About a week ago, I ranted about Halo's placement on Gamespy's Top 25 most overrated games list. Halo came in at an astounding #10. In their explanation, GameSpy basically went on a tirade about how FPS games can't be fully enjoyed on consoles, the level design was reptitive, and it lacked true Internet multiplayer. I countered by pointing out that Halo was (and still is, in my opinion) the definitive FPS game on any console system. I also argued that the things they held against Halo weren't about the game, rather they were about the limitations the console placed on the game. Instead of focusing on the Xbox Halo experience, GameSpy focused on what was missing from their imaginitive PC Halo experience. If a review site can't focus on what is rather than what could have been, then how are we supposed to interpret their reviews?
I still feel that their Xbox rating of Halo (85/100) was extremely harsh and unfair. It was at that time that I guaranteed a Halo PC review of 95% or higher.
Well, GameSpy has recently changed their rating format from a percentage to stars (probably to give them more leeway in arguing the accuracy of their ratings). In any case, GameSpy has reviewed Halo PC and given it FIVE out of FIVE stars. Their reviewer (who also reviewed Halo Xbox) just about sums it up here:
I was maybe the only reviewer who wasn't totally smitten with Halo when it came out on the Xbox, and I'm sure there are people who would argue it was because I've spent too much time playing PC shooters, and have come to expect things like lightning-fast controls and Internet play. Whatever the reason, I've simply enjoyed Halo on the PC far more than I did on the Xbox -- when everything's clicking, it's the closest I've seen a shooter come to providing perfect combat -- and that's not something I say lightly.In other words, I am biased against FPS games on consoles. Shoot, the title of the article says it all - "The way it was meant to be played."
The review admits that the greatest pitfall of Halo remains: it's somewhat reptitive level design. How this doesn't account for a half-star missing from their rating doesn't add up to me - level design is extremely integral to the FPS experience. He also raves (and I do mean RAVES) about how much better Halo is with a keyboard and mouse combination than a controller. Apparently the Internet multiplayer is also implemented in a first-class fashion. It really bugs me however, that he also glazes over the fact that in order to crank up the features and run in a higher resolution, you'll need a hefty PC. Laughably, he also argues that Halo is the type of game that will make you want to upgrade your PC to play it. Funny how this argument wasn't also used in pointing out that it also made people want to buy Xbox's two years ago!
It's nice to see Halo get the accolades from GameSpy that it's always deserved. It's a fantastic game that deserves a spot amongst the best FPS games ever. The fact that GameSpy can drag Halo's name through the mud one week and then turn around and praise it to high heaven the next merely points out how laughable their overrated list was in the first place. I guess the concept of context is lost on their writers.