View Full Version : OXM gives Halo 2 a 9.7
GameDude
10-21-2004, 09:14 PM
Good score, but kinda low considering it's the official magazine for xbox and they said if they had to do it over again that the would give the original Halo like a 9.99999 or something.
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=302220
Haven't read the thread for it, but this is the fake score for Fable, so I think this is obviously fake, IMO.
sblymnlcrymnl
10-21-2004, 09:17 PM
I don't get OXM for their reviews, but thanks anyway.
Duo_Maxwell
10-21-2004, 09:17 PM
A 9.7 is kinda low?? Lots of games even hugely marketed ones, would kill for a 9.7.
dreamvsps2
10-21-2004, 09:18 PM
Reviews
POP WW- 9.6
Halo 2- 9.7
THUG 2- 8.7
KUFTC- 8.4
Men of Valor- 6.8
Ty the tasmanian 2- 6.8
Crash twin sanity- 7.3
Leisure suit larry- 2.3(lol)
Tak 2- 7.6
King arthur- 7.0
Spngebob Square pants- 8.9
Wings of War- 6.1
Mortal Kombat- 8.3
NBA live 2005- 9.3
ESPN NBA 2K5- 8.5
SvC Chaos- 7.0
X-Men Legends- 8.2
Head hunter redemption- 5.9
test drive- 8.3
Siberia 2- 6.8
FIFA 2005- 8.4
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=302220
SteveMcQ
10-21-2004, 09:19 PM
Let the bitching about the 0.3 short of perfection begin.
sblymnlcrymnl
10-21-2004, 09:20 PM
POP WW- 9.6
:D
alongx
10-21-2004, 09:22 PM
I COMPLETELY DIDN'T SEE THIS COMING.
Wait, no, I did. I anticipate similar scores everywhere.
xspeedracerx
10-21-2004, 09:27 PM
I COMPLETELY DIDN'T SEE THIS COMING.
Wait, no, I did. I anticipate similar scores everywhere.
you mean great scores?
jbroush99
10-21-2004, 09:28 PM
Spngebob Square pants- 8.9
Yay!
GameDude
10-21-2004, 09:33 PM
Haven't read the thread for it, but this is the fake score for Fable, so I think this is obviously fake, IMO.
It has scans.
GameDude
10-21-2004, 09:34 PM
A 9.7 is kinda low?? Lots of games even hugely marketed ones, would kill for a 9.7.
Yeah, but this magazine is usually more biased, so if it got that low of a score from the official magazine...who knows.
WhipSmartBanky
10-21-2004, 09:35 PM
I don't get OXM for their reviews, but thanks anyway.
I don't even get it for the magazine. They already sell a subscription to the magazine without the disc. I wish they'd sell a subscription to the disc without the magazine.
If Microsoft did a better job with the Exhibition discs, I wouldn't need OXM at all.
sblymnlcrymnl
10-21-2004, 09:39 PM
I don't get OXM for their reviews, but thanks anyway.
I don't even get it for the magazine. They already sell a subscription to the magazine without the disc. I wish they'd sell a subscription to the disc without the magazine.
If Microsoft did a better job with the Exhibition discs, I wouldn't need OXM at all.
I actually have a sub without the disc, but it was free so I can't complain too much. I'll pick up 2-3 issues a year in store for the demos, but usually I don't see the value in that.
Scorch
10-21-2004, 10:12 PM
Fuck their score for THUG 2, any other game that was basically the same as the first would get a low score. THUG 2 is insanely short and full of bugs. Larry doesn't deserve 2.3, it's worth at least a six.
zewone
10-21-2004, 10:17 PM
I swear all videogame magazines see the Tony Hawk series as god's gift to gaming I swear. I'm actually suprised it scored that low.
rocksolidaudio
10-21-2004, 10:17 PM
i heard 9.9 in a thread over at gaming-age. oh well, we'll see soon enough.
A 9.7 is kinda low?? Lots of games even hugely marketed ones, would kill for a 9.7.
Yes, OXM is the most biased and piece of shit magazine out there.
And Halo sucks. /flamebait
A 9.7 is kinda low?? Lots of games even hugely marketed ones, would kill for a 9.7.
Yes, OXM is the most biased and piece of shit magazine out there.
