EDGE mag 10/10s

[egparadigm]

Half Life 2 (PC) is still the yardstick game I measure all fps on and none have surpassed it in my view so far.

This is the way I feel about Halo: CE. The thing that particularly depressed me about HL2 was the AI and the "combat" simply wasn't in the same league as Halo. The physical puzzles were all very well and good, but I didn't feel there were enough of them, that the game could have concentrated more on that element. Furthermore, I thought the plot was poorly divulged - I haven't a clue what it was all about (not quite as bad as Halo 3, though!)

Maybe if I replayed the game with my expectations reset, I'd feel differently, but it was a bit too long for that.

[averybluemonkey]

uninspiring weapons wtf are you on about are you off your head, what other game can you chuck a toilet at people.

Condemned 2 :P. And it's a used one too!

I think it's impossible to take a score out of context of the review. One person's definition of 10/10 material is different to anothers. Should a game not get 10/10 just because it had technical flaws? Even if those flaws had zero affect on how much fun you had with it? No game ever does anything just right, Halo 1 for me was easily a 10/10 but I thought it had a good few flaws. But they didn't take away from the emotions that the game let me experience. For example the room layouts were quite repetitive but when they were so perfectly designed that became a good thing.

Having said that I really, really don't get the Halo 3 score at all.

[eastyy]

i agree with that with a fps ....in my eyes they have to get the shooting right....if they dont i wont enjoy it and there are very few fps that do

anyway when it comes to scores its a combination of how good the games as well as value for money.....orange box was great value

no game would ever be a 10 for me though

i think for games mags to do reviews....there was a american mag....that gave 3 albeit smaller reviews for each game...so thats 3 different points of views which i thought was a great idea

[cutmymilk]

I liked the 'pub discussion' format in the Official UK Dreamcast mag. That gave a nice view of the games as each staffer generally preferred different genres.

[Darwock]

What I've noticed about LBP is that the people who disagree with the high ratings tend to be the 'takers' rather than the 'givers'... it's always about the standard of community levels or replay value or what-not in those cases. I believe the 10/10 score is justified by the enjoyment you get from actually *using* the　creator... I've got a ton of projects on the go in my LBP moon and I don't care if I never publish them - just making them is incredibly satisfying. When I published a level that started getting really nice comments, feedback and even friend requests from complete strangers I experienced just how rewarding it can be to actually use your creative side to make something.

As I don't read Edge I'm not sure if they made this point when they awarded the 10, but I think a lot of the people here (generally a very fickle community that moves on to the next thing very quickly) have missed it.

[EvilBoris]

To my mind it's the difference between a bad drama, where the characters are contrived to say things because it fits a story conceit, and a good one where the world and characters impress upon each-other and implode with interesting results.

GUN KATA!

[Richard.John]

HL2 was showing it's age even back then, when it was released due to prolonged development and Valve's insistence on sticking to the Half Life formula. In terms of combat, outdated weapon dynamics, grav gun aside, never helped and dumb A.I. hardly improved things. All in my opinion of course, though I do think it has possibly the best art direction yet seen.

At the time, I feel that Halo really moved the game on in terms of pure combat with its two guns, nades on the left trigger, recharging health setup, and super duper A.I, oh, and vehicles, too. A true 10 and deservedly so.....due to the gun play being so damned fun.

An Edge 10/10 used to mean something but not anymore, anyway.

[teddymeow]

Super Mario 64 (Nintendo 64) - E35 Oh hell yes!!
Gran Turismo (Sony PlayStation) - E55 Yes
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (Nintendo 64) - E66 Yes!
Halo: Combat Evolved (Xbox) - E105No (think Library)
Half-Life 2 (Windows PC) - E143No
Halo 3 (Xbox 360) - E181Not a snowballs chance in hell
The Orange Box (Windows PC, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360) - E182No
Super Mario Galaxy (Wii) - E183Best. Game. Ever. Yes
Grand Theft Auto IV (PlayStation 3, Xbox 360) - E189Nohohohohoho
LittleBigPlanet (PlayStation 3) - E195No but only because I still haven't played it enough to decide

If Halo hadn't had the Library level (or the stupid rally section at the end) then it would have been a 10 but those two bits ruined it for me. Half-Life 2 and Orange Box were both fantastic but as others have said HL2 looked "old" and Orange Box was more of the same but with the added bonus of Portal. Halo 3 was just bleurgh!

Mario64, SMG & Ocarina of Time. How can these be anything less than 10s. all stunning examples of what makes videogames great and fun to play.

Gran Turismo. I don't really like realistic driving games but back in the day this made my jaw hit the floor and I ploughed many an hour into it so it must have been something special.

