The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Interesting topic title eh? Well, despite the fact that I`ve never played Halo, I`m fairly sure (from reading reviews) that my topic statement is completely incorrect. However, it would seem digitiser disagree...
Halo - 4/5
I stared at the screen in complete disbelief this morning, as I couldn`t believe that digitiser were that stupid. I knew they were bad... but this took the biscuit.
As the potential scores are 0,1,2,3,4,5 there are 6 categories, and so a 4/5 is in the range 66.6 to 83.3. For a start, this is a huge range, which just goes to show how pointless digitiser`s reviews are, but did any of you think that Halo should only get in the 70s?
Halo - 4/5
I stared at the screen in complete disbelief this morning, as I couldn`t believe that digitiser were that stupid. I knew they were bad... but this took the biscuit.
As the potential scores are 0,1,2,3,4,5 there are 6 categories, and so a 4/5 is in the range 66.6 to 83.3. For a start, this is a huge range, which just goes to show how pointless digitiser`s reviews are, but did any of you think that Halo should only get in the 70s?
Page:
adrian wrote:
> I am level 5 out of 10 so far. Each level has lasted about 1 hour apart from
> level one being about 45 mins.
The game play is brilliant, the AI is probably
> better than any other game on any system. Everything that is good about FPS is
> in this game.
I totally agree w/ u. I'm on the same lv as u 2 *<):O)
It seems that the harder u get the better it is. Still, on the easy settings the AI isn't dumb (Like MGS2). The covenant don't get more accurate, just more agressive. As 4 replay I've redone the lv 'Halo' 7 times on Normal (Co-op and singal) and I've done it once on heroic. It still isn't boring! The enemys are in different places each time, they don't use the same tactics and they will easly kill u if you think the enemy are dumb. And u can't just run past them like on mgs2, u need to think a little more.
> I am level 5 out of 10 so far. Each level has lasted about 1 hour apart from
> level one being about 45 mins.
The game play is brilliant, the AI is probably
> better than any other game on any system. Everything that is good about FPS is
> in this game.
I totally agree w/ u. I'm on the same lv as u 2 *<):O)
It seems that the harder u get the better it is. Still, on the easy settings the AI isn't dumb (Like MGS2). The covenant don't get more accurate, just more agressive. As 4 replay I've redone the lv 'Halo' 7 times on Normal (Co-op and singal) and I've done it once on heroic. It still isn't boring! The enemys are in different places each time, they don't use the same tactics and they will easly kill u if you think the enemy are dumb. And u can't just run past them like on mgs2, u need to think a little more.
adrian wrote:
> I am level 5 out of 10 so far. Each level has lasted about 1 hour apart from
> level one being about 45 mins.
The game play is brilliant, the AI is probably
> better than any other game on any system. Everything that is good about FPS is
> in this game.
I totally agree w/ u. I'm on the same lv as u 2 *<):O)
It seems that the harder u get the better it is. Still, on the easy settings the AI isn't dumb (Like MGS2). The covenant don't get more accurate, just more agressive. As 4 replay I've redone the lv 'Halo' 7 times on Normal (Co-op and singal) and I've done it once on heroic. It still isn't boring! The enemys are in different places each time, they don't use the same tactics and they will easly kill u if you think the enemy are dumb. And u can't just run past them like on mgs2, u need to think a little more.
> I am level 5 out of 10 so far. Each level has lasted about 1 hour apart from
> level one being about 45 mins.
The game play is brilliant, the AI is probably
> better than any other game on any system. Everything that is good about FPS is
> in this game.
I totally agree w/ u. I'm on the same lv as u 2 *<):O)
It seems that the harder u get the better it is. Still, on the easy settings the AI isn't dumb (Like MGS2). The covenant don't get more accurate, just more agressive. As 4 replay I've redone the lv 'Halo' 7 times on Normal (Co-op and singal) and I've done it once on heroic. It still isn't boring! The enemys are in different places each time, they don't use the same tactics and they will easly kill u if you think the enemy are dumb. And u can't just run past them like on mgs2, u need to think a little more.
I think trusting Edge is a little unwise. Firstly they`re multiformat, which I`ve never liked because they instantly assume they are less biased, when they really use it as a cover up. Also you don`t have the level of specialised knowlecge, so the reviews can sometimes go into less detail when you need it. Secondly, he main problem with Edge is their quest to be cool. They really aren`t, and they shouldn`t try and slate the great in order to look big. Knocking over the biggest game to let number 2 in, isn`t a good move in my opinion at all.
Edge have built an aura around themselves that is totally unjustified, and their reviews are no more helpful or accurate than Digitiser.
Edge have built an aura around themselves that is totally unjustified, and their reviews are no more helpful or accurate than Digitiser.
Despite the fact that I buy magazines like PSM2, Official Xbox and NGC, I always buy games according to their Edge review. Why? Because they ignore the hype, and rate games on how good they really are. Halo deserved the 10/10 it got. I think MGS2 is only worth the 8/10 it got. And FFX is not as good as everybody thinks, and only got 6/10. I agree with these scores, yet other mags hail things like MGS2 and FFX as being instant 100% worthy classics. Halo is bloody brilliant though, it has to be said.
nah seriously though, their pages, especially humour wise, have gone down a great deal in recent months. And they only update 3 times a week now! I assumed they had changed staff the way they went from rightly slating certain ps2 games to giving games like Burnout and Silent Hill 2 a perfect 5 and that stinkfest Legends Of Wrestling a 3!
I think each week, a new primary school is selected to represent them. The worst two students within the school are given a chance to redeem themselves by creating the digitiser teletext site. So far though, no luck for any of them.
Basically, Digitiser themselves don`t even know what their marking scheme is. They gave Resident Evil CV on PS2 5/5, and then Halo 4/5. Which is the more flawed? I think the answer is obvious, and I`m a PS2 fan.
4/5 = 8/10 = "excellent" in 'Edge' magazine. But different magasines review games to different ratios i.e NOM says that 5 is awful and 8 acceptable whereas Edge says 5 is good and 8 is excellent. If digitiser do by this marking it means that Halo is infact an excellent game.
Vib.
Vib.
Cooky wrote:
> You MUPPET!
Well thanks. Its nice to see the quality of posters is so good outside of the PS2 forum. I`m really glad I visited this place.
>4/5 is a good score!
It is, but by no means amazing. In fact, so many games have got 4/5 that you could consider Halo mediocre with that score.
Not bother trying to convert it into
> percentages!
I think I know what you mean by that, and I disagree. Having uneven ranges for each grade makes the boundaries pointless.
>They changed from precentages cos there pointless!
Why? The game is marked for categories a-z or whatever, and given a total number of marks. The percentage is found and an accurate score is given.
>5/5 is given to a flawless games, but Halo is NOT perfect!
They`ve given way too many 5/5 to be able to call that mark flawless. With such a ridiculously vague score system its not even worth putting a number at the end. If you`re going to do it, do it right.
>For one thing, there aren't any bots in multiplayer.
I actually don`t remember them mentioning that, though I could be wrong.
Which is a bit of a bu**er if you ain't got any
> mates and you don't want to run up a huge phone bill!
I still don`t think that justifies such a low score.
> You MUPPET!
Well thanks. Its nice to see the quality of posters is so good outside of the PS2 forum. I`m really glad I visited this place.
>4/5 is a good score!
It is, but by no means amazing. In fact, so many games have got 4/5 that you could consider Halo mediocre with that score.
Not bother trying to convert it into
> percentages!
I think I know what you mean by that, and I disagree. Having uneven ranges for each grade makes the boundaries pointless.
>They changed from precentages cos there pointless!
Why? The game is marked for categories a-z or whatever, and given a total number of marks. The percentage is found and an accurate score is given.
>5/5 is given to a flawless games, but Halo is NOT perfect!
They`ve given way too many 5/5 to be able to call that mark flawless. With such a ridiculously vague score system its not even worth putting a number at the end. If you`re going to do it, do it right.
>For one thing, there aren't any bots in multiplayer.
I actually don`t remember them mentioning that, though I could be wrong.
Which is a bit of a bu**er if you ain't got any
> mates and you don't want to run up a huge phone bill!
I still don`t think that justifies such a low score.
Page: