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

Forums - Microsoft - Gamespot - Halo MCC review 6 / 10

I can see both side of the argument... But if you are going to punish the game for something that will evidently be fixed within days and you perfectly knew it when grading it you should be ready to edit your score, cause new customers post fix won't experience those issues and should be informed in that regard...



Around the Network
vivster said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

Oh come on, we both know thats not the samething. With MCC, you have like 4 single player campaigns from 4 different games so at least, its not all bad. Granted online is one of the main focuses of Halo but for $60, you are getting 4 different games and all of their single player still works at 1080p 60fps so at least, you can do something while MS gets their online sorted out. If Mario's jump bearly works, then you would have a hard time getting passed the first Gomba in level 1-1. I would have given MCC at least a 7-7.5 for the single player alone considering how many games these days get higher scores for much less content.

What if I told you that the combined time of all singleplayer campaigns combined is a mere fraction of the time people spent in multiplayer. If they play the Singleplayer at all.

I stand by my analogy. Also it says "barely" so that means you will be able to jump sometimes :)

Yea but even then, giving this game a 6 seems too little... Gamespot, by comparasion, gave Asscreed Unity a 7 and that game has tons of frame-rate issues, it is buggy/glitchy up the ass and it has micro-transactions all the way to $99 for a paid game. Its like, for MCC, at least there is enough content there to keep you busy until MS gets the online fixed which will happen eventually cause as you said, it is a big component of the franchise so it will be fixed soon enough vs if Mario can jump sometimes, there is no good alternative to keep you busy as Nintendo becomes like Sega and kills off their main mascot.

I do feel like a better analogy would have been "What if Smash Bros multiplayer (both online and local) were only working sometimes" and then I would be like, yea, that would suck but I would still give it an at least a 7-7.5 provided enough of the single player content is there to keep me busy and it has to be good of course.



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

I have great respect for Gamespot, they usually have insightful reviews. This was not one of them...



down to 87 mcc goes, no wonder the xbox threads stopped talking about its meta score in their topic titles.



Looking at its Metacritic it seems reviewers have been way to damn nice to it. Online doesnt work and until it does games shouldnt recieve good reviews. Reviewers can then update the score if they feel its neccessary rather than reviewing on the promise of a fix.



Around the Network

Anyone playing MCC knows the MP works now, but is limited to some game modes. This was a click bait review sadly, and it shows especially if you read it. It sucks that the MP isn't functioning to its fullest potential right now but Halo is a game that isn't dependent on MP to be a great game, is is an amazing SP experience in its own rights.



endimion said:
I can see both side of the argument... But if you are going to punish the game for something that will evidently be fixed within days and you perfectly knew it when grading it you should be ready to edit your score, cause new customers post fix won't experience those issues and should be informed in that regard...

The game should be punished because it is not working at the time of review. It is developer's /publisher's duty and responsibility to deliver a fully functioning game if they have the nerve to ask a full retail price for it.

It is not a reviewer's responsibility to follow the game indefinitely in hopes the problems get fixed. They review the review copy of the game and grade it accordingly. They should not revise the scores at a later date.

That's why I don't agree with websites lowering the scores either. They jumped the gun and scored it blindly just to produce more clicks, they should own up and stick to their premature score...

But as long as paying customers remain appologetic and produce excuses for a subpar work the developer, and keep buying incomplete games for a complete price, we can only expect this to become a trend...



So not only you admit you fully trust their rating and wont buy anything they tell you not to based on their taste, but you even beloeve that MCC is even remotely a 6/10 without even a MP? You migqht need to check that out a bit cause still those four campaigns on legendary, solo or coop, makes the game a 10/10 for most of us considering its a 60$ purchase with the MP incoming its a 11/10 the least.

 

You can hide a smirk all you want behind Gamespot's 6/10 review. im new on this site but i dont need to figure out how to check your history to know you are not even remotely interested in anything ms has to offer. Not just Halo. If i am wrong ignore me. If i am not then dont bother answering. No useful info there.

 

Personally i have full faith in 343i and they have rolled out several updates daily to get 4 games fixxed at once.



Cold but fair when half the game (online) doe snot work.

H2 is awesome the other ok.



Seems fair enough to me. To many, the MP is the most significant piece of this collection. It doesn't matter how good the SP is, if half the damn game doesn't work properly, it should be punished accordingly.

That said, they should bump the score up once the issues are fixed.