HF Retro Game of the Year - 2004 - San Andreas Wins!

[MayDay]

SimCity 4 & Rise of Nations dominated the year for me, gaming-wise.

Agree SimCity 4 should be on the 2003 list.

The last good entry in a great franchise.

 

[Ceremony]

Add Rayman 3, Stuntman, Simpsons Hit & Run and Jak II for next time. And Sands of Time, if you're weird. Anyone who votes for Beyond Good and Evil should have their video games taken away, or be made to play it again.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Really? All the Tony Hawk's after THPS3 couldn't live up to how good it was. Skate 2 is the only skateboarding game in the same ballpark as THPS3 to me.

THPS4 was great as well. Had the best soundtrack IMO and the amount of content was great.

 

[The Nuge]

Really? All the Tony Hawk's after THPS3 couldn't live up to how good it was. Skate 2 is the only skateboarding game in the same ballpark as THPS3 to me.

I guess they’re fairly subjective. That was just the consensus amongst my friends. Underground is miles ahead of any other TH game for me. I’d also put THPS 2 and 4 above 3. I agree with you about Skate 2 though. It’s my #2 overall as well

 

[Big McLargehuge]

I’d say add Tony Hawk’s Underground. Best skateboarding game of all time, and one of the few games I liked in 03

THPS4 was great as well. Had the best soundtrack IMO and the amount of content was great.

Anything other than THPS2 nostalgia is poser nostalgia

 

[The Nuge]

Anything other than THPS2 nostalgia is poser nostalgia

See above . It’s in my top 3 for sure

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Anything other than THPS2 nostalgia is poser nostalgia

I only played the first 4. They were all really good. My order goes THPS (first one that basically created the genre) > THPS 4 > THPS 2 > THPS 3, but the difference in quality between each one is so marginal it doesn't even really matter.

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

The first two THPS games > all the others. Especially THPS 2

Fight me.

 

[Osprey]

Eh fair enough. You might be giving the reviewers a bit too much credit though, given how bad the gaming industry has become in terms of professionalism and impartiality for reviews.

In that case, the 95 critic score for the Xbox version should be taken with a grain of salt.

They're statistically not a good way to measure reception. We know that surveys which rely on self-reporting/volunteering to gain respondents are inherently flawed, because the people who are most likely to respond ones who feel most strongly about something, and those who feel strongly about something are more likely to be angry people. In particular, the hardcore PC gaming crowd tends to get very angry about certain issues. This was even worse in the mid-2000s when PC gaming was declining significantly in sales. Halo 2's PC reception really has nothing to do with how good the game is and everything to do with how it wasn't a good port technically, and how MS was using it to encourage switch over to Vista among gamers.

You argue that user reviews are, technically, not a good way to measure reception, but then you appear to admit that Halo 2's PC reception wasn't the best. What's your basis for that if it's not the user reviews that you just implied were not trustworthy?

The circumstances of its release did hurt the PC reception of Halo 2, but to say that those are the only reasons why it wasn't received well is jumping to conclusions. Even without those circumstances, Halo 2 likely would not have been received as well on PC as on Xbox, simply because PC gamers tend to have different tastes and expectations, especially when it comes to shooters, and especially back in the 2000s, when the genre was mature on PC and in only its infancy on consoles. As many people have said in this thread, Halo 2 was revolutionary because it managed to make shooters work on consoles. Naturally, it wouldn't have been revolutionary on PC, where shooters had been working for 10 years already, so I'm not sure why it's being argued that the circumstances of its PC release are the only reasons why it didn't succeed as well there.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

In that case, the 95 critic score for the Xbox version should be taken with a grain of salt.

I meant that the reviewers actually played both versions of the game. Of course most of them played the XBox one, it was one of the biggest and most enjoyable games released in 2004. If anything, having played it twice just hammered home the lack of features since they'd already played the original. Besides, my points on the lower PC scores are more objective than yours - you're assuming things about the reviewers on how they scored the game whereas I'm just paraphrasing their actual reviews.

I find it funny how vocal some of the Halo 2 critics are considering it's been 14 years since the game was released. It's generally regarded as a fantastic game, get over it.

 

[Osprey]

I meant that the reviewers actually played both versions of the game.

