http://gamingtrend.com
September 23, 2014, 12:40:43 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Halo 2 Reviews - IGN/Gamespot/Gamespy (Poss. Spoilers)  (Read 4541 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 18538



View Profile WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 08, 2004, 04:25:41 PM »

Damn you bastards. I wanted to be the one to use ARBITRARY first.

frown

Yeah, so my aunt is buggin' me ... my AUNT-icipation. Gah. 14:33 to go. <sigh>

What's with the Halflife2 tangent in here? I'm having a hard enough time coping with a 14+hr delay for Halo2; Now I'm gonna start counting until November 17 12:01am PST . Not fair.

 Ignorance is bliss; you just took away my happiness. :x
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Jeff
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3278



View Profile
« Reply #41 on: November 08, 2004, 04:26:09 PM »

Quote from: "Chaz"
So, should movie reviewers dock a film because it's only 90 minutes long as opposed to two hours long?  Should a book reviewer take points off if a novel is less than 250 pages?  If the single player is long enough to give a complete experience, then it's long enough.  Video games are the only artistic medium that has people consistently complaining about the size of a work.  A game should be as long as it needs to be, and not be held up to some arbitrary judgement of how long it "should" be.


I think the problem is that games cost $40 to $50, and people expect a reasonable dollar-to-hour ratio. I get disappointed when I hear a title I've been really anticipating can be finished in under 10 hours.
Logged
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 18538



View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 08, 2004, 04:41:17 PM »

Quote from: "Jeff Jones"
Quote from: "Chaz"
So, should movie reviewers dock a film because it's only 90 minutes long as opposed to two hours long?  Should a book reviewer take points off if a novel is less than 250 pages?  If the single player is long enough to give a complete experience, then it's long enough.  Video games are the only artistic medium that has people consistently complaining about the size of a work.  A game should be as long as it needs to be, and not be held up to some arbitrary judgement of how long it "should" be.


I think the problem is that games cost $40 to $50, and people expect a reasonable dollar-to-hour ratio. I get disappointed when I hear a title I've been really anticipating can be finished in under 10 hours.


And the co-op, the online play and the staggering amount of multiplayer fun doesn't work out to more than 50 hours? I guarantee you that on single-player alone, I've blown an easy 50+ hrs with Halo1. (3 times through gets that, as playing on legendary doubles, if not triples) the time it takes to get through the game.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Chaz
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5212



View Profile
« Reply #43 on: November 08, 2004, 04:50:02 PM »

Even if the game is only ten hours long, which seems to be the number I see a lot in the "too short" argument, a $50 game works out to be $5 an hour, assuming only one playthrough.

The average movie ticket seems to be climbing to the $10 mark rapidly.  (I know this isn't universal, so no chiming in with "Movie tickets still cost a quarter for me!")  The works out to about the same $5 an hour, plus you have to pay that again if you want to see the movie a second time.
Logged

whiteboyskim
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7848


Hard partier


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: November 08, 2004, 04:57:43 PM »

Quote from: "Purge"
Quote from: "Jeff Jones"
Quote from: "Chaz"
So, should movie reviewers dock a film because it's only 90 minutes long as opposed to two hours long?  Should a book reviewer take points off if a novel is less than 250 pages?  If the single player is long enough to give a complete experience, then it's long enough.  Video games are the only artistic medium that has people consistently complaining about the size of a work.  A game should be as long as it needs to be, and not be held up to some arbitrary judgement of how long it "should" be.


I think the problem is that games cost $40 to $50, and people expect a reasonable dollar-to-hour ratio. I get disappointed when I hear a title I've been really anticipating can be finished in under 10 hours.


And the co-op, the online play and the staggering amount of multiplayer fun doesn't work out to more than 50 hours? I guarantee you that on single-player alone, I've blown an easy 50+ hrs with Halo1. (3 times through gets that, as playing on legendary doubles, if not triples) the time it takes to get through the game.


For those of us without Live, Bungie can make it the greatest MP experience ever and it wouldn't mean a damn thing to me. If the single player isn't a good experience, then I just wasted money. Of course, all the Halo fanbois seem to forget that right in the middle you play through the Library then backtrack through most of the game, and then you're led to the final missions. That's what you call "bad" any way you look at it. smile

I've got high hopes for part two, but HL2 is where my true dreams are at.
Logged

Behold the glory of my new blog!
Filmmaking is vision plus faith plus balls, all 3 of which Hollywood knows little about.
Scott
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1673


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: November 08, 2004, 05:30:33 PM »

Quote
I'm not bashing the game at all. I just can't believe seeing these near perfect scores for a game that has a single player campaign of 10-15 hours long! Some of these review sites need to re-evaluate themselves.

10-15 hours is perfect for me, especially if there isn't any repeated content or levels.  Most rpgs are artificially long with dumb random battles, and vanilla dungeons.  Halo was pretty bad at parts.  If Halo 2 is only 10 hours, with great level design that doesn't repeat, I'll be thrilled.  I'd rather spend time with quality design, then have it artificially lengthened through poor level design, random battles, etc.
Logged

---
XBox Live: ScottW
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: November 08, 2004, 05:33:59 PM »

Quote from: "Chaz"
Um...Kevin?  I think you've got Halo 2 and Halflife 2 mixed up a bit there... slywink


Nah, that was in direct response to Agt Fox asking when the first reviews for Half Life 2 would hit in the post directly above mine.
Logged
Jeff
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3278



View Profile
« Reply #47 on: November 08, 2004, 05:45:08 PM »

Quote from: "Purge"

And the co-op, the online play and the staggering amount of multiplayer fun doesn't work out to more than 50 hours? I guarantee you that on single-player alone, I've blown an easy 50+ hrs with Halo1. (3 times through gets that, as playing on legendary doubles, if not triples) the time it takes to get through the game.


