Poodlestrike
Banned
Personally, my new rankings go something like:
STORY: 2>Reach>CE>5=ODST=4>3
GAMEPLAY: 3>Reach>CE=5>ODST>4>2
-
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
Personally, my new rankings go something like:
STORY: 2>Reach>CE>5=ODST=4>3
GAMEPLAY: 3>Reach>CE=5>ODST>4>2
cartoon_soldier
Member
Have you seen the scoring of games lately? Average scores have moved down. Above 90 metacritic is rare.
Great list, I'd only put Halo 3 lower due Brutes.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Review criteria has changed in this new generation and scores are lower overall. That is not surprising at all.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Brutes do indeed suck, but not only are they a step above H2 brutes, they're counterbalanced by the scarab battles; the Kraken in 5 was cool, but a little too scripted for my tastes.
The release of these spectacular series is equally rare. A MGS / Zelda / Halo release once every few years, these aren't your average game releases. These are celebrations, and we expect nothing but the best from them.
Again, i'm not saying the game is bad or the reviews are bad, but i can imagine that emotionally invested people see that number and it bums them out, because the drop in quality is palpable, even when it's still really good.
it's all how you view Halo 5. To me it's probably the best game since Halo game since 3. And to some who wanted more Master Chief... it's the worst. It's about expectations, and personal preference. Also I feel that few games deliver as much as a Halo does. How many give you a great Campaign and Multiplayer ...truly A-level efforts? If this game shipped with Force and BTB would the score go up? If The Phantom Pain shipped with mulltiplayer, and all the FOB stuff, would the scores go down? (Because.. barf, they should.)
darkinstinct
...lacks reading comprehension.
Keeping playlists small and avoiding server issues is more likely.
Deputy Moonman
Member
boo to you! Aside from the mystery and intrigue behind the story in CE, which for me has never been topped to this day, and the awesome music by Mr. O'Donnell, nothing beats running around with the CE pistol and popping elites and grunts in the head. I love causing them to cower in terror before me, running away screaming nonsensical words and utterances of despair. H2 and H3, while good games, have nothing on CE and never will for me.[Call-Me-G];183234854 said:
If we were on Mario 64 5 by now, you can bet that it would be receiving lower scores than the original did, even if it was on par quality-wise. Instead we get very different Mario games like Galaxy and 3D World, which keeps critics more interested.
darkinstinct
...lacks reading comprehension.
That warthog scene didn't by chance happen during mission 3 on a bridge? Damn thing was on fire because of so many grenades we threw at it and still going. An army of those things would make me cry.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Yeah
After that, we stayed the hell away from Warthogs, so they never had an opportunity to jack one again XD
Things are basically deathtraps on legendary.
Oh, that reminds me, addendum to review: If you're playing Legendary, STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM VEHICLES. Those things are deathtraps! Yes, even the tank. Mantis can get focused down to nothing by 3 crawlers, all you're really doing is making it easier for them to hit you.
Maybe great games are rare.
Deputy Moonman
Member
I do agree that Halo 5 being the sixth iteration of Halo automatically puts the game in an uphill battle to receive high review scores. Halo has a lot to live up to and reviewers want to see major improvements and innovation from the previous games. It's a lot to be up against. So, the 85 metacritic score really doesn't bother me in the least.
Not exactly the same game... but I think this works anyway.
There are countless examples of identical games being re-released (even in enhanced states) and met with drastically lower reviews. As mentioned before MCC contains four games that reviewed at 97, 95, 94 and 87 respectively, all enhanced from the originals, yet the whole collection scored lower than the lowest individual game it was made up of. These things aren't a constant unaffected by time or context.
Great games are always rare. However, when a game is reviewed is still important, and the scales are never fixed for consistency. I mean... Perfect Dark Zero scored higher than the original release of Destiny for example. There are many games that scored highly last gen that would have benefitted a lot from being novel, or belonging to a younger series. I think it's tough to argue any Forza Motosport game prior to FM4 being anywhere near as good as FM6, yet they all have higher metascores. If there is a trend of games scoring lower on average this gen (and counting games reviewed at 90+ launch aligned would suggest so), then it probably has a lot to do with how many franchises are continuing on from last gen, compared to how many are being introduced. Was Devil May Cry 4 really that inferior to the first game? Is today's Call of Duty much worse than MW1? etc.
lifeexpectancy
Member
FWIW here's my review on TrueAchievements:
http://www.trueachievements.com/gamereviews.aspx?gameid=5734#c930447
I'm a little LTTP even though I posted it at 2:01am central, right as the embargo lifted. I worked very hard on it though, hopefully a few of you blokes will give it a gander.
