So, why isn't Halo MCC reviewed yet?

I remember GS couldn't wait to review TLOUR and even with the issues DriveClub had, it's review was turned in with a pretty swift delivery, so why haven't they reviewed Halo MCC yet? I mean the game is OUT now...has been for 2 whole days.

Is GS waiting for 343 to get their shit together before delivering a review or is there another reason? If that is the case will they start doing that for other games in the future or is this an exception?

Do you think it should be the standard for GS to hold off on a reviews until everything runs perfectly or should they do as they have in the past and review games how they are when they release on shelves?

@kinectthedots: I am kinda curious about that.

I know the reviewer wanted to get into some proper multiplayer and forge action, so I guess he's keeping busy with that. But with matchmaking being garbage, I can see this working against the game's overall score.

For cows this will be lovely. Lems? Well.. Not exactly.

If anything its a bit unfair. They are going to review the game post patch and ignore the server issues. Gs and ign are both doing this.

Because it would look bad scoring a 10/10 before the patch that fixes some dem issues. :P

I mean, it's not like Halo MCC isnt the biggest game to come out for x1 this year or anything. It's not something that just slipped their minds and they have been extremely quite about the situation. It just seems weird.

If it makes you feel better it holds an 89 on metacritic.

Chris already said he would put out the full review after he played the multiplayer.

Jeff even commented on out dumb it was for embargoded reviews to not play it at first.

Next week I'll be chiming back in with my full review of The Master Chief Collection, once I've played a whole bunch of multiplayer and messed around a bit with Forge (including the new forge-able Halo 2 levels). Be sure to check out the video review and gameplay clips for a look at these games in action, and let me know how you think it's shaping up in the comments below.

Most likely to be put up tomorrow. Maybe in teh weekend

Da **** you talking about?

It just seems kind of double standard-ish in practice because I have seen many games get reviewed here on GS with known issues that had promised "fixes" in the future with the review justifying their review by saying this is the product you get if you pick it up in stores now.

Future fixes are all fine and dandy but it's this break in tradition on past review standards that has me puzzled. If this game gets a "pass" for not having everything in place then why not others? I just think review practices should be the same across the board, either damn them all or just wait for every game to "get it right" before delivering their review.

Money.......

Joking...I think.

It held a 90 until Gaming Age wanted click bait and gave the a game a 60 because of the multiplayer issues.

Don't get me wrong, they should of really made sure they got their shit together before the game released but it's obvious click bait, kind of discredits MC when they allow garbage reviews like this.

How is it it dumb to not review it...if it's currently broken and not working but released and on the shelves at full price?

My point is GS has reviewed games in the past that had part or portions of games "not finished/not working" that had promised fixes, it can't be that hard for you to understand.

GS wanna make sure it gets a 9. Halo is their god

Eh. In the interest of honesty one thing we should have all noticed if we read reviews.....no matter what site...is remakes, ports, remasters tend to score less because they are remakes, remasters, ports. So a score in the 80s should really have been expected anyway. If it is too high then I would question the credibility of the site. Though a score being in the 80s shouldn't stop anyone who wants to play/replay the game. The basic games were critical successes and sold as well.

In regard to bugs and glitches.....with consoles being pc like now people will need to get used to that if they early adopt games. Also in the interest of fairness they shouldn't demonize Ubisoft for this and give 343 a pass.

Agreed. I could see waiting for a Day 1 patch or something, but a Day 5 or 10 patch? Shouldn't Dead Rising 3 get a re-review, then?

Again, what teh **** are you talking about?

The embargo ended on Nov 7. That's when Chris posted the "Review in progress" on the campaign parts.

Other publications who gave full scored reveiws had only played the campaign aswell.

This is because the multiplayer only went live for everyone on Nov 11. So, publications like GS, etc, had to wait for it to review the MP part.

Jeff was pointing out how stupid it was for people to give a fully scored review without waiting for the mp to go live.

I think all games with issues should get a re-review after patches. In this day and age with console games needing them.....it's only fair. Otherwise don't rush the review.

Then they should just plaster it with a 9.0 and use any reason to justify it instead of breaking review traditions to make exceptions for certain games.

I think some leeway can be given since there is a boatload of content and bunches of MP maps to go through so perhaps it's just a bit of good luck there is all that content and gives 343 a bit more time to clean some things up before GS is fully ready to review, just a thought.

This is what I wondered. The games shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that's been gaming....if you want to purchase the games again you already decided you would.

I can only think it's for SW arguing.

I think people are going overboard with Ubisoft also. Although part of it probably comes from the fact that Ubisoft abuses yearly rehashes and is already looked down upon by many, Unity just added fuel to the fire.

Games cost a lot of money now.....and if they didn't spend the money they'd get flack there as well....a known commodity is a safe IP. AC games tend to score and sell well. I don't get the hate. If you don't like the series....don't buy it. Problem solved.

Good grief. Then they should wait until lots of other games are fixed before they review them if that's the new standard.

Because revewing a great game takes time and pacience and cows need to be on look out this wil be easily 9+ game on here so cows can cry more about PeeS4 and Bony being bad to them.

They already reviewed the games. This should be a quick review for them. All they need is to see what if anything changed. If it's just window dressing then they can skip it and make mention of that.

Ding ding ding

The shit wasn't working so please stop the damage control. It's been documented and reconfirmed by gamers and players who bought the game. if the MP wasn't broken they could have reviewed it. Giving the dates you are listing doesn't change that fact.

Here you go. Halo MCC updated and reviewed

November 12th, 2014

Halo: The Master Chief Collection review for Xbox One [Updated]

Review Update:

So, here’s the updated side of my review for Halo: The Master Chief Collection.

