Page 1 of 4

Do any of the Halos deserve critical reception they got?

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:31 pm
by TheTrueVeteranGamer
http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox/472132-halo-combat-evolved/index.html
http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox/562116-halo-2/index.html
http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/926632-halo-3/index.html
http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/960512-halo-reach/index.html
http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/954261-halo-3-odst/index.html
http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/935835-halo-wars/index.html

I have to say that you have to be a total idiot/fanboy to believe they deserve the scores they've gotten.

Halo: CE was a competent but unremarkable shooter with a forgettable soundtrack. It should've gotten scores of 8s or 7s or 6s

Halo 2 was slightly better, but it was more of the same. It should've gotten 7s or 6s or 5s

Halo 3 is one of the worst FPS of this gen, even worse than the last two. It should've gotten scores of 5s or 4s or even 3s.

Halo 3 ODST was a painful experience, and an over-priced piece of shit. It should have gotten 2s or 3s.

Halo Wars was abysmal, that is all.

Reach was better than 3, but it was average at best. It deserved scores of 6s or 5s.

It quite clear to anyone who has good taste or mid to high standards to video games, that reviewers were obviously bribed by M$ to get such undeserved high scores.

Re: Do any of the Halos deserve critical reception they got?

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:38 pm
by Gamerforlife
The original Halo was a great game. Was it overrated? Maybe, I'm not enough of a shooter expert to say, but the game had good controls, good gameplay, nice graphics, great soundtrack and a decent story. In my eyes, that's a good game. While it may not have done anything new in the eyes of PC shooter fans, it certainly did a lot for multi-player gaming on consoles(for better or for worse) and introduced a comfortable control scheme that became a standard on consoles

Every other Halo game after that I couldn't care less about though. It's just been recycling itself over and over to feed Microsoft's greed and force multi-player gaming down everyone's throat so Microsoft can get more Xbox Live Gold subscriptions

Re: Do any of the Halos deserve critical reception they got?

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:41 pm
by TheTrueVeteranGamer
Gamerforlife wrote:The original Halo was a great game. Was it overrated? Maybe, I'm not enough of a shooter expert to say, but the game had good controls, good gameplay, nice graphics, great soundtrack and a decent story. In my eyes, that's a good game. While it may not have done anything new in the eyes of PC shooter fans, it certainly did a lot for multi-player gaming on consoles(for better or for worse) and introduced a comfortable control scheme that became a standard on consoles

Every other Halo game after that I couldn't care less about though. It's just been recycling itself over and over to feed Microsoft's greed and force multi-player gaming down everyone's throat so Microsoft can get more Xbox Live Gold subscriptions

Halo has been the same for ages! They never evolve, like other game franchises. Such as the Mario series, Half-Life series, Max Payne series, Resident Evil 1-3, Mega Man series, The Legend of Zelda series, Street Fighter, and the Uncharted series. Those game series innovated and changed a lot of things in their sequels, Halo has not.

Re: Do any of the Halos deserve critical reception they got?

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:47 pm
by pepharytheworm
What is your beef with Halo? Just ignore it like I do.

Re: Do any of the Halos deserve critical reception they got?

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:50 pm
by Mendoza
The first Halo was a pretty fun game, but it did suffer in some areas of level desgin and the fact that it was easy to get lost.

The controls were great though, and the music was fantastic. Its split screen multi was a blast and in some ways a refinement of goldeneye.

I actually liked the playing as the arbiter in two and thought that was a cool idea. The multi was solid again, and the level desgin was better.

Halo 3 was a refinement in some ways, and a step back in others. Multi got poorly balanced and stopped being fun pretty fast. Cortana is one of the worst levels in fps history as far as i am concerned.

ODST is not a game, its an add on pack masquerading as a game.

Some total, yeah it deserves a lot of credit as a series. It made the xbox a system and helped bring gaming further into the mainstream. Their is also so definite artistry there as well.

Still i had countless hours of fun playing it with my friends offline and on, so it works for me.

Re: Do any of the Halos deserve critical reception they got?

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:52 pm
by TheTrueVeteranGamer
Mendoza wrote:The first Halo was a pretty fun game, but it did suffer in some areas of level desgin and the fact that it was easy to get lost.

The controls were great though, and the music was fantastic. Its split screen multi was a blast and in some ways a refinement of goldeneye.

I actually liked the playing as the arbiter in two and thought that was a cool idea. The multi was solid again, and the level desgin was better.

Halo 3 was a refinement in some ways, and a step back in others. Multi got poorly balanced and stopped being fun pretty fast. Cortana is one of the worst levels in fps history as far as i am concerned.

ODST is not a game, its an add on pack masquerading as a game.

Some total, yeah it deserves a lot of credit as a series. It made the xbox a system and helped bring gaming further into the mainstream. Their is also so definite artistry there as well.

Still i had countless hours of fun playing it with my friends offline and on, so it works for me.
Halo 3's multi-player is one of the most unbalance games imaginable. Especially compared to incredibly well balanced games like Haze and Modern Warfare 2.

Re: Do any of the Halos deserve critical reception they got?

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:53 pm
by Nullface
Go away with your constant Halo trashing. Nobody cares.

RetroGaming with Racketboy

Re: Do any of the Halos deserve critical reception they got?

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:56 pm
by Pabstblueribbon
I think the timing of the game along with it being the xboxs launch title, as well as it being the first game to really, really capture PC style FPS and bring it to a console and have it feel right had a lot to do with it. Halo:CE and Halo 2 were very well polished, easily accesable by any average gamer and a blast on multiplayer. the multiplayer has held up(somewhat) if you are into that sort of thing or a young gamer, but Halo 3 on just bore me. average gamers will be like average movie fans, average music fans, etc. they dont like things that stray too far from the formula.

Re: Do any of the Halos deserve critical reception they got?

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:59 pm
by TheTrueVeteranGamer
Pabstblueribbon wrote:I think the timing of the game along with it being the xboxs launch title, as well as it being the first game to really, really capture PC style FPS and bring it to a console and have it feel right had a lot to do with it. Halo:CE and Halo 2 were very well polished, easily accesable by any average gamer and a blast on multiplayer. the multiplayer has held up(somewhat) if you are into that sort of thing or a young gamer, but Halo 3 on just bore me. average gamers will be like average movie fans, average music fans, etc. they dont like things that stray too far from the formula.
Good to see more Halo 3 hate. It's one of the biggest pile of shits I've played this gen. Anyone who would consider Halo 3 a good game or even a great game can go fuck themselves.

Re: Do any of the Halos deserve critical reception they got?

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:00 pm
by benderx
Halo is boring because they're a bunch of cheaters. INVERT gamplay sucks, flying the helicopter is easier to maneuver.