I gave it an 8.5/10 due to the bullet sponge enemies at times and the performance flaws with regard to IQ, but it's otherwise a fantastic experience.
http://www.trueachievements.com/gamereviews.aspx?gameid=5734#c930447
I'm a little LTTP even though I posted it at 2:01am central, right as the embargo lifted. I worked very hard on it though, hopefully a few of you blokes will give it a gander.
I gave it an 8.5/10 due to the bullet sponge enemies at times and the performance flaws with regard to IQ, but it's otherwise a fantastic experience.
ninjablade
Banned
I dont have time for more then one platform.
Kralamoonard
Member
What makes you think I haven't done that either? SPOILER - I have. We were just talking about the scores Gamespot and IGN have posted, and speculated on how that may move the overall metascore. Part of this speculation involved considering that both of these sites likely weigh heavier on the total than most other sites. Nothing wrong with that...I know you've only been a member for a few months so I would expect you to possibly find it stupid that we're discussing it, but honestly, check other review threads if you're not satisfied with our discussion on what reviews can entail. Metacritic score is often a part of it; hence it being in the OP. People to discuss REVIEW scores. Good day.
Ryan never reviewed Halo 5 on IGN.
statham
Member
Solo Legendary is going well. This feels like a solid campaign that's slowly building up. Some of the call-outs to "flesh out" the characters for those unfamiliar with the lore feel....cheap though. These are one-offs, and mostly just lines in gameplay, but I still notice them.
The harder they try with these (which admittedly, isn't too hard, I just noticed them when they came up over a course of hours), the more I feel like the gameplay script has some bad decisions behind it. I don't expect the same nuance in a game as they can get in the books, but I don't want "tacky" or "tasteless" to be how I describe the references to the game's universe in such an otherwise cool game.
This is just distasteful, considering the baggage that ONI marketing line would have for people who watched the only people close to them die over a series of wars.
Yeah, I read those books. I loved them. A hollow name drop is obviously that for anyone who read them, and means nothing to those who didn't.
The harder they try with these (which admittedly, isn't too hard, I just noticed them when they came up over a course of hours), the more I feel like the gameplay script has some bad decisions behind it. I don't expect the same nuance in a game as they can get in the books, but I don't want "tacky" or "tasteless" to be how I describe the references to the game's universe in such an otherwise cool game.
Fbh
Member
Just saw that review and it made me really want to play the game. From to footage to what they were saying about it, it just looks and sounds like my type of shooter.
The multiplayer looks great with some cool game modes and introducing some newer game mechanics without losing that more arcade feeling (or at least it looks that way).
Ben seemes to be loving the game and he was, as many other Halo fans, pretty critical of Halo 4.
Sadly it's not enough to sell me an X1. But damn do I miss playing Halo.
Why couldn't Bungie make Destiny like this
ethomaz
Banned
It is probably dev time... same for Forge and missing features... MS pushed hard for 2015 release.
ethomaz
Banned
Show receipts because this claim looks false.
90+ score are like always from what I see.
It is not.
GTA and TLOU remasters got the same scores, MGSV, The Witcher, others games were reviewed 90+ too.
It is the same like last generation.
LifEndz
Member
The Jeff Gerstman review is incredible. Maybe the best review he's ever written. Kind of a bummer the campaign doesn't follow through on the plot points implied on the commercial, but the multiplayer sounds great aside from the pay to win stuff in war zone. Looking forward to playing at on my friend's console this weekend.
lifeexpectancy
Member
read it, thumbs up! my copy is still installing 62% so we will see!
Thanks man! Yeah I know a lot of people think the metacritic is too low, but it is genuinely an 85/100 experience. 9/10 and 10/10 games should be the exception, and as more reviewers start being more objective, lower scores will become the norm.
I'm glad people like Warzone and everything, but it's really not for me. It's basically a F2P game and it's just not what I look for in Halo. I always actually preferred the smaller arena maps, but I find myself really longing for some classic blood gulch-like maps. And more playlists (double team!). Also a bit disappointed with map variety at launch in Arena, there are 15 maps but many of them are basically forge duplicates, and I keep getting the same 4 or so maps in matchmaking. Arena is amazing though. It's so damn good.
Alcoholikaust
Member
Fbh
Member
Because then they'd probably still be making Halo.
But they kinda still are.
They went from making an online focused, sci fi FPS about super soldiers fighting aliens in space to making an online focused, sci fi FPS about super soldiers fighting aliens in space... except everything is worse in the new one
JayWood2010
Member
All these game modes will be added overtime in the coming months for time to come. Including maps, game modes etc.
As I said in the Gran Turismo thread i prefer this type of release because it keeps you coming back forr more month after month. It keeps the community engaged and refreshed. Its becoming a more popular strategy this generation, and in Halo's case all this stuff is coming free.
I do feel that Halo 5 may possibly have the best combat in the franchise. My friends and I are having a blast right now
dr_rus
Member
From GDC this year:
So I think saying "reviews have a big impact" just generally isn't correct. They do have some impact, but it's not that big.
That's not to say that reviews have 0 impact - they do - but being in the top 33% of AAA games only raises your sales by 30% on Xbox, 90% on PS4, and (not shown) 10% on PC.
Actually, the act of being reviewed is a far better predictor. Even a negative review immensely raises the visibility of your game.
Well, your slide directly contradict what you're saying.
For a game with low marketing effort good reviews can increase sales almost two fold. This is a big number. If say some game is like Halo but for some reason gets no marketing push then good reviews may increase its sales from 2-4 mln to 4-8 mln.
And for a game with a big marketing push - which most 1st party exclusives would fit I think - the difference is even more dramatic, almost 4 times tops and close to +50% at the bottom. 4 times more copies sold because of good reviews - just think about it.
It's also quite interesting to see that good reviews are increasing sales more than a bigger marketing push - contrary to the general public's opinion on how a big marketing campaign can sell any shit in billions.
Yea, but now they get to add in all the stuff they wanted to do, but would piss the Halo fanbase off massively. You ask why Bungie can't make Destiny like Halo... they probably could, but the things you are identifying as being different are the reasons they're making a different series. It's better that way then adding weapon upgrades (and grinding for them), super attacks, different classes, ADS without descoping, blinks, floating, double jumps etc to Halo instead. Reach and ODST made it pretty clear that if they didn't make Destiny, Halo would have eventually become Destiny.
That's perfectly fine in a review thread. The reviews' purpose is to inform those that haven't yet played the game for themselves.
That said, I have played it a bit now.
Seems like the game is reviewing pretty well from the 'major' sites. 9's from IGN and gametrailers, I think the metacritic score isn't a huge deal, when the dust settles I'm guessing the meta score will hover around 88-89.
The point people are trying to make is that there is no drop in quality, but rather what was a 9.5 ten years ago is more like an 8.5 today.
Its not fine for people to negatively talk about the scores when they haven't even played it yet.
SEGAvangelist
Member
All the heavily weighted review scores are out now. I think it's going to stick at about 86.
You keep saying that but how do you know they didn't
Sorry, I didn't mean that it's fine for people to say stuff like "these scores are bullshit it should be rated higher/lower" or "yup, game's shit", without having played it. I was just speaking generally that a review thread is by its nature going to be filled with people who are yet to play the game, because that's what reviews are for. The threads typically start up before it's even possible for most of us to have played the games.
There are quite a few cases where it's very, very obvious.
I said it once and I'll say it again. I think the focus of the review threads here on GAF is wrong. Instead of discussing the content of the review, people focus on the number of the score. I personally think review scores are worthless because gaming, like any other entertainment medium, is vastly varied and it's stupid to score, for example, Halo 5 and a Hatsune Miku game using the same scale of numbers.
It happens mostly with AAAs games, people start to argue about the Metacritic number and only a small number of them actually read the texts in each review. I wish this changed, we'd have more meaningful threads on the matter.
It happens mostly with AAAs games, people start to argue about the Metacritic number and only a small number of them actually read the texts in each review. I wish this changed, we'd have more meaningful threads on the matter.
Well... they don't even do that really, lol.
Aurumaethera
Neo Member
Couldn't agree more. Not to mention the problem of a 7 in gaming being seen as almost below average, leaving no room in the top 30% of possible scores for meaningful variation.
Bornstellar
Member
rakkadakka
Member
The need for troll is real.