<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post comments that are discriminatory in nature.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
I’m no 343 fanboy but the game spot review was harsh. It criticised hw2 for being too simple and lacking depth even though it’s twice the depth of hw1. I don’t want to be sexist here but it was reviewed by a woman (likely no rts credentials).
ign criticised the game for being based on “luck” based on the blitz game mode. I don’t even count Blitz as anything more than alternative arcade mode and this argument shouldn’t really have passed the ign’s reviews editor.
Hw2 let down by essentially fake news websites doing half hearted jounalism.
Once patches are complete, hw2 legit 8-9/10 game.
Discuss
Can’t spell ignorance without IGN
So a couple things. I agree with the main point here – Gamespot and IGN gave overly harsh reviews to a game that is very good. It’s easily a 9 in my book.
BUT:
a) Okay. Saying a woman has probably never played a RTS IS sexist, regardless of intentions. She could be the world champion at Command & Conquer for all you know. Either way, her gender is not a relevant factor in the discussion, whether you agree with her review or not.
b) I found the IGN review overall to just be odd. And I agree that arguing Blitz is a luck mode is both incorrect and weird. It made me think the reviewer just wasn’t that good at the game, TBH.
What I wrote was sexist for sure, because after all it’s just the internet,
but why they assigned a sequel to a cult rts to somebody who is only an occasional game reviewer is dumb.
Lol- the comments in the review are full of diss towards the review/reviewer.
HW2 is an Action-Tactic RTS. Sure you have to know what you are doing and strategic thinking is needed, but its not intended to be a “Hearts of Iron”. I would give HW2 a 8.5 / 10.
Pros:
- Great Halo Atmosphere
- Interesting Map Designs in MP & Campaign
- Epic Story & Cinematics
- Nice Graphics
- Great Soundtrack
- Innovative Blitz Mode
- Balanced Stone Scissors Paper Principle
- Very diversified Campaign Missions
- Excellent Sound
Cons:
- Too few Cinematics & too short
- Short Campaign
- Unit Numbers too small
- Factions are too smiliar
- Technical Infrastructure is a Disaster currently: Servers, Matchmaking, Match Communication
> 2533274877536957;4:
> What I wrote was sexist for sure, because after all it’s just the internet,
This is not a valid excuse, it never is. Please curb the sexist remarks from here on out, thanks
Gamespot and Kotaku reviews were really bad. A lot of the reviews bashed the game for being too easy when played on Normal difficulty and that the game did not have enough depth. The same reviews went on to praise blitz mode which is the most shallow mode in the game. >.>
Dude, what does the gender have ANYTHING to do with their capabilities in video games? That’s not just sexist, that’s the most ignorant thing I’ve read today OP…
I definitely think it’s worth at least a 7. It has its flaws but it’s an overall good and fun game imo.
‘Mario Kart is too simple when compared to its counterparts like Forza. The randomized item blocks make for random outcomes rather then skill-based results. Using a gamepad instead of a steering wheel is just dumb.’
–IGN
Those reviewers were:
Extremely dumb
Trash at the game
You can’t rely on those people to properly review an RTS, the might pull off a review for games like FIFA and 5 Nights at Freggy but an RTS? Please…
> 2533274809541057;10:
> ‘Mario Kart is too simple when compared to its counterparts like Forza. The randomized item blocks make for random outcomes rather then skill-based results. Using a gamepad instead of a steering wheel is just dumb.’
>
> --IGN
HAHAHAHA HA this made my day, absolutely awesome analogy.
> 2533274877536957;1:
> I don’t want to be sexist here but it was reviewed by a woman (likely no rts credentials)
Oh no! She has ovaraies and you don’t! What a travesty that those ovaries make her incapable of reviewing an RTS game to YOUR arbitraty standards.