As WBS indicated, some people don't want, or care about multiplayer. Obviously, they'll be the ones with the complaints of 'too short'.  

The other thing that helps soften the blow of the $50 price tag, is that you could blow through the, say, 10 hour sp portion, and then sell off or trade the game to greatly increase your dollar-to-hour ratio.

I tend to take longer with games than most. I was disappointed when I read some guy's post who finished Fable in 14 hours. It took me 22 hours, and I'm pretty certain I didn't replay many areas at all, but only followed the main story and all the side quests. I was very happy with that time, and then sold the game for $31 on half.com, so it only cost me $19 for 22 hours of fun.

Thus if Halo 2's sp takes me 15 hours, I'll be satisfied, and I expect to have some fun with mp too, if we get a group up here that wants to play.
Logged
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: November 08, 2004, 05:46:50 PM »

Quote from: "Purge"
[
And the co-op, the online play and the staggering amount of multiplayer fun doesn't work out to more than 50 hours? I guarantee you that on single-player alone, I've blown an easy 50+ hrs with Halo1. (3 times through gets that, as playing on legendary doubles, if not triples) the time it takes to get through the game.


Personally I don't play multiplayer.  No live play for me and my wife wouldn't be caught dead playing this so no co-op.  I may replay the game but replays are the exception not the norm.

I'm playing devil's advocate here because I'm fine with an incredible 10 hour experience but I also have a lot more disposable income for gaming than most people so I don't place the same value judgements as others do.  I can understand why some would be concerned with a 10-15 hours single player experience if that's their focus.  

What does concern me is the reportedly hideous ending.  Jason Cross reported on QT3 that he was waiting for the next loading screen when the credits started rolling. Evidently there really is no finale here at all.
Logged
Jeff
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3278



View Profile
« Reply #49 on: November 08, 2004, 05:49:03 PM »

Quote from: "Kevin Grey"

What does concern me is the reportedly hideous ending.  Jason Cross reported on QT3 that he was waiting for the next loading screen when the credits started rolling. Evidently there really is no finale here at all.


Can you say "Halo 3 on the Xbox 2 launch"?

I thought you could smile
Logged
Mr. Sparkle
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 24


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: November 08, 2004, 05:55:34 PM »

Quote from: "whiteboyskim"
Quote from: "Purge"
Quote from: "Jeff Jones"
Quote from: "Chaz"
So, should movie reviewers dock a film because it's only 90 minutes long as opposed to two hours long?  Should a book reviewer take points off if a novel is less than 250 pages?  If the single player is long enough to give a complete experience, then it's long enough.  Video games are the only artistic medium that has people consistently complaining about the size of a work.  A game should be as long as it needs to be, and not be held up to some arbitrary judgement of how long it "should" be.


I think the problem is that games cost $40 to $50, and people expect a reasonable dollar-to-hour ratio. I get disappointed when I hear a title I've been really anticipating can be finished in under 10 hours.


And the co-op, the online play and the staggering amount of multiplayer fun doesn't work out to more than 50 hours? I guarantee you that on single-player alone, I've blown an easy 50+ hrs with Halo1. (3 times through gets that, as playing on legendary doubles, if not triples) the time it takes to get through the game.


For those of us without Live, Bungie can make it the greatest MP experience ever and it wouldn't mean a damn thing to me. If the single player isn't a good experience, then I just wasted money. Of course, all the Halo fanbois seem to forget that right in the middle you play through the Library then backtrack through most of the game, and then you're led to the final missions. That's what you call "bad" any way you look at it. smile

I've got high hopes for part two, but HL2 is where my true dreams are at.


The original Halo didn't have Live support, but still had great multiplayer...  so the MP aspect is still open to you...  unless you don't have any friends, or can't afford a second controller.

I never even finished the first Halo, but definately got my money's worth bashing my friends in the back of the head with a rifle butt and laughing maniacally.
Logged
jblank
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4215


Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned


View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 08, 2004, 11:28:36 PM »

A few random thoughts from me:

1. The score is ok, maybe a bit low, especially compared with a few other titles (the GTA series comes to mind).

2. A 9.4 from GS is realisticly a 9.8 or 9.9. I probably will take heat for this, but I still think they have a bit of bias against the XBOX. When I see a 8.0 on an XBOX game that they review, then see 9 out of 10 review sites give the same game a 9, I go with the consensus, and I havent been disappointed yet. It just seems that GS consistently UNDERRATES AAA XBOX titles.

3. To dock the score of a game based on it being 15 hrs long (for a great player mind you), is absurd. I would rather pay 50.00 for Halo 2, than ANY 60 hour RPG game. Halo/Halo 2 just give the gamer so much more, in that 15 hours, than I get from any overblown RPG.

4. They gave this game a 9 in graphics????  They are seeing a MUCH different game than I am. This is probably one of the 3 or 4 best looking games I have ever seen, PC or console, its just that good.
Logged

XBOX 350 Gamertag = Phobos of Mars
PSN Gamertag = PhobosofMars
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: November 09, 2004, 01:40:50 AM »

Evidently there are some graphical glitches in the cutscenes with textures taking a second to load after a camera switch.  

Someone posted this very funny gif on Gaming-Age that is supposedly straight from a Halo cutscene:



I think that combined with the fact that Halo 2's graphics were already topped by Riddick (in Kasavin's opinion) were the reason for a 9 vice a 10 in graphics.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.225 seconds with 49 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.13s, 2q)