Review

Halo: The Master Chief Collection Review

  • First Released Nov 11, 2014
    released
  • XONE

That which is fleeting and that which endures.

For the better part of this new century, a game with "Halo" in the title has been one of the best places to romp around with friends, test your mettle against stiff challenges, and compete for glory on the online stage. Halo: The Master Chief Collection brings four of those games together in one package, and it does so with a crisp, organizational flair that makes it immediately inviting. Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary, Halo 2: Anniversary, Halo 3, and Halo 4 are laid out in such a way that no matter what mode you're angling for, it's easy to find your way to it, tweak the options just so, and set off down memory lane. Where that road may lead you, however, remains uncertain.

If you're undertaking one of the four campaigns, then you're in for a treat. Every mission is available right from the start, so you can head straight to the places you best remember, or start an adventure over from the beginning. It's like traveling through time or unearthing a time capsule, depending on your age, and it can take a little while to get your bearings as you calibrate to the particulars of each game. But once you're well acquainted, the thrills of yesteryear come rushing back. These are campaigns that stand the test of time well and invite replaying, whether it be on a harder difficulty level or just to mess around with vehicle physics on that one level you remember so well.

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: Halo: The Master Chief Collection Video Review

Outside the contained worlds of each game's campaign, however, The Master Chief Collection does not fare as well. Getting attuned to the many classic and anniversary varieties of competitive multiplayer can be disorienting initially, even if you have strong memories of each one. Once you have your bearings, the thrills of combat against your fellow player start to blossom, but getting that far is nearly impossible in the game's current state. Serious matchmaking issues often prevent you from even getting into a game, let alone the type of game you'd prefer. If you manage to get into a match, a host of other problems await, and upon completing a match, you're as likely to crash to the Xbox One dashboard as you are to be placed in another match. Fixes are on the way, according to developer 343 Industries, but as it stands now, The Master Chief Collection does not successfully deliver on its promises.

But what promises they are! To revisit the Halo 2 battlegrounds that brought so many people to Xbox Live? To relive the sprawling vehicular battles of Halo 3? To finally play classic Halo: Combat Evolved multiplayer online on a console? These are heady prospects for anyone who's been a fan of Halo over the years, though to actually experience them is something short of pure nostalgic glee. Loading into a multiplayer match can demand some abrupt memory recalibrations, as you pick up a bubble shield for the first time in over six years or try to dual wield a weapon and realize you cannot.

And the adjustments run deeper than that. From movement speed to weapon handling and balance, from audio cues to health systems, there are a host of things you need to compensate for when switching from game to game in a multiplayer session. It can be frustrating because one of the powerful draws of competition is the process of learning from your mistakes, adopting new tactics, and then meeting with newfound success. This progression is disrupted when hopping from game to game, but substantially smoother if you stick with one particular game for a while, say, a run of Team Slayer BR in the Halo 2: Anniversary playlist. Once you get that foothold, once you can remove the training wheels that you had to begrudgingly put back on, then you can begin to experience what made these games great.

Halo multiplayer has always had a few throughlines, regardless of the changes that helped evolve the series into what it is today. The balanced interplay of the limited array of weapons meant that you could develop strategies for every match-up and adjust your tactics accordingly. Head-on assault, stealth, misdirection, running for another gun, or hopping in a vehicle were all potential options, and they all coalesced to create dynamic battlefields that felt both immensely variable and fundamentally understandable. This sense of control and order amidst the chaos of online combat was crucial to the success of each of these games in its time, and it holds up firmly even now.

Good to see you too, Sarge.
Good to see you too, Sarge.

The multiplayer component of a game, however, is more tied to a moment in time than the campaign is due to its dependence on player population. A recently released game generally has more players regularly online representing a broader spectrum of skills, which leads to a more welcoming environment where people feel like they are finding fair matches. Years after a game's release, the population is whittled down significantly, and any newcomer is likely to feel the sting of the sharpened warriors who still remain. Furthermore, as time passes, players tend to gravitate towards a few preferred game modes, meaning that less popular options will end up essentially unplayable. How The Master Chief Collection will fare in this regard remains a big question, one that is all the more impactful given the sheer range of options that are potentially available. What is the fate of Halo 3 Oddball in a world that vastly prefers Team Slayer?

Though 343 Industries is attempting to manage this question by giving players a small, cultivated list of lobby choices, they are currently struggling to simply get players into games at all. Serious matchmaking issues have rendered online multiplayer extremely difficult to play in the three days since launch. At best, I was able to play three or four matches in one hour; at worst, I played zero. The matches I did play were often underpopulated or lopsided, and when they were over, there was little likelihood of being placed in a lobby for a subsequent match. 343 is posting frequently about server-side updates they are making to try to improve the situation, including one update that completely removed the option for Halo 4 matchmaking. How long will it be until you can reliably join a match within five minutes? When will the full roster of playlists be returned? Only time will tell, but until that time arrives, The Master Chief Collection is a huge disappointment for those who want to test their skills in online competition.

"Look, it's one of those hats that angels wear!"

If, however, the campaigns are your aim, then you're in luck. The four grand adventures of Master Chief, gathered here with the aforementioned organizational prowess, are still a treat to play through in a variety of ways. Setting off from the start or hopping from mission to mission; trying for a timed speed run or heaping on the skulls to make things tougher; ticking up the difficulty level for a solo or cooperative challenge; all are different ways to romp through these campaigns and each has its own appeal.

Take Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary. Released just three years ago, it was the first of Master Chief's jaunts to get the Anniversary treatment. Remastered visuals and audio were crafted to exist alongside the original assets, and you could switch between them with the press of a button. In The Master Chief Collection, seeing the flat-textured landscapes of the halo's surface spring to life with verdant foliage and sparkling rivers is a delight, and the increased color saturation makes your ugly Covenant foes seem all the more sinister. Though the remastered look is a great way to play, it's fun to switch between the two in different environments to see how drastic the difference is. And it's not always the more modern version that looks best, thanks to the alien elegance of the original Forerunner structures.

"Elegant" could be a charitable way to describe the even pace with which this first incarnation of Master Chief runs around these levels, or you could take a harsher view and call it "slow and plodding." Moving at the speed of 2001 can be initially off-putting, but of course, everything else in this world is designed around Chief moving the way he moves, and this internal consistency helps the adjustment process. As you learn to use the three prongs of Master Chief's arsenal--guns, grenades, and melee attacks--all over again, the balance between you and your enemies starts to become clear. Their individual and group tactics are at once formidable and deconstructible, encouraging you to both respect their power and figure out new ways to dismantle them in each new situation. This balance scales nicely as you add skulls, increase the difficulty, or team up with another player.

The foundations of Halo's gameplay were established in Combat Evolved, and Halo 2 elaborated on them with a lengthier campaign and a new playable protagonist. Though the story of when humanity first encountered a halo in CE is more highly regarded than Master Chief and the Arbiter's dual adventure in Halo 2, the sequel's campaign still delivers plenty of exciting moments that make it worth playing. The lesser (or perhaps just more convoluted) narrative benefits greatly from the addition of new cutscenes from Blur Studio, the animation house that contributed some excellent sequences to Halo 4. Blur's work here is a tremendous improvement, bringing new life not just to the characters and storyline, but to the world itself. Though they cover the same scenes and same dialogue (you can switch between to two on the fly to double check), they are crafted with a cinematic flair that the originals lacked. There's also some new content packed in for good measure, through in-game terminals and new cutscenes, that offer clues about the next release in the Halo series, Halo 5: Guardians.

The Anniversary treatment generally does right by Halo 2 as it does by CE, though there are a few caveats to be aware of. Lighting is a huge area of improvement, for the most part, bringing depth and contrast to levels to make them feel more vibrant. Still, there are times when the saturation goes a bit too far: under aerial bombardment from the Covenant, you may find your screen whited out to the point of blindness and deep in the twisting tunnels of a Forerunner structure, you might resort to swapping to the original visuals (again, with the push of a button) or upping the brightness on your TV to get your bearings.

As for the audio side of the remastering, a quick switch reveals just how much fuller and majestic the updated orchestration is. Crossing a suspension bridge in a tank and blasting Covenant vehicles out of the sky is a thrill either way, but it's amped up when you're blasting the robust new remastering of that excellent soundtrack. There are drawbacks, however, some of which will depend on your taste in weapon audio. The galloping clatter of the submachine gun has been replaced with a brasher, more metallic sound that I found more bland than the original, and while the original sniper rifle sounded like every shot rang out from a mountain top, the new one is a more perfunctory blast. Sounds like these made me wish for the option to pick and choose between remastered and original, but no such option exists.

No Caption Provided

Halo 3 is pointedly not an Anniversary edition, though both it and Halo 4 (and the two Anniversary editions) have been updated to run at 1080p resolution and 60 frames per second. You'll miss Blur's H2A handiwork when you watch Halo 3's cutscenes, but when it comes to playing the game, you're in for a treat. Halo 3's campaign really feels like the one in which Bungie nailed what it meant to be Halo. The through lines are still there from the beginning, including the balance of weapons, the enemy tactics, and the frequency and flexibility of vehicular combat. In Halo 3, the campaign flows deftly between diverse environments, giving you an array of ways to tackle a given situation.

The key here is replayability; this array of options isn't really necessary, or even fully exploitable, on one playthrough. Playing by yourself, with a friend, with some weird modifiers, or on a tougher difficulty level all provide different scenarios you have to figure out and all bring different options to the fore. A stiff challenge might make you experiment with creative new solutions, or a lighter one might urge you to try daring stunts where solid tactics would work just fine. In cultivating this flexibility, Halo 3 delights in your successes, punishes your failures, motivates you to be better, and inspires you to be creative, which are some of the best things a video game can do.

Halo 3 brought the first Halo trilogy to a close, and never is this more apparent than when playing Halo 4. The 2012 release signals a new start in a number of ways: Master Chief can now sprint for the first time and use the mobility-enhancing armor abilities introduced in Halo: Reach. For a man used to going one speed, it feels significantly different and more modern, a distinction that also becomes clear in multiplayer matches. Halo 4 introduces new enemies that challenge Master Chief with their maddening ability to shield each other, and also introduces new allies, who challenge Master Chief by not treating him like the unimpeachable hero warrior of the past. Seeing commanders talk brusquely and disrespectfully to the Chief is as much a signal of the new era as anything, and it's delivered with the best characterization, dialogue, and cinematography that the series has seen to date.

Drive it like you stole it, because you totally stole it.
Drive it like you stole it, because you totally stole it.

Though the action is peppier thanks to the new locomotion options, the core tenets of combat design that sustained the Halo series for so long are still in full effect. The new complement of weapons, abilities, and enemies carry the torch of diversity and flexibility proudly through the transition; Halo 4 was the first Halo developed entirely by 343 Industries and not Halo's creators, Bungie. It's also the best-looking game in the Collection, and though you can see its age relative to more recent releases, it's still a vivid, attractive game.

And it's a testament to the quality of Halo games throughout the years that Halo: The Master Chief Collection is an attractive package, despite the massive problems with online multiplayer. It's not a game that demands to be played, not in the way that a new game or a new entry in a beloved series might. Instead, it's a game that makes a strong case to be owned, to be put on your digital shelf for when you've got an old friend coming by, or are hankering to revisit familiar battlegrounds. And even if you don't have much experience with all the games contained herein, the way that they're all arranged in an immensely accessible way makes it easy to fire it up, play a few rounds or take on a few levels, and then put it down until the next time the mood strikes you. The Master Chief Collection is inviting, illuminating as it does the enduring appeal of the Halo series: to create worlds that are epic showpieces and elaborate playgrounds, places to triumph and places to play.

Halo: The Master Chief Collection is featured on our list of the best Xbox co-op games.

Back To Top

The Good

  • Core combat formula is engaging throughout every campaign
  • New Halo 2: Anniversary cutscenes are fantastic
  • Slick, intuitive menu organization

The Bad

  • Online multiplayer barely works

About the Author

A fan of Halo since its Macworld unveiling, Chris has played countless hours of Halo over the years. For this review, he played sizable chunks of each campaign using code provided by Microsoft. Once servers went live, he spent he better part of three days trying to get into online matches.
2962 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for rickphoenixxx
RickPhoenixxx

264

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 5

Edited By RickPhoenixxx

So Chris scored this lower than the 8 or 9 he would have given it normally due to multiplayer/matchmaking issues and believe me I can understand his initial frustrations. I had some issues the first few days as well, but not as bad as most others i've heard. As of this writing, it works almost flawlessly for me. So conventional widsom would say, Chris would go ahead and update this score(since his only gripe would not exist anymore going forward)when 343 fixes everything fully, if they work hard and actually accomplish this soon. That would be in the interest of fairness, if not he just comes of looking extremely bitter/petty in hindsight. But no, this 6 will always stand even though people like myself will fully enjoy this release for years to come, offline and online. The best remastered collection/fan service ever released gets a 6 from Gamespot for initial online issues...and Battlefield 4 is somehow still an 8 out of 10 with all it's now legendary initial problems? Utter, utter rubbish Chris Watters & Gamespot.

2 • 
Avatar image for loafofgame
loafofgame

1742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@rickphoenixxx I do not remember the exact reasons, but the people involved in the reviewing of BF4 did not experience severe online problems, which is why they didn't mention it. Also, I wouldn't want to sympathise with anyone who will refrain from buying this game because Chris Watters gave it a six. Whatever is good and/or bad about the game is in the WRITTEN review. The score attached to it is pretty irrelevant, if you ask me, since it only reflects Chris' overall experience (and it really couldn't and shouldn't reflect any other experience, no matter how neutral and objective the reviewer has been). The score holds no inherent value (only external value readers attach to it). The actual value is in the written review itself. So far very little of the actual content has been strongly questioned (from what I've read so far). People only strongly question the score.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for rickphoenixxx
RickPhoenixxx

264

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 5

Edited By RickPhoenixxx

@loafofgame @rickphoenixxx That's hard to believe, I had glitches/issues with BF4 forever, and none with BF3 before it. Everyone has a right to their own reviews/opinions, but alot of people will just assume this release is garbage entirely because of the six you know how it is. Alien isolation was another that scored a 6 here that is a really nice release deserving more.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for loafofgame
loafofgame

1742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@rickphoenixxx Well, then blame the people who base their purchase on one score. And I don't know the facts about BF4, but that's what I heard. I think it had something to do with playing it before release. Anyway, it doesn't take away from the fact that a lot of people overvalue scores. You can't blame reviewers for that. This review provides the necessary information to personally determine the (future) quality of this game. The score is an irrelevant aspect when you want make a purchasing decision. The fact that so many people put their trust in scores is beyond me.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-58bf2c0ad76b2
deactivated-58bf2c0ad76b2

82

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

So, let me get this straight. When a game has a broken release it IS okay for gamers to call for the jobs and the blood of the developers, but it's NOT okay for a critic to allow that to affect their review in a significant way.

Right.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
Bread_or_Decide

29761

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Bread_or_Decide

@FinalPreator It's about time critics let it effect the scores. Battlefield 4 anyone?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for YouEnjoyMyFluff
YouEnjoyMyFluff

35

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Edited By YouEnjoyMyFluff

They re-released the same games everyone has played and the same multiplayer for a game that is 10 years old.


game gets a 6. it's fair. nothing GREAT about it

4 • 
Avatar image for stickybun
stickybun

270

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Nothing great about one of the most loved franchises in the world? Sure bud. All 4 games are still incredibly solid gaming experiences. It's a shame about the MP and points taken for that side of the game is warranted imo. I just wish Gamespot was consistent with grading games with broken MP.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for rickphoenixxx
RickPhoenixxx

264

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 5

@YouEnjoyMyFluff What did you think of TLOU remaster released earlier in the year?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Forcecaster
Forcecaster

328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@rickphoenixxx @YouEnjoyMyFluff TLOU was like 1 year old before the remaster came out.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for rickphoenixxx
RickPhoenixxx

264

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 5

@Forcecaster @rickphoenixxx @YouEnjoyMyFluff i was just curious, because if a person dislikes this, they they must hate TLOU Remaster as well. TLOU Remaster was well done i heard, as was this. This however is MUCH more justified for existing, whereas TLOU was one game, and just a year old.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Forcecaster
Forcecaster

328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@rickphoenixxx @Forcecaster @YouEnjoyMyFluff From the console holders point both of them is justified. TLOU was a massive hit, so a "remake" for the new console will sell more PS4s as was the plan with Halo as it is the flagship franchise on Xbox.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for rickphoenixxx
RickPhoenixxx

264

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 5

Edited By RickPhoenixxx

@Forcecaster @rickphoenixxx @YouEnjoyMyFluff Oh both are nice things for those who never owned a 360/ps3, and both have a reason for existing. In no way should a collection like this go down in the records here as scoring lower Than TLOU remaster considering it's value...heck even Sleeping Dogs remaster got an 8.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Forcecaster
Forcecaster

328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By Forcecaster

@rickphoenixxx @Forcecaster @YouEnjoyMyFluff Exactly, but yet again reviews are not something to be followed by everyone.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for InFI_Chronos
InFI_Chronos

87

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By InFI_Chronos

While I agree with the game having a lower score, I think a 6 is a bit extreme. Also how do games like GTA5 get a 9 when the online barely worked when it came out on the 360 and ps3? I'm not defending 343 cuz I think the effed up but come on at least use the same scoring guidelines throughout your game reviews.

4 • 
Avatar image for heerobya
heerobya

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

Edited By heerobya

@InFI_Chronos Yeah, a 6 is kind of a joke.

I bought Halo : MCC just for the 4 game single player, the re-done Halo 1 and 2 (especially 2) are amazing.

I've barely played it though, just because I'm still so hooked on Destiny and Warlords just came out... oh and Dragon Age tomorrow.


It is so jarring to play Halo 1/2 when you've spent so much time playing Destiny in the last few months.

The controls and general feel etc. just feels so archaic. I'm not even going to touch the MP in Halo:MCC - my fragile ego can hold onto the glory days of my Halo MP prowess in the past, instead of try to relive them and just be disappointed.


Bring on the H5 MP beta though! So glad they are making it "modern" with ADS, sprint, etc.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bam11bam
bam11bam

846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

After this, I better try AC Unity.... It must be a 10... Driveclub must be EPIC too!

2 • 
Avatar image for nayce54
nayce54

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@bam11bam You are darn RIGHT! AC Unity and Drive Club are SUPERB!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lostn
lostn

6658

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 98

User Lists: 0

Edited By lostn

A 6.. that's brutal. Imma grab some popcorn.


I can see the bots already have their knickers in a knot.

3 • 
Avatar image for Swiftrunners
Swiftrunners

30

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Swiftrunners

Good work Gamespot its good to see a main stream games site tell the truth on this game. Its been nothing but a buggy mess worse than Unity. The main reason to get this is for the online and it does not work not to mention it keeps crashing my system. 5/10 from me.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Snakepond1
Snakepond1

44

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By Snakepond1

Enough Gamespot all games have rough online launches. Give the game a week to correct them. Instead trying to rush a review to hit your metacritic time frame.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Forcecaster
Forcecaster

328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@Snakepond1 This review came out already a week late.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lostn
lostn

6658

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 98

User Lists: 0

@Snakepond1 Only if consumers give the game a week before they buy it.. the reality is, the game is out. And this is the state it is available in. So if someone is deciding whether or not to buy it now, this information is relevant to them.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for steverl22
steverl22

28

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Bravo GameSpot!!!! Hold these games responsible for launching with broken gameplay/match making.

If you are asking people to pay $60 for your game.....HAVE YOUR GAME WORKING ON DAY 1!!

We are in 2014 and these companies still try to ship half ass games like its OK!?! You fanboys go ahead and play your game, the rest of us are sick of this BS!

4 • 
Avatar image for bam11bam
bam11bam

846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Sthu, pony...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Forcecaster
Forcecaster

328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By Forcecaster

@bam11bam Actually he has a point.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for 93ChevyNut
93ChevyNut

1396

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Forcecaster @bam11bam I agree forecaster. And why is having an opinion that doesn't worship Halo mean you're a Sony fanboy? Steverl said nothing about a console.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Forcecaster
Forcecaster

328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By Forcecaster

@93ChevyNut @Forcecaster @bam11bam Because if you say something bad about a console exclusive in front of the fans of that console it will make you an enemy of them apparently no matter what you own and what you play.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Greylock3491
Greylock3491

70

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Greylock3491

I played with friends online on launch day, and then again two days later, and I can absolutely confirm the online multiplayer is NOT broken.


However, matchmaking is broken, and launching like this is a huge disappointment and should affect the score. But a 6?


If this was an online only game then yeah, maybe, but do you really think this compilation deserves the same score as HAZE?


And, to say $60 to play all four Halo games in their entirety on my XBox One, both in SP, Co-op, and MP custom matches doesn't deserve at least an 8, well that's unreasonable imho. This IS the biggest value since the Orange Box, and deserves better than a 6, even if it launched with broken matchmaking.


One more point: This is a compilation of four games made over the course of 14 plus years. To expect them all to handle the same is not reasonable. Would you prefer no advancements since the firs Halo, or do expect the developers 14 years ago to have insights into the future? I for one am glad all four games play as they were originally released.


Verdict: Sorry Gamespot, but with reviews like this you are slowly losing my respect which you've had for nearly two decades...


Greylock3491.


3 • 
Avatar image for TexasStuBaby
TexasStuBaby

212

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Greylock3491 Agreed... once you're in a multiplayer match, the game works great. You can't say multiplayer is broken. HOWEVER, matchmaking is. It's been taking me anywhere between a minute and three minutes to get into a match.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for loafofgame
loafofgame

1742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By loafofgame

@Greylock3491 I do not wish to sound like an jerk, but what value does your respect have when you dismiss this review based solely on the score? As far as I can read, the arguments in the review still stand, apart from the different play styles argument, which I think you misinterpreted. He never EXPECTED the handling to be similar, he merely stated that hopping between games when playing mp might not give you enough time to become properly skilled, since the games apparently handle so differently. That's only a point of critique if you want it to be. It's an important piece of information regardless of the value that is attached to it.

This review contains valuable information, yet you seem to dismiss it, because it was given a score you do not agree with. Why is that score so important to you...?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for steverl22
steverl22

28

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

They'll lose people like you and gain people like me. So they break even.

2 • 
Avatar image for Darknight765
Darknight765

68

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Darknight765

A 6 because of a temporary issues with match making? Dude you guys need to outline a standard for reviews instead just throwing out stuff like this. You gave CoD a 9+ for adding jet packs and Kevin spacey.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for loafofgame
loafofgame

1742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Darknight765 I'm not sure if you're tr*lling or not. CoD was given an 8, not a 9+. Also, you seem to want a standard for review scores, not actual reviews. In my opinion, most reviews contain the information necessary to make an informed choice, when combined with the information from other reviews, of course.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Darknight765
Darknight765

68

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Mixed there review with IGN. There needs to be a standard because a lot of times dev bonus are based off these reviews. Putting in the hard work and delivering a great game just to get shafted over a network is kind of messed up. The issue will last for a week tops, but he probably won't update his review.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for loafofgame
loafofgame

1742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Darknight765 The reason why bonuses are based on review scores is that apparently a lot of people buy their games based on scores. I'd say the problem lies with those people. Purchases should be based on the discussed quality, not some vague numerical suggestion of quality. That score doesn't tell you whether or not you'll like the game, no matter how much standardisation takes place. One score cannot account for the complexity of tastes among consumers.

Even if reviewers somehow manage to make their scores reflect the preferences of the majority (which I think is impossible) or base their scores on undeniable universal standards (which I don't think exist), then it still won't help you make a decision, because that score only suggests what the majority likes or what is considered universally good/bad; it doesn't tell you whether or not YOU will like it. The closest you can come to making the right choice is knowing your personal preferences and seeing how the actual arguments in several reviews relate to those preferences. You don't need a score for that.

Scores shouldn't affect sales. The fact that they do is because people value them too much. They will never represent what an individual will or will not like. You can criticise the actual content of a review (for being unclear, incomplete, etc.), but not how that content relates to the score, because that doesn't help anyone in making their own personal decision.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for simadmat
simadmat

26

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This game needs to be re-reviewed I havent had any online or campaign issues yet at all. This game should be rated a 9 or 10 its a must buy for any xbox one gamer

3 • 
Avatar image for bam11bam
bam11bam

846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Bro... gamestop is being very strict with these bad reviews of amazing games... they need to be fair, and understand that their review must account for EVERYONE! Not just him. This game, old or not, must be scored as something completely new, as microsoft itself announced at E3 that its for the fans, for halo 2 anniversary, and FOR THE NEW GENERATION of xbox owners who have yet to experience it for themselves.... But if those kids waiting on the review to see if they should make the jump to xbox, they are getting robbed of a great experience... what a selfish act by gamespot for allowing this unjust review to go public.... Seriously... In my 25+ years of gaming, and close to the media... This has been the most shockingly bad review by a so called legit review site.. if they dont make this good, we as a community really need to step up and stop supporting them. If you've been halo'd out, and played it too much that you dont thnk a remastered collection is necessary... good for you..... now step aside and let someone else ride this rollercoaster

Upvote • 
Avatar image for loafofgame
loafofgame

1742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@bam11bam You seem to think this review is bad solely because this game was given a six. If you read the review, you can see there are reasons to buy this game and there are reasons to not buy this game (yet). That is assuming people actually read reviews. May I suggest you also criticise all the people who don't buy this game because they make a decision based solely on one score...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Wynaught
Wynaught

328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Edited By Wynaught

While I think the score is a bit harsh, I think it is time that reviewers put their foot down and say that enough is enough. Launch fiascos like this are becoming a norm, and I cannot help but feel that this will continue until something motivates a change. Customer displeasure thus far has not been enough of a factor to warrant proper preparation from those responsible, evidently. With that in mind, I would, however, insist that the review and score be revisited and reconsidered in 3 to 6 months to more accurately reflect the overall quality of the game. A 6 at this moment is harsh but arguable; once the matchmaking issues are resolved, keeping the score at 6 seems vindictive and motivated by the wrong reasons -- that is, to punish and make an example out of 343 (not the primary purpose of a review) rather than help readers make an informed decision. To not reconsider the score in the near future would be a disservice.

6 • 
Avatar image for loafofgame
loafofgame

1742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Wynaught I can agree with most parts. Revisiting this game after all the mp problems have been fixed seems sensible. However, all the talk about scores is tiring, in my opinion. As far as I know, the value of scores lies in the fact that they can be easily compared and put into statistics, something a lot of people seem obsessed with. That value, however, is also a misleading weakness, in that scores suggest universal standards and preferences. It also suggests every six is the same, it suggests there's a clear measurable difference between this six and that nine. To assume undeniable universal standards and preferences in this branch of entertainment and to assume that all these scores are inherently the same (and that some average should therefore be a clear reflection of overall quality) would be incredibly naive, if you ask me. It would also be irrelevant, since an individual can still dislike a game that is generally fondly appreciated.

I do not wish to start the whole objectivity debate again, but in my humble opinion people should really stop overvaluing scores (and stop basing purchases on them). Scores do not have any inherent value when it comes to making an "informed decision" about whether or not to buy a game. They are mere vague reflections of the perception of an individual. The arguments within the review do have value, but only within the context of other reviews and only when one considers the limitations of a value judgement by an individual (no matter how neutral or objective). I believe you cannot make an actually informed decision based solely on scores. You can make a RIGHT decision, but not an informed one.

The fact that this six might be far below some average does not make this review any more or less valuable when it comes to the arguments within it. If those arguments are presented properly their value can be scaled according to personal preferences. I feel changing the score after revisiting this game only empowers people's unreasonable obsession with scores (although if one chooses to use a scoring system, changing the score would make sense). One could argue that it is up to gaming websites to let go of the scoring principle and until that time discussing them is valid (since they are there after all), but one could also say that people should stop glorifying the value of scores and not make them more important than they are, so that gaming websites don't have a reason to keep using them.

My point is, keeping the six after a revisit shouldn't matter if any improved quality is clearly mentioned. The score is not a valuable source of information. It tells you very little, if not nothing. This doesn't mean the score shouldn't be changed (as I said before), it just means people should realise that what they value is in fact not very valuable. At least, not in my eyes. And I would therefore say that any complaints regarding the score should first be openly directed towards oneself, instead of the review or the reviewer.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hilith
Hilith

27

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

Edited By Hilith

So would multiplayer is worth 3 out of 10... It's Halo so yeah I guess, but you still have 4 great games, 2 reworks all bundled up in the same package for the price of 1 game how the hell is that a 6 when it is clearly one of the best deals any gamer would want in this season. Still seems tons of fun for a great price, and I hope multiplayer gets fixed and so does this review.

3 • 
Avatar image for Osiris11235
Osiris11235

28

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By Osiris11235

FYI - I made a critical comment about this review and site and it is currently stuck in limbo as "pending."

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5ee5e6de994c1
deactivated-5ee5e6de994c1

33

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

Even campaign is broken, like the score. Sometimes its say 0 score. I gave up on MM, how can they drop the ball this badly. Im trying to enjoy this before thanksgiving but I doubt this game will be ready by then. Make you think if Halo will survive in the hands of 343. MS should of re-up bungies contract.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hilith
Hilith

27

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

Edited By Hilith

@fragsnipa The score says 0?????? OH NO OH NO

0 out 10!!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Forcecaster
Forcecaster

328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Bring back Feedbackula!

8 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5ee5e6de994c1
deactivated-5ee5e6de994c1

33

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

The game is broken, 343 has finally killed halo.

2 •