By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary Review Thread

Tagged games:

yo_john117 on 14 November 2011
kowenicki said:
Some reviewers just dont get what this is about...

It is a celebration and EXACT remake of the original... it play exactly the same, becasue is IS the same. It is supposed to be the same. Then they mark it down for being the same.

Ah well... I will still spend tomorrow playing it through.

I like the slow pace of the campaign... the relentless onslaught of modern gaming campaigns may well be the fashion but it doesnt make it right, better or more "realistic" imo.

Yeah this is pretty much my thoughts. 

How do games like GOW collection get a 91 when they only have slightly updated HD graphics but something like this only gets an 84 (and it will drop i'm sure) 

 

And look at this bogus review. This is just sad.

 

Strategy Informer
Nov 14, 2011
60
In the end, Combat Evolved Anniversary is a strange package. Its campaign feels half hearted, neither fully remaking nor preserving the original game.

 

 

 



Around the Network
Aldro on 14 November 2011
Mendicate Bias said:
Aldro said:
This deserves a higher Meta. A remastered HD collection of Shadow of the Colossus and ICO have 91 meta. MGS HD collection has 91 meta. Now I know this is ONE game but it did kinda' change console gaming and 343 seems to have done a great job on it. Strategyinformer.. Lol.

I know how you must feel with the Uncharted 3 reviews

To be honest I really don't care about reviews or the meta score, I know I'm going to enjoy the game. Just playing on all my favorite Halo:CE maps again is going to make me happy. Its annoying to see reviewers that don't put in the time or effort to properly review a game but oh well what can you do.



Yeah but on the UC3 matter its quite cool though. It's right up there with the highest Sony rated exclusives (GoW3, LBP2) and just behind MGS4, LBP and ofcourse itself in 2009 :D. The amount of perfect scores more than makes up for the troll reviews and has it as a GOTY Contender this year. Its great really. But when collections like stated above get "critically acclaimed reviews", we have Halo here get "generable favoured reviews". Now thats just bullshit. Im not a 360 fan (everyone knows that) but I had to comment on this bs.



Aldro on 14 November 2011
pezus said:
yo_john117 said:
kowenicki said:
Some reviewers just dont get what this is about...

It is a celebration and EXACT remake of the original... it play exactly the same, becasue is IS the same. It is supposed to be the same. Then they mark it down for being the same.

Ah well... I will still spend tomorrow playing it through.

I like the slow pace of the campaign... the relentless onslaught of modern gaming campaigns may well be the fashion but it doesnt make it right, better or more "realistic" imo.

Yeah this is pretty much my thoughts. 

How do games like GOW collection get a 91 when they only have slightly updated HD graphics but something like this only gets an 84 (and it will drop i'm sure) 

 

And look at this bogus review. This is just sad.

 

 

Strategy Informer
Nov 14, 2011
60
In the end, Combat Evolved Anniversary is a strange package. Its campaign feels half hearted, neither fully remaking nor preserving the original game.

 

 

 

 

Answer: The GoW games are much more recent and therefore haven't aged as much. Plus the HD collection includes two games for $40.



Halo launched in like 2001 Ico launched in 2001-2002 But yeah, its SOTC&ICO. Still though...



yo_john117 on 14 November 2011
pezus said:
yo_john117 said:
kowenicki said:
Some reviewers just dont get what this is about...

It is a celebration and EXACT remake of the original... it play exactly the same, becasue is IS the same. It is supposed to be the same. Then they mark it down for being the same.

Ah well... I will still spend tomorrow playing it through.

I like the slow pace of the campaign... the relentless onslaught of modern gaming campaigns may well be the fashion but it doesnt make it right, better or more "realistic" imo.

Yeah this is pretty much my thoughts. 

How do games like GOW collection get a 91 when they only have slightly updated HD graphics but something like this only gets an 84 (and it will drop i'm sure) 

 

And look at this bogus review. This is just sad.

 

 

Strategy Informer
Nov 14, 2011
60
In the end, Combat Evolved Anniversary is a strange package. Its campaign feels half hearted, neither fully remaking nor preserving the original game.

 

 

 

 

Answer: The GoW games are much more recent and therefore haven't aged as much. Plus the HD collection includes two games for $40.

But the point is those games just have just touched up graphics whilst Halo CEA is a proper remake. Yet it seems to be getting knocked for that. Maybe if they would have just updated the graphics to look like HD and not put much time in it (like all the other remakes are doing) then they wouldn't have gotten stuffed in the reviews.

And the strategy informer review is one of the biggest loads of crap I've ever seen.

 

Actually I bet some of the problem is it's 343 studios making this game, if it would have been Bungie that made this I bet the meta score would have been better.



enrageorange on 14 November 2011

I think the reviews are pretty fair. Of course us halo fans will appreciate the game far more then the reviews imply. But the reviews are meant to rate the game on its own rights. In which case low-mid 80s seems about right for someone who isn't a big halo fan, especially since the multiplayer wasn't legitamitely remastered.

As for other remakes Medal Gear Solid only has 6 reviews so far. The score could drop significantly as more reviews start being added so I won't comment on that but I find it ridiculous that the ico/shadow of collosus collection got just as high of a score as the two original games. These games are remakes so obviously the gameplay will show signs of aging and the quality won't feel as amazing as it did when they were first played. I also think the only reason OOT 3ds got a 94 was because it was the first decent 3ds game which got reviewers really excited.



Around the Network
Aldro on 14 November 2011
pezus said:
Aldro said:
pezus said:
yo_john117 said:
kowenicki said:
Some reviewers just dont get what this is about...

It is a celebration and EXACT remake of the original... it play exactly the same, becasue is IS the same. It is supposed to be the same. Then they mark it down for being the same.

Ah well... I will still spend tomorrow playing it through.

I like the slow pace of the campaign... the relentless onslaught of modern gaming campaigns may well be the fashion but it doesnt make it right, better or more "realistic" imo.

Yeah this is pretty much my thoughts. 

How do games like GOW collection get a 91 when they only have slightly updated HD graphics but something like this only gets an 84 (and it will drop i'm sure) 

 

And look at this bogus review. This is just sad.

 

 

Strategy Informer
Nov 14, 2011
60
In the end, Combat Evolved Anniversary is a strange package. Its campaign feels half hearted, neither fully remaking nor preserving the original game.

 

 

 

 

Answer: The GoW games are much more recent and therefore haven't aged as much. Plus the HD collection includes two games for $40.



Halo launched in like 2001 Ico launched in 2001-2002 But yeah, its SOTC&ICO. Still though...

Halo is an FPS and FPS games have advanced a lot since then. SOTC&ICO are unique adventure games though, SOTC often considered one of the best games of all time.

Fair point ^_^. Yeah SOTC was fucking a m a z i n g.



Badassbab on 14 November 2011

While some of the reviews have been a little on the harsh side especially considering this is a full blown remake and not just a simple case of increasing the resolution and frame rate, how does a 10 year old remake suffer from sub HD resolution and frame rate issues? I was hoping for a smooth HD Halo game on an Xbox platform for the first time but alas it's just not meant to be.

Btw the developers are Saber Interactive not 343.






Aldro on 14 November 2011
Badassbab said:
While some of the reviews have been a little on the harsh side especially considering this is a full blown remake and not just a simple case of increasing the resolution and frame rate, how does a 10 year old remake suffer from sub HD resolution and frame rate issues? I was hoping for a smooth HD Halo game on an Xbox platform for the first time but alas it's just not meant to be.

Btw the developers are Saber Interactive not 343.

@Bolded

What? Seriously? Hmmmm im confused.

 

EDIT: Aren't they like.. somehow "related"? What gives..



Badassbab on 14 November 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saber_Interactive

Last game they made has a 39 on Meta.






smroadkill15 on 14 November 2011

I really don't care what score it gets because I'm still going to buy it regardless. Everyone knows this game is made for the true Halo fans and true fans will appreciate it.

Just to make folks happy G4TV gave it a 5/5 :) http://www.g4tv.com/games/xbox-360/65370/halo-combat-evolved-anniversary/review/