Quantcast
Halo: MCC review thread! UPDATE: Reviews incoming - 87 metascore so far

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Halo: MCC review thread! UPDATE: Reviews incoming - 87 metascore so far

Just because a game scored 95 when it came out, doesn't mean it'll still score the same amount 10 years later.

Games get old. I think most of these reviewers are judging the game on how fun something is 10 years later, rather than the value of the package.

That said, Don't fret over an 88 on Metacritic. Metacritic is awful anyway, and I wish people wouldn't use it so much and rely on it as much as they do. Even I (someone who never owned an Xbox) say this is still something that any Xbox One owner and/or Halo fan should buy!



"Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

-Samuel Clemens

Around the Network

Looks like TLOU Remastered is gonna be GOTY two years in a row unless GTA V overtakes it.



kowenicki said:
mutantclown said:

Hardcore Gamer 100

"This is the definitive first-person shooter experience, a no-brainer purchase for the vast majority of gamers, and the first true system-seller of the new console generation."

Oh that's not a fanboy writing right there, oh no sir, no. He even mentioned the sales, what's that got to do with a review? Very trustworthy review. Not saying the game can't very well deserve a 100, but c'mon, don't be so obvious.


PolygonNov 7, 2014
95
"Sets a bar that other remasters and collections will have difficulty reaching, much less topping. For players new to Halo, who have missed any of the included games, it is a stunning introduction to one of the most beloved series in video games. For Halo fans, it's a package that shows almost as much respect and affection for the Master Chief as they do."

By Arthur Gies. This guy is definitely on MS payroll. Seriously. It's so obvious by everything he writes. Sets a bar so high it will be difficult to top? Then why, oh why, we can easily read other less moneyhatted opinions saying something like the following....

AusGamersNov 7, 2014
80
"Despite an unhealthy smattering of technical concerns, Halo: The Master Chief Collection really is an essential purchase for fans of the series, whether they’re in it for the campaigns, the multiplayer, or the best of both worlds."


"Unhealthy smattering of technical concerns" Let's say the guy exaggerated a bit, maybe, it still doesn't sound to me he would write about this if there wasn't at least some glaring and evident technical flaws. How is that even close to being the new "benchmark" as Gies calls it? C'mon, don't be so obvious, take your money man, we already know you're deep into their pockets, but don't insult our intelligence like that.

So the aussie guy couldnt be the fanboy?  This colection does set a bar for remakes collections  Thats undeniable to anyone...the amount of content and a proper remake, not a simple upgrade.

why did polygon not take the money on forza horizon2? did they forget?

give a rest. just for one day.

 

 

Why? Halo 2 remake sure. No one can deny the work they put into that. But a collection? Almost no one is going to play the other 3 storys and you know it. At most play halo 2 story once and thats it, multyplayer only. They should have just made this game halo 2 remake with all the maps from the other 3 games and save on production cost. A collection is worth it if people plan to play the content wich will not happen with this game. like the metro redux, bioshock 1+2, god of war collection, and others like that. Like I said before, its like making a call of duty collection or a sports game collection, it dosent matter cuz people will only play the multyplayer and thats just a bunch of maps and for sports nobody touches the old version as soon as a new game releases.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

eva01beserk said:

Why? Halo 2 remake sure. No one can deny the work they put into that. But a collection? Almost no one is going to play the other 3 storys and you know it. At most play halo 2 story once and thats it, multyplayer only. They should have just made this game halo 2 remake with all the maps from the other 3 games and save on production cost. A collection is worth it if people plan to play the content wich will not happen with this game. like the metro redux, bioshock 1+2, god of war collection, and others like that. Like I said before, its like making a call of duty collection or a sports game collection, it dosent matter cuz people will only play the multyplayer and thats just a bunch of maps and for sports nobody touches the old version as soon as a new game releases.

I disagree.

I believe people will try what is new first and maybe play Halo 2 MP more at start but after they will play the others games too.



eva01beserk said:
kowenicki said:
mutantclown said:

Hardcore Gamer 100

"This is the definitive first-person shooter experience, a no-brainer purchase for the vast majority of gamers, and the first true system-seller of the new console generation."

Oh that's not a fanboy writing right there, oh no sir, no. He even mentioned the sales, what's that got to do with a review? Very trustworthy review. Not saying the game can't very well deserve a 100, but c'mon, don't be so obvious.


PolygonNov 7, 2014
95
"Sets a bar that other remasters and collections will have difficulty reaching, much less topping. For players new to Halo, who have missed any of the included games, it is a stunning introduction to one of the most beloved series in video games. For Halo fans, it's a package that shows almost as much respect and affection for the Master Chief as they do."

By Arthur Gies. This guy is definitely on MS payroll. Seriously. It's so obvious by everything he writes. Sets a bar so high it will be difficult to top? Then why, oh why, we can easily read other less moneyhatted opinions saying something like the following....

AusGamersNov 7, 2014
80
"Despite an unhealthy smattering of technical concerns, Halo: The Master Chief Collection really is an essential purchase for fans of the series, whether they’re in it for the campaigns, the multiplayer, or the best of both worlds."


"Unhealthy smattering of technical concerns" Let's say the guy exaggerated a bit, maybe, it still doesn't sound to me he would write about this if there wasn't at least some glaring and evident technical flaws. How is that even close to being the new "benchmark" as Gies calls it? C'mon, don't be so obvious, take your money man, we already know you're deep into their pockets, but don't insult our intelligence like that.

So the aussie guy couldnt be the fanboy?  This colection does set a bar for remakes collections  Thats undeniable to anyone...the amount of content and a proper remake, not a simple upgrade.

why did polygon not take the money on forza horizon2? did they forget?

give a rest. just for one day.

 

 

Why? Halo 2 remake sure. No one can deny the work they put into that. But a collection? Almost no one is going to play the other 3 storys and you know it. At most play halo 2 story once and thats it, multyplayer only. They should have just made this game halo 2 remake with all the maps from the other 3 games and save on production cost. A collection is worth it if people plan to play the content wich will not happen with this game. like the metro redux, bioshock 1+2, god of war collection, and others like that. Like I said before, its like making a call of duty collection or a sports game collection, it dosent matter cuz people will only play the multyplayer and thats just a bunch of maps and for sports nobody touches the old version as soon as a new game releases.


No I dont. it couldnt be further from the truth imo.

Halo 3 for instance is one of the highlights, looks soooo good in the remaster.

You are overlaying your own opinion on that of halo fans.  Clealry that isnt very wise.



I'm not really here!

Link: Shipment History Since 1995


Around the Network
kowenicki said:
eva01beserk said:
kowenicki said:

So the aussie guy couldnt be the fanboy?  This colection does set a bar for remakes collections  Thats undeniable to anyone...the amount of content and a proper remake, not a simple upgrade.

why did polygon not take the money on forza horizon2? did they forget?

give a rest. just for one day.

 

 

Why? Halo 2 remake sure. No one can deny the work they put into that. But a collection? Almost no one is going to play the other 3 storys and you know it. At most play halo 2 story once and thats it, multyplayer only. They should have just made this game halo 2 remake with all the maps from the other 3 games and save on production cost. A collection is worth it if people plan to play the content wich will not happen with this game. like the metro redux, bioshock 1+2, god of war collection, and others like that. Like I said before, its like making a call of duty collection or a sports game collection, it dosent matter cuz people will only play the multyplayer and thats just a bunch of maps and for sports nobody touches the old version as soon as a new game releases.


No I dont. it couldnt be further from the truth imo.

Halo 3 for instance is one of the highlights, looks soooo good in the remaster.

You are overlaying your own opinion on that of halo fans.  Clealry that isnt very wise.

I dont deny its just my opinion. But knowing the multyplayer shooter fans this is a very possible scenario. Is it not true that when a COD game comes out, over 50% of the buyers dont touch the single player? I was going to look for a article I saw but I cant find it that said this and I think it was a higher number. But anyways, its not like when people rave about how good all those halo games where,t they ever say anything about the campaing. The only diference here is that they will play the campaing once usually and never looke back.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

ethomaz said:

eva01beserk said:

Why? Halo 2 remake sure. No one can deny the work they put into that. But a collection? Almost no one is going to play the other 3 storys and you know it. At most play halo 2 story once and thats it, multyplayer only. They should have just made this game halo 2 remake with all the maps from the other 3 games and save on production cost. A collection is worth it if people plan to play the content wich will not happen with this game. like the metro redux, bioshock 1+2, god of war collection, and others like that. Like I said before, its like making a call of duty collection or a sports game collection, it dosent matter cuz people will only play the multyplayer and thats just a bunch of maps and for sports nobody touches the old version as soon as a new game releases.

I disagree.

I believe people will try what is new first and maybe play Halo 2 MP more at start but after they will play the others games too.

You missunderstood. I meant they will only play the campaing of halo 2 only. But multyplayer they will play all the maps from all the games.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

eva01beserk said:

I dont deny its just my opinion. But knowing the multyplayer shooter fans this is a very possible scenario. Is it not true that when a COD game comes out, over 50% of the buyers dont touch the single player? I was going to look for a article I saw but I cant find it that said this and I think it was a higher number. But anyways, its not like when people rave about how good all those halo games where,t they ever say anything about the campaing. The only diference here is that they will play the campaing once usually and never looke back.


Your point with the multiplayer isn't very good in Halo's case, because a lot of Halo players sank too many hours playing the campaings online. Now they have the chance to relive it again with H2, H3 and H4.

 

There's incentive to play through all campaigns, while going on playing multiplayer. The only one I think it could get ignored is Combat Evolved, but because it turned out to be the worst part of this collection.



eva01beserk said:
ethomaz said:

eva01beserk said:

Why? Halo 2 remake sure. No one can deny the work they put into that. But a collection? Almost no one is going to play the other 3 storys and you know it. At most play halo 2 story once and thats it, multyplayer only. They should have just made this game halo 2 remake with all the maps from the other 3 games and save on production cost. A collection is worth it if people plan to play the content wich will not happen with this game. like the metro redux, bioshock 1+2, god of war collection, and others like that. Like I said before, its like making a call of duty collection or a sports game collection, it dosent matter cuz people will only play the multyplayer and thats just a bunch of maps and for sports nobody touches the old version as soon as a new game releases.

I disagree.

I believe people will try what is new first and maybe play Halo 2 MP more at start but after they will play the others games too.

You missunderstood. I meant they will only play the campaing of halo 2 only. But multyplayer they will play all the maps from all the games.

They will play the others campaign... maybe not in order but I definitely may play if I had the game.



Ninsect said:
prinz_valium said:
btw: i will just stop for now and wait for next year to see how ratchet and clank redux will score, before i imply any bias

Eh, you really think it can possibly review in the 90+ range? Given Insomniac's track record I'd be more worried that it reviews way below what it should get.


i have no clue
only thing i want to know is the following: better, the same, or worse scores than original
how scored the original games?