Anyone notice Halo 2 got 9.4 for the xbox and only 7.0 for the PC?

And it's basically the exact same game. In fact the PC version has improved visuals and a map editor, so in theory it should be better. right?

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

Oh wait, Even gamespot thinks Halo is just a generic crappy shooter. Hmmmm I guess the PC does have higher game standards and crap like that won't fly with hermits.

I can't believe people actually think Halo 3 is going to be a good game. Judging from Bungie's track record which is not good this is just going to be another generic shooter with ok multiplayer and visiuals that look good right now, but won't age well at all.

And it's basically the exact same game. In fact the PC version has improved visuals and a map editor, so in theory it should be better. right?

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

Oh wait, Even gamespot thinks Halo is just a generic crappy shooter. Hmmmm I guess the PC does have higher game standards and crap like that won't fly with hermits.

I can't believe people actually think Halo 3 is going to be a good game. Judging from Bungie's track record which is not good this is just going to be another generic shooter with ok multiplayer and visiuals that look good right now, but won't age well at all.

turq_razor

Umm, welcome to planet earth. You must be new here.

Is anyone up for a game of basketball? (seriously, I've been using this way too much lately, but I'd have no choice!!)musicalmac

No, but I do want to eat some pancakes, thats right...pancakes...

And it's basically the exact same game. In fact the PC version has improved visuals and a map editor, so in theory it should be better. right?

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

Oh wait, Even gamespot thinks Halo is just a generic crappy shooter. Hmmmm I guess the PC does have higher game standards and crap like that won't fly with hermits.

I can't believe people actually think Halo 3 is going to be a good game. Judging from Bungie's track record which is not good this is just going to be another generic shooter with ok multiplayer and visiuals that look good right now, but won't age well at all.

turq_razor

It scored lower because so much time had passed. As time passes standards improve. The game was 3 years old when it finally got to the PC, that's way too much time.

For example, Ocarina originally scored a perfect 10. For the Wii it scored an 8.9. In just two years RE4 went from a 9.6 to a 9.1, and the Wii had the superior version.

This is a shocker, but games age.

This is common sense to everyone but yourself, apparently.

Did you consider the two and a half year gap between Halo on the Xbox and the port for the PC?ithilgore2006

It wasnt a bad port.

3 year old ports with minimal upgrades!

hell yeah

And it's basically the exact same game. In fact the PC version has improved visuals and a map editor, so in theory it should be better. right?

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

Oh wait, Even gamespot thinks Halo is just a generic crappy shooter. Hmmmm I guess the PC does have higher game standards and crap like that won't fly with hermits.

I can't believe people actually think Halo 3 is going to be a good game. Judging from Bungie's track record which is not good this is just going to be another generic shooter with ok multiplayer and visiuals that look good right now, but won't age well at all.

turq_razor

And it's basically the exact same game. In fact the PC version has improved visuals and a map editor, so in theory it should be better. right?

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

turq_razor

I think you need to take a look at that again and think.

Halo 2 came out 2 and a half years ago.

Back then, it well deserved a 9.4

Since then, games like F.E.A.R. and others have surpassed it. It's called progress.

If you are going to say that PC has higher standards, you need to compare it to games back then. Otherwise, it's justa twoand a halfyear old port, which doesn't really mean that the original wasn't worth a 9.x had it been released on PCs at the same time it was released on colsoles.

[QUOTE="turq_razor"]

And it's basically the exact same game. In fact the PC version has improved visuals and a map editor, so in theory it should be better. right?

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

Oh wait, Even gamespot thinks Halo is just a generic crappy shooter. Hmmmm I guess the PC does have higher game standards and crap like that won't fly with hermits.

I can't believe people actually think Halo 3 is going to be a good game. Judging from Bungie's track record which is not good this is just going to be another generic shooter with ok multiplayer and visiuals that look good right now, but won't age well at all.

Bill_McBlumpkin

It scored lower because so much time had passed. As time passes standards improve. The game was 3 years old when it finally got to the PC, that's way too much time.

For example, Ocarina originally scored a perfect 10. For the Wii it scored an 8.9.

This is a shocker, but games age.

This is common sense to everyone but yourself, apparently.

