping revere those high scoring PC titles, seeing as they've scored that high for a reason.

If you were here long enough, you would see the dip in GS review quality.

However GS' current review system doesn't directly come from "experience" either. GS' new, less accurate review system can be weighed in any given favor at the whim of the critic. It's a double-edged sword. They can ignore some excellent things about the game and focus on one issue (or one thing they didn't like) and give the game a poor review.

If you were here long enough, you would see the dip in GS review quality.
Saturos3091

Over three years and counting.

Any numberical system is going to be flawed. One man's 7 is another man's 9.5. There isn't some universal scale, and that's what really messes things up.

Rating games by scores is just flawed, period. But it's still fun to use them.

[QUOTE="BearEatsMan"]

Um...No? World of Warcraft won 2004 GOTY.

I don't know if someone has already said this, I didn't read through all the posts.

DeathScape666

Sorry, I meant Shooter of the Year.

Alright then :) making sure WoW got its props.

This happened last year. CoD4 scored 9.0, Halo 3 scored 9.5, and CoD4 got Xbox360 GOTY.

GTA4 I dont think is on GOTY lockdown. WoW scored lower than GTA:SA and still won GOTY.

[QUOTE="screamingdoom"]Oh yeah. Half life 2 is light years ahead of Halo 2 thoughDeathScape666

I agree with this statement. However, that doesn't mean I think PC gaming has higher standards.

Contradiction, your own opinion on the subject conflicts with your posted statement, ergo, you prooved yourself wrong.

Thanks for trying though.

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"]However GS' current review system doesn't directly come from "experience" either. GS' new, less accurate review system can be weighed in any given favor at the whim of the critic. It's a double-edged sword. They can ignore some excellent things about the game and focus on one issue (or one thing they didn't like) and give the game a poor review.

If you were here long enough, you would see the dip in GS review quality.
DeathScape666

Over three years and counting.

Any numberical system is going to be flawed. One man's 7 is another man's 9.5. There isn't some universal scale, and that's what really messes things up.

Rating games by scores is just flawed, period. But it's still fun to use them.

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"]

[QUOTE="screamingdoom"]Oh yeah. Half life 2 is light years ahead of Halo 2 thoughMeu2k7

I agree with this statement. However, that doesn't mean I think PC gaming has higher standards.

Contradiction, your own opinion on the subject conflicts with your posted statement, ergo, you prooved yourself wrong.

Thanks for trying though.

Nope.

I like Half-Life 2 more than Halo 2. I believe Half-Life 2 is regarded as a better game than Halo 2, despite getting higher scores because of all the reasons I listed. This doesn't prove PC gaming has higher standards, though, even if Half-Life 2 scored lower than Halo 2 was an overall better game.

That's all I'm saying.

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]Half-Life 2 should win game of the century. That game was perfect in every aspect.DeathScape666

I'm only 2/3 done with the game, but I still say hell to the no. It's a lot of fun, but Game of the Century? ...Well, first of all, we're only, like, 8 years into this century.

Wait wut... your comparing games that you didnt even play in 2004? :S , the production values in Half-Life 2, its technology, it shipped with Counter-Strike Source and Half-Life 2 deathmatch is current gen to this day, it was the first "Next Gen" game.

There are higher standards, Halo 2 lost to a superior game, let alone the MP and Counter0Strike that was bundled.

Standards are different. Halo 2 PC Version was a bad example your right, but Half-Life 2 and Halo 2 was a clear one.

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"]

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"]However GS' current review system doesn't directly come from "experience" either. GS' new, less accurate review system can be weighed in any given favor at the whim of the critic. It's a double-edged sword. They can ignore some excellent things about the game and focus on one issue (or one thing they didn't like) and give the game a poor review.

If you were here long enough, you would see the dip in GS review quality.
Saturos3091

Over three years and counting.

Any numberical system is going to be flawed. One man's 7 is another man's 9.5. There isn't some universal scale, and that's what really messes things up.

Rating games by scores is just flawed, period. But it's still fun to use them.

If GameSpot kept to their old system, Lair would've scored higher than Haze, despite Haze being the better game. This is because Lair would get a 10 on the graphics and sound, but then probably a 4 for the tilt, game play, and value. Haze's only redeeming quality would've been the game play, the most important aspect of most games, and probably wouldn't go over a 5.5 because of how bad the graphics, value, and sound are.

See what I mean?

I like GameSpot's new review system because they just rate it on how much they enjoyed the game overall. And that's as simple as it gets... But it's hard to do it with 20 different numbers, and knowing which one it deserves. A 4 or 5 scale would be perfect, because it's easy to choose which one because the options are simple: Terrible, Bad, Okay, Great, Superb.

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"]

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]Half-Life 2 should win game of the century. That game was perfect in every aspect.Meu2k7

I'm only 2/3 done with the game, but I still say hell to the no. It's a lot of fun, but Game of the Century? ...Well, first of all, we're only, like, 8 years into this century.

Wait wut... your comparing games that you didnt even play in 2004? :S , the production values in Half-Life 2, its technology, it shipped with Counter-Strike Source and Half-Life 2 deathmatch is current gen to this day, it was the first "Next Gen" game.

There are higher standards, Halo 2 lost to a superior game, let alone the MP and Counter0Strike that was bundled.

