Halo 2 for Vista = 67% by PCG

I just got my PCGamer and they reviewed Halo 2 for PC and gave it a 67% which equates to "above average," a major failure if you ask me. They listed

Pros:Epic Storyline, action-packed set-pieces, Live achievements (if you have Windows Live); a map editor

Cons: Abrupt ending, looks very dated, stiff mouse controls, easy AI, requires Vista, pricey ($50 for a 3 year old game)

Bottom Line: Proof-of-Concept for Live and tray/play functionality, but not worth $50 for most people.

Any thoughts on this? This may have been posted before since I tend to get my PCG late, which I apologize for if this is a repeat. I expected Halo 2 to be kind of a flop on PC unless they actually worked to get high res textures consistently throughout the game and improved lame console AI, but this is a bit lower than I expected. I think it had the potential to be an AA title on PC, but failed to put the right amount of work into it. 

It got what it deserved. And that is being generous.

I imagine Gamespot, being the Halo fanboys that they are, will give it at least an 85%. Probably more like a 90%.

Sounds reasonable, lack of coop killed it for me

Hopefully they make it moddable, so a mod team can come in and actually replace the crappy textures MS did with the PC port and put in some nice high-res ones.

The pricing of the game already pretty much kills it.  

You need to review it like it just came out. Don't think about the Xbox version, imagine that doesn't exist, then review it, see how it changeswhgresiak

it wouldn't really change a thing. The graphics are still extremely dated and the game is overpriced.  

You need to review it like it just came out. Don't think about the Xbox version, imagine that doesn't exist, then review it, see how it changeswhgresiak

Cons: Abrupt ending, looks very dated, stiff mouse controls, easy AI, requires Vista

those are all cons that don't make any difference for when i came out. i don't really think it would change much. It probably deserved a bit higher though, like a 75 or something.

I bet Halo 2 gets over-scored because it is an old game.

If this game came out right now, without its history on the X-Box, I really doubt it would get very good scores. I bet it would get critically panned. 3 year old graphics, crappy controls, a HEFTY price-tag, and a need to upgrade to Vista,......yuck. Shame on you Microsoft.

[QUOTE="whgresiak"]You need to review it like it just came out. Don't think about the Xbox version, imagine that doesn't exist, then review it, see how it changesonemic

it wouldn't really change a thing. The graphics are still extremely dated and the game is overpriced.  

When was the last good PC FPS game really? UT 2004 or Battlefield or maybe Counter Strike? Come on there isn't that many great recent FPS games out there.

Also the reviewer based his review on the single player and that makes no sense.

The price is definitely going to hurt sales and reviews.....    If they had simply charged $20 for it and offered it as a free download for Ultimate users.... It would be MUCH more succesful.SuperBeast

Not a bad idea (this is an old game). It would immediately get additional Vista adopters for MS and get them Live exposure for the pc. It will all happen eventually anyway, just take longer.

[QUOTE="onemic"]

[QUOTE="whgresiak"]You need to review it like it just came out. Don't think about the Xbox version, imagine that doesn't exist, then review it, see how it changesDeihmos

it wouldn't really change a thing. The graphics are still extremely dated and the game is overpriced.

When was the last good PC FPS game really? UT 2004 or Battlefield or maybe Counter Strike? Come on there isn't that many great recent FPS games out there.

Also the reviewer based his review on the single player and that makes no sense.

Make a little research there's alot more than you think. 3 years have passed since 2004.

They give the most generic of shooters like.. 70s, as long as they aren't actually flawed. The flaws they listed didn't seem that bad relatively. I think a 70 would have been a much better rating.. 70 is respectable, for a game that could be that bad considering so many people liked it (not just fanboys and such). It feels like they felt a 70, but they wanted to be all PC-based and anti-console like their fanbase and drop a few points just to make sure it wasn't in the 70's.

But I've never played it, I just couldn't imagine it being worse than games they've rated in the 60's for. I guess the price is pretty rediculous, though.. 

I'm going to have to disagree. GTA 3 and on have all been ports from consoles and have all been given AAA 90%+. If you look back only 2-3 issues in the letters, PCG editors actually admit that the console/pc war is very tongue in cheek and not taken that seriously by those in the business, so I doubt it has to do with bias.

If Hired Gun (the devlopers of the port, not Bungie, the designers of the original xbox version) had given more focus to upgrading to high res textures, controls that were on par with other PC shooters (I assume this means mouse smoothing and sensitivity possibilities), and cared about consumers by not forcing the Vista bandwagon on us, then I'm sure the game would have gotten closer to 80% or higher. Every score by every reviewer is reflective of not only the time put into a project, but the ideas and content that coincide with what users want. It's not about the dev, it's about the players.

Dracunos:

I'm going to have to disagree. GTA 3 and on have all been ports from consoles and have all been given AAA 90%+. If you look back only 2-3 issues in the letters, PCG editors actually admit that the console/pc war is very tongue in cheek and not taken that seriously by those in the business, so I doubt it has to do with bias.

YourOldFriend

I can't disagree or agree or anything on the subject, since it's just random opinion, but I can say that I  believe Grand Theft Auto is a pretty fricken terrible game to compare it to : p

Considering GTA was a PC game, and is as much 'pcgame-ish' as it is console-gameish, despite the fact that nowadays it's usually ported from consoles.. It doesn't have that same anti-console feel to it a lot of PC gamers have. In my mind, it will always be a mainly PC game, with a few thrown at the console children because it's mindless enough for them to enjoy it too : p no offense.

Halo is far, far different. It's what started the more popular versions of gamers today, and the limitless number of retarded and obnoxious arguments about how consoles are obviously way way better than PC games because look at halo it does this and this and i luv it. It's like a symbol of the console fanboy's anti-pc arguments that they repeat over and over despite numbers and obviousness that denies said arguments. The fact is, it's wasn't nearly as great as the console gamers thought it to be (although I could see why they'd think it was, considering the crappy FPSes they had available before then). I mean, consider that when Gears of War came out, and the console people started talking again about how great it was- the PC gamers really didn't have (relatively as much) of an 'omg you're rediculous that game's not even that great u retarded console person!', because Gears of War actually is pretty decent. At least decent enough, or unique enough, that it's slightly harder to argue against than Halo..

Basically, my point of that (I don't personally hate consoles or anything) is that Halo is just that game that PC gamers more often dislike, and it's like always the 'example' when childish PC gamers want to talk about how much better their PC games are.. This reply has gone on a bit longer than I had hoped, but I'm basically just trying to explain my reasoning for why I would guess Halo far over GTA, or other ports, that's all.. @_@

I do respect their reviews, however, and I love the magazine.. It's just.. Three little points of difference- basically the same rating if you were to consider buying a game that got a 70 or a 73% rating.. But 67.. Just feels off, I dunno 

Drac-

I can't really argue with what you said, Halo is that game that XB players love to love and everyone else loves to hate. I think I understand where you're coming from, it's the first digit that matters a lot more than the second, that sound about right? 

Drac-

I can't really argue with what you said, Halo is that game that XB players love to love and everyone else loves to hate. I think I understand where you're coming from, it's the first digit that matters a lot more than the second, that sound about right?

YourOldFriend

Sure, you can say it in three little puny WIMPY lines like that if you want. I however.. Am too manly and powerful for such a thing. Three lines.. Pff 

Things I liked about the game:
-Tray and Play
-Map editor
-Music

Things I didn't like:
-Graphics
-Ending
-Mouse controls
-Level design
-Controls
-Vista requirement
-Price

[QUOTE="onemic"]

[QUOTE="whgresiak"]You need to review it like it just came out. Don't think about the Xbox version, imagine that doesn't exist, then review it, see how it changesDeihmos

it wouldn't really change a thing. The graphics are still extremely dated and the game is overpriced.

When was the last good PC FPS game really? UT 2004 or Battlefield or maybe Counter Strike? Come on there isn't that many great recent FPS games out there.

Also the reviewer based his review on the single player and that makes no sense.

You forgot three little games called HL2, far cry, and FEAR.  

[QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="onemic"]

[QUOTE="whgresiak"]You need to review it like it just came out. Don't think about the Xbox version, imagine that doesn't exist, then review it, see how it changesonemic

it wouldn't really change a thing. The graphics are still extremely dated and the game is overpriced.

When was the last good PC FPS game really? UT 2004 or Battlefield or maybe Counter Strike? Come on there isn't that many great recent FPS games out there.

Also the reviewer based his review on the single player and that makes no sense.

You forgot three little games called HL2, far cry, and FEAR.  

HL2 is good but it's a single player and I played it a long time ago. Fear and Far Cry are mediocore multiplayer games. The single player is ok but they both suck bad online. Far Cry multiplayer was actually much better on the Xbox.

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="onemic"]

[QUOTE="whgresiak"]You need to review it like it just came out. Don't think about the Xbox version, imagine that doesn't exist, then review it, see how it changesDeihmos

it wouldn't really change a thing. The graphics are still extremely dated and the game is overpriced.

When was the last good PC FPS game really? UT 2004 or Battlefield or maybe Counter Strike? Come on there isn't that many great recent FPS games out there.

Also the reviewer based his review on the single player and that makes no sense.

You forgot three little games called HL2, far cry, and FEAR.

HL2 is good but it's a single player and I played it a long time ago. Fear and Far Cry are mediocore multiplayer games. The single player is ok but they both suck bad online. Far Cry multiplayer was actually much better on the Xbox.

Far cry? Yes. FEAR? Hell no.

Also HL2 comes with CSS and HL2: DM so I don't know what you're talking about HL2 being SP only....

Also, since when did an average or even no MP automatically mean the whole game is bad? Is bioshock going to be mediocre just because it doesn't have MP? I don't think so.  

A game this old doesn't deserve to ask full price, let alone force you to swap to Vista.

I recently bought Quake 4, Doom 3 and UT2004 each for £6 in sales all run great on XP and have better graphics and are fun online.  There's no way a game that is as old/older than some of these can ask for full price - drop the price to budget and drop the Vista requirement, then you might get a success on the PC.

It's just too cynical to release this on PC now while at the same time promoting Halo 3 for 360.

It was bound to happen. Bungie just can't make a good PC port. Halo 1 combat evolved recived low scores, Halo2 on PC is reciving low scores and future PC port of Halo3 will recive poor scores. If you want play Halo buy xbox/x360 in other case pass it.shinian

Which is ironic considering Halo started out on the PC, until Bungie was bought by MS. Actually, it may have started out on the Mac even before the PC --- don't remember. It's usually some other devs doing the PC ports, but I agree, the PC versions could use more attention!!

It got what it deserved. And that is being generous.

I imagine Gamespot, being the Halo fanboys that they are, will give it at least an 85%. Probably more like a 90%.

Smithgdwg

Yeah maybe. 

No co-op?! FK... just like the first Halo on PC. I like how devs REMOVE features when porting games to PC. That sure makes a lot of sense.MyopicCanadian

[QUOTE="MyopicCanadian"]No co-op?! FK... just like the first Halo on PC. I like how devs REMOVE features when porting games to PC. That sure makes a lot of sense.lol_waffles

How does that make any sense at all?

[QUOTE="MyopicCanadian"]No co-op?! FK... just like the first Halo on PC. I like how devs REMOVE features when porting games to PC. That sure makes a lot of sense.lol_waffles

What about LAN co-op then? No, I think Microsoft really dropped the ball on this one! Removing features from a PC port of a 3 year old $50 game. :roll:

[QUOTE="lol_waffles"][QUOTE="MyopicCanadian"]No co-op?! FK... just like the first Halo on PC. I like how devs REMOVE features when porting games to PC. That sure makes a lot of sense.Nitrous2O

What about LAN co-op then? No, I think Microsoft really dropped the ball on this one! Removing features from a PC port of a 3 year old $50 game. :roll:

Who plays lan co-op? If any co-op was added it should be online co-op. It does have lan but not for the single player campaign.

[QUOTE="onemic"]

[QUOTE="whgresiak"]You need to review it like it just came out. Don't think about the Xbox version, imagine that doesn't exist, then review it, see how it changesDeihmos

it wouldn't really change a thing. The graphics are still extremely dated and the game is overpriced.

When was the last good PC FPS game really? UT 2004 or Battlefield or maybe Counter Strike? Come on there isn't that many great recent FPS games out there.

Also the reviewer based his review on the single player and that makes no sense.

Stalker was released just 2 months ago, amazing game. HL2, Fear, Far Cry, geez, a little research goes a long way.

The review was accurate, Halo is vastly overratesd as it is, but then to charge $50, outdated graphics, an average sp campaign, it got what it deserved.

[QUOTE="MyopicCanadian"]No co-op?! FK... just like the first Halo on PC. I like how devs REMOVE features when porting games to PC. That sure makes a lot of sense.lol_waffles

That's why various Coop Games and Mods exist where someone can join another player's server just fine?

Who plays lan co-op? If any co-op was added it should be online co-op. It does have lan but not for the single player campaign.Deihmos

I really enjoy LAN coop in games!!! It's great for anyone that has multiple computers and more than one gamer in the house, or has friends that come over often. It can also be alot of fun at LAN parties.

Anyway, I would never say one type of coop is better than another (like internet vs. LAN), but it's too bad MS decided to drop a game mode from a game that orginally had it period :(

[QUOTE="lol_waffles"][QUOTE="MyopicCanadian"]No co-op?! FK... just like the first Halo on PC. I like how devs REMOVE features when porting games to PC. That sure makes a lot of sense.GodLovesDead

That's why various Coop Games and Mods exist where someone can join another player's server just fine?

Exactly, how do people play Half-Life Co-op then if it doesn't work?

nice...AT LEAST it went over 50 %...i thought worst...

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="onemic"]

[QUOTE="whgresiak"]You need to review it like it just came out. Don't think about the Xbox version, imagine that doesn't exist, then review it, see how it changesDeihmos

it wouldn't really change a thing. The graphics are still extremely dated and the game is overpriced.

When was the last good PC FPS game really? UT 2004 or Battlefield or maybe Counter Strike? Come on there isn't that many great recent FPS games out there.

Also the reviewer based his review on the single player and that makes no sense.

You forgot three little games called HL2, far cry, and FEAR.

HL2 is good but it's a single player and I played it a long time ago. Fear and Far Cry are mediocore multiplayer games. The single player is ok but they both suck bad online. Far Cry multiplayer was actually much better on the Xbox.

LOL....You're a silly boy you are!!  

Farcry on PC was vastly superior, while the multiplayer wasn't that good across the board. Fear multiplayer is leaps and bounds greater than anything Halo has put on the board. Not to mention, it's free! Please, that's the most ridiculous statement I've read all day, even worse than the average System Wars comments. 

[QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="onemic"]

[QUOTE="whgresiak"]You need to review it like it just came out. Don't think about the Xbox version, imagine that doesn't exist, then review it, see how it changesmismajor99

it wouldn't really change a thing. The graphics are still extremely dated and the game is overpriced.

When was the last good PC FPS game really? UT 2004 or Battlefield or maybe Counter Strike? Come on there isn't that many great recent FPS games out there.

Also the reviewer based his review on the single player and that makes no sense.

You forgot three little games called HL2, far cry, and FEAR.

HL2 is good but it's a single player and I played it a long time ago. Fear and Far Cry are mediocore multiplayer games. The single player is ok but they both suck bad online. Far Cry multiplayer was actually much better on the Xbox.

LOL....You're a silly boy you are!!  

Farcry on PC was vastly superior, while the multiplayer wasn't that good across the board. Fear multiplayer is leaps and bounds greater than anything Halo has put on the board. Not to mention, it's free! Please, that's the most ridiculous statement I've read all day, even worse than the average System Wars comments. 

You are silly to think Fear has a great multiplayer. Battlefield is by far the best multiplayer game ever made. I can play it for years and I got bored of fear in no time. The game has no substance and even though it is free hardly anyone plays it.