Some would disagree. Particularly Baldurs gate fans/ system shock fans oh and also Halo fans who clutter these boards. Once a classic always a classic. Sad fact is 9.4 was a bit over genorous anyway but aslong as gamespot and most review companys hype a game then people will buy it and their reviews get credibility. I mean Gears of War??? 9.6 was it? Who are the dreamers and idiots now??? Gamespot i ask you!

[QUOTE="turq_razor"]

And it's basically the exact same game. In fact the PC version has improved visuals and a map editor, so in theory it should be better. right?

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

Oh wait, Even gamespot thinks Halo is just a generic crappy shooter. Hmmmm I guess the PC does have higher game standards and crap like that won't fly with hermits.

I can't believe people actually think Halo 3 is going to be a good game. Judging from Bungie's track record which is not good this is just going to be another generic shooter with ok multiplayer and visiuals that look good right now, but won't age well at all.

Bill_McBlumpkin

It scored lower because so much time had passed. As time passes standards improve. The game was 3 years old when it finally got to the PC, that's way too much time.

For example, Ocarina originally scored a perfect 10. For the Wii it scored an 8.9. In just two years RE4 went from a 9.6 to a 9.4, and the Wii had the superior version.

This is a shocker, but games age.

This is common sense to everyone but yourself, apparently.

Let's just hope that Halo 3 is enough to make AAA (which doesn't seem to offer more than Halo 2 PC - besides a new single-player.) But then again the standards for FPS on the 360 are very low compared to that of the PC.

[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"]Did you consider the two and a half year gap between Halo on the Xbox and the port for the PC?Meu2k7

It wasnt a bad port.

Some would disagree. Particularly Baldurs gate fans/ system shock fans oh and also Halo fans who clutter these boards. Once a classic always a classic. Sad fact is 9.4 was a bit over genorous anyway but aslong as gamespot and most review companys hype a game then people will buy it and their reviews get credibility. I mean Gears of War??? 9.6 was it? Who are the dreamers and idiots now??? Gamespot i ask you!

ardylicious

then how do they choose which games to hype so people will buy it?

If I released Goldeneye for PC right now with minimal upgrades and a map eiditor, will it still get the same score?

What if PC DOES has higher standards for FPS? How does that affect Xbox owners in anyway?

This thread is a waste of my time why did I even answer it...

It's a great game, on the Xbox. And well, those super high PC standards really hurt it's translation to Windows.

And it's basically the exact same game. In fact the PC version has improved visuals and a map editor, so in theory it should be better. right?

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

Oh wait, Even gamespot thinks Halo is just a generic crappy shooter. Hmmmm I guess the PC does have higher game standards and crap like that won't fly with hermits.

I can't believe people actually think Halo 3 is going to be a good game. Judging from Bungie's track record which is not good this is just going to be another generic shooter with ok multiplayer and visiuals that look good right now, but won't age well at all.

turq_razor

You mean a 3 year old game deserves the same score again? Did you also see that it wasn't the same reviewer? :|

Is anyone up for a game of basketball? (seriously, I've been using this way too much lately, but I'd have no choice!!)musicalmac

It's the shirts v. the blouses!

[QUOTE="Bill_McBlumpkin"][QUOTE="turq_razor"]

And it's basically the exact same game. In fact the PC version has improved visuals and a map editor, so in theory it should be better. right?

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

Oh wait, Even gamespot thinks Halo is just a generic crappy shooter. Hmmmm I guess the PC does have higher game standards and crap like that won't fly with hermits.

I can't believe people actually think Halo 3 is going to be a good game. Judging from Bungie's track record which is not good this is just going to be another generic shooter with ok multiplayer and visiuals that look good right now, but won't age well at all.

ardylicious

It scored lower because so much time had passed. As time passes standards improve. The game was 3 years old when it finally got to the PC, that's way too much time.

For example, Ocarina originally scored a perfect 10. For the Wii it scored an 8.9.

This is a shocker, but games age.

This is common sense to everyone but yourself, apparently.

Some would disagree. Particularly Baldurs gate fans/ system shock fans oh and also Halo fans who clutter these boards. Once a classic always a classic. Sad fact is 9.4 was a bit over genorous anyway but aslong as gamespot and most review companys hype a game then people will buy it and their reviews get credibility. I mean Gears of War??? 9.6 was it? Who are the dreamers and idiots now??? Gamespot i ask you!

How can you not grasp such a simple concept?

