Halo 2 has a higher ranking than Hl2 and GTA:SA

*cough* Only 2 reviews there.... :sleep:
 
Halo 2 is reviewed by ignorant console fanboys, not experienced PC fps'ers.
 
Notice - that HL2 has not been rated by GS, Gamespy and IGN.
 
Doesn't matter, Half-Life 2 is a vastly superior game no matter what the reviewers think.
 
Audiophile said:
Doesn't matter, Half-Life 2 is a vastly superior game no matter what the reviewers think.
Click to expand...
Agreed. :upstare:
 
KagePrototype said:
All I see are 3 brilliant games. ;)
Click to expand...

Well said.

How could any gamer in their right mind want to miss out on any of them??
 
Warbie said:
Well said.

How could any gamer in their right mind want to miss out on any of them??
Click to expand...
I dont particularly care about halo 2. I didnt even finish halo because of how annoyingly repetitive it became going through that maze of a place... whatever it was called. Looked like a rushed job to me. If the second one is like that too im not even gonna play it.
 
Audiophile said:
Doesn't matter, Half-Life 2 is a vastly superior game no matter what the reviewers think.
Click to expand...

Thats a pretty biased statement seeing as how you (probably) have not played either of them.
 
dart321 said:
Thats a pretty biased statement seeing as how you (probably) have not played either of them.
Click to expand...

Don't listen to the fanboys ;)
 
Warbie said:
Well said.

How could any gamer in their right mind want to miss out on any of them??
Click to expand...

Well I don't have an X-Box and I'm not intended to buy one for Halo 2, which a lot of people will be doing :/.

Also look at the publications, Gamespy (who rate most of their games 5 out of 5) IGN who always rate their games highly and an official X-Box magazine. The reviewers of Half-Life 2 are all independent magazine publications (which 99% of the time rate games lower than their online counter-parts). Although I don't really care.

As someone said before an Official X-Box Magazine rating Halo 2 10 out of 10 is like Vivendi Magazine rating Half-Life 2 10 out of 10, it all adds up to sales for the parent company.
 
mortiz said:
Well I don't have an X-Box and I'm not intended to buy one for Halo 2, which a lot of people will be doing :/.

Also look at the publications, Gamespy (who rate most of their games 5 out of 5) IGN who always rate their games highly and an official X-Box magazine. The reviewers of Half-Life 2 are all magazine publications (which 99% of the time rate games lower than their online counter-parts). Although I don't really care.
Click to expand...

There's some truth in that.

However, many of the PC publications that have reviewed HL2 are terrible when it comes to scoring games, giving many an average/poor title high marks. Not that this means HL2 will be bad (the second I found out Edge gave 10/10 I knew it'd be amazing :))

Halo 2 might not be your type of game - but that doesn't make it a bad game (I rate Halo over Half-Life ... of course that doesn't make it the better game either ;))

And why? cause there is no such thing as a 'better' game :)
 
Anyone remember a game called Doom 3? Yeah, the PC mags were giving it great scores and uh, many felt it didn't deserve it.
 
dart321 said:
Anyone remember a game called Doom 3? Yeah, the PC mags were giving it great scores and uh, many felt it didn't deserve it.
Click to expand...

Yeh :/ - and this isn't uncommon.

Doom 3 getting scores in the mid 90's is a travesty (imo ;))
 
I like Gamespy mainly because it rates games out of 5. It generalizes a lot so you know which games are fun and which aren't, instead of of when others say a game is 0.0000000000000000001 from being perfect so it sucks.
 
Warbie said:
However, many of the PC publications that have reviewed HL2 are terrible when it comes to scoring games, giving many an average/poor title high marks. Not that this means HL2 will be bad (the second I found out Edge gave 10/10 I knew it'd be amazing :))
Click to expand...

Well, they're no worse than the publications that have already reviewed Halo 2. Gamespy? IGN? OXM? Just as bad in my opinion if not worse in the case of OXM rating a Microsoft published game.
 
mortiz said:
Well, they're no worse than the publications that have already reviewed Halo 2. Gamespy? IGN? OXM? Just as bad in my opinion if not worse in the case of OXM rating a Microsoft published game.
Click to expand...

Sure, I wasn't saying otherwsie. Just that PC publications are easily as biased.
 
