StarDestroyer.Net BBS

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

lPeregrine wrote:And I'd check the dates on the games you're quoting. Jade Empire, for example, was released after Halo, so talking about it here doesn't make much sense.

Your original wording of your paragraph started out with "Halo (either one)", which means the rest of your post carries the implication that you are still talking about both.

I am, they're both unimpressive and overhyped games. But the game situation only matters for Halo 1, since that's the one that created the massive popularity. The fact that it said "Halo 2" on the box meant automatic sales, so by that time, it didn't matter if strong competition had showed up.

Yeah, I don't think the dates really matter that much. What matters, I think, is how long a game is really an Xbox exclusive title. Splinter Cell, for example, was Xbox exclusive for a short while, followed by the PC version, and for a time, it stayed that way, until it was finally ported to the other consoles.

Whereas the KOTOR games were XBox exclusive for over half a year, yes?

Kamakazie Sith wrote:

Stark wrote:It's fascinating to see you guys in an argument and using the utterly worthless game industry as a part of it.

Worthless in what sense?

Worthless in the sense that most people in the gaming industry, as well as many people who play games made by said industry, wouldn't know a good game if it came up and tossed a hammer in their face?

In the console world, exclussive means just to the console.

Halo is an X-Box exclussive even though its also on the PC.

I probably would have enjoyed the Halo games more if I'd sat down and played through them, at present I've only had brief goes at the multiplayer at Chris O'Farrell's and Stofsk's places when I was in Aussie for the ep3 meet. It was fun, although they didn't jump out at me as "OMG, OWN THIS OR YOUR LIFE WILL NEVER BE COMPLETE" titles. I'd have to spend more time on them to compare them to their PC equivilants.

felineki wrote: Worthless in the sense that most people in the gaming industry, as well as many people who play games made by said industry, wouldn't know a good game if it came up and tossed a hammer in their face?

Are you implying that Mario didn't get enough respect?

Nearly 80-90% of games that are considered classic titles are in fact good games. Now, there are some people with ridiculous standards, and who seem to have forgotten that entertainment is what matters most by a long shot.

Using notoriously ignorant, paid-for, biased, soapbox-esque things as game industry 'reviews' - both printed and online - seems an interesting way to determine how good a game is. I'd like to point to the esteemed organs that can ramble about a games flaws then give it a 75%, and things like Edge giving Halo a 'perfect 10' in exchange for the total destruction of its reputation as an objective source of gaming news.

Reviews these days are useful for establishing how badly a new game needs its first patch, or alternately how much cock they want to suck or crudely how much money they were paid. Remember, B&W2 is an amazing, fantastic game.

I think the Halo games are okay, but not amazing in any respect (amazingly poor vehicle control perhaps) but I'd certainly never lower myself to quoting industry reviews to support this.

I think the Halo games are okay, but not amazing in any respect (amazingly poor vehicle control perhaps) but I'd certainly never lower myself to quoting industry reviews to support this.

I've tried to avoid debating the finer points of why or why not Halo and Halo 2 sucks, since it will inevitably devolve into a pointless and unresolvable flame-fest, but honestly, that's just assinine. Vehicle control was one of the better and most enjoyable aspects of both games, and I have never seen another FPS come even close to either of them.

Stark wrote:Using notoriously ignorant, paid-for, biased, soapbox-esque things as game industry 'reviews' - both printed and online - seems an interesting way to determine how good a game is. I'd like to point to the esteemed organs that can ramble about a games flaws then give it a 75%, and things like Edge giving Halo a 'perfect 10' in exchange for the total destruction of its reputation as an objective source of gaming news.

Who's quoting reviews? Not that it matters. Reviews are a good method of establishing if you should give a game a chance. I very rarely disagree with IGN, but they've been way off before.

Reviews these days are useful for establishing how badly a new game needs its first patch, or alternately how much cock they want to suck or crudely how much money they were paid. Remember, B&W2 is an amazing, fantastic game.

I've never played it...have you?

I think the Halo games are okay, but not amazing in any respect (amazingly poor vehicle control perhaps) but I'd certainly never lower myself to quoting industry reviews to support this.

I think Halo has been sufficiently covered in this thread. It certainly belongs in the 10-20% of classic games that aren't actually good.

Noble Ire wrote:

I've tried to avoid debating the finer points of why or why not Halo and Halo 2 sucks, since it will inevitably devolve into a pointless and unresolvable flame-fest, but honestly, that's just assinine. Vehicle control was one of the better and most enjoyable aspects of both games, and I have never seen another FPS come even close to either of them.

