Doom3=94%, what does this mean for HL2?(review wise)

lans said:
Just because a sequel to game comes much later doesn't mean it has to be good - look at Deus ex: IW, crap compared to it's 4-year old predecessor. Deus ex is one of the "most amazing games" too, but that doesn't mean it's sequel has to be the next best thing. In fact it wasn't, so there you go - you've been proven wrong.
There were plenty of warning signs with IW, it's just people such as myself didn't truly want to believe someone as godly as Spectre had either lost the plot completely or that Deus Ex was merely an accident.

because most of the people on this forum are in floaty dreams of HL2 getting something as high as it's predecessor - wake up! it's not going to happen. Hl2 can't hardly out do it's predecessor as what it has got to offer is almost in every new game nowadays anyway, and it'll probably get something in the low nineties and people will start whining why it got such a low scrore...
Rubbish. HL2 will be a better game than HL1. It might not be as surprisingly enthralling, it might have to fight with MUCH higher expectations, it might not make anywhere near as much of an impact as HL1 on single player games & the mod scene as well, and it might not be the best game ever made - but I've little doubt that if you compare them in an objective fashion without all the hype that HL2 will be the better game... Valve would truly have to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory to stuff that up...
 
Alig said:
HL1 got lucky, it hit when there was nothing else and it took the world by storm.
If that were the case it wouldn't still wouldn't praised as one of the best games ever made, its true that if a crappy game comes out when nothing is happening it can over achieve critically( Far Cry etc) but gamers quickly reconginse that its nothing special and it gets the title "over-rated".
 
Well with all the bollocks and stuff going on recently ill be hard pressed to give HL2 more than 90%.

Course i havent played the game yet...
 
Ok since everyone else is giving their scores lemme think

The game looks good : check
The game looks to be a solid FPS: check
The game's original in terms of story and setting: Check (Subjective to my opinion really but still, who here doesnt think the game is gonna be intriguing?)
The gameplay is good: According to Merc, its the best the game ever, so Check
The game comes with CS:Source : Check
The game is said to be 36 hours or more in length : Check

Also taking into consideration how much everyone loved the E3 video's the first time they saw them. Even 2004 video's went down very well with everyone.
Everything seems in order so that the game gets 90% and above. I think its safe to say this game won't dissappoint like Far Cry

(I had to wait a month to play that game because my PC died, and i was hearing all these great reviews about it and i was getting hyped, only to play the game and realise it was a solid FPS but not a great one like everyone says)
 
Doub Lombardi said CS:Source will be included with HL2
 
I expect HL2 to score somewhere in the 0-100% range
 
I do belive that HL2 will be judged fairly! Everyone is expeting ALOT from Valve, but from what we have alll seen is HL2 has much more substance than Doom 3 does. I will also like to see STALKER (Sleeper hit?)
 
STALKER is very iffy to me. Some of the gameplay movies of Stalker are great and some of them are average.
 
Isn't it always the same though? ID come out and give us a great graphical engine but a poor game to accompany it with. I just wonder how much of the 94% the reviewer in PC Gamer actually assigns to the storyline and character development?

Could it be that he was just overwhelmed by the graphics (let's face it, they do look great) and didn't really consider any other aspect? Perhaps.

Doom 3 will still be considered as a Game Of The Year contender though, whatever happens - if just for the use of technology alone.
 
Wolf said:
Rubbish. HL2 will be a better game than HL1. It might not be as surprisingly enthralling, it might have to fight with MUCH higher expectations, it might not make anywhere near as much of an impact as HL1 on single player games & the mod scene as well, and it might not be the best game ever made - but I've little doubt that if you compare them in an objective fashion without all the hype that HL2 will be the better game... Valve would truly have to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory to stuff that up...

Talk about contradictions :dozey: It will not be enthralling, needs to fight higher expectations, will not have as much impact as HL1 BUT it will be better, cheers mate :cheers:
 
Supposedly yes doom3 did have amazing gameplay , and over 20-24 hours of it on medium difficulty. (Hl was like 16-20 hours fyo)

24 hours of chaos, as the pcgamer put it.

And i saw the pc gamer scans, talk about INSANE. just utterly amazing. The plasma gun alone is worth purchase of doom3.

Who cares what scores hl2 and doom3 get, tis a great time for FPS games.
 
oh and im not too sure of hl2 getting over 95% with only CS:S mp, it needs hl2 MP. not some rehashed 5 year old mod.
 
Subz said:
Supposedly yes doom3 did have amazing gameplay , and over 20-24 hours of it on medium difficulty. (Hl was like 16-20 hours fyo)

According to YOU, it's 16-20 hrs. Pc Gamer said that HL had 30+ hours of gameplay and it took you 16 hrs. So, 20-24 hrs should be like 8 hrs for you?

Subz said:
oh and im not too sure of hl2 getting over 95% with only CS:S mp, it needs hl2 MP. not some rehashed 5 year old mod.

As much as I'm not too happy at the prospect of cs:s, it's still WAY better than Far cry's gay death match MP for sure, even if it's a "rehashed 5 year old mod".
 
Wolf said:
There were plenty of warning signs with IW, it's just people such as myself didn't truly want to believe someone as godly as Spectre had either lost the plot completely or that Deus Ex was merely an accident.


Rubbish. HL2 will be a better game than HL1. It might not be as surprisingly enthralling, it might have to fight with MUCH higher expectations, it might not make anywhere near as much of an impact as HL1 on single player games & the mod scene as well, and it might not be the best game ever made - but I've little doubt that if you compare them in an objective fashion without all the hype that HL2 will be the better game... Valve would truly have to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory to stuff that up...

I hardly saw any warning sign with Deus es:IW, it won a good couple of E3 awards at many game sites and previews were also good, but it's not like there weren't any bad ones either - but everything sounded positive untill it released.

If you want a warning sign of HL2, read gamespot's pre-show E3 preview, also many recent previews after E3 have crticized HL2 a lot - so for all we could know the Deux Ex thing could happen (although I hope not, I'm as much as hyped for this game as anyother).

If you read my post carefully, I never said that HL2 won't be a better game than HL. It is of course better than HL, from what we've seen in the videos - A.I/graphically/sound-wise/physics/e.t.c. I said it won't recieve as HIGH as a score as it's predecessor, becuase what HL2 had to amaze us with has already been shown to us with Far cry, so far cry got the high scores while HL2 might not. Still, HL2 has a lot of chance to out do it - it seems to have a better story, more sophisticated A.I., better physics and the facial expression tech. So, HL2 is in a 50/50 position - it can either be remarkably good and out do everyother game that releases this year, or become a total dissapointment if it has stupid blunders.
 
Silent_night said:
i think pc gamer is really generous in their reviews

They really are not. 94% is as high as they go without becoming an editors choice. I got an issue of PC gamer last month that had 8 games and sub 60% ratings.
 
0% means "This game is so bad you'll want to kill yourself just for trying it... or even reading a description of it... so stop reading now!"

50% should be the average game's score. Most games should fall in this middle area, somewhat like a bell curve.

100% is absolute perfection (according to current technical limitations). Five minutes into the game you will cream your pants. It's just that good.

FarCry is far from perfect (even in graphics, the game's strong point) and yet it still got a 95%. That is bullshit. They put it higher than Doom 3 and just below Half-Life. I mean, from what I've seen of Doom 3, for it to be worse than FarCry they would have to cut back on the graphics a bit at the last minute, fire all the good voice actors, make the AI buggy and have it strafe back and forth like it has ADHD, take out all of the interesting enemies, turn the multiplayer into crap, and replace the story with something really cheesy. I quit playing FarCry at what I'm told is roughly the halfway point because I couldn't stand the plot anymore. If you can't hook me in the first half of a game, I'm gone. They even had the advantage that I like sci-fi... but it was still sucktastic.

Half-Life had me hooked at the opening sequence. I mean, I was stuck on a tram for a few minutes and I couldn't do anything... but I loved it. It seemed like Black Mesa was alive... like there was a story beyond the scope of the game. FarCry's idea of "atmosphere" is to have soldiers say things to each other when you listen in.
 
OCybrManO - great stuff. You summed up Far Cry spot on there. I'm still scratching my head in wonder at all the rave reviews it got, despite the ropey voice acting, shoddy cut-scenes and unexciting gameplay for a good 60% of it.
 
OCybrManO said:
0% means "This game is so bad you'll want to kill yourself just for trying it... or even reading a description of it... so stop reading now!"

50% should be the average game's score. Most games should fall in this middle area, somewhat like a bell curve.

100% is absolute perfection (according to current technical limitations). Five minutes into the game you will cream your pants. It's just that good.

FarCry is far from perfect (even in graphics, the game's strong point) and yet it still got a 95%. That is bullshit. They put it higher than Doom 3 and just below Half-Life. I mean, from what I've seen of Doom 3, for it to be worse than FarCry they would have to cut back on the graphics a bit at the last minute, fire all the good voice actors, make the AI buggy and have it strafe back and forth like it has ADHD, take out all of the interesting enemies, turn the multiplayer into crap, and replace the story with something really cheesy. I quit playing FarCry at what I'm told is roughly the halfway point because I couldn't stand the plot anymore. If you can't hook me in the first half of a game, I'm gone. They even had the advantage that I like sci-fi... but it was still sucktastic.

Half-Life had me hooked at the opening sequence. I mean, I was stuck on a tram for a few minutes and I couldn't do anything... but I loved it. It seemed like Black Mesa was alive... like there was a story beyond the scope of the game. FarCry's idea of "atmosphere" is to have soldiers say things to each other when you listen in.

Nice evaluation - from your point of view far cry should be getting 85%...heh.
 
OCybrManO said:
...and replace the story with something really cheesy...

I'm sorry. Having scientific experiments on Mars and having something going terribly wrong isn't cheesie at all? :rolleyes:
 
Far Cry is a great single-player game, and it deserves every bit of praise it got. I'm not sure why love for HL tends to translate into hate for "rival" games, but I guess that's a fan community for ya. Interrestingly enough, though, is the comparative civility in the Far Cry communtiy towards other games and their fans.

That said, I have a feeling HL2 will snag GOTY for 2004, assuming it comes out this year. But if for some strange reason it doesn't, I see Far Cry in serious contention for the title. The major publications apparently agree.
 
Mad Dog said:
Far Cry is a great single-player game, and it deserves every bit of praise it got. I'm not sure why love for HL tends to translate into hate for "rival" games, but I guess that's a fan community for ya. Interrestingly enough, though, is the comparative civility in the Far Cry communtiy towards other games and their fans.

I dislike Far Cry simply because it's boring and uninspired. Doesn't have anything to do with Half-Life.
 
RoguePsi said:
I'm sorry. Having scientific experiments on Mars and having something going terribly wrong isn't cheesie at all? :rolleyes:
Doom 3 is on Mars and Hell because they were involved in the original Doom "plots" (a few paragraphs in the manuals). If they totally changed the location and the basic idea behind the plot it wouldn't be Doom anymore... but remember, they brought in some professional horror writer to do the story for Doom 3, so don't expect it to be anything as simple or trite as Doom 1/2. I'm excited that they are actually going to try to try to have some depth this time around.
 
I DONT CARE ABOUT HL2 UNTIL ITS RELEASED. IM GONNA FEAST MY EYES ON DOOM3.... THATS RIGHT. BYE BYE HL2 UNTIL ITS RELEASED IN 2005.
:imu:
 
snak3y3z1001 said:
IMO doom 3 looks more better then hl2.
*waits for the flaming to begin*

Your opinion is your opinion. The fact that you're wrong is just a sidenote :p
 
Well all in all. I dont give a crap what reviewers say. I gonna play both Doom 3 and Hl2 and enjoy it :cool:
 
The poor people can't rent them from Blockbuster and keep them until they finish it. Thats what i always do
 
DiSTuRbEd said:
The poor people!

Thats not nice... you can phrase it so it isnt that "offensive"... I mean I was poor once... you can say acount-balancing challenged. :|
 
Back
Top