And also, he states that it doesn’t feel like a 2011 game, it shouldn’t, its a 2001 game with 2011 graphics!
I am not surprised. In fact, an 8 is really good for a campaign remake.
> I am not surprised. In fact, an 8 is really good for a campaign remake.
Exactly. For a game you could argue isn’t a ‘full retail title’, akin to ODST, not to mention is a remake of a ten year old game, I’d say an eight is pretty damn impressive.
The score isn’t going to get people angry; it’s the content in the review. Even if there’s different reviewers the whole site has to be somewhat consitant (sp?). It doesn’t make sense for a remake with updated graphics being called “repetitive” and getting an 8 when a “new” game gets a 9 and the reviewer admits it’s a lot of the same stuff from 4 or 5 previous games that all came out in the span of 5 years.
stratragy gamer gave it a 6.
No not really, its only an opinion.
Haha well you know what they say… Can’t spell ignorant without IGN. They based the vast majority of that article on the multiplayer aspect saying how the “authentic multiplayer feel” wasn’t there. Well NO KIDDING. 343 stated numerous times that they were NOT recreating the multiplayer because it just couldn’t be done correctly with the amount of time and resources they had.
The graphics don’t live up to modern shooters? Maybe that should be attributed to the fact that it’s literally just a graphics layer running on top of the old engine. They can only do so much when they aren’t recreating everything from scratch in order to preserve the original feel of the game.
“The campaign is pretty short, but the inclusion of online co-op gives you more reason to go back to it. The multiplayer is a blast, but will feel familiar to those who’ve played Reach exhaustively.”
Yeah, that about sums up the stupidity of the reviewer. The campaign isn’t any shorter than it was 10 years ago. The multiplayer is Reach, so of course it’s going to be familiar to those who play Reach. It isn’t any different!
Ugh! I don’t think this should have even been officially reviewed. It’s not some new sensational hit. It’s a remake of the game that started it all. This guy clearly had no respect for the franchise, and I’d take his review with a grain of salt. I don’t think an 8 is a bad score by any means, but still. And LOL at Machinima giving it a 7. The only thing these reviewers seem to be focused on nowadays is multiplayer. What a shame.
No, it deserves only an 8. But think about it. The graphics aren’t even that good, the multiplayer is non-existant (its Reach’s) and absolutely nothing has been added to a 10 year old game. CE is getting 8 after 10 years when FPS are supposed to have evolved is stunning. The remake is not perfect, but the game is so good it survived the test of time. Let’s seem if Half Life 2 could do the same thing in 3 years… No way. That gameplay is totally and utterly outdated and probably wouldn’t get a 7 even with perfect graphics and episodes 1 and 2 tagged on to it.
I will admit though this reviewer was dodgy (typical IGN). Firstly, he criticized it for having a short campaign… Unless you run through this game on Easy, this is by no means a short campaign, especially not compared to current FPS that dominate the market. The second thing was the replay value was lower than I expected, but then again, it’s MP is Reach.
Guys, don’t worry if the game is an 8. That just shows how ahead of its time the game we played 10 years ago was.
To be honest, I felt that the review was flawed. The reviewer wrote as if 343I lied to him about the game and produced something else. Where as we all know that they have told us what to expect countless times.
Though, 8 is good for a remake…
> Actually what I don’t understand is how IGN gave MGS:HD a 8.5 in graphics and gave Anniversary only an 8.0 when the graphics are CLEARLY better. Besides, MGS:HD is just presents “smoother textures” and no real graphical enhancements. Give me a break.
Well there are some really ugly parts with the new graphics. Sometimes it’s like having a place with really good textures, lighting and all that stuff and right behind the next corner they couldn’t even made the rock properly.
CEA has nice graphics, sure. But not everything looks that good what they’ve shown in the videos all the time.
Not to mention that most models were taken from Reach, an “old” game. So the graphics actually cant be that much better.
An 8 isn’t that bad…
Well Technically This game is not a Remake. Its just Hd Graphics, with some new Easter eggs added in. Its Basically the same game from 2001… It got a 8. So that’s pretty damn impressive compared to the games by todays standards. 10 years later and its still keeping up.
Ya, they were complaining about how they did not change how the vehicles drive and the Kinect functionality was a split seconded laggy. I mean the whole point was to not change any type of gameplay and the solution to the Kinect would be not to use it to throw grenades. The dude was just grasping at straws.
I can’t believe the reviewer actually complained about weapons having no recoil and master chief being able to jump 8 feet high.
THESE THINGS ARE WHAT MADE HALO CE AMAZING.
“The game definitely shows it’s age”
I… I’ve lost all hope in humanity. I didn’t know reviewers could actually be this stupid.
And since when has an 8/10 been a bad score?
8 means that the game is definitely worth your time and cash. It’s far from perfect, but worth buying and playing.
I’d say that’s exactly how Halo CEA will be received by the majority of the population.
Seriously…Since when has 8 been bad?
> And since when has an 8/10 been a bad score?
>
> 8 means that the game is definitely worth your time and cash. It’s far from perfect, but worth buying and playing.
>
> I’d say that’s exactly how Halo CEA will be received by the majority of the population.
>
> Seriously…Since when has 8 been bad?
We’re really not complaining about the score. We’re talking about the terrible reasons the reviewer used as justification for the score.
> I can’t believe the reviewer actually complained about weapons having no recoil and master chief being able to jump 8 feet high.
>
> THESE THINGS ARE WHAT MADE HALO CE AMAZING.
>
> “The game definitely shows it’s age”
>
> I… I’ve lost all hope in humanity. I didn’t know reviewers could actually be this stupid.
That part was making me face desk
Reviewer is defiantly a reach kiddie
Three words. Worst. Review. Ever
This dude is complaining the game feels too much like the original when the original got a 9.5 or something. I understand taking points off for no original multiplayer but the campaign is most likely improved and they put ALOT of work into it for a remake. The Halo fanbase loved HCE and its campaign so WE will like it which is what really matters for remakes.
For people saying “An 8 is good,” that isn’t the case anymore. Video games rated less then a 9 usually have a tendency to be mediocre to bad. 10 years ago an 8 would be good, not today.
> You heard this from where? IGN?
>
> I rest my case.