If the original Half Life were re-released again for the PC with very minimal improvements how do you think it would score? Much, much, much lower - that's how.

Time passes, standards improve.

Halo 2 came out in 2004, of course some shooters will gain up on it. And besides, The xbox version of Half Life 2 received a lower score than the pc version, does that mean Xbox has higher standards than pc? wait..why am I trying to convince you, you're just a troll....SpaceDragonMan

The Xbox version of Half-Life 2 wasn't any good at all when compared to the PC version because it was a terrible port. Framerates sucks, graphics were bad, controls were not great, overall it was just bad. The PC version was amazing. Wait until the Xbox 360 version gets released with good graphics, smooth framerate and good controls and then we will talk.

Halo 2 for Vista also sucked so that is no different. It had 4 year old graphics, bad framerates and controls that were poorly setup for PC use. So it works both ways.

You answered your own question. "It's basically the same game". You're surprised that a 3 year old port of a last gen game, scored lower? Probably for the same reason that all the wii VC and XBL arcade games are scoring lower than the originals. Think about it.

[QUOTE="SpaceDragonMan"]Halo 2 came out in 2004, of course some shooters will gain up on it. And besides, The xbox version of Half Life 2 received a lower score than the pc version, does that mean Xbox has higher standards than pc? wait..why am I trying to convince you, you're just a troll....horrowhip

The Xbox version of Half-Life 2 wasn't any good at all when compared to the PC version because it was a terrible port. Framerates sucks, graphics were bad, controls were not great, overall it was just bad. The PC version was amazing. Wait until the Xbox 360 version gets released with good graphics, smooth framerate and good controls and then we will talk.

The reason HL2 is likely to score high for the 360 is not because it'll be an accurate HL2 port, it'll be because of the immense amount of stuff included for just the price of one game...... HL2, Episode 2, TF, Portal, etc. If it were just HL2 it wouldn't score nearly as good. HL2 isn't going to be released, the Orange Box is, it's a huge value. It'll be released on the PC as well and will likely get the same high score there just because it's so much bang for your buck, such a good value.

[QUOTE="Bill_McBlumpkin"][QUOTE="turq_razor"]

And it's basically the exact same game. In fact the PC version has improved visuals and a map editor, so in theory it should be better. right?

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

Oh wait, Even gamespot thinks Halo is just a generic crappy shooter. Hmmmm I guess the PC does have higher game standards and crap like that won't fly with hermits.

I can't believe people actually think Halo 3 is going to be a good game. Judging from Bungie's track record which is not good this is just going to be another generic shooter with ok multiplayer and visiuals that look good right now, but won't age well at all.

ardylicious

It scored lower because so much time had passed. As time passes standards improve. The game was 3 years old when it finally got to the PC, that's way too much time.

For example, Ocarina originally scored a perfect 10. For the Wii it scored an 8.9.

This is a shocker, but games age.

This is common sense to everyone but yourself, apparently.

Some would disagree. Particularly Baldurs gate fans/ system shock fans oh and also Halo fans who clutter these boards. Once a classic always a classic. Sad fact is 9.4 was a bit over genorous anyway but aslong as gamespot and most review companys hype a game then people will buy it and their reviews get credibility. I mean Gears of War??? 9.6 was it? Who are the dreamers and idiots now??? Gamespot i ask you!

Halo 2 came out in 2004, of course some shooters will gain up on it. And besides, The xbox version of Half Life 2 received a lower score than the pc version, does that mean Xbox has higher standards than pc? wait..why am I trying to convince you, you're just a troll....SpaceDragonMan

Um.. The halo 2 version to pc wasn't less good then the xbox one.. just recieved a much lesser score.. (

The half-life 2 port to xbox was inferior to the PC version and recieved a lower score (not much, considering how much worse it actully was..)..

Do you see that your logics fail? No? well I guess you are just a blind fanboy...

[QUOTE="SpaceDragonMan"]Halo 2 came out in 2004, of course some shooters will gain up on it. And besides, The xbox version of Half Life 2 received a lower score than the pc version, does that mean Xbox has higher standards than pc? wait..why am I trying to convince you, you're just a troll....omgimba

Um.. The halo 2 version to pc wasn't less good then the xbox one.. just recieved a much lesser score.. (

The half-life 2 port to xbox was inferior to the PC version and recieved a lower score (not much, considering how much worse it actully was..)..

