EDGE mag 10/10s

[egparadigm]

Another thing people attach to an EDGE 10 is influence (i.e. they successfully predicted it would be influential). But in many cases the games have still to be bettered by the competition. In the case of SM64 it was part of a dying genre.

[Wools]

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.

It was a step forward and I feel you could not be more miss guided.

Where to begin?

I've not played a game that has taken destructible scenery and implemented it successfully. Games that have, like Red Faction, are fun but fairly mediocre games and in no way uses the idea to its advantage. There is no question that a destructible environment will add to a game but considering what games preceded and followed its arrival in 2003, it?s hard for someone to paint Halo with that brush and not criticise every other FPS or indeed videogame released over the past 6 years.

The reasons for the two weapon slot have been explained in previous posts but the design structure has not. Halo gave players a stunning environment to navigate through and the action, if it could be distilled, went thus: The player, using some of the most refined controls seen in a console FPS, entered a large area and had to fight the best Artificial Intelligence yet seen in the console FPS. The large play area afforded the player time to think about what they could do next and the cutting edge AI forced the player to the wall like no other game released. This design, mixed with the ingenious checkpoint system, seamless vehicle combat, seamless Co-Op and balanced weapon set, changed the way FPS?s are played and made forever.

Its importance and brilliance can rarely be overstated and I really could not feel more strongly against your opinion.

[Guts]

Agreed. Calling Halo an awful game is laughable even if you didn't like it yourself.

[Brats]

I can't help but feel people who don't think Half-Life 2 deserves a ten are taking a far too dry, it's-only-another-FPS approach to the game. It's one of the few titles that deserves to be considered as more than 'just' a game because there's so much to admire outside of its mechanical play. It's one of the most well-realised, plausible and just plain chilling dystopias ever created. You can see they've really thought things through from the ground up, so that every last piece of rubbish informs the unspoken narrative and that in turn makes every set-piece and shift in play style seem like it has emerged from the narrative, and not the other way around.

I agree with your point about it being well realised, but I just didn't find much of the game fun. There were too many boring or annoying sections, the level design felt too funneled and the controls (especially swimming and ladders) are a bit janky. It wasn't until the last hour that it really clicked for me.

Although the world is brilliantly realised, I found the actual narrative around Gordon's actions to be completely unbelievable. It took me a while to realise that he had been away for so long because everyone reacted to him like he'd been away for a week. And the fact that he is mute creates real problems with the believabity of the characters around him. Valve should have changed this from the first game, where it didn't matter so much.

It's the total opposite to something like say Gears of War, which has obviously been designed along the lines of "And then we'll have a minecart section, those are SO - RAD, *nods at writer* can you pencil that in for us?" 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.

I agree GOW is contrived, but I'd say both HL games do this too. Ravenholme is clearly the survival horror section. The driving sections are clearly nothing to do with the narrative and are just included 'because they are cool' (even though they are boring) and you'll know exactly when a big enemy will appear because a large crate of rockets and a launcher will be available.

In terms of mise-en-scene, dramatic pacing and clarity of vision there's not a single game that betters it. That makes it necessarily innovative because it did something that nobody else has yet been able to match.

I think the pacing is all over the place. The part where Gordon disappears for a week seems completely unnecessary and yet has to be explained which slows down the action. The early scene in the sewers with it's rubbish swimming and physics puzzles is a complete anti-climax after the brilliant sequence where the citadel opens up. And the vehicle sections are too long and too full of stop-start moments to unlock some gate or build a ramp. That's not good pacing at all.

HL2 has many qualities, some of which are still unsurpassed. But pacing, story, level design, consistency and fun ain't it's strongest points imo. I could never understand the 10/10 score either.

[Brats]

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.

From memory, that's pretty much what Edge said - it's about the creation and if you get into that, you'll love it. However for many people that just doesn't rock their boat.

I was surprised that in the Giant Bomb podcast, it didn't even make their top ten of the year. Their comments were that it was a very worthy game, but it just didn't do it for them.

[Darwock]

Best response to that is Consolevania's well made point about people who don't 'get' LBP -

**** YE'S.

(oh dear, I got censored. If you want to know the hidden word you'll have to watch the show lol)

[noobish hat]

Gotta say, I hate Halo too. What a pile of old arse. You cannot make a fps with no weapons and no ammo. Or with the worst ****ing level design I've ever seen in my life. I must have spent hours on the games just wandering around either a. looking for some goddamn ammo, or b. trying to figure out where the ass I'm supposed to go because every part of the level looks identical. So yeah, it's a misrepresentation to call it a fps if half the time I can't ****ing shoot anything! Limiting the player to only two weapons may make the game more strategic, but it doesn't make it fun. And since when did fps need to be strategic anyway? I think Bungie were thinking of strategy games. Strategy games.

[Champloo]

Gotta say, I hate Halo too. What a pile of old arse. You cannot make a fps with no weapons and no ammo. Or with the worst ****ing level design I've ever seen in my life. I must have spent hours on the games just wandering around either a. looking for some goddamn ammo, or b. trying to figure out where the ass I'm supposed to go because every part of the level looks identical. So yeah, it's a misrepresentation to call it a fps if half the time I can't ****ing shoot anything! Limiting the player to only two weapons may make the game more strategic, but it doesn't make it fun. And since when did fps need to be strategic anyway? I think Bungie were thinking of strategy games. Strategy games.

I don't remember ever having a problem with ammo at all in Halo. You obviously aren't very good.

[Guts]

Gotta say, I hate Halo too. What a pile of old arse. You cannot make a fps with no weapons and no ammo. Or with the worst ****ing level design I've ever seen in my life. I must have spent hours on the games just wandering around either a. looking for some goddamn ammo, or b. trying to figure out where the ass I'm supposed to go because every part of the level looks identical. So yeah, it's a misrepresentation to call it a fps if half the time I can't ****ing shoot anything! Limiting the player to only two weapons may make the game more strategic, but it doesn't make it fun. And since when did fps need to be strategic anyway? I think Bungie were thinking of strategy games. Strategy games.

Umm. Almost every Covenant alien in the game carries a weapon that you can pick up and use if you run out of ammo for your human weapons (and I don't even remember having THAT much trouble with the ammo even on second highest difficulty). The levels were hardly mazes either, granted that some indoor areas looked all the same but even then there usually was two ways to go, forward and back.

Sometimes the game's "faults" might have something to do with the person sitting in front of the TV.

[noobish hat]

yes. or the **** inside it.

[Guts]

yes. or the **** inside it.

Well, having **** inside your TV certainly can't be good. I recommend some Ajax.

[smouty]

Sometimes the game's "faults" might have something to do with the person sitting in front of the TV.

Looking at the previous comments I have to agree.
I'm not the greatest gamer and I never had a problem in Halo like those mentioned.
Regarding the Edge scores I'm a bit of a barometer as far as 10/10s go as most of the games on the list are about the only ones I have finished.

[Rick]

Too much text in this thread.

All i will say is this. To me the reasons games like halo/GTA/Mario get 10/10 is because they are yardstick games which at the time are the best the genre has to offer and will be influential in all future titles in that Genre. Bearing that in mind, i don't see why The orange box or LBP are on the list.

[noobish hat]

that's not really true, because at least in the case of halo, the best example of the genre was goldeneye (or maybe perfect dark) and it still is in fact. Also nobody has made a better rpg than final fantasy vii way back in 1997, so why isn't that on there with a 10/10. What the ass have developers been doing since then? I'll tell you, they've been looking back at the best selling game of the entire franchise and saying "let's look at what features made this game popular... and then not include them in any future games we make".

[Guts]

that's not really true, because at least in the case of halo, the best example of the genre was goldeneye (or maybe perfect dark) and it still is in fact. Also nobody has made a better rpg than final fantasy vii way back in 1997, so why isn't that on there with a 10/10. What the ass have developers been doing since then? I'll tell you, they've been looking back at the best selling game of the entire franchise and saying "let's look at what features made this game popular... and then not include them in any future games we make".

So GoldenEye 007 and Final Fantasy VII are and always will be the pinnacle of FPS/JRPG evolution?

GoldenEye hardly was a perfect game even though it was a masterpiece in it's time. Neither was FFVII.

In GoldenEye enemies couldn't see you if there was a two feet fence between you, infact they could only see Bond when there was nothing in front of their line of sight. I'd say Halo did improve atleast that.