Multiplayer is pretty busted.

Matchmaking specifically, but other aspects of MP certainly have issues as of this writing. I know that 343 Industries has issued a statement regarding this, and that they’re currently working to fix these issues, but as of 10 or 15 minutes ago, there’s still some serious problems here.

With Matchmaking, you’ll have a real tough time finding any full game. You can’t seemingly jump into existing games, and you’ll spend 4 to 5 minutes in a lobby waiting for the player list to fill, only to see maybe 3 or 4 people join up. If you’re trying to play with a party, that party will be inexplicably split-up when joining games, even when playing split-screen.

Do I doubt that 343 will be able to fix these issues, and eventually get to a point where multiplayer will be a smooth experience for everyone? No. But for those that jumped in Day 1, took time off work, and dropped their own hard-earned cash on what they assumed would be a working product, there’s little solace in knowing that a fix is coming. We all expect the things we buy to work when we buy them, not a day, week, or month down the line. It’s unfortunate for Halo: TMCC in the sense that I think this is a pretty great collection of obviously fantastic games, but until the issues with MP are sorted out, you’re only getting half of what you paid for.

So, as of now, I’d strongly suggest holding off on picking this up. This month and last aren’t lacking in quality games to pass your time with at least, so there’s that. Hopefully, for those that bought Halo: TMCC a permanent fix comes along sooner than later, or you can get some enjoyment out of the single-player experience for the time being. But it’s certainly not fair to wait for the product you purchased to work, and because of that, I want to be sure that my review score for this retail product reflects that.

http://www.gaming-age.com/2014/11/halo-master-chief-collection-review-progress-xbox-one/

I think this guy sums it up best:

"for those that jumped in Day 1, took time off work, and dropped their own hard-earned cash on what they assumed would be a working product, there’s little solace in knowing that a fix is coming. We all expect the things we buy to work when we buy them, not a day, week, or month down the line"

"But it’s certainly not fair to wait for the product you purchased to work, and because of that, I want to be sure that my review score for this retail product reflects that."

I am not so much jumping on Halo MCC as I am on GS here.

DriveClub got the same treatment and rightfully so. So I really don't understand what your grip is as you didn't have any problem with that review despite a fix being promised in the future, and what about AssCreed?

Same happened with FH2....X1 games are so deep and complex it takes a while

That's the fact Jack, all the games after the launch have been very deep with sprawling worlds and loads of content, I like the cut of your jib. hehe :P

Everything I've read indicates that online is a mess right now. I'd be pissed if I bought a game and could only play half of it.

I agree that it seems shady how some games get a pass for their online being broken (GTA V) while others are killed for it (DriveClub) during launch week. The GTA's and Halo's of the world are always going to get a bit of a pass because sites need to get the coverage of the big budget games out there. They need the clicks. A handful of sites released their Halo MCC reviews with the multiplayer still broken. Kudos to IGN, Giantbomb and Gamespot for holding off until they can actually review a working product.

If this were a slow gaming month I would bet money Gamespot would have the review out already.

You got that right!

They got their M$ check already, but it would look bad giving the game AAA+ when it's near unplayable.

They've been doing reviews in progress. There is a lot of content there and since it's so multiplayer heavy they probably needed to wait for the servers to get some population.

I forsee them knocking the game for a poor launch though. 343 dropped the ball on that.

However matchmaking issues and bugs can be and will be patched out. So it's not fair to trash the entire game for launch day woes. So don't expect like a 5.0/10 or something because of that.

Agreed!

because it's a broken piece of shit

The review in progress clearly stated they wanted to get through multiplayer maps before giving a final score as it was such a big part of the package. They didn't know at that time there would be problems with MP. All the single player content is reviewed. If you are one of these dweebs who can't read text and need a score to tell you whether to buy it or not, I can tell you they conveyed to me through the medium of words that they liked it a lot. For MP it is all over the web the kind of problems people have been having. Do your research don't cry because Gamespot won't give you a number to tell you what to do.

exactly.

Who said they are waiting on the score to buy it? Other than that you really aren't saying anything that hasn't already been said in this thread.

Calm down tough guy.

The one thing I always dreaded and frowned upon as a console gamer was the accepted PC "patch-fix" philosophy.

I see it today alive and well in console gaming and as a result people are beginning to accept it as "ok". Back in the day console games were flawless works of passion or just be cursed to be pieces of shit if issues weren't ironed out in the development process; that made the devs accountable and responsible.

I used to have comfort in the fact that when I went into a store to buy a game, I knew without any reservations that the game would work flawlessly 100% of the time. It was one thing that made me be proud to be a console gamer but now our console devs have slowly fallen into the same PC "patch-fix" philosophy that I dreaded so long ago.

@dvalo9: at least its is being fixed and patched within launch week. Battlefield and drive club were just straight up broken games

because they have to wade through 4 games?

maybe? possibly?

also, what's the diff?

it's halo upscaled. how much more info do you have to have to figure out what is in it?

But, that's a paradigm of advancement in software development. The more complex the code, the more bugs are inevitably in there. Games today are 10x more complex than they were just 10 years ago.

I don't mind taking a little longer to assess a game if there is teething trouble at launch, especially with online aspects and server issues. It seems even the absolute best and most respected developers in the world still end up with all kinds of unforeseeable problems when a game first launches due to the volume of people trying to play online at once.

I wouldn't expect a film critic to negatively review a film because they struggled to find a cinema that wasn't sold out. I know that's a terrible analogy but you get my point.

I do think bugs and the like should be taken into account such as frame rate issues and crashes, but server issues are to be expected.

Calm down yourself the thread is complaining that MCC hasn't been reviewed when it has they are just holding off on a score because of the multiplayer.