3 years is NOT enough to age a game by 20%

My prime example is Halo 2 (xbox version in 2004 got ~95%, pc version in 2007 got ~75%,) but there many more examples. I don't want to start a war - Halo is just an example.

Reviews like GameSpot mysteriously lower the gameplay AND the sound AND the value of the game, although these components age very slowly.

And graphics simply make the game easier to take and more believable in terms of visual presentation. The very cinematic scenes in Final Fantasy VII or the highly cinematic reactor scene in Half-Life 1 used very basic graphics; still, their prenentation was effective.

I would say that a game ages every year by about 1%, thus Doom today would get ~80% today if it got 95% in its day. RPG's and RTS games age by just a fraction of a %.

Halo 2 needing Vista but not for any real reason could be a factor in the low reviews. The price of a game is often taken into account and if you have to buy a new operating system to play a game with worse graphics then the average game in it's genre, then it's not going to sit well with reviewers.

You apparently didn't read the review.

The thought the online was unbalanced and it didn't hold up nearly as well on the PC platform as it did on the Xbox.

Basically, the Xbox score was inflated because of "limited competition," lowered expectations and an impressive graphics engine that really wasn't challenged by anything else on the Xbox.

It's not only aging and platform standards, it's also how much things suit a platform. The different actions in halo 2 are fine tuned for the xbox controller just as the hitboxes and other gameplay. A kb/m is just so different that it will impact it. And then there's the personal preferences of the reviewer and all... 11Marcel

At Gamespot they actually said that you can use the Xbox 360 controller. You can use that or KB/M. So hitboxes and other gameplay aren't the issue. The issue, they said, was when playing online, when the 360 controller autoaim would kill balance versus KB/M.

Singleplayer is pretty much a go either way, since you can play the whole game through on 360 pad no problem.

I agree with your rant, though I've no idea where the hell you got those numbers from. In any case, that's why Gamespot revised the review system. Breaking a game's quality down into numbers is just absurd. To be honest, I think Halo 2 (PC) deserved a 8.0. A Jesus load of content would've made it a 9.0.

I just got my hands on it and I'm having a blast. At first I was about to throw up when I saw the graphics. But I felt the same way about Halo CE. But as I eased my way into the campaign, I was thrilled with the gameplay Halo 2 has been famous for.

I agree with your rant, though I've no idea where the hell you got those numbers from. In any case, that's why Gamespot revised the review system. Breaking a game's quality down into numbers is just absurd. To be honest, I think Halo 2 (PC) deserved a 8.0. A Jesus load of content would've made it a 9.0.

I just got my hands on it and I'm having a blast. At first I was about to throw up when I saw the graphics. But I felt the same way about Halo CE. But as I eased my way into the campaign, I was thrilled with the gameplay Halo 2 has been famous for.

x_boyfriend

They explained exactly why they gave it a 7.0, and it's not entirely because of graphics or singleplayer.

It's because they decided the boss battles and story were bad and there was too much repetition in the environment, I think.

I played Halo CE recently for PC and it was just awful. Like, seriously, it was not good. The graphics, the gameplay, the AI, physics, everything.

[QUOTE="x_boyfriend"]

I agree with your rant, though I've no idea where the hell you got those numbers from. In any case, that's why Gamespot revised the review system. Breaking a game's quality down into numbers is just absurd. To be honest, I think Halo 2 (PC) deserved a 8.0. A Jesus load of content would've made it a 9.0.

I just got my hands on it and I'm having a blast. At first I was about to throw up when I saw the graphics. But I felt the same way about Halo CE. But as I eased my way into the campaign, I was thrilled with the gameplay Halo 2 has been famous for.

Redfingers

They explained exactly why they gave it a 7.0, and it's not entirely because of graphics or singleplayer.

It's because they decided the boss battles and story were bad and there was too much repetition in the environment, I think.

I played Halo CE recently for PC and it was just awful. Like, seriously, it was not good. The graphics, the gameplay, the AI, physics, everything.

It's a 6 year old game...

You apparently didn't read the review.

The thought the online was unbalanced and it didn't hold up nearly as well on the PC platform as it did on the Xbox.

Basically, the Xbox score was inflated because of "limited competition," lowered expectations and an impressive graphics engine that really wasn't challenged by anything else on the Xbox.

Redfingers

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but did you just say that there were low expectations for Halo 2 and that it was the best looking game on the xbox?

You apparently didn't read the review.

The thought the online was unbalanced and it didn't hold up nearly as well on the PC platform as it did on the Xbox.

Basically, the Xbox score was inflated because of "limited competition," lowered expectations and an impressive graphics engine that really wasn't challenged by anything else on the Xbox.

Redfingers

So that's why it beat UT2004 for best multiplayer game of 2004.

A lack of balance between the controller options in multiplayer, requiring Vista, and a lack of co-op might have contributed to Halo 2's lowered score.TyrantDragon55

If people are only just now playing it than they missed out on the whole Halo2 phenomenon anyway so they deserve the game they get,

1. It's TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE DOING THE REVIEW. I don't know why so many people get off comparing reviews, unless ones a 6 and ones a 9 (significant difference) there is the reviewers specific view that can alter the score. It's not a science.

2. Halo 2 is a mediocre shooter (at best) that flurished on the Xbox because it's being compared to other games on the xbox. When Halo 2 is released on PC (the home of the most technologically advanced, artfully designed, all around BEST FPS's on the market) it has different games to be considered among. Halo 2 does not hold a candle to most PC shooters, and it was lucky to get a score as high as it did.

1. It's TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE DOING THE REVIEW. I don't know why so many people get off comparing reviews, unless ones a 6 and ones a 9 (significant difference) there is the reviewers specific view that can alter the score. It's not a science.

2. Halo 2 is a mediocre shooter (at best) that flurished on the Xbox because it's being compared to other games on the xbox. When Halo 2 is released on PC (the home of the most technologically advanced, artfully designed, all around BEST FPS's on the market) it has different games to be considered among. Halo 2 does not hold a candle to most PC shooters, and it was lucky to get a score as high as it did.

TacoJelly

If halo 2 is a mediocre shooter than why did it get Best Multiplayer shooter over UT2004 which was on the home of the most technologically advanced fps market?

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]A lack of balance between the controller options in multiplayer, requiring Vista, and a lack of co-op might have contributed to Halo 2's lowered score.MentatAssassin

If people are only just now playing it than they missed out on the whole Halo2 phenomenon anyway so they deserve the game they get,

What was the whole "halo2" phenomenon? A massive over-rating of an average game? Ha! I'd rather not be part of that.

1. It's TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE DOING THE REVIEW. I don't know why so many people get off comparing reviews, unless ones a 6 and ones a 9 (significant difference) there is the reviewers specific view that can alter the score. It's not a science.

TacoJelly

I was referring to the GameRankings AVERAGES of the reviews of many people.

[QUOTE="TacoJelly"]

2. Halo 2 is a mediocre shooter (at best) that flurished on the Xbox because it's being compared to other games on the xbox. When Halo 2 is released on PC (the home of the most technologically advanced, artfully designed, all around BEST FPS's on the market) it has different games to be considered among. Halo 2 does not hold a candle to most PC shooters, and it was lucky to get a score as high as it did.

II-FBIsniper-II

I completely disagree with that. Halo 2 could not "handle" the PC shooters because it was a direct port of a 3 year old xbox game with NO CHANGES at all.

Did it hold a candle to the great PC shooters of 2004 like Half-Life 2 and FarCry? (Since 2004, perhaps the onlyPC shooter thatrivals these two is F.E.A.R.)