Likewise. The game was at its weakest near the start, the ending was really interesting for its spoiler bait.
-
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 5 Review Thread
- Thread starter Twin Tails
- Start date
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
[Call-Me-G];183078647 said:
Oh come on. If Uncharted 4 ended up with around an 85 metacritic score that would be extremely controversial. Not saying all the whining is ok but at least try to understand why the scores are causing so much shock.
Huggers
Member
Yeah I think you could be right. Hard to say one way or the other. It'll always be difficult to judge as times change so dramatically in gaming.
WordsintheWater
Member
I mean the multiplayer is one part of the whole package if the campaign is disappointing then really the metascore is on the money.
If you see his posts in the OT, he's very serious
WordsintheWater
Member
I've played every single Halo game, one of my favorite franchises. So far on Heroic I am 2 hours and 2 minutes into it with 2 missions complete. I don't know how long it will be in the end, but Heroic isn't even that hard, I can't imagine how easy normal is
I actually like the gunplay and frame rate. But I wish the prometheuns didn't exist, They are such a chore to fight. Just feels like a slog at times. I will complete the game and I'll draw a conclusion at the end.
I guess that's the issue with creating, posting, and reposting infographics without context. It sure does stir up controversy, but is certainly unproductive...
A 5 hr blind run of a FPS on an easy difficulty is short?
What would you consider a the standard length for a shooter intentionally being played at a lower difficulty? cant think of one in recent memory that would be any longer...
Really? They are much more enjoyable to fight this time around IMO. Especially with clear damage points the more mobile spartans...
glassgannon
Banned
Yes, and its not just 'a' fps.Its halo and whether you admit it or not, its story mode has been far from irrelevant as it is in most fps's
5 is short and theres no way around it.This isnt even a platinum game you play for the skill challenge and unlocks.So i can see why anyone looking for a good SP experience will be disappointed
you see by having a bigger campaign it could satisfy both the campaign and the mp crowd but with that 5 hr number my mind instantly goes to tacked on cod and battlefield campaigns
glassgannon
Banned
lol give it time.
even 95+ games get shat on in OTs eventually.
everyone needs to justify hype and purchase in week one(not implying the game is bad at all).
Have just finished the game in 5hr 30min, which I feel is very short (The Order 1886 got a lot of stick for the same thing.) Overall I was really disappointed felt the story was a mess, I hate that half the screen is cut away especially playing as Locke, other than a few open areas the game felt restricted and funnelled, I honestly felt a little bored come the end.
I do think some of the extremely high scores I have seen 9/10 90/100 are over inflated, the game is an 8/10 for me. Perhaps reviewers should review the campaign and multiplayer separately these days, as this would give a fairer representation as not everyone buys games for a campaign and vice-versa. I would rate the campaign 6/10 but multiplayer 9/10
I do think some of the extremely high scores I have seen 9/10 90/100 are over inflated, the game is an 8/10 for me. Perhaps reviewers should review the campaign and multiplayer separately these days, as this would give a fairer representation as not everyone buys games for a campaign and vice-versa. I would rate the campaign 6/10 but multiplayer 9/10
Nickdogmoneycash
Member
I mean, just comparing to other games in the series makes it seem too short.
Halo 2: 8-9 Hours
Halo 3: 9 Hours
Halo ODST: 7 Hours
Halo 4: 9 Hours
Of course these times will vary per player, but those specific numbers were taken from Howlongtobeat.com, where they poll hundreds of players for their specific playtimes per game.
WordsintheWater
Member
The multiplayer is great, the campaign is just okay, better then Halo 4, but so far not as good as any of the other Halo's
NecromorphTX
Member
Bornstellar
Member
I feel like the people not enjoying the campaign are blowing through on normal.
I'd love a longer campaign. Give me 40hrs! But you take any game in the series, and it can be beat in 5hrs on normal by players familiar with the franchise.0 Everyone knows that mode doesn't pose a challenge to veterans.
So if you want to base your understanding of the games length on how long it takes a veteran to blow through it at a difficulty most veterans won't touch, so be it.... But you and I both know that that's not representative of how long a blind run would be at the appropriate difficulty...
If you want a good SP experience, you pick the difficulty that suits you.
You're comparison to COD and Battlefield fall flat because those games are 4-5 hrs on hard... Apples to apples, halo's canpaign is lengthier.
But of course, that infographic is clearly working as intended...
Nah, none of those games take that long on normal... Not even close.
Your comparing the play times at the appropriate level +cutscenes to the play times of someone intentionally playing below his skill, minus cutscenes
Totally unfair comparison... But again, very effective infographic...
Caipirinha
Member
Honestly this is a better average score than you might have expected, albeit probably overinflated by hype. This is the 5th numbered entry in a series that the original creators did not want to continue, and which Microsoft shoehorned onto another, inferior developer... Twice.
In that context, 85 is not bad at all.
In the context of the art of game making it's obviously a "disappointment" but Halo has not been in that league for some time and there's no real reason to expect it to be, anymore than expecting a new Killzone title, not even developed by Guerrilla, to be getting GOTY nods - it was never really on the cards.
In that context, 85 is not bad at all.
In the context of the art of game making it's obviously a "disappointment" but Halo has not been in that league for some time and there's no real reason to expect it to be, anymore than expecting a new Killzone title, not even developed by Guerrilla, to be getting GOTY nods - it was never really on the cards.
MrCookiepants
Member
This would be fine if the campaign was 100% quality, but that's not the case from what I've heard.This is probably the single most important game of the generation for Microsoft and it seems like a dud.
Nickdogmoneycash
Member
Those are the averages from lots of players, this isn't a made up statistic. Your experiences may be different, but those are the numbers.
5 and half hours with cutscenes on a blind playthrough on normal difficulty is short, no matter which way you slice it.
Marvel
could never
They are not a slog Soldiers are easy... Knights? shoot the glowing orb in their armpit lol either right or left and then they open up their face. One bullet kill.
Quicker to kill than in Halo 4 when you had no such option.
Dingdingding we have a winner.
My god, does that mean games in the 90's are scored higher than 100 and with out flaws in 2015?
You should make a thread explaining this well known fact.
Oh well, 8 more hours until I see if I enjoy the game enough to keep my new Xbox
Nah.
Ocarina_117
Banned
Yes, yet you're taking the time of a veteran player on a easy difficutly level and comparing that to the average? Atleast wait a while for for enough information to determine a comparable average play through time.
Windom Earle
Member
Any scores expected for today?
Gotta say, this is the first Halo that makes me wanna play the multiplayer. This franchise needed 60fps.
Gotta say, this is the first Halo that makes me wanna play the multiplayer. This franchise needed 60fps.
Right, but the average player plays on the appropriate difficulty. Why can't you understand this? Had this particular player played at the appropriate difficulty, his playtime would have fallen within the norm for the series.
5.5hrs on normal is par for the course veteran players of this series... That's why the game explicitly recommends that such folks play on heroic.
ethomaz
Banned
I checked the metracritic score of PS4/Xbone games.
That is not true... metacritic are high like ever... look at the remaster scores and new releases.. there are a lot of 90+ games.
Halo 5 just received 85 because it have flaws do put it at that score.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
Y'all should spend more time playing the game. 
SmartWaffles
Member
Go back and play Halo 2, Reach and 4 on normal with similar tactics and count the time.
The first playthrough should technically be the longest.
If I went back to Reach I could blaze through that mofo.
Hawk269
Member
It might be, I am on Heroic and after 5 hours I am just at the very beginning of Mission 7. Granted, I am not that great, but I have played every Halo game on Heroic and this one seems slightly easier thus far, but really enjoyable.
I think the Story has been interesting thus far, there have been some weird stuff, but after finishing 6 levels, I want to know what happens next. The game looks fantastic and it is so smooth. You can nick pick a lot of things, but overall it is really a great looking game. Best of all I am having a lot of fun, I don't play a game based on a score it gets on Meta, I mean a lot of the games I enjoy are not even rated that high. As a Halo fan, I wish it scored higher because from what I have played it should be higher, but at the end of the day it is about how much fun I am having and so far it is a blast.
And Warzone is the shit. Played one game and it was fantastic, smooth and really entertaining.
Newtype-001
Member
DryvBy
Member
[Call-Me-G];183078647 said:
I think that's just the internet. I've lived in 3 states in NA and I've only recently experienced people talking about a score and that's only from the people living here.
Outside of that, I've only known people to love games for their good and bad. Postal 2 is a pile of trash according to Metacritic and I know a lot of people who enjoyed it (as well as myself).
If you think an 8/10 or 80/100 being bad is new, you should take a trip through memory lane. I recall people flipping their lid of Twilight Princess.
Love this post.
I look forward to cheap MCC collection, cheap Halo 5, cheap Sunset OD, cheap Forza, cheap Dead Rising 3, and Quantum Break when I buy an Xbox One next April.
It will be fucking glorious.
Idk, sounds like you're just making up excuses with the "if he played on the appropriate level" stuff.
I guess because he is a veteran the enemies are less bullet spongie to him? No matter who is playing it will take the same amount of bullets to kill a guy, if a veteran does it .4 seconds faster it's not that big of a deal.
Yeah, true but if your skills aren't even being tested at all, I can't see there being any resistance to a speedy play through- beyond figuring out where to go...
SmartWaffles
Member
You have a location marker telling you where to go in the game at all times while in the older games you have a lot of chances to get lost which contributes to longer play time.
Have you ever played halo before?
When you play on normal or easy you take less damage, the enemies shoot with less accuracy, and die more quickly. They are slower to react to your presence, and are less aggressive and strategic. They throw fewer grenades. Your shield recharges quickly, and you survive longer without shields.
A veteran player can likely run through normal wilst hardly ever taking cover or stopping to recharge their shields. With 3 teammates drawing aggro, he might be able to play without stopping at all!
In this series, the increasing difficulty increases how long it takes to play through, because one must slow down to survive.
Either you just don't know or you are just being disingenuous... It actually does take more to kill a guy on heroic AND when each enemy gets a performance boost, you have to adjust your play...
Well that was a waste of typing for I have played multiple bungie games on heroic
You further proved my point, the average time to push through single player is 5 hours because the most you have to do is find cover and figure out where to go. There are no modifiers ect ect . It's a short campaign for the casual audience.
Halo games are historically judged and valued by their multiplayer longevity, for the majority.
In this regard it's ridiculous to give much sway to review scores or impressions of a game that will inevitably evolve either positively or negatively over the coming weeks, months and years.
I'm not saying ignore them entirely, but quibbling over the differences between 85, 90 and 95 seems premature at this stage. There's plenty of time to quibble. See: Halo 4.
In this regard it's ridiculous to give much sway to review scores or impressions of a game that will inevitably evolve either positively or negatively over the coming weeks, months and years.
I'm not saying ignore them entirely, but quibbling over the differences between 85, 90 and 95 seems premature at this stage. There's plenty of time to quibble. See: Halo 4.
ethomaz
Banned
To be fair all games (or most of) are like that... you can't say a game playing time increases because you die more to finish it... it is just dumb.
I can't say a mission takes 5 hours to finish just because I died 100 times lol
LyleLanley
Banned
Am I missing something? Why is everyone so worked up about what seems to me like a good metacritic score?
It's "not good enough".