Gamespot accidentally posts early review of Halo 2

[quote name='centraldogmae'][quote name='sir_ricedom']No one will not buy Halo 2 because of this review[/quote]

rrrrrrright. But then again if Halo 2 scored an 8.6 like Doom 3 did and by the same critic, I'd be really worried.[/quote]

Getting past the double negative....He means "There wont be anyone who will suddenly pass up Halo 2 due to a gamespot 9.1 score." Which i agree with. If it was in the 7's, THEN i can see people going and cancelling pre-orders and otherwise staying away from it.
 
I couldn't care less what review it gets either, but 9.1 is a great score. Gamespot is a good site. They're way more fair than IGN is.
 
[quote name='epobirs']That is the problem with hype. The game didn't come with a voucher for a free blow job and thus fell short of expectations.[/quote]

Screw a free blow job. If I get the game (which I won't, because I don't have an Xbox), I'd expect a voucher for a free Jesus.
 
[quote name='Rozz']I knew it couldent be a 9.1 because the world would be over if that was the official review score.[/quote]

No, hardly anyone would care. Only the Halo 2 haters would care so they could brag about Halo 2 getting a score that wasn't a "10."
 
I'm so glad the scores were posted here instead of new threads. I guess that won't stop the reposts though. Thanks Guyver.
 
[quote name='Trakan']I'm so glad the scores were posted here instead of new threads. I guess that won't stop the reposts though. Thanks Guyver.[/quote]

yea lol didnt wanna make a 100th thread but someone will anyways
 
Hm, Gamespy and Gamespot seem to say the exact opposite when it comes to the single player component of the game. Gamespot says it is lacking while Gamespy says it is great.

I hate when reviews are not consistent, however I'm inclined to believe Gamespot over Gamespy.

EDIT: And IGN compared Halo to Alien (the movie) while saying that Halo 2 is more similar to Aliens. Maybe Gamespot was simply being harsh and the single-player will turn out better than I thought.
 
[quote name='A7las']Hm, Gamespy and Gamespot seem to say the exact opposite when it comes to the single player component of the game. Gamespot says it is lacking while Gamespy says it is great.

I hate when reviews are not consistent, however I'm inclined to believe Gamespot over Gamespy.

EDIT: And IGN compared Halo to Alien (the movie) while saying that Halo 2 is more similar to Aliens. Maybe Gamespot was simply being harsh and the single-player will turn out better than I thought.[/quote]

The biggest complaint from the guy at Gamespot is that the ending is "a cliffhanger - like slamming into a wall". Well, thats a stupid criticism, because obviously they're going to work on Halo 3 for the next Xbox, so of course they'd end the story in a cliffhanger. But there's always retards who complain about endings - I remember a reviewer complaining that the first Lord of the Rings movie ended with a cliffhanger. People are stupid.
 
ouch, i didn't like what gamespot said about the single player mode. i disliked the monotonous play from the first game and they said to expect the same from the second. thank God for co-op mode :p

EDIT: ok, now i'm confused. 2 of the online reviewers that i listen to the most say almost the exact opposite things.

ign: "Bungie listened carefully to its fans. The team was fully aware that the idea of traversing through Halo 2's levels backward wouldn't be such a hot idea…again. In the sequel, you won't do that. The first three levels take place on somewhat familiar grounds, be they a space ship or Earth itself, but after that, you're in for a healthy smorgasbord of assorted levels."

gamespot: "Everything that you maybe didn't love about Halo is pretty much back, too. Let's face it: Halo was an incredible game, but some aspects of it were relatively weak. Most notably, many players felt that the game's occasionally repetitive level designs undermined the action, such as when the Master Chief squared off against the Flood in the infamous Library level. Also, though the game's visuals were terrific in the heat of battle, Halo's cinematic cutscenes using the game's 3D engine left a lot to be desired--they looked decidedly rough when compared with the rest of the game. These shortcomings rear their heads again in Halo 2, at least during the game's campaign."

ah well, i guess i'll have to see for myself when i get the game lol! :)
 
[quote name='doraemonkerpal']ouch, i didn't like what gamespot said about the single player mode. i disliked the monotonous play from the first game and they said to expect the same from the second.[/quote]

Look at it this way, Gamespot has given it the lowest score so far, and it's STILL a 9.4. Gamespot pretty much stands alone in the opinion that the singleplayer and/or storyline is lackluster. "Standing alone" on a topic for a game that's this big usually means your reviewer needs to rethink his article.

[quote name='MasterLin1']Well I guess it comes down to what we interpret innovation, we might see it as completely different things. New story lines, new vehicles, new missions, new weapons, characters, new gameplay features, and new settings are all things I would consider innovation. I know I'm taking the definition of innovative somewhat wrong, but I have to. Otherwise a game every few years would truly be "innovative" IDK if you would call these innovations, but I certainly do. You said yourself there was little innovation in the series. But with each game, it was obviously enough to warrant another purchase from millions of gamers. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion, I'm just not willing to agree.[/quote]

True, but it is possible for one opinion to be more reality-based than other people's :mrgreen: . Riding bikes in GTA:SA instead of driving cars is not innovative at all, unless you're REALLY easily impressed. Stuff like eating and having to work out is somewhat, but since it feels so tacked on it doesn't exactly speak volumes about it.
 
Seems fine too me.

9.1 The first was newer, added a lot to the gaming world. The second doesn't, make sense to me.
 
[quote name='FrankySox']I was looking for the review on ign but can't find it ANYWHERE![/quote]

gameraking's links weren't working for me so i had to go to ign.com directly, and i had a hard time looking for it too lol!

here it is :p
 
[quote name='doraemonkerpal'][quote name='FrankySox']I was looking for the review on ign but can't find it ANYWHERE![/quote]

gameraking's links weren't working for me so i had to go to ign.com directly, and i had a hard time looking for it too lol!

here it is :p[/quote]

:rofl:
I still don't see it, is that a direct link?
 
Wow there was less excitement when the game itself was leaked, anyway IMO 9.1 is a reallly good score from gamespot, but then again I do't ave an xbox and none of this matters to me. :)
 
I regret watching the Gamespot video review. They gave away somewhat of a minor spoiler, hopefully it won't ruin the single-player campaign.
 
[quote name='Monsta Mack']Hehe 9.4 is the lowest score from anyone so far.... so far...[/quote]

And if that's the HIGHEST score it'd gotten, and everyone else had given it 9.0 or 9.1, I'd still be happy with it.

I don't understand these Halo fanboys who are bitching about Gamespot giving it a "low score". 9.4 is pretty damn high, especially from them, and theres not really much difference between a 9.4 game and a 9.8 game.
 
[quote name='magilacudy']I regret watching the Gamespot video review. They gave away somewhat of a minor spoiler, hopefully it won't ruin the single-player campaign.[/quote]

I was worried about those pricks doing that. I started watching the video review and had a feeling that they were going to ruin something so I stopped it about 30 seconds in.
 
I regret watching the Gamespot video review. They gave away somewhat of a minor spoiler, hopefully it won't ruin the single-player campaign.
Click to expand...

I had that spoiled for me. I don't want to judge the single-player campaign just yet, but it was a stupid move, and I hope that I don't lose interest.
 
Gamespot is normally tough with their reviews. IGN lost a lot of credibility with me when they gave GTA: SA a 9.9

A good example would be the Ratchet and Clank series. Gamespot has never given anything higher than an 8.8 for any of the three games while IGN has posted 9.4, 9.6 and 9.6 scores (If I remember correctly).


I am a bit disappointed that Halo 2 can be completed in around 12 hours. It does seem a bit short. I don't have much interest in the multiplayer portion....
 
[quote name='Jaxcomet']I am a bit disappointed that Halo 2 can be completed in around 12 hours. It does seem a bit short. I don't have much interest in the multiplayer portion....[/quote]

Well, honestly, I've played through the main campaign in the original Halo 6 or 7 times, all on various difficulty settings, trying new stuff each time. I've also played through it a few times on co-op with a friend. So if Halo 2 is anything like the first in that regard, you'll get 60 hours of gameplay out of it easily.

Besides, I wouldn't want an FPS game to last more than 12-15 hours. Length of games these days is way overrated. There's nothing wrong with a game being under 20 hours.
 
I like the idea of finishing a game without having to plan for it...GTA, MMO's, and many RPG's just dont fit into a normal, hard working persons life unless that ALL they do otherwise. I actually play those types of games, its just amazingly hard to get the time to beat one.
 
[quote name='mmn'][quote name='Jaxcomet']I am a bit disappointed that Halo 2 can be completed in around 12 hours. It does seem a bit short. I don't have much interest in the multiplayer portion....[/quote]

Well, honestly, I've played through the main campaign in the original Halo 6 or 7 times, all on various difficulty settings, trying new stuff each time. I've also played through it a few times on co-op with a friend. So if Halo 2 is anything like the first in that regard, you'll get 60 hours of gameplay out of it easily.

Besides, I wouldn't want an FPS game to last more than 12-15 hours. Length of games these days is way overrated. There's nothing wrong with a game being under 20 hours.[/quote]


You make some good points........
 
[quote name='Jaxcomet']I am a bit disappointed that Halo 2 can be completed in around 12 hours. It does seem a bit short. I don't have much interest in the multiplayer portion....[/quote]

While Halo 2 was meant to be played multiplayer, I too am looking forward to the campaign. I think 12-15 hours for a FPS is amazing. I really don't want them to be any longer than that. If you don't have much interest in the multiplayer portion, maybe this game would be better suited as a rental for you.
 
Reading the gamespot review, it almost sounded like they scored it a little high when you consider what they actually said.
 
They posted an honest review. Microsoft saw it and probably paid them to raise the score just enough to make it better
 
[quote name='msdmoney']Reading the gamespot review, it almost sounded like they scored it a little high when you consider what they actually said.[/quote]

I understand why they did though...and mainly because of GTA:SA. GTA:SA has a LOT of flaws..a shit load to be precise. The thing is, it does more things right than anything else. Its what Shenmue wanted to be, but without "the boring". Grphically it was sub-standard, and the glitches kinda hurt it, but as of right now, its one of the closest things to perfection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top