CajoleJuice
Member
Well, I'm not surprised that MrparisSM is crying about this.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Halo 2 Reviews (All Known Listed) [Warning: GS v-review has spoiler]
- Thread starter CrimsonSkies
- Start date
Kanbee-san
Member
Drakken said:
They didnt even play over live ! lol
Smells like a pirate copy.
Pirate copy or MS organized full day review. Not exactly the best way to review a game I'd say, and admiting you did not play such an important if not essential part of the game just kills any credibility they could have. But coming from a site who gave that sucky game Brute Force a 9...
Kanbee-san
Member
Blimblim said:
Just bad taste all around. At least have the respect to play the game how the devs intended it to be played. Oh well, i aint the reviewer.
shibbs: Yeah, I think so. Read the topic of this thread again 
Interview with Pete Parson
Sry if old.
Interview with Pete Parson
Sry if old.
Can someone explain to me why sites would score only part of the game? First Eurogamer reviews only the single player, and now Gamers Europe does the same thing (gave it an 8/10 btw). If they haven't had a chance to go online with the game, then why not wait unil they have to write up the review?
No european site (as far as I can tell, I sure didn't...) has got a review copy of Halo 2. So any review you will read from Europe is either from the leaked version or from someone who played the game at an MS event. With some chance they might have been able to get the game last friday like a friend of mine managed to (so I managed to record the first few minutes of the game for my site) but no one here could possibly give the xbox live mode any correct testing.Redbeard said:
So you can bet on all the euro sites putting review online yesterday or today being sites in much need of attention, betting on the quick attention/money they'll get by all the hits they'll have with their controversial reviews.
MightyHedgehog
Member
What about split-screen and system-link play, then?
Ho come on, how many people reading a review on a web site are not interested in online gaming, especially for a Xbox game ? I'd understand a paper review not mentioning Xbox live for more than a few sentences, but the primary audience for an internet review is most definitely interested in this. IMO of course.cybamerc said:
I never said ALL of them would be on Xbox Live, but I'm totally sure a very big percentage of the people reading xbox reviews online are also xbox live users. Just saying "sorry we could not test it but here is our review anyway" is definitely the best way to detect a site trying to get some cheap hits.cybamerc said:
Blimblim:
> I never said ALL of them would be on Xbox Live, but I'm totally sure a very big
> percentage of the people reading xbox reviews online are also xbox live users.
Perhaps...
> Just saying "sorry we could not test it but here is our review anyway" is definitely the
> best way to detect a site trying to get some cheap hits.
You're just saying that because it's Halo 2. A lot of games aren't properly played through prior to being reviewed but few are as big as Halo 2. Also, I guess it depends on your perspective. Do you consider multiplayer to be an integral part of the game or just an added bonus? Do you let it influence the score when the main game doesn't live up to your expectations?
> I never said ALL of them would be on Xbox Live, but I'm totally sure a very big
> percentage of the people reading xbox reviews online are also xbox live users.
Perhaps...
> Just saying "sorry we could not test it but here is our review anyway" is definitely the
> best way to detect a site trying to get some cheap hits.
You're just saying that because it's Halo 2. A lot of games aren't properly played through prior to being reviewed but few are as big as Halo 2. Also, I guess it depends on your perspective. Do you consider multiplayer to be an integral part of the game or just an added bonus? Do you let it influence the score when the main game doesn't live up to your expectations?
gollumsluvslave
Member
Cybamerc:-
My only gripe with reviews when it comes to single-player / multiplayer portions of games is the inconsistency - more than a few games I know this year have had minus marks because of no multiplayer (Riddick), or poor multiplayer implemenations. But to then not take account of multiplayer into the overall package is poor.
I like what Eurogamer did - explicitly reviewed the Single Player portion as a separate entity. To be honest such score categories like Replay Value etc can't be gauged correctly when comparing the Single Player game, versus the Multiplayer game. It's likely that Halo 2 is around a 7/8 replay value for single player, but a 10 for multi. Apples & Oranges.
Sooner or later more reviews will follow the Eurogamer format I think, how many games are out where the multiplayer is so different to the single player in so many ways the must be judged separate? Not many yet (RTCW, Pandora Tomorrow) but I'd imagine that will change moving forward...
Hell PC games are way ahead by actually separating games out into multiplay mainly iterations (Unreal / UT).
My only gripe with reviews when it comes to single-player / multiplayer portions of games is the inconsistency - more than a few games I know this year have had minus marks because of no multiplayer (Riddick), or poor multiplayer implemenations. But to then not take account of multiplayer into the overall package is poor.
I like what Eurogamer did - explicitly reviewed the Single Player portion as a separate entity. To be honest such score categories like Replay Value etc can't be gauged correctly when comparing the Single Player game, versus the Multiplayer game. It's likely that Halo 2 is around a 7/8 replay value for single player, but a 10 for multi. Apples & Oranges.
Sooner or later more reviews will follow the Eurogamer format I think, how many games are out where the multiplayer is so different to the single player in so many ways the must be judged separate? Not many yet (RTCW, Pandora Tomorrow) but I'd imagine that will change moving forward...
Hell PC games are way ahead by actually separating games out into multiplay mainly iterations (Unreal / UT).
TheGreenGiant
Banned
Blimblim said:
your argument about online review is rubbish. THe only reason why people are reading the reviews online is BECAUSE the articles are online. Got's nothing to do with XBoxlive; you can own a 56k modem and also an xbox. Don't say a big percentage if you don't have the numbers to back it up. Its like saying everyone who buys food from McDonalds are mostly big fat smelly fucks. We all know that's not true. Personally, HALO2 is a offline game for me. I will be buying it for the 1 person play game and I have to say; the more I read, the more disappointed I get. Because Multi has very little allure. I like story in my games. Hopefully, I'll find out in less than 24 hours if my $$$ for 1p HALO2 will be worth it.
* I skimmed over the multi-stuff in both IGN/Gamespot reviews. Skimmed as in didn't really even register/read.
gollumsluvslave
Member
Cybamerc :-
Definitley. It's sad that some games are being penalised due to not having multiplayer, or not great implementations - as I said before Riddick was docked points for no multiplayer, and the only negative comments I've heard on Prime 2 is that the multiplayer isn't as great as some others... so what? It's an extra, it simply adds to the value of the product...people should be thankful that they can play split-screen!
The same way where ppl bitch about Halo 2 having no online CO-OP... sheesh be thankful there is some (supposedly great) online multiplayer!
If it isn't there it shouldn't be a detraction - it's simply not available.
Of course this leads to the debate about value for money etc... what do people expect with games and so on. Some people expect multiplayer, some people couldn't give a rats ass... some people like unlockables, others play through the games once and thats it... horses for courses.
A game should be judged on it's own individual merits and faults IMO.
What those merits and faults are are purely subjective from one person to the next. I.e One person will say that Halo2 multiplayer is integral to the score, another person won't care...same with MP2, that goes for reviewers - they are simply gamers like us after all; reviewers who don't weight multiplayer as important are likely to give Halo 2 lower scores; whereas reviewers that weight multiplayer heavily, will likely give it higher scores.
It's not rocket science really - look at IGN's review - heavily lauds multiplayer, whereas Gamespot review only briefly mentions it; Greg obviously wanted more from the single player, and didn't get what he wanted, but the overall score seems adjusted due to the multiplayer content. I'd imagine if Greg was asked he'd probably separate the reviews out as SP : 9.0, MP : 9.8 or something.
Fanboys give me somethin to stay sane at work!
Definitley. It's sad that some games are being penalised due to not having multiplayer, or not great implementations - as I said before Riddick was docked points for no multiplayer, and the only negative comments I've heard on Prime 2 is that the multiplayer isn't as great as some others... so what? It's an extra, it simply adds to the value of the product...people should be thankful that they can play split-screen!
The same way where ppl bitch about Halo 2 having no online CO-OP... sheesh be thankful there is some (supposedly great) online multiplayer!
If it isn't there it shouldn't be a detraction - it's simply not available.
Of course this leads to the debate about value for money etc... what do people expect with games and so on. Some people expect multiplayer, some people couldn't give a rats ass... some people like unlockables, others play through the games once and thats it... horses for courses.
A game should be judged on it's own individual merits and faults IMO.
What those merits and faults are are purely subjective from one person to the next. I.e One person will say that Halo2 multiplayer is integral to the score, another person won't care...same with MP2, that goes for reviewers - they are simply gamers like us after all; reviewers who don't weight multiplayer as important are likely to give Halo 2 lower scores; whereas reviewers that weight multiplayer heavily, will likely give it higher scores.
It's not rocket science really - look at IGN's review - heavily lauds multiplayer, whereas Gamespot review only briefly mentions it; Greg obviously wanted more from the single player, and didn't get what he wanted, but the overall score seems adjusted due to the multiplayer content. I'd imagine if Greg was asked he'd probably separate the reviews out as SP : 9.0, MP : 9.8 or something.
Fanboys give me somethin to stay sane at work!
It's rubbish for you of course. Considering your usual opinions I'm sure you coulnd't care less about online play. Personally I enjoy my single player games as much as anyone else, but I also see online as the thing that will keep me playing the game a long time after I've seen everything I could from the single player part. I played about 30 hours of single player PGR2 (had a blast) and about 160 hours online, and I'm definitely not a hardcore gamer, I hardly can find 5 hours a week to play games for fun. I'm still playing from time to time. And from what I see in the game a lot of people keep playing online looong after the game has been forgotten on this forum. That's what I call replay value, and considering that about 1 million people already have Xbox Live, and a lot more will get Xbox Live for Halo 2, not including this in the review is a big mistake.TheGreenGiant said:
But of course, all of this is IMO.
gollumsluvslave
Member
gollumsluvslave said:
Seems to me your position is highly ideological. I mean a component is a component . The sum of the parts equal the whole. True not everyone has brodband to play online but your logic really falls apart when the package has split screen. Since value is a component of any review, it seems disingenious to not provide your readership a review of the entire package.
gollumsluvslave
Member
Sysgen:-
Which is exactly why I like the way Eurogamer has gone about their reviews...
Another point that was made with regards to Halo 2 multiplayer and reviews, is that how can ANY of the reviews be taking the multiplayer into account properly? Only once the game goes on sale and there are hundreds of thousands playing on Live, can multiplayer be judged properly...
My main point is that unless the conditions allow for "the whole" to be reviewed (which in the case of Halo 2 it can't really - can't wait for Live to crash, and Halo2 multiplayer to be a sludgy mess for a few days - if only to see the fallout on this board) the way that Eurogamer went about it is eminently sensible.
Which is exactly why I like the way Eurogamer has gone about their reviews...
Another point that was made with regards to Halo 2 multiplayer and reviews, is that how can ANY of the reviews be taking the multiplayer into account properly? Only once the game goes on sale and there are hundreds of thousands playing on Live, can multiplayer be judged properly...
My main point is that unless the conditions allow for "the whole" to be reviewed (which in the case of Halo 2 it can't really - can't wait for Live to crash, and Halo2 multiplayer to be a sludgy mess for a few days - if only to see the fallout on this board) the way that Eurogamer went about it is eminently sensible.
gollumsluvslave
Member
From Dagon's Kikizo review :-
Another sensible review that takes the Eurogamer approach.
Props.
Another sensible review that takes the Eurogamer approach.
Props.
CrimsonSkies
Member
Still reviewing great. Hopefully the sites that review the multiplayer portion later will give the real score for the game. I hope Gamerankings doesn't stick with single player reviews. It would really start a piss poor standard for reviewing.