If Halo 2 gets a better average ranking then both Zelda:OoT and GTA:SA i will boil my dog and eat it.

After all the reviews come out of course
 
Mithrandir2 said:
http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simpleratings.asp?rankings=y

halo 2 is super Pwning
Click to expand...

Rule #1: a 5/5 or 10/10 != 100%

Gamerankings is bull cause it does convert every scale into a 1-100 scale, and only a stubborn fanboy gives a shit about ratings, especially when they are so close together that it's impossible to determine which one is better, which is ultimately your own choice anyway.
 
Halo 2 looks wank, if its anything like Halo 1 it will be. I dont want to sit through a dull repetitve piece of toss like Halo. I dont understand at all why people bum that game so much, I thought it was pretty average, and there are a lot better FPS's out there, I'm completely confused why anyone rates it, REALLY FOOKIN CONFUSED, HOW??? Its like the twilight zone or everyones been smoking crack, there is something seriously wierd round here when a game like Halo is rated higher than a game like Half Life. *head spinning*

Also I dont know whats the big thing about GTA:SA. I played it the other day and its EXACTLY THE SAME as the other 2 ****in GTA games, with WORSE graphics, oh and your now black and can eat food + a few who cares kinda features, WHATS GOING ON AAAAAAAAHHH
 
pingu said:
REALLY FOOKIN CONFUSED, HOW???
Click to expand...

Do you like any multiplayer shooters?

The reason I don't get bored of Halo (Xbox) on Legendary is cause i'm concentrating so hard on staying alive. Halo (for me) doesn't get boring for the same reason that playing on De_Dust for the nth time doesn't get boring.

(also, the 'cut and paste' nature of Halo's levels has been insanely exagerated. Sure, there were a few occasions, but certainly no way near as many as some naysayers like to suggest)

Don't you get tired at how easy single player fps are today? (especially on the pc) Maybe you're more into how immersive the experience is, physics, gfx - I dunno. But personally the one aspect I look to more than any other in a shooter is challenge - and that's were Halo excels (and not cause i'm fighting the controls .. can't be bothered to explain why that is complete crap anymore)
 
Warbie said:
Do you like any multiplayer shooters?
Click to expand...


Yeh, NS, DOD, TFC, CS, Tribes, UT series, Quake series, I thought their all leaps and bounds ahead of halos multiplayer.
 
pingu said:
Halo 2 looks wank, if its anything like Halo 1 it will be. I dont want to sit through a dull repetitve piece of toss like Halo. I dont understand at all why people bum that game so much, I thought it was pretty average, and there are a lot better FPS's out there, I'm completely confused why anyone rates it, REALLY FOOKIN CONFUSED, HOW??? Its like the twilight zone or everyones been smoking crack, there is something seriously wierd round here when a game like Halo is rated higher than a game like Half Life. *head spinning*

Also I dont know whats the big thing about GTA:SA. I played it the other day and its EXACTLY THE SAME as the other 2 ****in GTA games, with WORSE graphics, oh and your now black and can eat food + a few who cares kinda features, WHATS GOING ON AAAAAAAAHHH
Click to expand...

maybe there is something wrong with you, not the other people. majority rules.
 
destrukt said:
maybe there is something wrong with you, not the other people. majority rules.
Click to expand...

well that would make sense if I hated Half Life 2 aswell
 
You can't trust anyone that gives 'Ratchet and Clank' a higher score than Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. :P
 
Warbie said:
(also, the 'cut and paste' nature of Halo's levels has been insanely exagerated. Sure, there were a few occasions, but certainly no way near as many as some naysayers like to suggest)
Click to expand...

I disagree. The outdoor levels of Halo were fantastic. Genre busting non-stop levels of insane grenade throwing, pistol whipping, shotgun firing madness. If all of Halo was like that, I would gladly sell my soul for an X-Box and a copy of Halo.

The indoor levels were horrible. It is a terrible sign for repetitivity when you get lost multiple times. Doom 3 is a repetive game, but I only got lost once. With Halo, I got lost multiple times. I don't mind repetitive games (I love Doom 3), but when I get lost, it is a bit much. Disabling those fusion core thingys particularly stick out in my mind as one of the most painfully boring events I have ever done in a game. Then I would come to an outdoor bridge crossing and my built-up proletarian rage would come out again and I would forget the uber-repetitive levels.