Do you see that your logics fail? No? well I guess you are just a blind fanboy...

And? RE4 was superior on the Wii, Oblivion was superior on thePS3 compared to the 360, etc. The list could go on for pages.

They all scored less only because they were released later and standards had improved.

Now combine this with the fact that Halo 2 was THREE YEARS OLD (that's almost an entire generation worth of time,) and there you go.

[QUOTE="SpaceDragonMan"]Halo 2 came out in 2004, of course some shooters will gain up on it. And besides, The xbox version of Half Life 2 received a lower score than the pc version, does that mean Xbox has higher standards than pc? wait..why am I trying to convince you, you're just a troll....omgimba

Um.. The halo 2 version to pc wasn't less good then the xbox one.. just recieved a much lesser score.. (

The half-life 2 port to xbox was inferior to the PC version and recieved a lower score (not much, considering how much worse it actully was..)..

Do you see that your logics fail? No? well I guess you are just a blind fanboy...

You answered your own question. "It's basically the same game". You're surprised that a 3 year old port of a last gen game, scored lower? Probably for the same reason that all the wii VC and XBL arcade games are scoring lower than the originals. Think about it.

sonicare

RE4 scored o,5 less on the Wii then on GC, and thats Basicly the same game.... and that game came out 2 years and 5 months after the GC version.. Comapred to halo 2's 2 years and 7 months... those 2 months means 1,9 difference in score..

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

You answered your own question. "It's basically the same game". You're surprised that a 3 year old port of a last gen game, scored lower? Probably for the same reason that all the wii VC and XBL arcade games are scoring lower than the originals. Think about it.

omgimba

RE4 scored o,5 less on the Wii then on GC, and thats Basicly the same game.... and that game came out 2 years and 5 months after the GC version.. Comapred to halo 2's 2 years and 7 months... those 2 months means 1,9 difference in score..

Yes, but that's because the Wii has vritually the same graphical standards as the GC did. Look how RE4 scored on the PC.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

You answered your own question. "It's basically the same game". You're surprised that a 3 year old port of a last gen game, scored lower? Probably for the same reason that all the wii VC and XBL arcade games are scoring lower than the originals. Think about it.

omgimba

RE4 scored o,5 less on the Wii then on GC, and thats Basicly the same game.... and that game came out 2 years and 5 months after the GC version.. Comapred to halo 2's 2 years and 7 months... those 2 months means 1,9 difference in score..

The standards are A LOT higher for fps on the PC. 7.0 seems like a fitting score.wagexslave

But other Xbox games made that delayed transition from the Xbox to the PC, and the difference in the scores was nowhere close to being nearly two and a half points.

But other Xbox games made that delayed transition from the Xbox to the PC, and the difference in the scores was nowhere close to being nearly two and a half points.

TekkenMaster606

What other XBox games took 3 years to transition to the PC???

[QUOTE="omgimba"]

[QUOTE="SpaceDragonMan"]Halo 2 came out in 2004, of course some shooters will gain up on it. And besides, The xbox version of Half Life 2 received a lower score than the pc version, does that mean Xbox has higher standards than pc? wait..why am I trying to convince you, you're just a troll....Bill_McBlumpkin

Um.. The halo 2 version to pc wasn't less good then the xbox one.. just recieved a much lesser score.. (

The half-life 2 port to xbox was inferior to the PC version and recieved a lower score (not much, considering how much worse it actully was..)..

Do you see that your logics fail? No? well I guess you are just a blind fanboy...

And? RE4 was superior on the Wii, Oblivion was superior on thePS3 compared to the 360, etc. The list could go on for pages.

They all scored less only because they were released later and standards had improved.

Now combine this with the fact that Halo 2 was THREE YEARS OLD (that's almost an entire generation worth of time,) and there you go.

He was comparing an example where the game got severly downgraded with a game that hardly changed at all To "prove" that the PC's standards was not higher then the Xbox's standards. Is that a valid "proof"?

[QUOTE="wagexslave"]The standards are A LOT higher for fps on the PC. 7.0 seems like a fitting score.killtactics

Is 3 years really supposed to effect a games score that drastically? The game was considered AAA(somehow).

Games like Papar Mario were a decade or more old(2 gens or more old) and got ported to Wii and still got up to AA-AAA.