And Halo sucks. /flamebait
Maybe the most biased, but the biggest piece of shit is EGM. I've never seen so many grammatical errors in a "professional" magazine before.
the_deej
10-21-2004, 11:05 PM
yay for halo..............
A friend of mine said it best: "Since they gave the original a 9.5, I must assume that Halo 2's score is really like an 8.1."
Duo_Maxwell
10-21-2004, 11:22 PM
A 9.7 is kinda low?? Lots of games even hugely marketed ones, would kill for a 9.7.
Yeah, but this magazine is usually more biased, so if it got that low of a score from the official magazine...who knows.
Ummm no...if you go purely by scores I think until now the two highest scores they've given is 9.6, one to Ninja Gaiden and another to Splinter Cell niether of which is a Microsoft title and only one is an Xbox exclusive.
GameDude
10-21-2004, 11:28 PM
A 9.7 is kinda low?? Lots of games even hugely marketed ones, would kill for a 9.7.
Yeah, but this magazine is usually more biased, so if it got that low of a score from the official magazine...who knows.
Ummm no...if you go purely by scores I think until now the two highest scores they've given is 9.6, one to Ninja Gaiden and another to Splinter Cell niether of which is a Microsoft title and only one is an Xbox exclusive.
But SC was an exlusive for a while.
A 9.7 is kinda low?? Lots of games even hugely marketed ones, would kill for a 9.7.
Yes, OXM is the most biased and piece of shit magazine out there.
And Halo sucks. /flamebait
Maybe the most biased, but the biggest piece of shit is EGM. I've never seen so many grammatical errors in a "professional" magazine before.
An occasional grammatical error doesn't make a magazine shit, IMO, especially when most writers in the gaming business can't write anyway. The OXM writers are the most biased and boring asswipes out there.
rywateska
10-21-2004, 11:37 PM
Is there a link to any scans of the article? The price of that magazine is absurd!
epobirs
10-21-2004, 11:38 PM
A 9.7 is kinda low?? Lots of games even hugely marketed ones, would kill for a 9.7.
Yes, OXM is the most biased and piece of shit magazine out there.
And Halo sucks. /flamebait
Maybe the most biased, but the biggest piece of shit is EGM. I've never seen so many grammatical errors in a "professional" magazine before.
Die Hard Game Fan was much worse in its day. Not only was the proofreading nearly non-existent but the layouts were often so horribly conceived, like putting light blue text over a purple-black checkerboard background, that it was too hard to read the text and discern the errors.
CaseyRyback
10-21-2004, 11:39 PM
A 9.7 is kinda low?? Lots of games even hugely marketed ones, would kill for a 9.7.
Yes, OXM is the most biased and piece of shit magazine out there.
And Halo sucks. /flamebait
Maybe the most biased, but the biggest piece of shit is EGM. I've never seen so many grammatical errors in a "professional" magazine before.
An occasional grammatical error doesn't make a magazine shit, IMO, especially when most writers in the gaming business can't write anyway. The OXM writers are the most biased and boring asswipes out there.
I totally agree with Rich on this one. That mag is written by a bunch of fanboys. Just because you write an official magazine devoted to Xbox does not mean you are required to take cheap shots at SONY and Nintendo all the time.
XBN is a lot better. Some of their reviews are off, but they seem less biased
Duo_Maxwell
10-21-2004, 11:46 PM
None of the official magazines are something I'd completely rely on (or any magazine for that matter). You think they'd be completely unbias? They may take some idle cheap shots at others (which by the way OPM does just as much if not more), but I do think that OXM reviews the games there pretty fairly. Sure there are some that are off, but every mag has those. And yes they only review xbox versions of the games but that's because the mag is targeting those with an xbox.
Oh yeah and XBN has some of the worst reviews and their stories are much more boring. Plus they also have crap material for stories. Same goes for PSM. They are the B magazines for their respective consoles and it shows.
swetooth9
10-21-2004, 11:53 PM
come on...it's the OFFICIAL XBOX MAGAZINE for cryin out loud...:roll:
Mr Unoriginal
10-22-2004, 12:16 AM
Ohh xbox magazine sucking it's own dick. I'm shocked.
Well, my favorite mag since its been out has been Play. I like the layouts and the screenshots they use and the articles are fairly well written. Gamepro is probably the most annoying of the bunch - it seems like they cater to 13 year olds with their retarded cartoon reviewers.
Kaijufan
10-22-2004, 12:43 AM
Let the bitching about the 0.3 short of perfection begin.
It should lose more then .3 just for not having bots IMO.
The Mana Knight
10-22-2004, 12:49 AM
A 9.7 is kinda low?? Lots of games even hugely marketed ones, would kill for a 9.7.
Yes, OXM is the most biased and piece of shit magazine out there.
And Halo sucks. /flamebaitTrue, it is. I had to boil all my disc to get them to work. That's why, I never re-subscribed. However, I did buy their previous issue just to play Outrun 2 and SVC: SNK vs. Capcom Chaos.
Let the bitching about the 0.3 short of perfection begin.
It should lose more then .3 just for not having bots IMO.
The original Halo had no bots, most Halo fans didn't want bots, and Bungie said all along there were never going to be bots. If you want to play multiplayer, either find some friends or get on Xbox Live.
But hey, nice job bitching about something so pointless.
dafoomie
10-22-2004, 11:28 AM
The original Halo had no bots, most Halo fans didn't want bots, and Bungie said all along there were never going to be bots. If you want to play multiplayer, either find some friends or get on Xbox Live.
But hey, nice job bitching about something so pointless.
Have to agree... You will not have a great multiplayer experience if you don't have enough players to play without bots.
Stryffe2004
10-22-2004, 11:30 AM
I don't understand why people insist that OXM is so biased. Sure they slant the previews, but their score are usually in line with the rest of the sites/mags out there. They didn't even give Fable a 9. A lot of othe rhigh profile games rate lower in OXM as well.
int80h
10-22-2004, 11:48 AM
I don't understand why people insist that OXM is so biased.
I don't understand why people say John Edwards or dick cheney are biased on their views on who should be president.
legion_stxds
10-22-2004, 11:53 AM
I don't understand why people insist that OXM is so biased. Sure they slant the previews, but their score are usually in line with the rest of the sites/mags out there. They didn't even give Fable a 9. A lot of othe rhigh profile games rate lower in OXM as well.
Slant = bias
I don't trush any one perticular reviewer... instead I get the general communities take on a game. Though most review scales are different, so when reading a review its good to know what the scores mean. For example: Game Informer had a horrible review scale when I was a subscriber. About half of the scores (1-5) meant the game was trash and not a gradient from poor to average. I personally feel, if you're a fan, that average games (a score that falls in the middle of the scale) can be a great game (for that particular person). This why I enjoyed PSMs scaling... they actually account for fan boy nature. IMO 9.7 is high, tho I find the use of a decimal point in the scale silly. Further, no game has recieved a perfect 10 (which if they are holding out due to the idealism of a "perfect" game, then they are wasting a scale point), so there is no greater game in OXM's opinion. I dunno... this post is too long... My 3 cents.
Well, I personally don't have Live and even playing with 4 people you still really need a few bots in there to make it an exciting game. That's why Red Faction II and XIII get my multiplayer FPS action over Halo 1.
Plus it's just so damn fun to have a few buddies over who have never played the game, hop into a multiplayer game with an extra 2-4 bots, kick everyone's ass and then get to laugh at your buddies for even being beaten by the bots. Priceless.
I don't understand why people insist that OXM is so biased. Sure they slant the previews, but their score are usually in line with the rest of the sites/mags out there. They didn't even give Fable a 9. A lot of othe rhigh profile games rate lower in OXM as well.
Slant = bias
Every gaming map/website slants their previews. To read a preview you'd think nearly every game coming out soon is going to be the best game ever. I think game publishers and developers give mags access for previews as a source of semi-advertising and if the mags don't deliver a flattering take they will have their access cut off.
I'm definitely with you on not taking one review score as gospel. That's why gamerankings.com is so great.
legion_stxds
10-22-2004, 12:03 PM
I don't understand why people insist that OXM is so biased. Sure they slant the previews, but their score are usually in line with the rest of the sites/mags out there. They didn't even give Fable a 9. A lot of othe rhigh profile games rate lower in OXM as well.
Slant = bias
Every gaming map/website slants their previews. To read a preview you'd think nearly every game coming out soon is going to be the best game ever. I think game publishers and developers give mags access for previews as a source of semi-advertising and if the mags don't deliver a flattering take they will have their access cut off.
I'm definitely with you on not taking one review score as gospel. That's why gamerankings.com is so great.
Yup! So many games are just hyped... tho I believe bungie has put heart into Halo 2. So since I enjoyed the first... no doubt I will enjoy the sequel. Arguing wether or not it is the best game ever is going a bit too far. Half life has been the most enjoyable FPS I have ever played... I still play it every now and then.
rhenzhen
10-22-2004, 01:46 PM
HALO 2 =9.7???? man, that is so low... I'm gonna cancel my pre-ordered game...
Kaijufan
10-22-2004, 05:29 PM
Let the bitching about the 0.3 short of perfection begin.
It should lose more then .3 just for not having bots IMO.
The original Halo had no bots, most Halo fans didn't want bots, and Bungie said all along there were never going to be bots. If you want to play multiplayer, either find some friends or get on Xbox Live.
But hey, nice job bitching about something so pointless.
My friends cant have LAN parties very often, and I cant afford broadband, so I should be complaining. The vast majority of Xbox owners dont have Xbox Live (of around 15 million Xbox owners only a million have Live), so bots aren't pointless.
And Ive never seen Bungie say there were no bots until a month or two ago, and even then before that it said in the offical Halo 2 FAQ that Bungie was exploring ways to make multiplayer more fun for those without Xbox Live, which sounds like to me that they were atleast considering bots.
Also, campain modes, no matter how good they are, always get boring. Having bots would increase replay value for those without Live.
Duo_Maxwell
10-22-2004, 05:37 PM
There's much more than a million on Live now, that figure is somewhat dated. Also bots don't play like humans so it wouldn't be the same as a LAN party or Live anyhow.
And while at some point they may have considered bots (which isn't exactly true as the vague comment could've meant several things), they never, ever touted it as a feature that was included or even publically disclosed it as a consideration. So it's hardly like a feature that was cut from the final version or anything like that. Where I can kinda see your reasoning for complaining about it, but I think it would extremely wrong to take points away in a review for something that was never expalined as being a feature of a game.
javeryh
10-22-2004, 05:40 PM
POP 9.6. Awesome. :D
msdmoney
10-22-2004, 05:43 PM
POP WW- 9.6
:D
I'll second that, I was worried they wouldn't match the first in quality but things are looking good. I realize it's OXM but this PoP2 isn't a huge xbox exclusive so maybe the score is accurate.
Kaijufan
10-22-2004, 06:04 PM
There's much more than a million on Live now, that figure is somewhat dated. Also bots don't play like humans so it wouldn't be the same as a LAN party or Live anyhow.
And while at some point they may have considered bots (which isn't exactly true as the vague comment could've meant several things), they never, ever touted it as a feature that was included or even publically disclosed it as a consideration. So it's hardly like a feature that was cut from the final version or anything like that. Where I can kinda see your reasoning for complaining about it, but I think it would extremely wrong to take points away in a review for something that was never expalined as being a feature of a game.
I know playing with bots isn't the same as playing with humans, but some people just cant play with humans whenever they want. I hope to get broadband someday, but until then Im forced to play the campain or have a lan party once every few months.
Bungie really should have included bots for those people without Live. They had three years to develop Halo 2. Thats double the time of most games. They could have made some great multiplayer AI.
And I was kind of joking about it losing points because it didn't have bots. If I was reviewing I would take off .1 or .2 for not having bots because a lot of Xbox owners would like to have bots. Nothing major.
evilpenguin9000
10-22-2004, 06:13 PM
Ya know I agree that OXM is a lame magazine, pretty much only good for the demo disc, but I don't think it's because of the reviews bias, which they clearly have. Honestly I've become more and more disillusioned with magazine reviews. I used to believe EGM was fair, but lately I think they've lost some integrity in my mind (especially with THUG 2).
But i don't buy those magazines for the reviews, I buy them for the editorial stuff. The columns, the lists and that sort of thing. I want to see the opinions about gaming in general and the cultural impact of certain games.
legion_stxds
10-23-2004, 07:12 PM
But i don't buy those magazines for the reviews, I buy them for the editorial stuff. The columns, the lists and that sort of thing. I want to see the opinions about gaming in general and the cultural impact of certain games.
And dont't forget previews... man I love coming attractions...