Right, a game that a lot of people are highly anticipating, and some.. not so much. I'll post a few review scores, and some very nice impressions by someone who I post with on another board who got the game a week early.
Gamespot - 9.4
IGN - 9.8
Team Xbox - 9.9
Famitsu Xbox - 37/40
Famitsu - 34/40
OXM US - 9.7/10
OXM UK - 9.9
EGM - 10, 10, 10
XBGamers - 9.8
Game Informer - 10
GameRankings
Quote:On the Covenant side, I haven't noticed any drastic differences.
Elites really take advantage of cover this time around, and seem to be a bit more careful when their shields are down. They press their backs to the wall when their shields are down sometimes, with their weapon facing the corner.
Elites and Grunts(I think) can scale small objects like crates or fallen vehicles in order to get higher ground on you or surprise attack you if you're taking cover near them.
Jackals dart out of the way if you're very close to them and pressuring them. You'll have to make sure you don't give them too much time to recover if you're close, or else they'll dash behind you and light you up with their Plasma Pistols.
Grunts, unfortunately, are still stupid cannon fodder. No real change, except they seem to take more damage than before... But then again, all the Covenant enemies do. So nevermind.
And your helpful NPCs, Marines, they're actually worth keeping alive this time around. In all honesty, sometimes you won't have to work to keep them alive because they work much better with you in HALO 2.
Marines also take cover much more often, pressing their backs to wall and dipping in and out very quickly to take quick shots at the enemy.
They now have the ability to drive. Honestly, they aren't the smartest bunch when driving, the 'hog usually ends up smoking by the time we're done with a quick skirmish. They aren't really conscious of how much damage your vehicle has taken. But still, sometimes they can get the job done just fine.
You can switch any weapon with your Marines. This proves very helpful in a mission involving the Prophet of Regret, you'll know what I'm talking about when you get there. I described this scenario at GAF, but I'll run it down again: I had these two Marines following me throughout this entire level. They can die, but because of the weapons I gave them, and the way we looked out for eachother(instead of me just protecting them and fighting the Covenant at the same time). The male Marine was given a Covenant Carbine, while the female Marine was given a Covenant Particle Beam Rifle. Male Marine went head-on with me to take on Elites, while the female Marine took out Jackal Snipers and sometimes wore down the shields of the Elites ahead. They were great support, and no matter what weapon I gave them in this scenario, they used them properly... Well, I haven't tried giving them the Energy Sword or Rocket Launcher yet, but I'm working on it.
The AI on both sides of the spectrum work together much better than before too. Running in when others take cover, and they communicate with eachother as well.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many levels are there in single player campaign?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not certain, but I think there are around 6 or 7 entire "levels", but these levels are broken up into campaign levels... Get me? No? Well... For example, the "Earth City" level is broken up into two seperate campaign levels. And the transition between levels isn't exactly made clear sometimes, you won't even know you've gotten to a new one. Heh.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How are the new vehicles?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not many new ones...
Warthog - There are two Warthog variants present in the final game; the LRV "Chaingun" Warthog, and the LAAV "Guass" Warthog. The former is the 'hog we all know and love, and the latter is the new powerful variant we saw in the E32k3 Demo. I haven't had much time with the LAAV, but it seems to work best against vehicles. It's hard to hit opponents on foot because the shot isn't entirely accurate, and there's no splash damage unless you nail a vehicle... Concerning the Warthog in general: The thing feels very different. It just doesn't seem to have as much weight as the original Warthog. At first I didn't like it, but I've gotten used to it. I don't know how the rest of you will feel about it
Ghost - Not too much of a difference here. Unlike the 'hog, the new Ghost feels heavier. It rides lower, moves slower when not boosting, and when it does boost, you can't really adjust your path all that much. As you might have noticed in the videos from E32k3 and E32k4, the Ghost's weapons fire at a much faster rate than before. It can wear down people on foot quite easily, but the shots don't seem to freeze, and I think this goes for all plasma weapons, unfortunately...
Spectre - The only real new vehicle in HALO 2. Think of it as the Covenant's answer to the Warthog. It moves a bit slower than the Warthog at first, but when it boosts it moves at just about the same speed or a bit faster. It seats 4: Driver, 2 Passengers, and a Gunner. The Spectre's weapon is a very accurate rapid-fire plasma weapon that does pretty decent damage.
Banshee - It has received the most drastic change. The thing is just an aerial target now, IMO. It's so delicate, and the barrel rolls 'n' flips don't really serve much of a purpose besides avoiding the Rocket Launcher's Target Tracking feature. It's very fast when it boosts though... But that's it. You can no longer fly backwards up into the air, if you try to, the 'shee's engines will kind of turn off and you'll plummet to the ground. That causes damage too, by the way.
Scorpion - Better. Moves slower than before, like less than half it's original speed, but you can take more punishment in it than before, and it's weapons have been improved-- it's main and secondary weapons both fire much faster and accurately than in the first game. Even with these improvements, because of it's slow speed, it can be easily boarded if somebody gets close enough.
Wraith - The Covenant Mortar Tank that was unplayable in the first game. It fires it's mortar shots very fast, and the splash damage of these shots are incredible. While it moves about just the same speed as the Scorpion normally, it can boost for like 1-2 seconds. IMO, the superior of the two Heavy Vehicles.
There are also turrets that are considered vehicles in Multiplayer. There is a Human and Covenant variant. The Human one, most of you have already seen, but the Covenant basically fires projectiles just like the Ghost in an extremely fast constant stream. They both do the job just fine.
Quote:Gamespot's review is pretty much on target, I think they gave it the most reasonable score(though it is a lil' high by their standards). And it's good to see that they point out the lil' flaws in the story; everybody else sang praises of it without saying why.
Only thing I disagree about their review is the repetitious levels. While repetition does rear it's ugly head in bits and parts of later levels, it isn't nearly as bad as it was in the first game.
Apparently GameSpots review is the best out at the moment (I generally tend to agree with GameSpot regardless..) so here's a link:
GameSpot
Reply!
I'll probably wait a while before I get Halo 2 because of all the other things I want. Things such as: MP2, Nintendo DS, Baiten Kaitos, GTA: SA, and I'm sure there's something else. Also, I was really dissapointed with the first game, it was NOT as good as everyone said it was, though I'm sure the second is probably much better since they've had more time to work on it.
Halo 1's single player totally sucked. Of this, no one can deny. Now, multiplayer was fun though. Fun mainly because any FPS where they don't totally screw up controls stats or weapons WILL be fun simply because you are playing against other humans and they create the fun with you, but it was still fun.
Now, Halo 2 by all accounts seems to be very fun. I'm actually surprised Famitsu rated it without labelling it some horrible American game by stupid Americans, who smell like America, which in and of itself smells of stupid (stupid having a rather odd molecular shape and vibration resulting in a truly distinct, pungent yet at the same time familiar, insulting yet comforting, truly a stench with which the unguarded can easily adapt to), since we all know foreign people are arristocratic and above our hill billy standards right? :D
Anyway, I'm rather interested in how great this game will actually end up. Honestly I will still be getting it for multi. Again, I am more or less forced to get this as opposed to waiting for PD0 since, as I said before, when getting multiplayer games, you have to get something your friends will actually want to play or you just bought something that might just as well not be removed from it's shrink wrap.
Like GR here I was extremely disappointed with the first Halo and consider it the the most over hyped game in the past ten years or so. The single player mode deserved a 6/10 at most, and the mutliplayer was offline and didn't include bots, so it wasn't as good as it could have been.
However Halo 2 does look really nice, and if nothing else it'll be worth getting for the mutliplayer. I just hate it that you can only be in one clan. The single player should be better than the last game's, but the environments I've seen so far look incredibly boring. The first game looked so appealing because of the great forest areas. That first main level on the halo is what got me to buy the game (and an X-Box).
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Halo 1's single player totally sucked. Of this, no one can deny. Now, multiplayer was fun though. Fun mainly because any FPS where they don't totally screw up controls stats or weapons WILL be fun simply because you are playing against other humans and they create the fun with you, but it was still fun.
Actually, I'm sure there's lots of people who would deny that. I'm not one of them, however.. so I won't argue.
Quote:Now, Halo 2 by all accounts seems to be very fun. I'm actually surprised Famitsu rated it without labelling it some horrible American game
Didn't Famitsu give it a 34? XBox Famitsu gave it a 38, however.
Quote:Anyway, I'm rather interested in how great this game will actually end up.
I picked up the game today. I'm only just past the first level, but I can say that at the moment it is exactly the same game they released last time.. with recoil. And no, that's not an obscure metaphor. Aside from the aforementioned recoil (which is quite annoying, as when firing your SMG's you will have to constantly hold down.. and if the aliens suddenly sidestep after being hit with 20odd bullets, it will result in your crosshair being launched toward your feet), the twin gun idea is frustrating and not executed as well as even Red Faction 2.
I have received some impressions stating that fans of the original might dislike this one because it's so different.. so far there has been NOTHING that would make me agree with this statement. And there are even reports of repetition in later levels. I'll add to this.. THE VERY FIRST LEVEL FEELS JUST LIKE THE FIRST GAME.. That's the worst kind of repetition. Repeating something that was flawed for being so repetitious. It's just endless minldess shooting through various ship compartments, AGAIN. The only thing different about the battles are again, the recoil, twin guns and the fact that occasionally you'll have to point up due to the Covenant now jumping on top of boxes. Ughh...
/rant
Bah, that sucks. But I'm getting it for multiplayer anyways.
And when you say that it's like the first game, is that the good first half or the crappy second half?
Read that gamespot review! It's a good long review of the game, worth reading. Probably their biggest complaint is that the single player game has a bad story, is short, and has somewhat repetitive design... but they say the rest of the game more than makes up for that...
Quote:It's just endless minldess shooting through various ship compartments, AGAIN.
Ugh.
I've heard the story is pretty cool, but ends abruptly. And who did the gamespot review? If it's that idiot Kasavan then the review is worthless.
Right, of course, Gamespot reviews are bad, sorry for even implying that they do a good job of writing reviews...
Quote:All your attention tends to get concentrated on the action itself, partly because the action is just so good but also because there's often little of interest in the game's environments. The level design is quite striking at times--you'll find yourself stopping just to gaze at the architecture--but it's occasionally monotonous enough to be confusing. You'll sometimes wander aimlessly for a few minutes, unable to tell which way is forward and which way is backward, until you happen upon the next signs of enemy resistance. Basically, the campaign is still a linear series of shootouts, some of which are open-ended enough to afford you the ability to choose from multiple weapons or vehicles, and some of which are more rigid. If the Flood levels of Halo didn't bother you, then you probably won't mind the similar sequences in Halo 2. If you don't fondly recall those bits of the first game, though, you might find yourself frustrated that Halo 2 follows a similar formula.
Even the content of Halo 2's campaign isn't significantly different from that of the first game. Prepare to take on many of the same foes in many of the same types of situations and locales. Of course, the game does take you into some new territory and pits you against some new threats (such as some hard-to-hit flying enemies and an enormous spiderlike Covenant battle tank), and sure enough, these sequences turn out to be some of the best bits of the campaign. Early on, for instance, you'll be defending Earth itself from a Covenant assault, rampaging through the war-torn streets on foot, at the wheel (or the mounted turret) of a Warthog 4x4, or in the belly of a devastating Scorpion battle tank. All this is thrilling. Yet while it's hard to imagine a better setup for Halo 2's action than putting the fate of Earth's defense in your hands, the game turns out to have other intentions, and rather suddenly changes gears after just a few hours.
Halo 2 gives up some of its focus from a storytelling standpoint, which becomes especially apparent once you finish the campaign. A great deal of attention is paid this time around not to the humans struggling for survival, but to the Covenant and what turns out to be a major political upheaval within their ranks. You spent the first game indiscriminately killing these fiends--yet now you're expected to be sympathetic to them and their hatred for humankind. To the game's credit, all this adds some newfound complexity to the story (even the collector's edition version of the game's manual is written from the Covenant perspective), and the plot itself is executed quite well. Still, chances are you'll wish that the game spent less time telling you about the Covenant and more time telling you about the Master Chief, his trusty AI companion Cortana, and, well, the fate of Earth.
As previously suggested, easily the worst part about the story is the way it ends, insofar as it doesn't. You'll run into this game's cliff-hanger ending like a compact car into a brick wall, and you'll certainly be left aching for more. Cliff-hanger endings are not necessarily a bad thing--some of the most successful film franchises in history (Star Wars and Back to the Future, to name just two) have relied on cliff-hangers to sustain their audiences' feverish excitement over time. The difference is, those cliff-hanger endings arrived in the context of storylines that at least offered some resolution or catharsis, whereas there's little satisfaction to be found in the ending here, and there's no telling when the next Halo game will come around to potentially wrap things up. There's a good chance you'll feel emotionally betrayed by the story, and it certainly doesn't help that the campaign, at the default difficulty, is going to take an average player less than 10 hours from start to finish. Many excited Halo fans will quickly blow through it in a day, or even a single sitting. Yes, the actual gameplay of Halo's single-player campaign is a blast. But the campaign also winds up being the most disappointing part of the game--probably the only disappointing part. Fortunately, Halo 2 more than makes up for these shortfalls in other ways.
Quote:Right, of course, Gamespot reviews are bad, sorry for even implying that they do a good job of writing reviews...
If it's from Greg Kasavan, absolutely. That guy is the worst reviewer on the planet.
I'm on earth and just pased through a bunch of tunnels to where other soldiers and a tank are. This game has certainly gotten a lot better since the first space station level- which I admit was repetitious.
edit: wow, the tank (and warthog for that matter) actually substains damage this time around.
Quote:And when you say that it's like the first game, is that the good first half or the crappy second half?
It's basically identical to the first level in Halo 1. My guess is that they made this level so that people with fond memories of the original game would get a kick out of it. Not taking into account those that didn't like it, and do
not want to play the same shit over and over again like they already did in the first game.
I am expecting this to change, though. Surely after all the positive things I've heard about the game it couldn't possibly follow the exact same path as the original, could it?
Quote:Right, of course, Gamespot reviews are bad, sorry for even implying that they do a good job of writing reviews...
Hmm.. I happen to think that GameSpot have some of the most well written reviews on the web. It's certainly much easier to read through their reviews than the dribble that comes from IGN.
And I love when Kasavin reviews a massively hyped game, you just know he's going to rip it to shreds. :D:D
Quote:It's basically identical to the first level in Halo 1. My guess is that they made this level so that people with fond memories of the original game would get a kick out of it. Not taking into account those that didn't like it, and do not want to play the same shit over and over again like they already did in the first game.
Are you talking about in terms of pacing or in terms of atmosphere/environment? Because I loved how the first level looked.
Quote:And I love when Kasavin reviews a massively hyped game, you just know he's going to rip it to shreds.
Kasavin scores low for the sake of scoring low and hoping to look like he's beyond all hype. That's why he gave Majora's Mask, Metroid Fusion, and a number of other AAA titles much lower scores than they deserved. MM is easily as good as OoT yet he gave it a 7/10, and for what reason?
The man is a severely incompetent reviewer. That Christian review site is more respectable than Kasavin.
Well, I think you have to take a 7 from him to mean that it's still a decent game.
Most people just think a 7 out of 10 means it's not even worth buying, because every other reviewer out there seems to think that 8 is the minimum for a half decent game. I mean the guy gave Splinter Cell an 8.6 and all of TeamXBox was up in arms calling him biased.. but an 8.6 from Kasavin (actually, everyone at GameSpot is pretty strict) usually means it's a very good game.
Besides all that, I think he usually does a good job of justifying his score. In which case, it's just that you disagree with him. :)
And despite all that, he has written the best review online for Halo 2, and that's pretty much agreed everywhere (except perhaps TXB, but I haven't checked there..), so personal issues aside, it's worth reading.
That logic would work if he were consistent with his reviews. A 7 does not mean that a game is great by his standards. He's the most inconsistent reviewer out there. For instance, he gave the crappy Arx Fatalis an 8.4 and Morrowind GOTY edition a a 7.9. That's just craziness. He gave the crappy X-Box port of MGS2 Substance an 8.7 while the PS2 version of Substance got a 7.5 Try to make sense of that why dontcha. His reviews cannot be trusted.
While I'm sure there are reasons and he would have explained them in his reviews. I'm too lazy to look, however.
I'll say this, a 7 from him means he enjoys the game, despite it being flawed. Said flaws will be pointed out generously by him.
I'm sure that most, if not all reviewers have bouts' of 'inconsistancy' (which most of the time will just be differences in opinion). For instance, I could say that he gave crappy Halo a 9.6 and SOCOM only got 9.1...WTF!? HE DOESN"T KNOW WHAT HE"S TALKING ABOUT!!two!!`11!2@!!Just that Kasavin happens to get most of the major games and is willing to rip them to shreds for their flaws while websites such as IGN will simply overlook them.
But, whatever.. :)
Also he says that the story is worse this time around, but every other major review site and magazine says that the story is a lot better in Halo 2. Halo 1 did not have a good story.
I haven't played the game yet but I'm inclined to believe everyone else.
Quote:Hmm.. I happen to think that GameSpot have some of the most well written reviews on the web. It's certainly much easier to read through their reviews than the dribble that comes from IGN.
And I love when Kasavin reviews a massively hyped game, you just know he's going to rip it to shreds.
I agree 100%. Gamespot definitely has some of the best written and most informative reviews there are. OB1 just prefers ones that just have the highlights and a bunch of review scores becuase I guess "reading" the "reviews" to get "information" that tells you in "words" instead of numbers whether you would like the game or not is too hard for him...
OB1, your later posts prove it. SCORE IS NOT EVERYTHING! That review is a four page review. Not a two digit number, a four page review. No one should be determining how much they like the game on the number. It should be based on what counts -- the review text itsself and what it says about the game. Until you understand that I guess you should stick with EGM... but Gamespot is definitely better.
Read the four paragraphs I posted. It's a quite good overview of the single player game and as any good review should do while saying the reviewer's opinion it gives you all the details you need to know how your opinion would differ from theirs. Like, I certainly doubt I'd be saying things like that about the game, but by reading it I can easily tell what I would expect from it and how much I would like that...
I'm not going to post the entire reviews. But their reviews reflect their scores. Greg Kasavin is an idiot, and you two are the only people on the net who seem to like him.
One reviewer doesn't make a website, you know... especially a place like Gamespot with a bunch of them...
Did you actually read the excerpt I posted? If not read it before continuing your bashing. And try to see what I keep talking about... though I know you'd ignore it even if you did just because you won't let yourself...
Some of their reviews are good, I'm referring to Greg Kasavin specifically.
Yes I read his review.
My point is you can generally explain the scores by reading the reviews. They quite adaquately explain how, from the reviewers' perspective, the game earned that score. Do I always agree? Of course not! But almost always Gamespot has writing good enough that I can understand how much I'd like the game no matter what score it got! Many other sites do not do that! Why is this such an amazingly hard concept for you to understand?
Yes, and that Christian review site also explains in their reviews why each game got the score that it did. And it's also their opinion.
But are they complete morons for believing that? YES!
Thanks for proving my points about your lack of comprehension by saying something that had absolutely no impact on my arguement.
You just said that his reviews are good because
they're his opinion and his written reviews reflect his scores. The
same exact thing can be said about that Christian review site.
Yeah, that had
nothing to do with what you said.
:screwy:
No I did not! Read it again...
Quote:My point is you can generally explain the scores by reading the reviews. They quite adaquately explain how, from the reviewers' perspective, the game earned that score. Do I always agree? Of course not! But almost always Gamespot has writing good enough that I can understand how much I'd like the game no matter what score it got! Many other sites do not do that! Why is this such an amazingly hard concept for you to understand?
I don't think anybody has complained about Kasavin's composition skills if that's what you're getting at. His opinions are inane, much like that Christian review site.
The point is that when it's written well enough (with enough explanation of the game) the opinions presented don't matter very much... and anyway he isn't that bad.
That's ludicrous thinking! A Modest Proposal was very well-written but if Jonathan Swift hadn't meant for it to be a joke would anyone consider it to be anything other than insanity? Good composition skills don't make up for insane points! Hitler also explained his reasoning in a grammatically-correct manner, but that doesn't make the stuff he said any less mad!
You get my point.
Hopefully.
OB1 Wrote:Hitler also explained his reasoning in a grammatically-correct manner, but that doesn't make the stuff he said any less mad!
Shhh...be quiet before the "Godwin's Law" enforcers see what you wrote.
I'm just going to copy and paste a post I made at another forums, hope nobody minds.
Quote:I have to say that the more I play the single player campaign the more disappointed I become. Even in co-op I'm just not finding that my enjoyment is sustained for long periods of time. As fun as using twin-needlers while your friend runs up ahead with the energy sword is, it just doesn't last long. Even battling it out in the vehicles feels remarkably similar.
As far as the single player is concerned, I would go as far as to call it a rehash. It feels just like an extension pack with a few little features added. It makes me smile thinking about all the zealots on TeamXBox who used to bag Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (and most likely San Andreas) for not being a complete sequal, relative to how much of a sequal Halo 2 would be.
I'm genuinly surprised that Kasavin didn't tear this game to shreds.
Having said all this, I still have not played the game multiplayer (other than co-op) and have already commenced plans with a friend at work for a fairly large LAN game.
As far as the games story is concerned, I don't care for it. Here's a post by.. well I think Weltall would know who he is, and maybe even Smoke.
Quote:Speaking as someone who loves the Halo universe, having read both The Fall of Reach and First Strike novels and beating the original on normal, heroic, and legendary, I can easily say the story in Halo 2 is, regretfully, garbage. It's easily the worst story in the series and it is also one of the most dissapointing overhyped experiences I've had in my gaming history.
With that being said, I have not played the multiplayer. However, if a game is advertised as the next part in the series, denoting some type of continuation in the story, this game failed miserably. This feels more like Halo 2, the continuation of better multiplayer. Though many of you know the game for that and agree that it is very good, that's not why I bought this game. For me, it is an utter dissapointment.
That sucks. Kasavin loves mindless shooters and gave the first Halo a shining review so I'm not surprised by that, but I am surprised by these comments about the story.
Anyways, I never expected much from the SP. I just want to play it online!
Quote:That's ludicrous thinking! A Modest Proposal was very well-written but if Jonathan Swift hadn't meant for it to be a joke would anyone consider it to be anything other than insanity? Good composition skills don't make up for insane points! Hitler also explained his reasoning in a grammatically-correct manner, but that doesn't make the stuff he said any less mad!
But everyone knew 'A Modest Proposal' was humor (and brilliantly done too), so what's your point? That was meant to be humor and was. Hitler meant to persuade people to his views with his speaking and did. And game reviewers try to explain if you should play a game, and Gamespot is one of the most successful at doing that in words. Their opinions are in the pieces as well, but the primary point isn't expressing their opinion. It's giving the reader the information they need to make the decision about how much THEY would like the game. And most definitely not all review places succeed at that.
Quote:That sucks. Kasavin loves mindless shooters and gave the first Halo a shining review so I'm not surprised by that, but I am surprised by these comments about the story.
Anyways, I never expected much from the SP. I just want to play it online!
If you didn't notice, Kasavin attacked the story for being awful and the single player mode in general for being not too good (and then says that the multi makes up for it), so where is your problem there with him? That he was right about that? :)
Quote:But everyone knew 'A Modest Proposal' was humor (and brilliantly done too), so what's your point? That was meant to be humor and was. Hitler meant to persuade people to his views with his speaking and did. And game reviewers try to explain if you should play a game, and Gamespot is one of the most successful at doing that in words. Their opinions are in the pieces as well, but the primary point isn't expressing their opinion. It's giving the reader the information they need to make the decision about how much THEY would like the game. And most definitely not all review places succeed at that.
Woah, "A Modest Proposal"
was supposed to be humorous?? Yes, by
"if Jonathan Swift hadn't meant for it to be a joke" what I meant was that it was a serious essay.
Nice one, Brian. I'm glad you're paying attention.
My point was that good composition and clarity do not change an insane opinion into a non-insane one.
You are
pretty damn dense, Falcy. P-r-e-t-t-y damn dense.
Quote:If you didn't notice, Kasavin attacked the story for being awful and the single player mode in general for being not too good (and then says that the multi makes up for it), so where is your problem there with him? That he was right about that?
He still gave the game a shining review.
Quote:He still gave the game a shining review.
Sure, if you ignore the fact that he criticized what seems like exactly the same things PH is talking about... I guess you just looked at the score, but reviews are more than just a number.
And a 9.4 is a great score but not perfect... the score reflects the fact that he found the single player game lacking, but not the "rest of it".
Of course in my opinion the single player game is 90% of the game for a FPS, so I doubt i'd like this game much, but if you like multiplayer FPSes then sure it might deserve that score..
Quote:Woah, "A Modest Proposal" was supposed to be humorous?? Yes, by "if Jonathan Swift hadn't meant for it to be a joke" what I meant was that it was a serious essay.
As in what does mentioning it prove? I don't see any point really...
Quote:As in what does mentioning it prove? I don't see any point really...
That's because you're not a particularly bright lad. :)
You said that Kasavin's reviews are good because he uses proper English skills, then I said that good English skills don't make retarded opinions any less retarded. If A Modest Proposal
weren't a joke (which is exactly what I said, yet of course that completely went over your head), its grammatical eloquence wouldn't make Swift's opinion seem any less mad. On the contrary, in fact.
Quote:Sure, if you ignore the fact that he criticized what seems like exactly the same things PH is talking about... I guess you just looked at the score, but reviews are more than just a number.
And a 9.4 is a great score but not perfect... the score reflects the fact that he found the single player game lacking, but not the "rest of it".
Of course in my opinion the single player game is 90% of the game for a FPS, so I doubt i'd like this game much, but if you like multiplayer FPSes then sure it might deserve that score..
I read the review, as I already stated. What I was saying was that since he loves mindless shooters so much, the high score he gave the game is no surprise, much like the same score he gave the first Halo. On the other hand with just about every genre his opinions seem to be upside down and from bizarro world. I mean seriously now, Arx Fatalis better than Morrowind?? Majora's Mask gets a 7? Man...
Quote:I read the review, as I already stated. What I was saying was that since he loves mindless shooters so much, the high score he gave the game is no surprise, much like the same score he gave the first Halo. On the other hand with just about every genre his opinions seem to be upside down and from bizarro world. I mean seriously now, Arx Fatalis better than Morrowind?? Majora's Mask gets a 7? Man...
As I've said a million times, you overly harp on the scores instead of focusing what is vastly more important: the REVIEW ITSSELF!
Sure I think Gamespot is stupid for giving low scores for Gauntlet Legends/Dark Legacy or Rush 2049. And I think they are very wrong there. Lots of worse games scored far higher. But even so the reviews are decent enough that I can tell that they are the kind of game I'd like, score or no... it's not just about "good english", but an effective arguement that succeeds at the true purpose of the work. You mentioned "A Modest Preposal" somehow as a counter but I'd say that it supports my arguement as it too succeeds at doing exactly what it was meant to... though it is hard to compare given how that was meant as humor and not as a serious piece of criticism.
Anyway, I thought the Gamespot review of MM was good. A bit low? Perhaps, but I can understand how they got such a score... by their standards and review system I certainly might have given it a similar score too.
Quote:As I've said a million times, you overly harp on the scores instead of focusing what is vastly more important: the REVIEW ITSSELF!
Stupid, the scores reflect the written reviews. I'm not going to post the entire reviews each time I refer to them!
Quote:Sure I think Gamespot is stupid for giving low scores for Gauntlet Legends/Dark Legacy or Rush 2049. And I think they are very wrong there. Lots of worse games scored far higher. But even so the reviews are decent enough that I can tell that they are the kind of game I'd like, score or no... it's not just about "good english", but an effective arguement that succeeds at the true purpose of the work. You mentioned "A Modest Preposal" somehow as a counter but I'd say that it supports my arguement as it too succeeds at doing exactly what it was meant to... though it is hard to compare given how that was meant as humor and not as a serious piece of criticism.
Anyway, I thought the Gamespot review of MM was good. A bit low? Perhaps, but I can understand how they got such a score... by their standards and review system I certainly might have given it a similar score too.
That's because you don't like good games, and therefore and don't like MM.
Your argument is idiotic. You're saying that because Kasavin uses good grammar and explains his reasons for not liking a game... it's automatically good. That Christian review does the
exact same thing! And A Modest Proposal--if it were serious--does the same thing (not to games, but you know what I mean... well, probably not)!
Seriously, you are... :screwy:
THE POINT OF GAME REVIEWS IS TO GET THE READER TO BE ABLE TO TELL HOW MUCH THEY WOULD LIKE THE GAME!
NOT just to give the reviewer's personal opinion!
Comparing IGN and Gamespot, Gamespot does a vastly better job with this. The only way you could disagree, I think, is if you don't look past the number for your opinion on the review, and that is exactly what you seem to do.
... arguing anything with you is so annoying...
That's because you know that I'm right!
Seriously, what you're saying is the exact same thing that that Christian review site does!
Yay, I got Halo 2 today! But, I guess by "I" I really mean my brother, but it's pretty much the same thing since it means I'll be playing Halo 2 very soon.
Now we can play online together!!
When I get the game...
...and you get a broadband connection....
.... :crap: