Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary

Ian7

CramCycle wrote: »

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

That's a good question! I don't think lumping a re-released game/retro game in with modern games gives a balanced view. If that was the case then we might aswell write-off most games pre-current gen and follow it up with the following tag.

*Don't buy this game, it's old, no-one cares anymore. You don't wanna go there. It doesn't play the same as today's games. The past is the past*

Sorry about the rant there.

Retr0gamer

Ian7 wrote: »

That's a good question! I don't think lumping a re-released game/retro game in with modern games gives a balanced view. If that was the case then we might aswell write-off most games pre-current gen and follow it up with the following tag.

*Don't buy this game, it's old, no-one cares anymore. You don't wanna go there. It doesn't play the same as today's games. The past is the past*

Sorry about the rant there.

A lot of games are still as good as they always were. Some games haven't aged as well because of a number of factors, like hype or putting up with dodgy controls in early 3D games because there wasn't much to compare them to. A reviewer wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't point out that it wasn't as good as the rose tinted glasses make you expect.

CramCycle

Ian7 wrote: »

That's a good question! I don't think lumping a re-released game/retro game in with modern games gives a balanced view. If that was the case then we might as well write-off most games pre-current gen and follow it up with the following tag.

*Don't buy this game, it's old, no-one cares anymore. You don't wanna go there. It doesn't play the same as today's games. The past is the past*

Sorry about the rant there.

I would disagree to a point, there are several classic games that have yet to be equalled in several genres, unfortunately as has been pointed out, FPSs often lose out, not all of them, but some.

Personally, I liked HALO, I still do, I pick it up after a few drinks when mates are over to see was it as good, it's not, its not bad, it's just not that great. So an average score of 5/10 is fair from my view point.

That said, I think several newer FPSs are not that great either, very few deserve over 5, although I have a few yet to play. Also I should point out that my viewpoint may not be the fairest as I judge games on their SP more than their MP. So my judgement should be taken under advisement.

TheBigEvil

Ian7 wrote: »

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

Totally agree.....I was soooo disappointed with Battlefield 3, totally over hyped, have stopped playing it and gonna trade it in. Didnt enjoy the Campaign, felt it was too short and poorly executed and not enough put into it.

HALO CEA is what it is, and a graphical/music updated version of the original, and I enjoyed it. Only slight gripe was the lag in the on-line co-op, but other than that, they werent going to radically change the game or story.

The inclusion of the Terminals was a nice touch and gave more background to the Halo story.

Ian7

Retr0gamer wrote: »

A reviewer wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't point out that it wasn't as good as the rose tinted glasses make you expect.

slight sense of déjá vu here but howandever,

There's people on here (including myself) that didn't play the game when it came out first so the rose tinted glasses argument doesn't stand up all of the time. As i've been trying to point out.... and as helix has seemingly acknowledged, the system set out to review re-released games needs an overhaul. expanding on that point further... a score of 2/5 or 5/10 marked up against modern games basically says "this game is unplayable", "do not buy" it's not as good as "such and such generic middle eastern shoot em' up"

Is it fair to say that Anniversary is unplayable? 2/5 screams "do not touch"

hooradiation

CramCycle wrote: »

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?

Firstly it's an important, landmark game and if you've not played it yet then you ought to, if for no other reason then to see where a lot of modern conventions come from.
Though that is likely to give way to what Helix is afflicted with, if you're not careful, where the proliferation of concepts that Halo popularised is so extensive that it makes the original seem unusually stale, and unfairly so.

Secondly comparing it like for like with games that have spent ten years refining the template it created is unfair - much in the same way that the special effects in Jurassic park have been long since surpassed but the film gets a pass on that simply because of how ground breaking it was at the time.
It's also a solid fun film, in the same way Halo is a solid, fun game.


So as much as I hate using numbers it's a respectable 8/10, and frankly, I don't regret picking it up at all.

Retr0gamer

Ian7 wrote: »

Is it fair to say that Anniversary is unplayable? 2/5 screams "do not touch"

And this is the problem with review scores. You wouldn't completely dismiss a film if it got 2/5 since it's a persons opinion and would check out other review scores.