Then you need to play the Battlefield series...it easily surpasses them.

Kamakazie Sith wrote:

Noble Ire wrote:

I've tried to avoid debating the finer points of why or why not Halo and Halo 2 sucks, since it will inevitably devolve into a pointless and unresolvable flame-fest, but honestly, that's just assinine. Vehicle control was one of the better and most enjoyable aspects of both games, and I have never seen another FPS come even close to either of them.

Then you need to play the Battlefield series...it easily surpasses them.

I have, and while I will admit that the controls there are pretty good, I still prefer those of Halo.

Noble Ire wrote:
I have, and while I will admit that the controls there are pretty good, I still prefer those of Halo.

You're just bias then.

Kamakazie Sith wrote:Who's quoting reviews? Not that it matters. Reviews are a good method of establishing if you should give a game a chance. I very rarely disagree with IGN, but they've been way off before.

No, they aren't. But think what you want. Further, earlier in the discussion review ratings was one of the tools used to determine degrees of 'leetness', so reviews are in fact being quoted. So fuck off.

I've never played it...have you?

Fuck you annoy me. I HAVE played B&W2. It is NOT the bestest most amazing game ever, and it doesn't deserve the praise it almost universally recieved from the gaming industry. Whoops, I guess reviews aren't a worthwhile tool to see if you should 'give a game a chance'. Not that you need one, since return policies ensure any given game can be 'given a chance' at no cost. DAMN! You lose again.

I think Halo has been sufficiently covered in this thread. It certainly belongs in the 10-20% of classic games that aren't actually good.

I really don't understand this part. The thread is ABOUT Halo. Are you declaring the discussion over? Why? Halo isn't *apalling*, it's just not pants-wettingly good like MS, most XBox owners, and the gaming press want you to believe. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, but two out of three ain't bad.

Black and White 2: 76% average rating. Decent, but no where near "most amazing game ever". In fact, that would specifically be over 1500 games away from "most amazing game ever". I agree that game reviews are biased and not overly reliable, but they are much, much more reliable then a bunch of rabid fanboys posting "I never played this game but it got a higher rating than a game I liked so I will give it a 0 score" (I actually saw that review once). The question isn't whether professional reviews are completely reliable, they aren't, but what better alternative is there?

I used the B&W2 example because since its release I've seen an amusing number of 'oh, everyone said it was great *except us*' articles, and the industry collectively saying 'wow, that was over-hyped by everyone *except us*'.

But really, gamerankings? Sigh. It's worth noting that the reviews used there are either very positive (about 85%) or really, really low(like 35%), so you can see the effect I'm talking about. The massive disparity makes the reviews useless: the idea of taking the 'average score' of something like game quality strikes me as a pretty dodgey way to try and get a 'more true' result.

Who then do you turn to?

The gamers who play the games, of course.

Exactly. I've had my preconceptions of a game reversed in a brief conversation. If someone whom I know has some experience with the game, that's far more useful to me than some 14yo moron writing for some website.

Then again, I buy anything interesting from EB and just return it if it sucks.

Stark wrote:
No, they aren't. But think what you want. Further, earlier in the discussion review ratings was one of the tools used to determine degrees of 'leetness', so reviews are in fact being quoted. So fuck off.

Wow, a thorough answer. "No, they aren't." I'm simply amazed by your attention to detail, perhaps you should start reviewing games? "Don't buy this...[end of article]"

I agree with you. Other gamers like yourself are a better source. Well, maybe not you. If I'd listen to you I'm sure I'd miss out on a lot of games I've considered fun.

Fuck you annoy me. I HAVE played B&W2. It is NOT the bestest most amazing game ever, and it doesn't deserve the praise it almost universally recieved from the gaming industry. Whoops, I guess reviews aren't a worthwhile tool to see if you should 'give a game a chance'. Not that you need one, since return policies ensure any given game can be 'given a chance' at no cost. DAMN! You lose again.

I find your pessimism fucking aggravating...so I guess we're even.

Who said it was the best? Perhaps you're reading to much into the reviews

Black & White 2

Gamespot - 8.2 Great
IGN - 8.8 Great
Gamestats - 76.9
Gamespy - 3 1/2 stars
Eurogamer.net - 6/10
GamePro - 3/5 out of 5

I think that's enough for now. As you can see, universally it isn't the most amazing game out there. It's a great game, but that's just a summary. You need to actually read the review, and I haven't read one yet that says it's an amazing, fantastic game all the way through.

Again, I agree your fellow gamer is a better source. However, your opinion of reviews seems to be spoiled by a few wild ones like Edge's review of Halo.

Reviews tend to also base their rating on how fun a game is, and that can boost the overall rating of a game. Which is probably why Halo got a 10, considering it was the best FPS game on consoles, at the time.

I really don't understand this part. The thread is ABOUT Halo. Are you declaring the discussion over? Why? Halo isn't *apalling*, it's just not pants-wettingly good like MS, most XBox owners, and the gaming press want you to believe. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, but two out of three ain't bad.

I was saying I agree with you. Though I'll point out that your feelings on Halo are a matter of opinion. Unless you can point out something that they lied about or exaggerated? Keep in mind that Halo was the best FPS that consoles had. It had superior control, which isn't saying much, to any console FPS's at the time. The AI wasn't bad either. Really, the only glaring problem was the repetitive levels. Thus, for the gamer that can't a fford a decent PC the X-Box is an excellent alternative and offered a lot to those gamers.

Finally and again, a review score is mostly generated on how much fun they have playing it which just so happens to be the point behind video games.

Getting an 'average' review rating is stupid. You'll note RT simply generates a ratio of positive/negative reviews: they don't attempt to gain increased accuracy through averaging. It's simply an index of the overall feeling.

Indeed, as I commented about, the B&W2 reviews show how totally useless reviews are. Some sources assessed it as a poor game (they are now patting themselves on the back for not 'buying the hype', hypocrisy at best) others gave it high ratings. How do YOU suggest you determine, using this information, if it's a 35% game or an 85% game? Surely these disparate numbers simply demonstrate the totally subjective, worthless nature of integrity-free reviewers. Try the fucking game for free or talk to someone who's played it: reviews are a useless tool for anything beyond 'it's buggy as shit' or 'don't use ATi cards'.

It's hilarious you resort to the incredibly tired 'lolz it's about fun you fag' counter. Sorry, spending literally hours in the Library wasn't fun. Call me nuts, I *don't fucking care* how much fun some bearded moron or spotty nerd had playing a game: I want to information to make my own determination, not '1337zor the tex was sweet i pwned by brother'. Excuse me for not swallowing the opinions of other, less discriminating people.

Given some reviews I've read in my life, I find that the only conclusive way to rate anything is to see/hear/play/read it yourself. Until then, you risk missing out or paying the price for potentiall good/bad products you based on the review of someone likely nothing like you in personality or taste.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Given some reviews I've read in my life, I find that the only conclusive way to rate anything is to see/hear/play/read it yourself. Until then, you risk missing out or paying the price for potentiall good/bad products you based on the review of someone likely nothing like you in personality or taste.

I completely agree. I've used before IGN because most of the time my taste in games matches theirs. However, I usually download the demo's of any game that offers them to give it a chance.

Stark, I think after this conversation I can conclude that fellow gamers are just every bit as bad of a souce as reviews. My reason for this is because of people like you. You're a negative guy, fine. However, what you may or may not realize is that you are the exact opposite of reviews and therefore cannot be trusted. You said it yourself you look for everything negative in a game and most of the time they turn out to be quite insignificant.

Also, you find it amusing that I use the "Fun" defense. Here's a clue, genius. That's what games are about, and therefore it makes it a valid point.

Out of all the games you've reviewed on this board I'd like to know which ones you had fun playing instead of "Here are it's imperfections..."

It's not like there's a perfect game out there anyway, so concentrating on imperfections could take a whole review up for even the best selling games of all time. So long as the imperfections are less than the sum of the good parts, they're really not that major, unless it's a historical simulation and it gets some facts wrong. If I was going to nitpick, I'd have a whole load of games where weapons are renamed because of copyright (or in the case of CS:S, have casings ejecting the wrong side. Thankfully, I don't stay awake at night worrying about this, as I have fun).

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Whereas the KOTOR games were XBox exclusive for over half a year, yes?

The original was but I think the second was a simultaneous release. It was in the UK anyway.

Crazy_Vasey wrote:

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Whereas the KOTOR games were XBox exclusive for over half a year, yes?

The original was but I think the second was a simultaneous release. It was in the UK anyway.

The UK release schedules don't count worth crap.