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

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

celador said:
Not sure why people are focusing so much on the previous metacritic scores of the games, they are far less revelant to gaming now. Halo would not be a 97 by today's standards, not even close.

Anyway, perhaps some of the reasons for the sub-90 score are technical ones:

Each game within the Master Chief Collection has problems running at a 60 FPS in one way or another. Halo 3 seems to fair the best, however it is simply an Xbox 360 game running on the Xbox One. Because of that, it is not nearly as technologically demanding as the other titles, even if it means having human NPC’s with almost octagonal-shaped heads.

No, the biggest problems for me, unfortunately, came in the Halo 2 Anniversary campaign; the game this collection is arguably centered around. The issues are plentiful:

The reflections of pools of water in certain levels cannot mirror their reflection properly, resulting in massive stuttering.
Objects occasionally clip through walls, including a fish swimming through a capsule inconspicuously.
The Gravemind level featured especially bad framerate, even bugging out near the end and phantom “rewarding” me with 1,844,575,507,370 points upon completion.
Mission 8, Delta Halo, consistently crashed my entire Xbox One system loading the checkpoint right outside the temple (aka, after 90% of the level had been completed). I couldn’t even open up the Xbox One menu; it would eventually hard crash and shut off by itself.
The Day 1 patch offers some critical fixes across the board (including that Delta Halo bug), but it still doesn’t do much for Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary. Its troubles lie in the framerate (which is staggeringly bad when travelling in a vehicle and during cutscenes to the point of apparent “chugging” along), but also in odd instances of mixed-up visual efforts. For example, the design of orbital blasts of energy in the Anniversary Edition actually looks less detailed than its 2001 counterpart. They just look like a giant orb of energy, whereas the old edition featured two very distinct balls of energy. What’s even odder is that, at times, the textures on walls or objects in Halo: CE Anniversary look laughably worse than those from the past. Rare do these improvements look worse, but it does happen enough times to question how they got past quality assurance.

http://gamesided.com/2014/11/07/halo-master-chief-collection-single-player-review/

OK, these are valid complaints if that's the case. Problem is, I don't see many critics outside that one bringing a lot of them up. It's just 8's or 9's for little mention of whats wrong.



Around the Network

It should settle around between 83 and 85 which would put it around Forza level.



HyrulianScrolls said:

Thank you, you're exactly the modern gamer I was referring to earlier. Absolutely no idea what good gameplay is. No wonder TLOU's gameplay gets so praised.

This is getting silly now.

All of this is just your personal opinion. It doesn't matter what you think of COD, or anything other game. COD didn't magically become popular for no reason, it became popular because people enjoy them. I hate COD, i think they're dull, but i would never claim that my opinion is proof that they're inherently worse than the games i do enjoy.

Stop acting like you're somehow better than others simply because you have different preference to them. It makes you seem incredibly childish.



I really believe as great characters and story become more commonplace in games like they are now, people will look back at TLOU in 4 or 5 years and wonder what they thought made it "the greatest game ever."



Ka-pi96 said:

yeah right. Nintendo couldn't make a good game if they tried. Reviewers just have their rose tinted glasses shoved so far up their asses when it comes to Nintendo games that they automatically give them high scores regardless of how crap the game actually is.

Only 3D world got a 90+ on Metacritic so I do think that reviewers are fair to Nintendo games as well, the game does look exceptional..... just like The Last of Us. Mario Kart 8 for example is sitting at 88 while Forza Horizon 2 (open world, less "focus") sits at 85, I think thats fair. Reviewers are fair and upon closer inspection there isnt some huge gulf in quality accross different publishers or platforms despite some people trying to spin it that way.



I predict that the Wii U will sell a total of 18 million units in its lifetime. 

The NX will be a 900p machine

Around the Network
CosmicSex said:
It should settle around between 83 and 85 which would put it around Forza level.


Why should it?



There are technical issues reviews detail as well.. But ignore this. Reviews detail why it got the score it got.

Times change, standards change, different times different reviewers.



prinz_valium said:
ethomaz said:
prinz_valium said:
Scientificreason said:
People upset over 87 need to step away from gaming a bit Imo. Also what's with the childish console war be going on here? Seriously give it up.


wtf have this to do with console wars?

btw: gtaV on next gen will get the same score, or even better one (because of first person and the added things)

C'mon GTAV is a year old game... compared it with GTAIV or GTA: San Andreas and you will see how good GTAV's gameplay is.

god of war #94
god of war 2 #93
god of war 3 #92
god of war collection #91

 

and god of war collection was not a full remaster. only rmk

Different reviewers,  different time,  cannot compare them directly,  it's silly. 



Scientificreason said:
There are technical issues reviews detail as well.. But ignore this. Reviews detail why it got the score it got.

Times change, standards change, different times different reviewers.

But a great game should last forever. Hence why Super Mario Bros, Ocarina of Time, FF6, Half Life, etc are all still considered amazing games today. I mean just look at the amazing reviews even the 3DS remake of OOT got all those years later.



walsufnir said:

A good reply to why reviewers and reviews are not in the best light currently:



Originally Posted by ekim

Maybe some reviewers think the gameplay isn't up to todays standards but then they knew that to expect and imho a game should be rated by how much it's meets your expectations.


That would imply that today's gameplay standards are ahead of what Halo had to offer back in 2001, which is sadly not the case.

 

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=137749234&postcount=271


Just to be clear it was not ekim that said that... and REMEMBER CITADEL is not right about his claim... today gameplay standards are ahead what Halo showed back in 2001.

Anybody that played Titanfall for example (it is easy to compare because it is in the same plataform) will tell you that.

Or if you want something more close compared Halo's gunplay with Destiny's gunplay... they are similar but the final result is way different for better.