Standards are different. Halo 2 PC Version was a bad example your right, but Half-Life 2 and Halo 2 was a clear one.

What? I've played both Half-Life 2 and Halo 2. In fact, I need two more chapters to complete in Half-Life 2 and then I'm done. It's a damn good game.

I understand how amazing Half-Life 2 was for its time, I was just saying that calling Game of the Century when we still have 92 years and 7 months left is a little much. ;)

Half-Life 2 is a superior game, but not because it's on PC.

Eh? Half-Life 2 is, once again, BETTER than Halo 2. This doesn't prove that PC gaming has higher standards.

Yes, yes, I know. I am going to copy and paste the exact same reply I had in the other thread, but I feel that I need to point this out to EVERYONE because, apparently, they don't understand this simple concept. Once again, PC gaming doesn't have higher standards. Here's why:

It's because GameSpot's old rating system was so horribly flawed. They didn't give games scores based off overall experience, but instead, marked individual categories. If Lair came out now, it would've gotten maybe a 6.5. It would've been higher than Haze, but Haze would've been better. The thing Halo 2 had over Half-Life 2 the sound, and that's what gave it the higher score. So the score went up because of that. Also, there were two different reviewers, so it's not going to be accurate. Those two things alone just kills that silly argument, as if a score was everything. Also, for the worst games of 2003, Game A got a 3.3, while Game B got a 3.6. Game B was considered worse because it was worse in the game play department. GameSpot had a terrible rating system before.

Twilight Princess for the Wii got an 8.8. Twilight Princess for the GameCube got an 8.9. The Wii version is considered to be the superior version because the GameCube version got higher marks for the sound.

Thank God GameSpot changed their rating system.

DeathScape666

http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html

/thread.

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"]

Yes, yes, I know. I am going to copy and paste the exact same reply I had in the other thread, but I feel that I need to point this out to EVERYONE because, apparently, they don't understand this simple concept. Once again, PC gaming doesn't have higher standards. Here's why:

It's because GameSpot's old rating system was so horribly flawed. They didn't give games scores based off overall experience, but instead, marked individual categories. If Lair came out now, it would've gotten maybe a 6.5. It would've been higher than Haze, but Haze would've been better. The thing Halo 2 had over Half-Life 2 the sound, and that's what gave it the higher score. So the score went up because of that. Also, there were two different reviewers, so it's not going to be accurate. Those two things alone just kills that silly argument, as if a score was everything. Also, for the worst games of 2003, Game A got a 3.3, while Game B got a 3.6. Game B was considered worse because it was worse in the game play department. GameSpot had a terrible rating system before.

Twilight Princess for the Wii got an 8.8. Twilight Princess for the GameCube got an 8.9. The Wii version is considered to be the superior version because the GameCube version got higher marks for the sound.

Thank God GameSpot changed their rating system.

Spybot_9

http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html

/thread.

That doesn't prove PC gaming has higher standards. Just because they said that doesn't mean they are implying the PC versus the Wii, 360, and PS3. I'm sorry, but they did not state it was the PC. It could've been the other way around for all you know. :|

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="DeathScape666"]

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]Half-Life 2 should win game of the century. That game was perfect in every aspect.DeathScape666

I'm only 2/3 done with the game, but I still say hell to the no. It's a lot of fun, but Game of the Century? ...Well, first of all, we're only, like, 8 years into this century.

Wait wut... your comparing games that you didnt even play in 2004? :S , the production values in Half-Life 2, its technology, it shipped with Counter-Strike Source and Half-Life 2 deathmatch is current gen to this day, it was the first "Next Gen" game.

There are higher standards, Halo 2 lost to a superior game, let alone the MP and Counter0Strike that was bundled.

Standards are different. Halo 2 PC Version was a bad example your right, but Half-Life 2 and Halo 2 was a clear one.

What? I've played both Half-Life 2 and Halo 2. In fact, I need two more chapters to complete in Half-Life 2 and then I'm done. It's a damn good game.

I understand how amazing Half-Life 2 was for its time, I was just saying that calling Game of the Century when we still have 92 years and 7 months left is a little much. ;)

Half-Life 2 is a superior game, but not because it's on PC.

Eh? Half-Life 2 is, once again, BETTER than Halo 2. This doesn't prove that PC gaming has higher standards.

It logically makes sense, you have the scoring system, while you say its unfair it isnt, its scored by individual platform, ergo a 9.5 in graphics on PC wouldnt be the same as 9.5 graphics on consoles, because the PC at the time was capable of much more ( Ergo Half-Life 2 ).

Something as simple as graphics score difference prooves the point, if Half-Life 2 which you have admitted is a better game or whatever, only scored 9.2, as apposed to Halo 2 pushing the Xbox to 9.4 ...

Its common logic, on a system harder to reach 9.2 on compared to a system which only had a handful of good game to begin with strikes lucky with a 9.4 that lost GOTY.

You say we cant proove theres different standards, but then again you cant proove that there isnt either.

Though most multiplats since the new system are lazy reviews, the only game ive seen thats actualyl scored differently is ASSASSINS CREED, which only scored 8.5 on the PC, and I can tell you the PC version was better, even the controls were awesome.

And then we have OBLIVION, PC Version scoring the lowest, and we know how that ended up right? PC Version was clearly superior in graphic detail, let alone potential for modding, which is anturally elft out of reviews.