| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (86)

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 8:07AM foxhound said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As much as I like the point/counter-point (ha ha, kfm reference); you know the more popular, system seller games would only bring out vicious replies from those that don't understand that every game is flawed(which is why I'll never understand how reviewers can give a perfect score)... or readers looking for a reason to bitch about a game they admittedly don't like because it's not appearing on their console/PC.

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 8:07AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I like these nega-reviews.

Sometimes I read them out loud quickly and pretend I'm Yahtzee.

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 8:49AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That is so gay, dude.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 2:35PM DinnyHoon said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Oh thank God, I thought I was the only one!
Reply

Posted: Nov 5th 2007 11:47AM masterinsan0 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Taken out of context, the above two replies are quite hilarious.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 8:11AM foxhound said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
oh, and to answer the last inquiry... In addition to the ones aformentioned; I wouldn't mind seeing one of these for the following upcoming games:

NFS: ProStreet
Uncharted
Kane & Lynch
Haze
Call of Duty 4
Army of Two
WWE SvR08
Nitrobike
NiGHTS
RE:Umbrella Chronicles

...and of course...

MGS4

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 8:20AM bigE said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I love the orange box. But, I do wish Valve would developed a streaming engine, to get rid of the loading pauses. They really do inter up the action.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 8:27AM foxhound said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Glad I'm not the only one catching that hell. I went nuts the first couple of nights thinking it was either one of my programs or the graphics card in my PC.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 8:22AM flit said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't get the point of the nega-review. It's seriously the reason why game reviews are useless, all rolled up into a ball of suck, and then sticking a 1-10 number to it. They don't help gaming, or are funny, or anything. Why bother?

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 8:36AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Because they're after something original?

I agree though. They're not good.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:15AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think a 1-10 score for a game review is quite helpful, it saved me $60 when I was wooed by blue dragon. Sometimes I don't have time, or am too lazy, to read an entire review, and want to just go to multiple sites and read their number. And if you read the post you would have read that these were created to keep the hype of AAA titles in check.

I like these. I already know what's great about a big budget game, it's nice to see everything bad thrown together too.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 2:37PM Rax Dakkar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
One, individual gaming review isn't helpful, but things like metacritic that average the opinions of lots of people can help people get a grasp on a game without playing it. I'll still listen to my friends opinions more so than some stranger writing for a magazine. It also is helpful for a quick glance, like how some people mention that the hype surrounding Blue Dragon was quickly deflated by the lower review scores it got. I'm really looking forward to Mass Effect, but in the unlikley chance that it gets a lot of scores of 6 or less, I'll probably pass.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 8:27AM arrrgh said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
The game doesn't look as good as bio, halo3, or gow? I beg to differ. Maybe it's because i run it on PC at 1920x1200, which none of the consoles is capable of displaying...but it looks right up there with bioshock and the rest from where I'm sitting

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 8:45AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That resolution with everything on full walks over Halo 3 at least. Hell, just put it down to 640p and take off the AA for the Tru(tm) Halo 3 effect.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:00AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, except Orange Box runs at 1080p on the 360. Oops.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:38AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'm inclined to agree. The HL2 environment is just stunning. Sure it might not be as acute as Bioshock, but the war-torn, dismal environment does wonders at conveying a sense of alienation and hopelessness for the human race. For me, HL2 was more immersive than Bioshock.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 10:23AM Vidikron said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ummm... no. Sorry, but as great as HL2 is, it definitely looks dated now. You're on crack if you think it looks as good as a gamelike GoW. And who gives a shit what res you can run it at? That's not going to improve character models or make the engine look less dated.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 12:11PM arrrgh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Vidikron (FU)

you wad, HL2 EP2 has a TON of gfx features that HL2 doesn't have. Sorry you managed to fail pretty hard there. It's not dated in the least.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 8:41AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
RE the TF2 comments.

It IS the most perfect online FPS. It's properly balanced more so than anything else I've played. It's simply leaps and bounds above any console online FPS, it's funnier, better looking and designed to perfection. Shame that the potential only comes through in huge 24 and (hacked) 32 player games that the console versions will never see.

It's a shame that something better than Halo 3 will suffer in the market because of no MS funded hype train.

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:04AM FrankTheCrank said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Half Life 2 is one of the greatest games ever. It blends awesome science fiction with beautiful graphics and stellar control.

For what you get, this Orange Box is the deal of the year.

Now if my Elite 360 gets here soon, I can PLAY!!!
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 10:03AM Vegeta has a ps3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If it was "perfect" it would have more maps, more weapons, a little bit more variety in game modes other than capture the flag and territories.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 10:05AM sand0789 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
On the 360, Halo 3 is easily a better online multiplayer game than TF2. I am basing that on about 30 hours with Halo 3 Team Slayer Matchmaking and 10 hours with TF2 spread across different levels.

There is just so much more you can do right now with Halo 3. I've never owned a game from either franchise, so I wasn't really a fan of either until now, and I am a fan of each. But TF2 is not going to have legs for me.

Pet Peeves with each.

I don't like the engineer class on TF2 because it seems to not require much skill, just a tiny bit of strategy and level familiarity.

I hate people that don't think on Halo 3. I mean, they are good at the game and win one on one's most of the time, but they don't think strategy. One team will camp with swords and everyone from the other team will rush to their deaths repeatedly when they should be spreading out and collecting all the power weapons.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 11:21AM PoisonedAl said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Although the engineer is a crutch for rubbish players, the skilled ones are deadly. While watching a turret whore cower next to your own supply point is annoying, you gotta love the ones with the balls to set up a TP to the front line or deep inside the enemy base.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 8:46AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeh this is stupid. It sounds interesting in concept but taking single sections from many different reviews takes them out of context.

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:10AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Dude, you can't take a quote from a game review out of context. I don't think "It would occasionally stop frame and jitter around like older PC games used to back in the day." could be translated any other way than how it is, nor could any other quote taken from this list.

The context is the orange box, that's all you need to know.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 5:42PM OmegaRed59 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Mischa:
"Dude, you can't take a quote from a game review out of context. I don't think "It would occasionally stop frame and jitter around like older PC games used to back in the day." could be translated any other way than how it is, nor could any other quote taken from this list.

The context is the orange box, that's all you need to know."


OMGWTFBBQ!!!!11.
CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What if your example came from this paragraph:

"This is the best game ever made. If I had to nit pick and choose one negative thing about the game it would have to be a problem that I had one match on a horrible server with a very slow connection. It would occasionally stop frame and jitter around like older PC games used to back in the day. This in no way detracts from the game, so I give it a 100/100."

This is exactly why taking anything out of context is stupid. Including this nega-review crap.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 7:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Omegared

What you said is exactly the point of the nega-review is that the games with such hype behind them already has a bunch of positive things said about them. This is to ground the hype in reality, and it says right in the post "the complaints about Orange Box seemed smaller and altogether more overwhelmed by absolutely glowing positives".

The quote that was taken out of the review was taken out of context, but the point is, we already know what the context is as the rest of these reviews are so positive. This game has been getting 9's and 10's, I don't think Joystiq compiling a bunch of negative one line quotes from a bunch of random reviews somehow wills this game to being anything less than that.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 8:46AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree with you a bit there flit, a studio put all this effort into making an amazing game and then some random guy suddenly feels he has some sort of right to judge it and give it a score.
The way I feel is that the only way to judge a game is to try it for yourself to see if you like it. Don't ignore a game because someone else didn't like it. I mean, what does this article hope to achieve. I know I'm not going to deny myself the experience of this game because I have to wait for a few load screens or that the reviewer had some frame rate issues etc.

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 8:54AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Uh .... I think the reviewers have tried it for themselves and are now opining on the game's overall appeal. No need to read it or comment if it doesn't appeal to your tastes.

To answer your question, this article is simply a gathering of the negative points cited by various reviewers. The very fact that you had to ask "what does this artcile hope to achieve" is indicative of your inability to grasp even the most elementary of concepts. Nice work, braniac.

(only giving you a hard time, dude...)
Reply

Posted: Oct 21st 2007 7:38AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well then what's the point of being allowed to comment if every comment has to be a positive one that suck up to the author. I'm sorry but I as much right to express my opinion here as you have.
Yes the reviewer has played it, that's exactly my point.
He's played it and formed an opinion based on his experience of the game, an experience which could be completely different with someone else.
What I'm saying is to always take reviews, whether they're positive or negative with a pinch of salt and not let it be the deciding factor on whether you play the game or not.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 8:52AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Source is my favorite engine, I guess it's my personal taste that i prefer it to GOW. I think it looks absolutely stunning. I havn't seen these games on a console yet, but I have serious doubts that it's any good on a console.

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 8:57AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I still can't understand what all the hype is about... isn't this just a compilation of stuff they've already put out with some "portal" minigame? Why is there hype at all when it's just a PC game is being ported a couple years later to a console? Aren't two year old ports crap? Why isn't this crap? I seriously don't understand.

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:22AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Because the ONLY old stuff on there is Half-Life 2 and Episode 1. Episode 2, Team Fortress 2, and Portal are all new. Plus, this was simultaneously released for the PC, so it's not a port if you buy the PC version.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:26AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Huh, weird, I coulda sworn TF2 and HL2:Ep2 were out like a couple years ago. My bad. Maybe I'm getting confused because the sequel to HL2 was Episode 1? What is this, Star Wars? ;)
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:38AM SIGDESTRUCTION said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's called episodic content, which, granted, Valve is doing kind of a lousy job making the releases frequent, but it's technically a continuation of Half Life 2, not a sequal. Episode 1 picks up RIGHT where HL2 ends, and the same goes for Episode 2.

And the hype is from the simple fact that Half Life 2 is possibly the greatest FPS ever. The nega-review seems confusing to me, because it seems mostly targeted at the 360 version, which honestly the PC version is the one to play. It gives games like Halo 3 and Gears a run for their money, if not simply for the incredible amount of expression characters have. Complaints about new enemies and weapons is moot, because you wouldn't expect to see a whole new slew of weapons in a game that is episodic. Not enough time passes from episode to episode to warrant brand new enemies and weapons all the time.

And Team Fortress 2 is a million times better on PC, where you can play with large games and (from my experience) litte to zero lag. So go PC if you really want to know what all the hype is about.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:50AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ahh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. The whole Episode 1 thing threw me off.

I played through like half of halflife 2... it looked fantastic on my PC. I wasn't completely sold on the gameplay & story, but hey, a great looking FPS on the PC isn't a terrible thing. I should go back and finish it, then maybe I'd be hyped for the new episodes, too.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:11AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As for the nega review format, I actually like it a lot.

I think much of you are mistaken... the point of the nega review is not to bash a game everyone knows is good, it's just to compile all the little bad things that you might otherwise miss.

Sometimes little niggling things which are glossed over by a reviewer can be a huge problem for an individual, and if you have to read eight reviews to discover that niggle, you may well miss it and then be upset when it bugs the crap out of you in the game.

It's easy to look at the reviews and see all the positives... every review has them (for these critically acclaimed games). This just lets you see all the negatives in one place, and decide if that should sway you versus the positives.

Please, Joystiq, continue with this format, I think it's a much needed resource, and the only ones who criticize it are those who don't understand it.

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:23AM Otimus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What the flipping hell? HL2 stutters on the 360? WHY?
It should be running at 60 FPS, flawlessly. Lazy.. lazy..

Anyways, IMO, the worst parts of The Orange Box are HL2 and TF2.
I've never loved HL2. Shallow story, and drags a lot.
Now, I've finally played Ep. 1, and I'm really liking Ep. 1, mainly because there's a tiny bit of actual character development for a character in it!

Portal is very, very, very fun, and very funny. Even though it's short...

Haven't tackled Ep. 2 yet. But if it follows in the vein of Ep. 2, it could also be very good!

TF2.. I just don't like. It's optionless, bare bones, and way too god damned fast. It's frigging faster than the original UT... and it's a mother-friggin' Cooridor shooter. Hello! 1995 called! It wants it's ideas back!
Balance shmalance. There's few character models. Few maps. Few modes. Few Options. Typical Valve stuff. Throw it out to the market bare bones, get praise from nutty fans, then let the modders and map makers do all your work for you, sniff your cash, then forget the game ever existed.
That's how Valve has treated every single game they've ever made, Aside from the CS games, and their single player games.

