Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary

Helix

hooradiation wrote: »

Really, that's what you're taking away from this?

That's a special interpretation, I'll give you that.

well i could pretend that shooters havent moved on one iota, and give the game 90% based on the fact that it was ground breaking for a console shooter 10 years ago, but what would be the f*cking point in that? wouldn't that be short changing the modern games getting that score, that actually deserve it?

against what criteria do you think the game should be held up then?

ive outlined mine, that it has to stand up against its modern day peers, since it has just been released again in 2011. therefore everything in the game is judged against modern standards, not the fact that the game makes you feel nostalgic for a decade ago. the thing is, had the game been released as is, a direct port from the original, on xbox live, id probably have given it a better score. the reasons for that being that it would likely have been properly priced, and that it wasnt trying to get away with a lick of paint to cover the cracks. anniversary, at the current price point, is a budget €19.99 title masquerading as a full price game for twice the price

ironically, i spent a few hours today playing the legend of zelda: a link to the past, a game 20 years old that still knocks the absolute crap out of most games these days. THATS the kind of game that gets a top mark years down the line when marked against modern standards

Helix

Helix wrote: »

well i could pretend that shooters havent moved on one iota, and give the game 90% based on the fact that it was ground breaking for a console shooter 10 years ago, but what would be the f*cking point in that? wouldn't that be short changing the modern games getting that score, that actually deserve it?

against what criteria do you think the game should be held up then?

ive outlined mine, that it has to stand up against its modern day peers, since it has just been released again in 2011. therefore everything in the game is judged against modern standards, not the fact that the game makes you feel nostalgic for a decade ago. the thing is, had the game been released as is, a direct port from the original, on xbox live, id probably have given it a better score. the reasons for that being that it would likely have been properly priced, and that it wasnt trying to get away with a lick of paint to cover the cracks. anniversary, at the current price point, is a budget €19.99 title masquerading as a full price game for twice the price

ironically, i spent a few hours today playing the legend of zelda: a link to the past, a game 20 years old that still knocks the absolute crap out of most games these days. THATS the kind of game that gets a top mark years down the line when marked against modern standards

Sorry if I'm off topic but Just to throw it in there, Super Metroid is another, only completed it for the first time this year. Awesome.

Ian7

Helix wrote: »

ironically, i spent a few hours today playing the legend of zelda: a link to the past, a game 20 years old that still knocks the absolute crap out of most games these days. THATS the kind of game that gets a top mark years down the line when marked against modern standards

Yeah, as I said earlier, Halo CE plays better than some of the muck that's out there today. Duke Nukem Forever is the biggest culprit. Bloodstone and Medal of Honour last year weren't much cop either. Brothers in arms, battelfield bad company in recent years. Battlefield 3's campaign was frustratingly familiar, short and glitchy as hell and even the COD campaigns can be fairly short. I haven't bought MW3 and i'm not sure if I even will this year. I was happy paying €40 for Anniversary and feel that it's money well spent. The updated graphics make the lengthy campaign that much easier to bare in this age of super realistic graphics. The co-op is a killer on heroic and legendary and is excellent fun. The revised maps for Reach is also a super idea.

And before you label me a fan-boy, I didn't play any halo games until about three years ago. Well, i may have played halo 2 multiplayer once. But now, having enjoyed halo 3, odst and more recently Reach, I was delighted to have the opportunity to see where it all started. I wouldn't have paid €40 for a standard no frills re-release so i do think the current price is well justified.

Chairman Meow

Im a fairly huge Halo fan, loved CE on the xbox when i played it in 2002 or so.
didnt like H2 all that much, especially considering it released the same month as Half Life 2 which blew it right the **** out of the water. But ive played and loved H3, ODST, Reach, and even Halo Wars. So i was pumped for this.

But then i played it.

Oh boy. Time has not been kind.

From a gameplay perspective, its fine really. The shooting is as enjoyable as any FPS i can think of nowadays. And the opening few levels are brilliant. And yeah, silent cartographer puts linear scripted crap like MW3 to shame.

But then you get to assault on the control room. And at first its another great open level, then youre herded through room after room after room that all looks ****ing identical. And then you cross a bridge, and enter another identical room. Which leads to an almost identical bridge again, with another identical room at the end.

What was worse was playing on heroic meant i died a fair amount so i was stuck playing what felt like the same single room/bridge combo for hours.

Then the library. and youre going through the exact same ****ing location over and over again. and once youre finished the library, you get the joy of joys of going back through the same rooms from AOTCR all over again.

It is honestly the worst level design ive ever come across. Its so absolutely, utterly boring, and makes you feel like youre making zero progress at all. I wish to god i had started the game on normal difficulty, so it wouldnt have taken me as long to finish, but by god if i live til the year 10,000 thanks to the miracle of cryogenics, and someone offers me a game of Halo CE: 10K anniversary special edition in 4D virtual reality, it will still be too soon to have to go through another one of those ****ing rooms with a bridge connected to it.

Ive seen fanboys say "oh the rooms arent identical, theyre all slightly different and have different enemy placements". BOLLOCKS. They all look the ****ing same, they all play the ****ing same, regardless of whatever tiny differences there are. Its like the entire middle 3rd of the game can be completely written off. Its awful, awful stuff.

I wish i had jsut left my good memories of CE alone. This game has really spoiled that game for me. I have CE on the PC, and you know its weird ive played it a dozen times, yet i never remembered seeing past AoTCR. Now i know why.

James Howlett

Ian7 wrote: »

Yeah, as I said earlier, Halo CE plays better than some of the muck that's out there today. Duke Nukem Forever is the biggest culprit. Bloodstone and Medal of Honour last year weren't much cop either. Brothers in arms, battelfield bad company in recent years. Battlefield 3's campaign was frustratingly familiar, short and glitchy as hell and even the COD campaigns can be fairly short. I haven't bought MW3 and i'm not sure if I even will this year. I was happy paying €40 for Anniversary and feel that it's money well spent. The updated graphics make the lengthy campaign that much easier to bare in this age of super realistic graphics. The co-op is a killer on heroic and legendary and is excellent fun. The revised maps for Reach is also a super idea.

And before you label me a fan-boy, I didn't play any halo games until about three years ago. Well, i may have played halo 2 multiplayer once. But now, having enjoyed halo 3, odst and more recently Reach, I was delighted to have the opportunity to see where it all started. I wouldn't have paid €40 for a standard no frills re-release so i do think the current price is well justified.

I agree with most of this. The first Halo campaign I played was Halo 3 so I was immediately mystified with why the series was so popular however I enjoyed this re-make of the first game. The uptake in graphics is great and I like being able to switch between the original and modern view. On top of that I enjoyed the plot as a decent adventure game.


The original game is available to download via XBOX originals on the 360 however a remake like this with sufficient extras features seems worthwhile to me. Microsoft aren’t pushing it like other Halo games which in a way seems like an acknowledgement from them that this is one for the fans only and people who want to see where it all began. €40 is a fair price when it sits alongside €60 Modern Warfare 3, Battlefield 3 etc…



I didn’t really read many reviews of the Ocarina of Time 3DS but is this not the same thing? Old game with polished graphics?

Ian7

@ Chairman Meow

:eek: bahahaha, now that's a gutsy review!

For some reason, repetitive rooms don't bother me so much. (God knows Mass Effect 1 was riddled with that kind of thing.) But that's the way it was back in the day and I can understand how it would bother a lot of people, especially someone who played through it already. If this was a brand new game, repetition wouldn't be looked upon too kindly at all.

Chairman Meow

Ian7 wrote: »

@ Chairman Meow

:eek: bahahaha, now that's a gutsy review!

For some reason, repetitive rooms don't bother me so much. (God knows Mass Effect 1 was riddled with that kind of thing.) But that's the way it was back in the day and I can understand how it would bother a lot of people, especially someone who played through it already. If this was a brand new game, repetition wouldn't be looked upon too kindly at all.

It honestly pains me to say it, cause i love Halo, hell i even love the story and have the graphic novel etc...so i am a bit of a fanboy myself. But i really wish i hadnt played this as its soured alot of rose tinted memories i had!

Shiminay

I thought Halo: CE was shockingly bland and boring the first time round, so I'd have zero interest in this HD remake. The repetition in the campaign was unforgivable for something that was supposed to be a flagship launch title for a new games platform. Only being able to carry 2 weapons was galling - I was used to, and expected 7 or 8 All Halo: CE did at the time was re-enforce the idea for me that a console couldn't compete with a PC.

I refuse to acknowledge that it should be forgiven for being a console title - if anything it needed to blow the PC equivalent out of the water and all it did was serve to remind any serious FPS gamers that in 2001, there was little point in bothering with this new generation of games console and that they'd be better off buying a new graphics card for the money. There was also some backlash from PC gamers at the time who had been really looking forward to seeing this new Bungie game only to see MS sweep in, buy them out and claim it as an exclusive launch title for their new console.

Things are different now of course, whilst still not my platform of choice for FPS games, the 360 and PS3 have more than matched the PC in what they can deliver - so this isn't me trying to hate on anything. I went and bought the super-duper collector's edition of Reach when it came out because I think they have developed quite a rich and enjoyable universe and Halo multiplayer with your friends is still one of the most enjoyable console experiences you can have I think.

If you never played the original and are interested, then I'd put this one down as a maybe, because, as many have stated already, this really is one for the fans. I'd be wary of those Rose Tinted glasses though...

Lex_Diamonds

Just popping in to say that, imo, the repetetive rooms thing was completely offset by the excellent AI (excluding the flood). I remember having great craic trying to best the Elites on Legendary mode.

Retr0gamer

James Howlett wrote: »

I didn’t really read many reviews of the Ocarina of Time 3DS but is this not the same thing? Old game with polished graphics?

Ocarina of Time is another game that could have done with a few tweaks. Now don't get me wrong, it's a far better game than Halo ever was but it's still got some flaws due to its age, in particular a dodgy camera. However like Halo the fanbase is so rabbid that magazines and review sites gave the review to a fanboy that could see no wrong with the game or else were afraid to criticise it due to fan backlash.

The only review I've seen that has criticised the Ocarina of Time remake was Jeremy Parish's review at 1up. He still gave it a high mark, a B+ or something but criticised it saying that it could have done with some improvements, most of the camera which is true. Well the backlash in hte comments section really wasn't pretty and makes me embarassed to be a gamer.

There's a lot of games that are perfect the way they are, Super Metroid and Link to the Past have been mentioned, but for early 3D games the tech and knowledge is advancing so fast that there's always improvements that can be made.

Retr0gamer

Lex_Diamonds wrote: »

Just popping in to say that, imo, the repetetive rooms thing was completely offset by the excellent AI (excluding the flood).

Not for me it wasn't and it was particularly annoying ending up back tracking in levels like assault on the control centre by accident because everything was so similar in those tunnels. Halo is best in wide open spaces and in those corridors it never worked as well and got very repetitive for me. I'm playing Reach at the moment and it's all wide open spaces, no cramped corridors or repeated art assets so far. I'm really enjoying it and it's the game the Halo franchise should have been in the past 10 years.

hooradiation

Helix wrote: »

well i could pretend that shooters havent moved on one iota, and give the game 90% based on the fact that it was ground breaking for a console shooter 10 years ago, but what would be the f*cking point in that? wouldn't that be short changing the modern games getting that score, that actually deserve it?

against what criteria do you think the game should be held up then?

ive outlined mine, that it has to stand up against its modern day peers, since it has just been released again in 2011. therefore everything in the game is judged against modern standards, not the fact that the game makes you feel nostalgic for a decade ago. the thing is, had the game been released as is, a direct port from the original, on xbox live, id probably have given it a better score. the reasons for that being that it would likely have been properly priced, and that it wasnt trying to get away with a lick of paint to cover the cracks. anniversary, at the current price point, is a budget €19.99 title masquerading as a full price game for twice the price

ironically, i spent a few hours today playing the legend of zelda: a link to the past, a game 20 years old that still knocks the absolute crap out of most games these days. THATS the kind of game that gets a top mark years down the line when marked against modern standards

Look, maybe you didn't read the link, so it's probably my mistake for assuming your speaking in good faith - but the whole point was that if you're taking a game like halo which is the progenitor to the modern console shooter and then saying that it doesn't measure up to the games like the current Call of Duty which themselves are built on the original halo then you're doing it wrong.

Halo may feel less unique now but that's only because everyone has spent the last ten years refining the template laid down by this game.

Helix

hooradiation wrote: »

Look, maybe you didn't read the link, so it's probably my mistake for assuming your speaking in good faith - but the whole point was that if you're taking a game like halo which is the progenitor to the modern console shooter and then saying that it doesn't measure up to the games like the current Call of Duty which themselves are built on the original halo then you're doing it wrong.

Halo may feel less unique now but that's only because everyone has spent the last ten years refining the template laid down by this game.

the template doesnt matter. im not reviewing a template. it doesnt matter if the original halo was the first to put a load of things that were in other games before it together in one game ten years ago. that doesnt make it a good game in 2011

im not even saying it doesnt measure up against call of duty, im going so far as to say that it doesnt measure up against mediocrity like homefront

the fact that CE set the console standard at the time, does NOT apply to the anniversary version of the game in 2011. it does NOT make it a better game in 2011. it does NOT mean we can forget about all the problems with it in 2011.

TerrorFirmer

Helix wrote: »

the template doesnt matter. im not reviewing a template. it doesnt matter if the original halo was the first to put a load of things that were in other games before it together in one game ten years ago. that doesnt make it a good game in 2011

im not even saying it doesnt measure up against call of duty, im going so far as to say that it doesnt measure up against mediocrity like homefront

the fact that CE set the console standard at the time, does NOT apply to the anniversary version of the game in 2011. it does NOT make it a better game in 2011. it does NOT mean we can forget about all the problems with it in 2011.

That's a bit much. I wouldn't wipe my ass with the insert from the Homefront box. Atrocious single player, and that is a game released recently, which makes it far more unforgivable given all the hype about it and it's supposedly AAA grade scripting.

343 never professed to anything other than an engine overhaul. Not once did they say anything would be changed other than the engine, as well as the addition of skulls and terminals. It's not reasonable to expect otherwise, and it certainly would be justified if they'd claimed to have adapted it, but they didn't.

So it's really not reasonable to expect the game to have somehow, of its own accord, mysteriously transformed its integral mechanics. All that's changed is a new overlaid engine, the core mechanics are exactly the same - for good or bad, agreed, but my point being that you can't berate a game when it's very creators went to pains to stress that nothing, in the most literal sense, was changed regarding gameplay.

Personally, I 100% agree that AOTOC room is a joke of a level, it's repetitive, boring, and a host of other descriptive that have been said countless times over. Playing that level if like being stuck in an infinite loop, and when you're playing the game on legendary, it actually becomes frustrating to the point of hair loss. I actually rather liked the library, to it's eternal credit Halo did zombie blasting incredibly well and it still holds up today - in my opinion.

Another feature of the game that holds up incredibly well considering it is, essentially, a ten year old FPS - a genre which ages far more rapidly than most others - is the co-op play. I played a few levels with my housemate, and it was incredible fun, equal or above a lot of the recent co-op titles I've played on the 360.

Yes, we get it. Halo's old, outdated, the gameplay is simple and level design was sketchy even back in 2001. Even the most rabid fanboy would have to admit those simple truths.

But my god, Anniversary is fun. The combat is satisfying, as are the weapons, and relative to the generic crap that compromises most modern FPS titles, the storyline is pretty interesting and fun to work through, and the new HD overhaul complements them beautifully. The environments are amazing to look at, granted minus some of the middle sections which would test the patience of a saint - no argument from me there, but I take the game as a whole and forgive it some flaws given what it offers me overall.

The ability to switch engines on the fly is a fantastic novelty, and a true reward to the Halo fans, I've never been so pleased with a 'gimmick' in my entire life. Lets not forget co-op, which to this day, is in my opinion, one of the finest available with a friend, even 10 years later. The new Anniversary maps are awesome and thus far have provided me with more gameplay then I've spent on MW3, and the fact that you've given both the ability to use the CEA disc, or use the code to play them through Reach, is fantastic as they've given up a more comprehensive achievement list to work through - I'm no achievement whore, but some of the achievements in CEA and the new ones it adds to Reach are plainly incredible fun to get. Finally, the game cost 37.99, frankly, for the enjoyment I got out of it, and what I will continue to do so, it wasn't only fantastic value, but more so than about 80% of the titles I've had the misfortune of paying full price for.

Halo, you always had and still have your flaws, but you're still a totally bitchin' game and always will be, and Anniversary did not let me down at all.

Thumbs up to 343 and Saber Interactive as far as I'm concerned!

Helix

people keep saying "343 never said they'd do anything different" and "it was a great game 10 years ago" and "it set the tone for console shooters" and "what did you expect from it", but none of these are reasons to give a game a higher score

on a contemporary scoring scale, with the very best modern shooters getting a 5, what do you people ACTUALLY think anniversary is worth, and why?

