[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]The standards to this day though, are even higher.Xtasy26

yet halo reach destroyed every pc game ever created

The linear nature of Halo Reach does top the vast open endedenviroment of Crysis and Crysis Warhead. LMAO. Not to mention Halo Reach's graphics are trash. Fail.

At the time maybe, but honestly

http://xbox.gamespy.com/xbox/halo-combat-evolved/558851p1.html

THAT is the best halo:CE review I've read, this review highlighted halo:CE's faults (which people only complained about years after) as well as its pros, instead of just the pros. It was a truly good read.

Espada12

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

Unreal Tournament?

Quake?

Counter-Strike?

TF2?

Eggimannd

Look, I think Counter-Strike is GREAT. Probably my second favorite. Never been a huge Unreal fan(extremely easy headshots) and even less of a quake fan. Reach just has an amazingly balanced play mechanic. The play is more varied. All the games you mentioned are very one dimensional. That doesn't make them bad, but where Reach steps up is in giving the player more variables. One player may choose to play the game one way, while another in a completely different manner-----but both can still succeed.

I've been playing Reach for about 20 hours now online and I still feel it doesn't compare to CS.

Call me when Reach is alive for 10 years like CS has been.

Considering it is essentially a PC shooter streamlined for consoles... I'm not surprised. I dislike the game, and don't think it stands up against PC standards... but that's just Greg's opinion.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"][QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

yet halo reach destroyed every pc game ever created

Heirren

It sure is. Reach is the absolute best online fps game ever created. Personally I feel that PC fps games have gone downhill over the years.

Some could also argue that 2001 and 2002 were pretty crap years for PC Single Player FPS games, with the exception of Undying, Medal of Honor, and NOLF2...where only one of those three had successful sales...mainly because PC FPS becoming more multiplayer focused (Battlefield 1942, UT2003) and other genres gaining popularity on PC during the years of 2001 - 2003. It's not hard to stand up to the standards when the only real prominent single player fps for the two years prior to the publishing of that review was MoH: Allied Assault. ....but single player PC FPS certainly made a big comback in late 2003 with the original Call of Duty and into 2004 with Far Cry and Half-Life 2. Once single player PC FPS titles moved back into the forefront during 2004, the Halo series didn't stack up as well against them.locknload18

[QUOTE="Trozyn"]

[QUOTE="locknload18"]One can also look at how the Halo series fared against PC standards beyond 2003: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/halo2/review.html I think this quote from that review say it all: "It's still easy to see why this game was so loved on consoles in its day, but when you put it in direct comparison with recent PC shooters, it loses a ton of its appeal." Raymundo_Manuel

On thing is for sure though: Halo 2> Doom 3. Words cannot describe how much of a disappointment that game was.

I actually like Doom 3. My favorite thing was the shotgun :D

I never beat it though. I think I was on the verge of getting to hell, but I was kinda scared to proceed because I had heard bad stories about the demon babies

One can also look at how the Halo series fared against PC standards beyond 2003: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/halo2/review.html I think this quote from that review say it all: "It's still easy to see why this game was so loved on consoles in its day, but when you put it in direct comparison with recent PC shooters, it loses a ton of its appeal." locknload18

On thing is for sure though: Halo 2> Doom 3. Words cannot describe how much of a disappointment that game was.

[QUOTE="Trozyn"]

You heard that right, he said Halo stands up against the high standards of PC shooters. This is has to be one of GameSpot's top 10 most controversial reviews. This has been an ongoing argument, whether or not Halo (or any game in the main Halo series) withstands against the PC's high quality standards of first-person shooters. This guy, thinks so. He's been one of the most prominent, and well-respected game editors on GS, before his departure in 2007. He did give some controversial reviews, but this is one of the most that stands out the most.

So, do you think Greg Kasavin gave a fair and well constructed review? Or is he just a blind Halo fanboy? You be the judge, I'm arguing with myself whether or not I agree with him.

locknload18