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:52AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I was with you until you said HL2 has a shallow story.

Some things are debatable, like gameplay and how "fun" something is and why. But some things aren't debatable.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:25AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree with Nate, I like these things. Keep it up.

Judging from what I've read, I am slightly alarmed at the 360 version of this game. I played through this on a friend's PC and thought it was absolutely brilliant. All of the performance issues like the stuttering framerate, and the sucky load times were not an issue for me, at all.

Also, what was it about the AI getting in the way?? I never had that problem on the PC, I had just the opposite actually. They were always quite useful for me, and as lame as it might sound, I actually grew quite attached to the NPCs (go Barney!). Is the 360 version's AI retardified, or did these reviewers just somehow happen to have a completely different experience than I did? Am I alone on this?

One last thing. TF2 on PC (haven't played it on 360) is A BAJILLION TIMES BETTER than Halo 3 multiplayer. They are completely different games, but seriously, Halo 3 can't hold a candle to TF2 in my opinion, it has so much more personality, and has a better pace. Plus, it forces you to work together infinitely better than any of the Halo games do.

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:25AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
They should have a posi-review for abysmal games. You know, to keep things interesting

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 10:43AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'll second that motion.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 11:41AM Geist said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Big Rigs: Great game, or greatest game?
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:31AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well it seems like a pretty damn good game then. All those reasons are either stupid things to bitch about or could be easily fixed with a patch.

Even if they can't, I avoided pretty much all those issues by getting the PC version :P

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:34AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I share a few of the complains

1) In HL, your teammates are fairly stupid and can often get in the way.
2) TF2 has a severe shortage of maps.
3) Portal is pathetically short.

Aside from those, I'll gladly argue the Orange Box as being one of the best values I've seen in a long time for a purchased game. The HL series is just amazing to me, and its strength lies in VALVe's storytelling. I just completed Ep1 after playing through HL2 again, and am very eager to delve into #2.

Portal, albeit very weak, is a brilliant concept which is superbly executed. Like most people I blasted through this in less than 3 hours (minus challenges), but am excited about the prospect of future maps or mods. The game has potential, and the notion that this gun might show up in a future HL episode thrills me!

TF2 is the real star in this lineup and is a pinnacle multiplayer gaming experience for me. Sure there's a lack of variety in maps, but the few maps it comes with can be extremely fun in the right situation. The game feels very polished, and you can tell VALVe took many steps to balance it and make it an overall enjoyable experience for the general populace.

So yes, there is some criticism to consider when describing Orange Box. But overall VALVe gets my

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:44AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Comments got cutoff in a weird wah, haha. They get my respect. There...that's all I had to say.
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:49AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I dunno if I'd go so far as to say Portal is "weak", but you're right, it is insanely short. The challenge modes do add some replay, but not enough. Really, the best reason to play it again is just to jump to the last level so you can experience the tremendous ending over and over again.

On a side note, it seems like a lot of reviews of the Orange Box really spend more time praising the value of the package than they do the game itself. While certainly it is a tremendous value, that has very little effect on how good the package actually is. Of course, the package is pretty outstanding, but probably not nearly as perfect as everyone says it is.

Here's hoping for DLC in the form of additional TF2 maps. And maybe some more Portal levels? Holy crap that would be tremendous...
Reply

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:45AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm digging the nega-reviews. It's a nice change of pace and kind of refreshing to get the bad stuff all summed up in one place.

As for future games, it's tough to predict outright what's going to be universally praised, but Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Assassin's Creed look to be next in line to earn lots of comments like "OMG COD4 FTW LOL!!!" Which I suppose is, like, the highest praise ever. If you're twelve.

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:46AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
this sounds like a small child whining pointlessly to me. every game has flaws and yes HL2 has been out a while. however i found this review completely pointless.

Posted: Oct 19th 2007 9:57AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm with you on this one.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW