What do you guys think will be Halo 5’s aggregate score on Metacritic?
Lets look at the aggregate scores of all the main Halo games.
Halo CE:-97
Halo 2:-95
Halo 3:-94
Halo: Reach:-91
Halo 4:-87
As you can see, Halo 4 had the lowest aggregate score. And it was the first main Halo game which did not get a 90 or higher.You think Halo 5 will get more than 90?Or will it get even lower than what Halo 4 got?
No point in this kind of speculation until we’ve actually played the game. We have no idea what the actual quality of Halo 5 is going to be.
I say it will get at least a 90 unless it has issues at launch.
Whatever, who cares? I’ve seen many great games given 70s. It seems impossible now a days to get above the scores of classic games. Why? Because they are classic so any change whatsoever is going to be scored as “It doesn’t live up to it’s predecessor.” This is because they’ve developed a sense of perfection in the older games, wether they’re better or not. And thats not just for Halo. But as far as Halo goes the older one’s are simply amazing regardless. It’s also harder to do something ground breaking now a days whereas the earlier games came out in a time when gaming was making huge leaps, and Halo made many of those.
You should put MCC’s metascore in there too.
> 2533274803493024;5:
> You should put MCC’s metascore in there too.
How do you really score that? Solely on UI & functionality? Then it should have like a 50.
But you can’t really judge it on the creativity or writing or gameplay, etc., since all those games have already been reviewed. I suppose you could on the remastering of Halo 2, but that’s it. It’s an 85, btw.
I mean, Combat Evolved got a 97. Halo Anniversary got an 82. Why? They just put new graphics, music, and weapon sounds over the original game. I’m assuming it’s because the original multiplayer wasn’t included, but still.
EDIT: just read of the negative CEA reviews and, yes, there were a few who were annoyed with the Reach gameplay, but a lot of them weren’t even in regards to the remaster, but to the original game: “story lacking” “awful mechanics” “too hard” “clunky”.
So then I read the original reviews for CE and they were all “this is the greatest video game there ever was or ever will be!!!” lol.
The game isn’t out yet lol what a pointless post.
It’s impossible to discuss since the game hasn’t even gone gold and nobody has played through it enough to sufficiently review it. Hence discussing it is pointless.
Well, obviously Metacritic is a good page to looking for some marks. But that mark is based on the time, I mean, Halo CE was a brutal innovation in 2001, but Halo CE Anniversary has only 82 in 2011, lower than Halo 4.
So 87 compiting with games like Black Ops 2, It’s not bad.
cant say what score it will get from them but from the looks of that under water level from the vid doc i know what ign will give it.
To be fair for Halo 4’s metacritic, who the -Yoink- is quarter to three? Ive never heard of that site in my life. Didnt Metacritic used to be a verified review source?
91 or higher.
Who cares about metacritic? I don’t. IMO Reach sucked compared to 4. At least 4 has much better characters than Halo: Reach. 4 builds on the character of the Master Chef and his relationship with cortana. Reach just has a boring spartan team. Halo 4 is blamed for "ruining’ the franchise when Reach did the armor abilities first, yet people don’t blame Reach for “ruining” halo. Maybe its because Reach was the last Halo game made by Bungie before they moved on to Destiny. Also 4 had a bit more enemy variety(at least I think it did) with knights, watchers, crawlers, and turrets. In 5 there will be promethean soldiers. I guess I just used this as an excuse to hate Reach more than I already do while explaining why I thought 4 was good and doesn’t deserve a score of 87.