Retr0gamer

Kill.switch was a ****ty game but was the template that Gears of War was built on. You wouldn't give Kill.switch a good review score just because?

Similarly Jurassic Park: Trespasser was a total disaster of a game but has been cited by Bungie as an influence on Halo with the regenerating health and physics system it used and was a big influence on Half-Life 2.

As for Halo being a template for games like Call of Duty, not really considering Call of Duty was built on the template of Medal of Honour Allied Assault that came out around the same time as Halo. I see a lot more of Half Lifes DNA in new games than Halo's, Halo is more it's own thing. And anyway Halo was built upon PC shooters at the time anyway.

TerrorFirmer

Helix wrote: »

on a contemporary scoring scale, with the very best modern shooters getting a 5, what do you people ACTUALLY think anniversary is worth, and why?

I did, in fairness, outline my reasons, for which I would consider it a 4/5 title being fair, but a 5/5 for myself personally. I wouldn't award it 4/5 simply because 'it was good back then'.

The combat is satisfying, as are the weapons, and relative to the generic crap that compromises most modern FPS titles, the storyline is pretty interesting and fun to work through, and the new HD overhaul complements them beautifully. The environments are amazing to look at, granted minus some of the middle sections which would test the patience of a saint - no argument from me there, but I take the game as a whole and forgive it some flaws given what it offers me overall.

The ability to switch engines on the fly is a fantastic novelty, and a true reward to the Halo fans, I've never been so pleased with a 'gimmick' in my entire life. Lets not forget co-op, which to this day, is in my opinion, one of the finest available with a friend, even 10 years later.

The new Anniversary maps are awesome and thus far have provided me with more gameplay then I've spent on MW3, and the fact that you've given both the ability to use the CEA disc, or use the code to play them through Reach, is fantastic as they've given up a more comprehensive achievement list to work through - I'm no achievement whore, but some of the achievements in CEA and the new ones it adds to Reach are plainly incredible fun to get. Finally, the game cost 37.99, frankly, for the enjoyment I got out of it, and what I will continue to do so, it wasn't only fantastic value, but more so than about 80% of the titles I've had the misfortune of paying full price for.

Another point I skipped was the fact that the soundtrack to this game is amongst the best I've ever heard, in my opinion.

Helix

giving it 4/5 puts it up with the best games released in the last year though

do you HONESTLY believe that?

TerrorFirmer

Helix wrote: »

giving it 4/5 puts it up with the best games released in the last year though

do you HONESTLY believe that?

I believe it in so far as that Halo Anniversary offered me about 12 hours of a single player (I played on Heroic/Legendary), and to this point, countless hours playing anniversary playlists online. Both of which, I've enjoyed immensely, and by that criteria I consider it a 4/5. It doesn't mean I think it's a good as, say, Battlefield 3 or Modern Warfare 3 on a technical basis, but on an elemental plain of both value for money and enjoyment factor, yes, I consider it as good, which for me, it all that truly matters.

Grumpypants

All i know is i enjoyed the **** out of it, far more than any of the modern Halo titles which despite their modern game engine and massive budgets bored the arse off me.

A good game for me is fun, it is the first thing i look for. If a game that is 10 years old can still get me excited then it is still doing it's job.

I didn't give it a good review because i was scared of a backlash or any kind of negative reaction from the fans i gave it a good review because i really liked the game, and I thought it was a good all round package with the HD update of the campaign and then using the modern Reach engine for the multiplayer maps.

I felt that it was a nice option for people looking to relive the experience from 10 years ago or even for new gamers who only started out on 360 to experience the story from CE. It is more than just a HD remake but less than a full price modern release hence its priced in between the 2.

A newer game engine doesn't automatically make a game better, case and point Resident evil 4-5.

Helix

i agree that a newer engine doesnt make something better, but conversely an old game that was great then isnt automatically great now either

Grumpypants

Certainly not, it happens way too often that i will go back to a game that i loved only to find it was actually crap. A combination of it being cutting edge at the time and me being young and stupid and the rose tinted glasses all factor into twisting the memory of the game.

But just having old game mechanics doesn't make a game bad either. Last night when i was meant to be playing Assassins Creed Revelations and Skyrim i was stuck on my Mega Drive playing Jungle strike for hours and having a great time. You can't compare those games on any level but i was still getting a buzz from just whipping around and getting that fuel at the last second. There are Apache simulators a million times more advanced now but are just not as fun to play.

Helix

thread has inspired me to do a major rejiggle of our scoring system

K.O.Kiki

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Ocarina of Time is another game that could have done with a few tweaks. Now don't get me wrong, it's a far better game than Halo ever was but it's still got some flaws due to its age, in particular a dodgy camera. However like Halo the fanbase is so rabbid that magazines and review sites gave the review to a fanboy that could see no wrong with the game or else were afraid to criticise it due to fan backlash.

The only review I've seen that has criticised the Ocarina of Time remake was Jeremy Parish's review at 1up. He still gave it a high mark, a B+ or something but criticised it saying that it could have done with some improvements, most of the camera which is true. Well the backlash in hte comments section really wasn't pretty and makes me embarassed to be a gamer.

There's a lot of games that are perfect the way they are, Super Metroid and Link to the Past have been mentioned, but for early 3D games the tech and knowledge is advancing so fast that there's always improvements that can be made.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4966-Hate-Out-Of-Ten

:pac:

Ian7

Helix wrote: »

thread has inspired me to do a major rejiggle of our scoring system

Sounds good but to be fair, i do think you're right to a certain degree in comparing old to new. But it's not balanced when judging it mostly on the current market.
Any ideas on how you're gonna change it? When's the next issue out by the way or is that a 'Boards' faux pas?

James Howlett

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4966-Hate-Out-Of-Ten

:pac:

I love that bit at the end about education and degrees today. It's hilarious in a makes-me-actually-want-to-cry way.

hooradiation

Helix wrote: »

the template doesnt matter. im not reviewing a template. it doesnt matter if the original halo was the first to put a load of things that were in other games before it together in one game ten years ago. that doesnt make it a good game in 2011

im not even saying it doesnt measure up against call of duty, im going so far as to say that it doesnt measure up against mediocrity like homefront

the fact that CE set the console standard at the time, does NOT apply to the anniversary version of the game in 2011. it does NOT make it a better game in 2011. it does NOT mean we can forget about all the problems with it in 2011.

Well, you continue doing it wrong then. Have fun with that.

Chairman Meow

Finished it last night. Playing this game was the equivalent of stalking an hot ex on Facebook only to find shes now overweight and has several bastard children.

Lets take a look at the amount of reused assets:

Assault on the Control room.
you fight through about 6 or 7 practically identical rooms, and across about 3 or 4 identical bridges.

The Library
Its one corridor repeated about 5 or 6 times. Also has sections from AOTCR in it

Keyes
Its 'truth and reconciliation' only with flood enemies

The Maw
Its pillar of autumn, only with flood.

This is the biggest disappointment of the year for me. I honestly just cant understand how bad the level design is in the game. How was this not picked up on at release? Or were people jsut to obusy ooh'ing and aah'ing over TSC to notice that about 50% of the game is reused levels?

As a new release in 2011, its only fair to score this game by 2011 standards, no nostalgia or rose tinted crap, and as it stands, this game is a 6/10. It gets a 6 for the excellent levels up to AOTCR, everything after that, can get ****ed.

CramCycle

hooradiation wrote: »

Well, you continue doing it wrong then. Have fun with that.

How do you do it right then?

Lets say I have only got into FPS in the last 3 years (could be an age thing, maybe I got let go from work and have more time to play games, could be a few mates finally talked me into it), I have come to enjoy them and despite my moderate experience, I think I know a decent FPS but am far from an expert and like to read reviews so as I know what to expect but occasionally I only skim the overall mark if I know its cheap.

What score should I be seeing for HALO considering I have never played it and my only knowledge of it is as a reference in a few reviews I have read. I have no nostalgic ties to it. Considering its price, I'll read the full review. I'll be interested in the history but that's only padding as far as I am concerned, I want to know about the gameplay, the level design, the A.I., is it value for money or should I wait till it's cheaper?

Basically, why should a reviewer give it a high or low score?

Ian7

Chairman Meow wrote: »

This is the biggest disappointment of the year for me.

I wouldn't go that far now. If you're talking about single player campaigns....did you not play the much over-hyped battlefield 3? Anniversary is far from a disappointment in my opinion because it didn't claim to be anything more than prettier version of an existing game. If you were honestly hoping for it to be drastically different and you are disappointed that you forked out hard earned cash for it then i think you have fooled yourself my good man. I bought this game with absolutely no expectations whatsoever and i must say i'm pleasantly surprised. no fuss