Don't you get tired at how easy single player fps are today? (especially on the pc) Maybe you're more into how immersive the experience is, physics, gfx - I dunno. But personally the one aspect I look to more than any other in a shooter is challenge - and that's were Halo excels (and not cause i'm fighting the controls .. can't be bothered to explain why that is complete crap anymore)
Click to expand...

I play games because they are fun, not because I want to see how many times I can die. I honestly don't care too much about AI as long as I has some manuevers and doesn't run itself into a wall. I just need it to add to my experience. Making a game difficult is retarded in my opinion. I've flamed games for being to hard in the past. I play games to escape, not to spend your time frustrated. If I want a challenge I have plenty of homework and stuff that would hurt my brain.
 
pingu said:
Yeh, NS, DOD, TFC, CS, Tribes, UT series, Quake series, I thought their all leaps and bounds ahead of halos multiplayer.
Click to expand...

Obviously you didn't read my post - or at least understand my point.

I was saying that I enjoy Halo (Xbox) in single player for the same reasons I enjoy online gaming (namely the challenge) and didn't find the instances of level repitition annoying/boring for the same reasons I don't find playing de_dust a 1000 times boring.

Halo is the only single player shooter i've played that, at times, has offered the challenge/compulsion that online play can provide.

(this is also the one area that every pc fps i've played has yet to achieve)
 
blahblahblah said:
I disagree. The outdoor levels of Halo were fantastic. Genre busting non-stop levels of insane grenade throwing, pistol whipping, shotgun firing madness. If all of Halo was like that, I would gladly sell my soul for an X-Box and a copy of Halo.

The indoor levels were horrible. It is a terrible sign for repetitivity when you get lost multiple times. Doom 3 is a repetive game, but I only got lost once. With Halo, I got lost multiple times. I don't mind repetitive games (I love Doom 3), but when I get lost, it is a bit much. Disabling those fusion core thingys particularly stick out in my mind as one of the most painfully boring events I have ever done in a game. Then I would come to an outdoor bridge crossing and my built-up proletarian rage would come out again and I would forget the uber-repetitive levels.



I play games because they are fun, not because I want to see how many times I can die. I honestly don't care too much about AI as long as I has some manuevers and doesn't run itself into a wall. I just need it to add to my experience. Making a game difficult is retarded in my opinion. I've flamed games for being to hard in the past. I play games to escape, not to spend your time frustrated. If I want a challenge I have plenty of homework and stuff that would hurt my brain.
Click to expand...


Each to their own - I personally found Doom 3 far more repetitive (and never got lost in Halo)

I don't play games 'to see how many times I can die' either but, just like you , for fun. But I like a challenge, to have to practise, improve my skills. This gives a far better sense of achievement/satisfaction/fun etc than beating an easy game.

It's only frustrating if the game is designed poorly - dying because the game is 'cheap' or unfair isn't fun. Dying because you aren't good enough (yet) drives the player forward, gives you an incentive. Anyone whose finished Monkey Ball knows this :)
 
destrukt said:
specific references to the repetive levels please.
Click to expand...

There really aren't that many (just don't tell the Halo haters ;))
 
Warbie said:
Halo is the only single player shooter i've played that, at times, has offered the challenge/compulsion that online play can provide.

(this is also the one area that every pc fps i've played has yet to achieve)
Click to expand...

I got bored of it very quickly, its the same thing the whole way through the ****ing game, blast hordes of aliens, yawn, I need something a little more satisfying and little more intelligent to hold my interest, like Half Life.
 
Anyone who didn't get lost in the control room or guilty spark levels for Halo, must have some sort of godly sense of direction. :| Almost every single room or area was exactly the same...and it's even worse when you start going backwards through a level, only to emerge at the beginning and kick the screen in frustration...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Hectic Glenn
Valve and Perfect World Announce 'Steam China'
Replies
0
Views
20K
Hectic Glenn
Hectic Glenn
ríomhaire
History
Replies
5
Views
5K
Shem
Shem
bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
From Warren Spector to Arkane Studios: Half-Life 2's cancelled Ravenholm episode
Replies
2
Views
10K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
Back
Top