2/5 doesn't scream unplayable to me, it's more the reviewer saying that the game isn't worth buying in his view and reading the text will back it up, Helix makes some very good points to back it up. What I got from the review is that you are paying 40 euros for a game that is 10 years old and a very flawed game at that with no improvements only a lick of paint and in the reviewers opinion it isn't worth it. It's a game you can also pick up for less than a tenner.

A review score is just a number and you can get very little information from it. Read the text to get the justification for it.

Shiminay

2 or 3/5 says "this is middle of the road" which it is by today's standards. That's a perfectly fair and accurate score for Halo CE in today's market. To suggest anything else is madness, it simply doesn't compare to newer titles. As an example, CoD:BlOps which I'm not a big fan of at all is a far superior game to Halo (Campaign and Multiplayer) - so to suggest it should have the same score is simply incorrect.

I would ask anyone who hasn't to give a watch to that Jimquisition piece on The Escapist linked earlier. I'm not a particularly big fan of his, but he was absolutely 100% on the money with the points he's been making about 8/10 being a great score for any game, yet people have absolute sh1t fits at such a score.

Also - slightly off-topic - anyone who bought BF3 for the campaign needs their head examined - it's a Multiplayer game and Dice really just shouldn't have bothered with a campaign (especially when it was only 4-5 hours long - that's a different argument though).

Retr0gamer

hooradiation wrote: »

Secondly comparing it like for like with games that have spent ten years refining the template it created is unfair - much in the same way that the special effects in Jurassic park have been long since surpassed but the film gets a pass on that simply because of how ground breaking it was at the time.
It's also a solid fun film, in the same way Halo is a solid, fun game.

I don't agree with this at all. Jurassic Park I feel still looks great because it understood the limits of the technology it was using. There's surprisingly little CGI in the flim because they knew where it would look good and could get away with it. The films after it that jumped on the CGI bandwagon looked terrible since there's no restraint in how they use CGI. In the same way games like Donkey Kong Country on the SNES were praised at the time for the prerendered graphics. Go back to it now and the DKC games are some of the ugliest looking games on the system while games like Chrono Trigger that knew the limits of the tech still look stunning.

At the time Halo got a pass for some really bad level design because for consoles it was the best in the genre and being the best launch title on the Xbox, the exception being the more PC centric eurogamer and gamespy. Halo has some great moments but there are some really bad moments with some terrible level design due to reused assets and the Flood enemies. Bad game and level design is bad no matter what way you want to brush over it. You can't just give a game a pass due to it's legacy, neither can you do the same with a film. You're reviewing a game for people that want to know if it's value for money, not writing an essay on the legacy the game has left in the industry. In that case some highly influential but awful games like Kill.switch and Jurassic Park Trespasser should be getting 8 and 9 out of 10.

CramCycle

Ian7 wrote: »

a score of 2/5 or 5/10 marked up against modern games basically says "this game is unplayable", "do not buy" it's not as good as "such and such generic middle eastern shoot em' up"

Is it fair to say that Anniversary is unplayable? 2/5 screams "do not touch"

2/5 is 40%, a pass, a bare pass but not a failure.
5/10 is average, about as average as you can get in fact it is right in the middle.

hooradiation wrote: »

Secondly comparing it like for like with games that have spent ten years refining the template it created is unfair - much in the same way that the special effects in Jurassic park have been long since surpassed but the film gets a pass on that simply because of how ground breaking it was at the time.
It's also a solid fun film, in the same way Halo is a solid, fun game.

So as much as I hate using numbers it's a respectable 8/10, and frankly, I don't regret picking it up at all.

But 8/10 isn't just respectable, it's a fantastically high score, 5.5/10 up to 7/10 is respectable, everything above that though should be absolutely fantastic, far beyond average, in the realms that others aspire to achieve.

That's why anything above 70% in a college/university exam is referred to as a first (best example of the top of my head), that's where you are with a score like that, your up at the top.

Below is how I used to believe a score (out of 100) should be interpretted: Alas now, scores often mean nowt but this is my opinion on what I remember they used to mean:

Below 20 : If its not free, it should be, only to teach others how not to do things

Between 20 and 30, a few will touch it but generally avoidable, might have one redeeming feature but that in no way makes up for its other flaws.

Between 30 and 40 means that while generally a fail some people may like it, they should read up more on it.

40 = is a bare pass but a pass nonetheless.,

50 = average, needs no explanation

60 = above average, decent overall although not exceptional.

70 = a great game, worthy of a few pound, if you like this genre, well worth full price, if you don't, no harm to have a look as this may pull you in

70+ = A shining example of what developers should strive to achieve

Ian7

Retr0gamer wrote: »

And this is the problem with review scores. You wouldn't completely dismiss a film if it got 2/5 since it's a persons opinion and would check out other review scores.

Yes i would. Just not this game because i know what it is and why it exists.

A review score is just a number and you can get very little information from it. Read the text to get the justification for it.

A lot of people base judgments on a score though. It can have great influence on the public's perception of a product on first glance, that's the whole point of a review score.

What I got from the review is that you are paying 40 euros for a game that is 10 years old and a very flawed game at that with no improvements only a lick of paint and in the reviewers opinion it isn't worth it. It's a game you can also pick up for less than a tenner

The game technically only costs €30. Ten of the €40 basically amounts to 6 new MP maps which people fork out for on a regular basis. Bargain.

Regardless of how many circles will be turned in this thread i think the real issue here (and I should have realised this from the start) is that a review for this game is near irrelevant. People know exactly what it is and why it exists and the people who 343 expect to buy it, will probably buy it regardless of scores.

Ian7

Halo CE:A - 2/5 & 5/10

Duke Nukem Forever - 2/5, 80%:eek: and 5/10..... http://www.computerandvideogames.com/306651/duke-nukem-forever-review-scores-seep-out-is-it-a-stinker/

Ok students, Halo CE:A and DNF are on par......discuss....

Helix

Ian7 wrote: »

slight sense of déjá vu here but howandever,

There's people on here (including myself) that didn't play the game when it came out first so the rose tinted glasses argument doesn't stand up all of the time. As i've been trying to point out.... and as helix has seemingly acknowledged, the system set out to review re-released games needs an overhaul. expanding on that point further... a score of 2/5 or 5/10 marked up against modern games basically says "this game is unplayable", "do not buy" it's not as good as "such and such generic middle eastern shoot em' up"

Is it fair to say that Anniversary is unplayable? 2/5 screams "do not touch"

here's a hint: when reading a review, don't look at the score and assume that because you THINK 2/5 means a game is unplayable, that it actually means a game is unplayable. read the words. you know, the actual review

0 or .5/5 is unplayable. 2/5 is below average. as i said, i did some rejiggling on our scoring procedure, it's fully outlined below, and we will be implementing it so that the text (or a finessed version) you see below each score will accompany the score at the bottom of the review, so people who don't understand that 2.5/5 is an average game will get the idea...

5 Stars: Brilliant
- Better than almost everything else available, regardless of genre
- Offers something that almost everyone will really enjoy
- Must buy for everyone
- Executes almost everything to the highest of standards
- Opens up the series/genre to newcomers
- Offers plenty of innovation, or builds brilliantly upon established design/ideas
- Excellent value for money (long campaign/involving multiplayer modes/lots of replay value)

4 ½ Stars: Excellent
- Better than almost everything else in its genre, and the majority of games in other genres
- Will be enjoyed by most gamers
- Must buy for fans of the series/genre
- Execution of most things is among the best
- Offers innovation, or builds well upon established design/ideas
- Great value for money (long campaign/involving multiplayer modes/lots of replay value)

4 Stars: Very Good
- Better than most of games in its genre,
- May not be as highly rated by non genre/series fans, but should still be enjoyed by most gamers
- Fans of the series/genre will love it
- Opens up the genre to newcomers
- Tries to be innovative/executes existing ideas perfectly
- Good value for money (lengthy campaign/varied multiplayer options/good replay value)
- Does most things it sets out to do to a very high standard

