[QUOTE="SODRChief"]
GameSpot -
Half-Life: 9.4 -
Halo: Combat Evolved: 9.7 - GameSpot: "it's easily one of the best shooters ever, on any platform."
IGN -
Half-Life: 9.5 -
Halo: Combat Evolved: 9.7 - IGN: "Halo is one of the best videogames. There I said it and I'm not going to take it back" IGN's second opinion: "Halo is the perfect example of what next-generation is about, in all forms"
GameRankings -
Half-Life: 94.06% -
Halo: Combat Evolved: 95.45% -
MetaCritic -
Half-Life: 96 -
Halo: Combat Evolved: 97 -
Halo wins in every department and was a much more important, successful and entertaining title in the history of first-person shooters.Admire the facts.
kejigoto
Halo was released on November 15, 2001.
Half-Life was released on November 19, 1998
There's a three year difference here, and in that three time period Halo barely managed to pull out 1 point higher rating overall.
Also I'd just like to point out that Half-Life is strictly single player driven, while Halo has a good multiplayer mode to make up for the lack of the single player game.
A better comparsion here might be Half-Life 2 which came out on November 16, 2004 and Halo 2 which came out on November 9,2004.
According to Meta Critic here's how they stack up:
Half-Life 2 - 96
Halo 2 (Xbox) - 95
Halo 2 (PC) - 74
Halo 3 - 94 (Came out September 25, 2007)
Seems like Half-Life 2 has the upper hand and clearly beats out both Halo 2 and Halo 3 on its own. Not to mention that Half-Life 2 also only has a sinlge player mode to carry it while Halo 2 and Halo 3 have a huge online mode ontop of their single player mode as well to carry them. I won't even mention the terrible scores we see for the PC edition of Halo 2 though I think that is just a testament to the fact that a PC game is held to higher standards than a console game.
Boosh!
Or because of how much later it came out? If halo only score one point higher, isn't it EVEN better due to the fact that standards are higher? (2001-1998)
Log in to comment