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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What would you score each Halo game in the 1 out of 10 scale?

KillerMan on 25 October 2009

Halo Combat Evolved: 9.4
Halo 2: 9.0
Halo 3: 8.9
Halo ODST: 7.8



Around the Network
valvefan48 on 25 October 2009
Pyramid Head said:
@valve

my point is that in halo 3 you can wait all this time to join a game mode you don't even want, then people quit and its unfair, you can't quit, and you waste more time

cod 4 you piock up and youre shooting

also matchmaking is for noobs man, ive never cared who was in my match

how is the online shallow with all the perks and challenges? no strategy? you have to know how to use the perks, in order to use strategy

you either just don't like cod 4, or you are no good at cod 4


Matchmaking is not for n00bs, it's a very well made system that matches up players with equal ranks and allows them to naturlly and skillfully to build them up in higher ranks. Perks in Call of Duty 4 don't use much strategy, it just makes the player stronger than they really are and don't offer much use.

And as a matter a fact I do like Call of Duty 4 {Mostly for its single-player and story} and I'm really damn good at the game... almost a bit too good because it's easy to get kills in the game.

However, your right about joining and leaving a mode in a game. It still doesn't undermine the well made game systems and design of the multiplayer.



JerCotter7 on 25 October 2009

Halo online > cod online. IMO anyway.

Halo:CE = 8/10
Halo 2 = 9/10
Halo 3 = 7/10 would be a lot lower but online is just so good :)

Haven't played the 2 newer ones.



Tallgeese101 on 25 October 2009

Only what I've played:

Halo 3 - 9/10

ODST - 5/10



tuoyo on 25 October 2009

Only ever played Halo 1. I score it 0.25/10. The most boring experience of my life.



Biggest Pikmin Fan on VGChartz I was chosen by default due to voting irregularities

Super Smash Brawl Code 1762-4158-5677 Send me a message if you want to receive a beat down

 

Around the Network
valvefan48 on 25 October 2009
tuoyo said:
Only ever played Halo 1. I score it 0.25/10. The most boring experience of my life.

You sir, are an evil person or someone who hasn't played many games.



Haste262 on 25 October 2009

Halo: Combat Evolved- 8.5/10
Halo 2- 7.7/10
Halo 3- 7/10
Halo wars- ?/10 (never played it, don rly want to)
Halo ODST- 7.9/10



 

 

Twizzler on 25 October 2009
valvefan48 said:
Twizzler said:
I'll only comment on the ones I played. And my scores are based on my opinion regarding Halo as a console shooter. If I compared it to PC shooters the score would be lower.

Halo:CE 9/10 It did a good job bringing a PC shooter to a console (Halo was supposed to be for Mac and PC only) Having one stick to control movement and one stick to control your view brought it as close to having a keyboard and mouse as possible. And it was a blast to play co-op and splitscreen with friends. I would have given it a 10/10, but let's face it...it had pretty crappy level design in single-player

Halo 2 7/10 In my opinion it didn't really bring much new to the table. The story sucked, the weapons were unbalanced...it felt like some new maps for Halo 1. I know this is a little harsh, but when I compare it to other games I've enjoyed and their vastly improved sequels (i.e. Half-Life to Half-Life 2 or Uncharted to Uncharted 2) it feels like they didn't spend anytime improving the mechanics of the game.


Actually Halo was meant to be a third-person shooter {After it was originally mean to be an RTS} for the Mac and PC. Also, yeah the indoor levels are horrible and repetitive but the outdoor levels are massive and extremely well designed.

I also disagree with you on Halo 2's story, I thought it was great and had much more indepth look at the Covenant's side of the story. It's only fault is that the ending was rushed. But yeah your right, the weapon were freaking unbalanced in Halo 2.

However, Half-Life 2 wasn't vastly improved over Half-Life 1. It's an excellent title but it lacked two things the original had which were the excellent enemy A.I. {Half-Life 2 had poor A.I.} and  rock solid gunplay {Half-Life 2 had drab gunplay}.

Yeah, I know it's origins, although it had already been redesigned as a FPS before Microsoft bought it out.  And I agree, Halo 1 had great outdoor levels...it's too bad that after starting with great outdoor levels and the somewhat non-linearity of the Silent Cartographer, it sends you to.....the library...ugh

 

As far as HL2, I know we're talking about opinions, but I thought it was vastly improved over the original title.  The use of realistic physics was groundbreaking at the time.  To have puzzles as well as set pieces based around physics was a big leap in FPS mechanics.  I would say the A.I. in HL2 isn't better or worse than HL1.  The combine soldiers behaved quite a bit like the marines from the first.  I will say the A.I. wasn't as groundbreaking.  As far as gunplay...again that's debatable and while I miss some of the more innovative weapons, like the Snarks, sending buzzsaws flying through the air to chop off heads and launching propane bottles into enemy formations was pretty damn satisfying IMO :)



Twizzler on 25 October 2009
valvefan48 said:
Pyramid Head said:
@valve

my point is that in halo 3 you can wait all this time to join a game mode you don't even want, then people quit and its unfair, you can't quit, and you waste more time

cod 4 you piock up and youre shooting

also matchmaking is for noobs man, ive never cared who was in my match

how is the online shallow with all the perks and challenges? no strategy? you have to know how to use the perks, in order to use strategy

you either just don't like cod 4, or you are no good at cod 4


Matchmaking is not for n00bs, it's a very well made system that matches up players with equal ranks and allows them to naturlly and skillfully to build them up in higher ranks. Perks in Call of Duty 4 don't use much strategy, it just makes the player stronger than they really are and don't offer much use.

And as a matter a fact I do like Call of Duty 4 {Mostly for its single-player and story} and I'm really damn good at the game... almost a bit too good because it's easy to get kills in the game.

However, your right about joining and leaving a mode in a game. It still doesn't undermine the well made game systems and design of the multiplayer.

The problem with matchmaking is that even crappy players can get to level 55 with patience.  Matchmaking should only be used for localization in my opinion.  i.e. I only play with other east coast players (except for friends of course)



chocoloco on 25 October 2009

Halo: Combat Evolved- 9/10
Halo 2: 9.5/10
Halo 3: 8.5/10
Halo ODST 8/10
HALO WARS never played and never will.
Can'twait for halo reach hope they increase the multiplayer match sizes to 30.