23 réponses à ce sujet

[ClosingRacer]

I was searching Halo on Ign and noticed the scores of Halo 1 and halo 2 and noticed halo 2...got a 9.8 and halo 1 got a 9.7 so i am wondering who ever decided halo 2 was better then 1? i mean yes both are great games but Halo was arguably one of the best games ever on the xbox( i loved halo 1 ..2 was great but not as great as 1) Halo 1 had a great story and some awesome multiplayer..meanwhile halo 2 story was to short and a big cliff hanger..while the multiplayer was eh good but not as awesome as the first game in my opinion... Simply i am wondering whoever rates these games on that site...

[AntiChri5]

Popo the space kittty.

[Au_Xtr3me]

Fanboys under the influence of hype

[huntrrz]

Better graphics. Dual-wielding. More weapons. Better multi-player (if I'm not mistaken, Halo didn't have on-line multi-player(?)) Any of those features could subjectively have made the difference depending on who was doing the math.



It's like Olympic scoring sometimes - often inexplicable.



(This is why X-Play gives out 1-5s. Numeric scores alone can't provide any nuance.)

[huntrrz]

 P.S.  Now, shall we start a thread demanding that BW license and make Cortana a squad member for ME3?  

[Au_Xtr3me]

Never!



EDI destroys cortana

[Seagloom]

Hype, as someone wrote earlier. Reviewers have a tendency to score highly anticipated titles very high; whether or not they are truly deserving of those ratings. Then inevitably, months after the hype dies down, everyone starts looking at a game with a more critical eye and discover flawed aspects that eluded them before. It's a rare reviewer, or player for that matter, that can critically review a game at launch. Those that do catch a lot of flak if they share their opinions.

That or they were slipped advertising dollars and encouraged to write a favorable review. I surely don't trust any of the big gaming sites after Gamespot's fiasco with Jeff Gerstmann.

Modifié par Seagloom, 22 février 2010 - 12:02 .

[Rubbish Hero]

Played them both on the pc, fairly forgettable.

[Godak]

Seagloom wrote...

That or they were slipped advertising dollars and encouraged to write a favorable review. I surely don't trust any of the big gaming sites after Gamespot's fiasco with Jeff Gerstmann.

That was a very sad moment in video game journalism history...

Modifié par Godak, 22 février 2010 - 01:41 .

[Baracuda6977]

eh, sounds like they would have scored halo 1 higher on a second time to me

[ClosingRacer]

Seagloom wrote...

Hype, as someone wrote earlier. Reviewers have a tendency to score highly anticipated titles very high; whether or not they are truly deserving of those ratings. Then inevitably, months after the hype dies down, everyone starts looking at a game with a more critical eye and discover flawed aspects that eluded them before. It's a rare reviewer, or player for that matter, that can critically review a game at launch. Those that do catch a lot of flak if they share their opinions.

That or they were slipped advertising dollars and encouraged to write a favorable review. I surely don't trust any of the big gaming sites after Gamespot's fiasco with Jeff Gerstmann.

Yea i don't even bother going to gamespot...Usually go to ign 4 reviews cause they are sually better. But i still don't get how they can explain halo 2 better then halo 1....If anything Halo defined Shooters in the modern era( yes golden eye came out way b4 this game but apprently as xbox made live play ..even though dreamcast had it also...halo made FPS games...)

[huntrrz]

P.P.S. Halo was a fantastic game, but don't forget that a good portion of the gameplay involves backtracking through levels you visited previously. ...Some of the gloss Halo receives involves faded memory of its imperfections. (Which is nitpicky, but if we're arguing about why the sequel got a tenth of a point on it, we're nitpicking.)

[mattp420]

huntrrz wrote...

Better graphics. Dual-wielding. More weapons. Better multi-player (if I'm not mistaken, Halo didn't have on-line multi-player(?)) Any of those features could subjectively have made the difference depending on who was doing the math.

It's like Olympic scoring sometimes - often inexplicable.

(This is why X-Play gives out 1-5s. Numeric scores alone can't provide any nuance.)

Halo CE did not have official online multiplayer support.

XBL and it's community may not have made it unto this generation without Halo 2.

Halo 2 also had the whole vehicle jacking thing.


Just wait, 6 years from now someone will post in a forum "lol IGN...you gave Mass Effect 9.2 but game Mass Effect 2 9.6"

[ClosingRacer]

mattp420 wrote...

huntrrz wrote...

Better graphics. Dual-wielding. More weapons. Better multi-player (if I'm not mistaken, Halo didn't have on-line multi-player(?)) Any of those features could subjectively have made the difference depending on who was doing the math.

It's like Olympic scoring sometimes - often inexplicable.

(This is why X-Play gives out 1-5s. Numeric scores alone can't provide any nuance.)

Halo CE did not have official online multiplayer support.

XBL and it's community may not have made it unto this generation without Halo 2.

Halo 2 also had the whole vehicle jacking thing.


Just wait, 6 years from now someone will post in a forum "lol IGN...you gave Mass Effect 9.2 but game Mass Effect 2 9.6"

True lol but Mass Effect 2 "is" the "better" game in the general eyes...unless you are a hardcore lover of mass effect the general thing is mass effect 2 > mass effect 1...and that is because the Mako is gone, Elevators gone, better shooting, easier to lvl up( umm i personally loved the mako, rather have elevators then the dumb loading screens and liked the old lvl up system better)

[AntiChri5]

Godak wrote...

Seagloom wrote...

That or they were slipped advertising dollars and encouraged to write a favorable review. I surely don't trust any of the big gaming sites after Gamespot's fiasco with Jeff Gerstmann.

That was a very sad moment in video game journalism history...

What happened?

[Pious_Augustus]

When IGN was a small site and had a nice format and style for their site, I loved it! Easy to access and get around. Now it's like, they put things in a way where its hard to get around bah screw that I'll just go to another site.

[Giantevilhead]

I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like their rules for rating games are carved in stone. The reviewers change, as do the editors. Even if the two games were reviewed by the same person, that person's preferences may have changed in the 3 years between the two games. A review is simply a rough guideline by which consumers can judge the quality of a game and whether or not they want to buy it. It is not meant to rank games by some kind of an unquestioned hierarchy to be etched upon the very fabric of the universe.

[Pious_Augustus]

Giantevilhead wrote...

I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like their rules for rating games are carved in stone. The reviewers change, as do the editors. Even if the two games were reviewed by the same person, that person's preferences may have changed in the 3 years between the two games. A review is simply a rough guideline by which consumers can judge the quality of a game and whether or not they want to buy it. It is not meant to rank games by some kind of an unquestioned hierarchy to be etched upon the very fabric of the universe.

Anyone remember Gamestop's Gerstmann-gate incident?

[Giantevilhead]

Just don't rely on a single review site. Use meta-critic. The main purpose of reviews for us, the consumers, is to answer two questions: do I want to buy this item and how much am I willing to pay?



When a reviewer gives one game a 10 and another a 9, they're basically saying that assuming they both cost the same and if you only have enough money to buy one game at the time then you should get the one that's rated 10 first.



The fact that IGN gave Halo 2 a 9.8 and Halo a 9.7 isn't a big deal since the two games were judged based on different criterion. Halo's review was done in comparison with xbox games that came out in 2001 while Halo's review was done in comparison with xbox games that came out in 2004. Plus, when Halo 2 came out, Halo's price had already dropped considerably so it's not even a comparison between two equally priced games.

[Seagloom]

AntiChri5 wrote...

Godak wrote...

Seagloom wrote...

That or they were slipped advertising dollars and encouraged to write a favorable review. I surely don't trust any of the big gaming sites after Gamespot's fiasco with Jeff Gerstmann.

That was a very sad moment in video game journalism history...

What happened?

The short version is Jeff Gerstmann used to write reviews for Gamespot. He wrote a review for a third person shooter; the name which now eludes me, and dared to give it a mediocre score. The game was being heavily advertised on Gamespot, with banner ad saturation and the like all over the site. Shortly after the review, Gerstmann was "mysteriously' fired. It was a big scandal for around a week. If you want more details of what actually happened, google Gerstmanngate.

Modifié par Seagloom, 23 février 2010 - 01:17 .

[Godak]

He reviewed Kane and Lynch, a real sh!t-storm of a game.



I think the controversy caused most of the Gamespot reviewers to leave and they formed Giantbomb, right?

[Pious_Augustus]

Seagloom wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

Godak wrote...

Seagloom wrote...

That or they were slipped advertising dollars and encouraged to write a favorable review. I surely don't trust any of the big gaming sites after Gamespot's fiasco with Jeff Gerstmann.

That was a very sad moment in video game journalism history...

What happened?

The short version is Jeff Gerstmann used to write reviews for Gamespot. He wrote a review for a third person shooter; the name which now eludes me, and dared to give it a mediocre score. The game was being heavily advertised on Gamespot, with banner ad saturation and the like all over the site. Shortly after the review, Gerstmann was "mysteriously' fired. It was a big scandal for around a week. If you want more details of what actually happened, google Gerstmanngate.

This is the video that got him fired

Eidos who took out an entire ad on Gamestop which Kane and Lynch replaced the entire Gamestop Theme was very upset at his review and thus a good number of Gamestop Staff left with him and joined up to make Giantbomb.com

[medlish]

I don't like Halo.

People only think it's good because it's like the first shooter on the xbox. There were tons of FPS on the PC before which were way better. Still, fanboys think Halo did all the things first while it didn't even create the green space marine.