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

"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

Considering it's a three year old port of a console game, I think it's a fitting description. It's solid, but anything from 2005 and up is probably going to feel fresher.

Oh, and this argument is old as sin.

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

Doesn't the bolded line owns him outright?

PC FPS have different (not higher) standards than console shooters. Halo translates badly to PC. PC games translated to consoles usually don't fare well, either. Everyone keeps screaming that HL2 and UT3 will be the exceptions, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Let's see the negatives about Halo 2:

• Gamepad users get potentially unfair advantage in multiplayer with auto-aim

• Graphics are unimpressive by today's standards

• Poor single-player storyline with unsatisfying cliff-hanger ending

• Arbitrary differences between silver and gold users.

Not really a Halo 2 issue, is it? More like an effect from the terrible Games for Windows system.

Halo games aren't bad. It's the best you can get in a FPS experience for consoles. It's the closest thing you're ever going to get to fully skill based gameplay in FPS on consoles. See what I did there? The slower pace of Halo just doesn't translate well to PC's, period.

PC FPS have different (not higher) standards than console shooters. Halo translates badly to PC. PC games translated to consoles usually don't fare well, either. Everyone keeps screaming that HL2 and UT3 will be the exceptions, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Let's see the negatives about Halo 2:

• Gamepad users get potentially unfair advantage in multiplayer with auto-aim

Console holdover. Also not a real issue because even with autoaim, who in their right mind would use a gamepad for a shooter when they have a Mouse/KB available?

• Graphics are unimpressive by today's standards

Halo 2 didn't age well. Not a suprise. It's 2 and a half years old. Graphics have never been a shining feature of Halo: It's never, ever gotten a 10 in graphics, on Xbox or PC.

• Poor single-player storyline with unsatisfying cliff-hanger ending

Yep.

• Arbitrary differences between silver and gold users.

Not really a Halo 2 issue, is it? More like an effect from the terrible Games for Windows system.

Halo games aren't bad. It's the best you can get in a FPS experience for consoles. It's the closest thing you're ever going to get to fully skill based gameplay in FPS on consoles. See what I did there? The slower pace of Halo just doesn't translate well to PC's, period.

Ellipson

So you mean getting a 9/10 in graphics doesn't count as a shining feature??? Also, calling the single player storyline poor is a sick generality on your part. :(

So you mean getting a 9/10 in graphics doesn't count as a shining feature??? Also, calling the single player storyline poor is a sick generality on your part. :(

dgroundwater

When other parts of the game got better scores under the old review system, and the xbox review states there are "Unsightly graphical issues," then yes, it's not a shining feature.

The single player campaign was poor. The reviews agree with me, and the majority of FPS players, Halo fans or not, agree that it's at least worse than Halo 1's campaign.

Well then,how about halo 1 ;)ProductNumber49

this is a joke thread right?

[QUOTE="ardylicious"]

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!

CaseyWegner

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

The ones that give the backhanders............lol

Are you telling me advertising doesen't count?? Are you telling me that mass advertising and excellent marketting didn't give help Gears?? Of course it did helped by lack of great games on the 360 and lack of graphics which the U3 engine excels. Eye candy won it just like Halo created a FPS that was playable on Console. Do you really think GeoW deserved 9.6? And do you think it would receive the same 12 months after???

Nope the simple answer is alot simpler. Oh and yes HL wasen't quite up to the PC standards i'm afraid. Personally i hate Halo anyway and can't imagine me touching this game with a barge pole.

[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 9.1, and the Wii had the superior version.

This is a shocker, but games age.

This is common sense to everyone but yourself, apparently.

Exactly couldn't have said it better myself.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="ardylicious"]

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?

The ones that give the backhanders............lol

Are you telling me advertising doesen't count?? Are you telling me that mass advertising and excellent marketting didn't give help Gears?? Of course it did helped by lack of great games on the 360 and lack of graphics which the U3 engine excels. Eye candy won it just like Halo created a FPS that was playable on Console. Do you really think GeoW deserved 9.6? And do you think it would receive the same 12 months after???

Nope the simple answer is alot simpler. Oh and yes HL wasen't quite up to the PC standards i'm afraid. Personally i hate Halo anyway and can't imagine me touching this game with a barge pole.

advertising, hype, etc. did not influence the score.

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

...:| halo 2 is a game that came... when? and when the standards where like? THINK BEFORE POSTING.