3 ½ Stars: Good
- Better than a lot of games
- Should appeal to a broad number of gamers, particularly series/genre fans
- Offers slight innovation/executes existing ideas well
- Solid value for money (reasonably long campaign/good multiplayer/worth revisiting post-completion)
- Well designed, but lacks that little extra to make it really stand out

3 Stars: Above Average
- Worth considering for series/genre fans
- Unlikely to hold much appeal for newcomers to the series/genre
- Not all that much to set it aside from many other titles
- Not much innovation, but uses existing ideas reasonably well
- No major design or execution problems, but does have smaller issues
- Offers enough to represent value for money

2 ½ Stars: Average
- Fans of the series/genre should get some enjoyment from it
- Doesn’t do anything worthy of attracting new fans to the genre/series
- Has some problems holding it back, or fails to capitalise on potential
- Brings nothing new to the table
- Unlikely to have you returning to the game after completion

2 Stars: Below Average
- Not as good as most games in the series/genre
- Unlikely to appeal to a broad demographic, although some may enjoy it
- Offers no innovation, or executes innovative ideas poorly
- Lacks polish
- Suffers from design problems
- Offers sub-standard value for money

1 ½ Stars: Poor
- To be avoided by most people
- Barely worth considering for hardcore genre/series fans
- Serious design problems
- Very little value for money
- Poorly executed across the board

1 Star: Very Poor
- Not worth considering for the vast majority of gamers
- Suffers with game breaking design issues
- Offers nothing new, and executes original ideas very poorly
- No value for money on offer (unlikely players will bother completing it)

½ Star: Awful
- Does almost everything very badly
- Terrible design
- Huge problems making the game unplayable
- Bad ideas, bad execution

0 Stars: Indescribably Bad
- Avoid at all costs
- Nothing to offer to anyone

Ian7

Helix wrote: »

here's a hint: when reading a review, don't look at the score and assume that because you THINK 2/5 means a game is unplayable, that it actually means a game is unplayable. read the words. you know, the actual review

Yes, I read reviews if they are well written and make valid points but the score is the summary. It would be pointless to have one otherwise. It is plastered onto posters, packaging, adverts or wherever, for everyone to see. 2 by your standards is "below average", personally i would render all games rated 2 and below by your system a bad game. Maybe unplayable was the wrong choice of wording earlier but still a bad game. This ain't a bad game by any standards.

Look, i'm gonna back outta this debate because as i said and with most arguments of this nature, it's just going round and round.

Personally & finally, I don't find this game pointless or overpriced. I've never played it before and I am thoroughly enjoying it. I've seen other positives here which leads me to think that your method of comparing old with new is severely flawed.

Helix

Well lets take a look at what the criteria for a 2 star game is...

Not as good as most games in the series/genre - Check
Unlikely to appeal to a broad demographic, although some may enjoy it - Check
Offers no innovation, or executes innovative ideas poorly - Was innovative 10 years ago, but it's not 10 years ago any more, so Check
Lacks polish - Check
Suffers from design problems - Reuse of resources... Check
Offers sub-standard value for money - This is arguable. Well worth it for hardcore fans I'm sure (I'm a big Halo fan, but I can see that a 10 year old game doesn't stand up any more), but for Joe Bloggs with no ties to the series? Probably not

Pedro Monscooch

You lads are still arguing about this? Meh.

I like the game for what it is, a walk down memory lane. I spent countless hours playing the original game 10 years ago, replaying certain levels, challenging myself to finishing without using vehicles, stealing the rare banshees and what have you. Whats cool is there are achievements to do that now. It's a nice distraction, by no means a work of art, but a nifty reminder of how far games have come.

chopperbyrne

Has it still got amazing circular level design, that is totally not linear or samey at all?

TerrorFirmer

I think a critical aspect of the game that Helix has for whatever reason ignored is the multiplayer aspect of CE: Anniversary. Yes, it's the Reach Engine with new maps, but taken as a multiplayer experience on its own right, with the 6 (technically twelve) maps, it's incredible fun. It offers something to both new fans and Reach owners: The former, a complete MP experience, the latter, a DLC code giving you both the ability to play the Anniversary maps within Reach, and a new achievement list, and indeed, the ability to share the game with friends online through the use of both a Reach disc and the CEA disc.

You wouldn't rate Call of Duty solely on the SP experience; in fact, to the contrary, most people don't care about SP in some regards, BF3 was criticized for its poor SP yet still achieved 4/5 and 9/10 marks; so why here, is Halo: CE being awarded 2/5 on the perceived weaknesses on the SP campaign, when it also features a full MP campaign running on a modern engine yet this is absolutely ignored in the review?

Surely you don't think Helix that Halo MP is worthy of a 2/5 score? Taken on its own strengths, the MP bundled with Anniversary is better than about 85% of multiplayer capable titles out there - personally, I'd rather be playing it than BF3 or MW3 but that's personal taste, but 2/5 is sheer lunacy in my opinion and it does go against pretty much every professional review out there from the big sites. Average metacritic rating: 83/100. Your rating: equivilent to 40-50/100, whilst bafflingly ignoring absolutely the huge MP element to the game.

I think any game review that not only overlooks but utterly ignores the MP aspect to a title especially when it's one as weighty as Halo, is pretty much worthless to be fair. You'd said you based your review around what it offers both a modern market and new fans - so you can hardly then choose to ignore the huge MP aspect to the game which is top notch.

You said this of MW3:

If you're looking at picking it up for a single player experience only, then it's not worth bothering, despite a marked improvement in the standard of the campaign this time around, but those of you who are going to put any time at all into the onine side of things are going to be greatly rewarded.

And then go on to review CEA as if the MP doesn't even exist and critique nothing but the campaign? Sorry, can't make any sense of that whatsoever...

GrumPy

It's awesome. Pitty about the frame rate issues. It's shamelessly Halo 1 with textures. But that's ok, cause Halo made a huge impact to modern day fps and it's still easily one of the best single player campaigns of the shooter genre.

It's nice to take a walk down memory lane. Although I forgot how slippy the chiefs boots are, the game engine shows it age with how all over the place he moves!

Zeouterlimits

Campaign was great, as it always is.
There were flaws and art changes that I was quite unhappy with, but it's a great package.
The boost to Reach of the Anniversary gameplay changes & the maps are super significant too.

Helix

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Surely you don't think Helix that Halo MP is worthy of a 2/5 score?

i do, otherwise i wouldnt have given it a 2/5 score

Helix

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

And then go on to review CEA as if the MP doesn't even exist and critique nothing but the campaign? Sorry, can't make any sense of that whatsoever...

i didnt critique nothing but the campaign. i critiqued the overall game

TerrorFirmer

Helix wrote: »

i didnt critique nothing but the campaign. i critiqued the overall game

Sorry, no you didn't. You didn't mention the multiplayer at all, with the exception of one sparse line, which says that the MP feels 'tacked on and disjointed'. Which is a bit strange seeing as it's the critically acclaimed Reach Engine on six brand new maps, not sure how one makes the leap from that to 'disjointed'.

I can't take a reviewer who includes a single line on multiplayer in a review, particularly when 50% of your MW3 review is devoted towards online play, and that your summary of said game is pretty much 'SP not worthwhile, MP is where it's at'.

Why does MW3 receive a review heavily weighted towards online play, and indeed a 4.5/5 despite critique of the single player, yet Halo Anniversary receives 2/5 for its heavily critiqued SP campaign and receives a solitary sentence regarding multiplayer?

To be honest your review sounds like someone who threw the game into the console for 10 minutes and then threw out a review last minute. It's a lazy, unbalanced, and unnecessarily harsh review compared to the model you're reviewed other games on.

If Gamesclick considers two nouns within a short sentence about multiplayer a 'balanced' and 'critique of the game overall', then fair enough.

Retr0gamer

You're getting a measly 6 maps bolted onto the engine from a one year old game. Sounds tacked on to me. The fact that they don't use the same engine and the jump in quality between the Halo engine and the Reach one, including the change in physics sounds a bit disjointed to me?

Zeouterlimits

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You're getting a measly 6 maps bolted onto the engine from a one year old game. Sounds tacked on to me. The fact that they don't use the same engine and the jump in quality between the Halo engine and the Reach one, including the change in physics sounds a bit disjointed to me?

Bolted on? Know of the changes for the Reach AA version? Or the details of the TU? Played them?

Having played them at a LAN last weekend, I can say they work damn well, and give Reach a much needed map boost.

TerrorFirmer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You're getting a measly 6 maps bolted onto the engine from a one year old game. Sounds tacked on to me. The fact that they don't use the same engine and the jump in quality between the Halo engine and the Reach one, including the change in physics sounds a bit disjointed to me?

Helix went to lengths to point out that he was reviewing this game on the basis of the current market and new fans, not simply from a nostalgic perspective.

Firstly, I doubt very much that you agree with a review that summarizes any MP in two nouns, and secondly, for new fans, the MP within CEA is solid, each map having a new and classic version which are quite different, so there's six maps, with a technical twelve, most of which are excellent.

Also, within CEA you have your standard Big Team Battle, Free for All, Team Deathmatch, and a few others - standard MP fare, but the Reach engine is solid, and it's a good offering considering the game's 37.99 RRP, almost twenty euro below most other modern genre releases.

So the campaign and MP differ somewhat - it's not enough to smear the whole MP in two words without delving into what it offers to any extent. I've played plenty of games that suffer the same problem - weak SP and cracking MP, or even on occasion, vice versa. Battlefield 3 is probably the latest one, medicore SP yet incredible MP, doesn't seem to have suffered because of it, even though it's only correct critically to point out that disparity. Helix himself said in his MW3 review, of which at least 50% was online orientated, that the SP wasn't worth it, but the MP was great - and awarded the game 4.5/5 stars, so do you not agree that it's a bit strange to reduce the online review within his CEA review to a measly two words?

I play Reach online a lot - it's pretty much the only game I play online. Reach is the better engine, and it's a good one at that, I would have liked more maps but on the whole, it's an excellent package and I've clocked up about 30 hours on the Anniversary maps alone the past while.

Retr0gamer

Nope not played them, just saying there might be a bit of validity in the comment. Anyway all reviews are a matter of one persons opinion. In the same way MGS fans love MGS4 while I on the other hand, being an MGS fan but not going to let the series away with anything, think it's one of the worst games I've played this generation.

Grumpypants

How come MW3 didn't get 2/5 then?
Not as good as the other games in the series? check
Lacks innovation? Check
Suffers from design problems? Check
reuses resources? Check
Offers sub standard value for money? Check it costs 20% more than most games on the market.

Halo has a great single player story and a solid mulitplayer mode and is 20% less than most games on the market.

But still i'm surprised this thread is still going. Helix doesn't like it the vast majority of others do its not the end of the world.

Its not like Resident evil 4 HD remake which is basically the Wii version relaunched to cash in. Now i could understand giving that 2/5 because it has aged terribly

Zeouterlimits

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Nope not played them, just saying there might be a bit of validity in the comment. Anyway all reviews are a matter of one persons opinion. In the same way MGS fans love MGS4 while I on the other hand, being an MGS fan but not going to let the series away with anything, think it's one of the worst games I've played this generation.

I would be in your boat regarding MGS & MGS4 (roll on HD Collection!), but I find you commenting on the maps and how they'd work in Reach without being
a) Clued in
b) Having played them
a bit odd.

TerrorFirmer

I posted a review here, I'm under no illusions that it's quite sparse and I could have gone into a lot more detail, but I felt the game deserved a more balanced review, with focus on other elements rather then SP, as well as focusing on several positive aspects of the game I believe outweigh the bad. I purposely did not give it a specific score in my review, instead people can draw from it what they want, but I do consider it worthy of something above 2/5 which undermines all it can offer to both fans and new comers alike.