GTA IV. No, no, no, no. I really didn't like this. Rockstar need to modernise their game design and realize that there have been many a useful progression made in terms of things like checkpoints and HD displays. Despite running my PS3 on a Bravia display through HDMI GTA IV still looked fuzzy like a PS2 game and at times controlled like a dog too.

Slightly OT but what amazes me about Edge is not the games they give 10 to but the ones that they hype and give cover space to which then turn out to be decidely average by their standards. Stuff like Heavenly Sword, Haze & Mirrors Edge which, at the time were set to be "the next big thing" and then review at the 5 / 6 level.

I find it hard to believe that during meetings and the previews they get the game can change that much so as to become an almost unplayable wreck when the review code hits.

[smouty]

Personally I think the Edge review of Mirrors Edge was a joke.

[Sixty]

A lot of the time they put these games on the cover when they're very early in development (in Mirror's Edge's case, they only played a demo set inside basic, grey rooms designed to showcase the movement and control system) or because of the potential they hold. It's good that they give them a chance and some early publicity, but it's also good they don't automatically give them 9/10s just because they were on the cover once. Though I do think they got it wrong as far as Mirror's Edge goes.

Reading this month's AionGuard feature, Edge makes it sounds like it would be a 10 if it could be reviewed now, but it's still miles off and to me it looks like one of those games where the things that seem impressive about it when it's first announced might well have become standard by the time it's released.

[_y_]

GTA IV. No, no, no, no. I really didn't like this. Rockstar need to modernise their game design

I find this slightly incongruous from someone heaping such high praise on the Nintendo classics. I adore Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time and they're undoubtedly part of the videogame canon - but Nintendo have not "modernised their game design". The majority of big first-party Nintendo releases are still centred on the single solution to any given problem: the solutions are elegant and beautiful but they're singular and as such the gameplay dynamic is utterly limited.

What I really want is to be able to do things in games unimagined by the developers when they built it; I want robust systems that allow variation in the approach to solve a problem. I don't want to be forced to go from A to B via C because that's the only solution that's been coded; I want enough possibilities to use all the other letters in the alphabet. I want choice and freedom; by now, I want progress.

[Sketcz]

I think the 1st halo deserved it at the time though.

How? It was a step back compared to just about every other FPS, from the original Half-Life to Goldeneye. Non-destructible surroundings, only two weapons at a time, utterly crap design structure, I mean JESUS people. It's not even an average FPS. It is awful.

[Concrete donkey]

How? It was a step back compared to just about every other FPS, from the original Half-Life to Goldeneye. Non-destructible surroundings, only two weapons at a time, utterly crap design structure, I mean JESUS people. It's not even an average FPS. It is awful.

Only two weapons at a time was mainly regarded as a positive thing. Instead of the gradual cumilation to bigger and better guns against ever increasing odds, Halo forced you to make tactical choices on what to carry by limiting you to two weapons. The shields allowed you to be more daring in combat without worrying about spending the next half hour scavenging for health packs you may or may not have passed earlier. It was a design emulated by many games that followed in the same way games copied Half Life and Goldeneye.

Destructible Terrain is often over rated, and although made a nice feature in games like Red Faction it was not game changing enough to effect how good the game was. To my memory Half-Life didn't feature destructible terrain and Halo predates the Half-Life 2 games.

[Peet]

I don't really give a flying damn about review scores, but I'm so glad they started handing out tens more liberally after the revamp in 2004-ish. Does anyone remember the tenth anniversary issue where they, among other things, like doing ten different (gotta catch em all!) covers, ran an article interviewing industry people about how they felt about receiving perfect ten scores? How far up your arse can you get?

[MattyD]

How? It was a step back compared to just about every other FPS, from the original Half-Life to Goldeneye. Non-destructible surroundings, only two weapons at a time, utterly crap design structure, I mean JESUS people. It's not even an average FPS. It is awful.

Forcing players to make a tactical choice in their weapon loading by letting them carry just two guns was one of the game's more welcome legacies IMO. It got games out of the Doom mentality of each weapon being progressively more destructive and graphically impressive rather than tangibly different or practically useful in some way.

Destructible environs is a pretty superfluous feature in most FPS games since they lack the tactical depth to make it useful. It's only become relevant since cover systems became the norm but even then I can only think of one game where it really matters.

I agree the copy-pasted level design was largely balls but let's be honest, it did emergent scenarios much better than any previous game at the time. Silent Cartographer anyone?

I'm really not a big fan of Halo myself but I don't think anyone can deny either that it was extremely impressive in its day or that it was significant and innovative enough to set the template for nearly all FPS games that came after it.