Excuses are lame.

[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="wagexslave"]The standards are A LOT higher for fps on the PC. 7.0 seems like a fitting score.wagexslave

Is 3 years really supposed to effect a games score that drastically? The game was considered AAA(somehow).

Games like Papar Mario were a decade or more old(2 gens or more old) and got ported to Wii and still got up to AA-AAA.

Excuses are lame.

Games like Paper Mario cost $10 or less. Halo 2 for PC is $50. Very different things are expected if you try to sell a game that has barely changed after a number of years at full price.

[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="wagexslave"]The standards are A LOT higher for fps on the PC. 7.0 seems like a fitting score.wagexslave

Is 3 years really supposed to effect a games score that drastically? The game was considered AAA(somehow).

Games like Papar Mario were a decade or more old(2 gens or more old) and got ported to Wii and still got up to AA-AAA.

Excuses are lame.

And they also cost like 5 or 10bucks, not 50. Value is also a huge consideration.

Direct quote from the Paper Mario review's "Good" section:

A total bargain at $10.

[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="wagexslave"]The standards are A LOT higher for fps on the PC. 7.0 seems like a fitting score.wagexslave

Is 3 years really supposed to effect a games score that drastically? The game was considered AAA(somehow).

Games like Papar Mario were a decade or more old(2 gens or more old) and got ported to Wii and still got up to AA-AAA.

Excuses are lame.

When the Xbox at the time was already weaker than the PC and you add another 3 years of ageing you're going to have a problem if you do a direct port and just bump the game up just a tad.

[QUOTE="wagexslave"]

[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="wagexslave"]The standards are A LOT higher for fps on the PC. 7.0 seems like a fitting score.justforlotr2004

Is 3 years really supposed to effect a games score that drastically? The game was considered AAA(somehow).

Games like Papar Mario were a decade or more old(2 gens or more old) and got ported to Wii and still got up to AA-AAA.

Excuses are lame.

When the Xbox at the time was already weaker than the PC and you add another 3 years of ageing you're going to have a problem if you do a direct port and just bump the game up just a tad.

That's why I said the PC's standards are too high for the game.

There are 2 reasons why the score is so much lower. The first is obvious, the game was well over 2 years old when it was ported. In that time games like FEAR and STALKER were released, obviously a great new game is going to be better than a great old game because of the simple concept of evolution in gaming.

The other reason is the fundamental difference between PCs and consoles. Anyone who has played games on both consoles and PCs knows that games in the same genres tend to play very differently. A good example of this is UT3, the game is going to play differently on consoles because of the controls. Anyone who has ever played a UT game knows that the fast-paced gameplay does not translate to consoles well because it is simply too fast for the standard gamepad. Analog sticks simply aren't precise enough to move at the same speed of a mouse and still be accurate. So logically, a game that goes from console to PC without a major redesign is going to feel sluggish.

Halo 2 Vista was just a three year old port and wasn't even made by Bungie Studios. Sheesh, did you actually think it was going to score well?

[QUOTE="justforlotr2004"][QUOTE="wagexslave"]

[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="wagexslave"]The standards are A LOT higher for fps on the PC. 7.0 seems like a fitting score.wagexslave

Is 3 years really supposed to effect a games score that drastically? The game was considered AAA(somehow).

Games like Papar Mario were a decade or more old(2 gens or more old) and got ported to Wii and still got up to AA-AAA.

Excuses are lame.

When the Xbox at the time was already weaker than the PC and you add another 3 years of ageing you're going to have a problem if you do a direct port and just bump the game up just a tad.

That's why I said the PC's standards are too high for the game.

No if they were too high then Halo 1 for PC would be AAAA on Xbox since even being a 2 year old port it got AAA.

Halo 1 - 2 year port with added features like online (which is a huge feature for Halo) and weapons. With the added stuff and not just a straight port it made it AAA.

Halo 2 - 3 year port with added maps and slightly better visuals yet still far behind PC because of the 3 year diffrence. There wasnt much added to make it worth the $50 it costs which it lost many points for.

It's a three year old game, it's like releasing halo 2 for xbox 360 with better visuals obviously it is going to get a lower score. Not only that but it was made as a console game so if your used to pc fps your not going to get into halo. Also windows live sucks lo. This thread fails miserbly.