I know that you meant that. I was responding to your reason for doubting that, which was "how bad the gaming industry has become in terms of professionalism and impartiality for reviews," which seemed strange since you originally used the reviewers' scores to justify that most people share your opinion of the game. You appealed to the authority of the reviewers and, then, when those same reviewers were used to counter your argument, you questioned their professionalism and impartiality.

I find it funny how vocal some of the Halo 2 critics are considering it's been 14 years since the game was released. It's generally regarded as a fantastic game, get over it.

I haven't really been criticizing the game at all. I've been criticizing your arguments. A PC gamer was merely mentioning things that he didn't like about the game and, seemingly out of the blue, you said that the things that he disliked were "beside the point as Halo 2 is a great game and most would agree with me (see Metacritic - 95 for critics reviews, 82 for users)." Why would you argue like that with a PC gamer and cite reviews of the Xbox version as evidence that he's wrong? You were just asking to be rebutted with the lower PC reviews, which were much more relevant to the discussion with that particular poster, but you responded to those by making excuses for them. If anything, it seems that you're the one not abe to "get over" the fact that it's not considered as fantastic and revolutionary in the PC sphere as it is in the console sphere.

 

[Aladyyn]

I meant that the reviewers actually played both versions of the game. Of course most of them played the XBox one, it was one of the biggest and most enjoyable games released in 2004. If anything, having played it twice just hammered home the lack of features since they'd already played the original. Besides, my points on the lower PC scores are more objective than yours - you're assuming things about the reviewers on how they scored the game whereas I'm just paraphrasing their actual reviews.

I find it funny how vocal some of the Halo 2 critics are considering it's been 14 years since the game was released. It's generally regarded as a fantastic game, get over it.

Sure, but better than HL2 or MGS3? Ehhhhh...

 

[KingBran]

And that's an illogical position, and helps explain why user reviews are not good. You had a gut reaction, and for people who have revisited the ending, the initial reaction was an overreaction. There's a reason that people had significantly different views after Extended Cut, which adds a cut scene which shores up a plot hole (how your teammates were saved at the end), and epilogue slides which explain what happened after. The ending is more or less the same. You have a situation where people go, "yeah, the gameplay is the best in the series, the multiplayer is strangely addicting, and I actually really like the characters and overall sense of urgency and dread. But I hated the ending so 2/10 what a trash game the developers should go kill themselves" (there were plenty of comments pretty close to this after ME3 came out).



They're statistically not a good way to measure reception. We know that surveys which rely on self-reporting/volunteering to gain respondents are inherently flawed, because the people who are most likely to respond ones who feel most strongly about something, and those who feel strongly about something are more likely to be angry people. In particular, the hardcore PC gaming crowd tends to get very angry about certain issues. This was even worse in the mid-2000s when PC gaming was declining significantly in sales. Halo 2's PC reception really has nothing to do with how good the game is and everything to do with how it wasn't a good port technically, and how MS was using it to encourage switch over to Vista among gamers.

Games do have fluid receptions that change over time, but that doesn't make the old reception valid.

You care calling an opinion "illogical".

Look im sorry people peed in your ME3 cherrios (not really) but you are both saying reviews mean everything and don't mean jack at the same time. Talk about "illogical".

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I know that you meant that. I was responding to your reason for doubting that, which was "how bad the gaming industry has become in terms of professionalism and impartiality for reviews," which seemed strange since you originally used the reviewers' scores to justify that most people share your opinion of the game. You appealed to the authority of the reviewers and, then, when those same reviewers were used to counter your argument, you questioned their professionalism and impartiality.



I haven't really been criticizing the game at all. I've been criticizing your arguments. A PC gamer was merely mentioning things that he didn't like about the game and, seemingly out of the blue, you said that the things that he disliked were "beside the point as Halo 2 is a great game and most would agree with me (see Metacritic - 95 for critics reviews, 82 for users)." Why would you argue like that with a PC gamer and cite reviews of the Xbox version as evidence that he's wrong? You were just asking to be rebutted with the lower PC reviews, which were much more relevant to the discussion with that particular poster, but you responded to those by making excuses for them. If anything, it seems that you're the one not abe to "get over" the fact that it's not considered as fantastic and revolutionary in the PC sphere as it is in the console sphere.

It's like you're not reading the main points of my posts. The PC reviews were worse because it wasn't a great port and was delayed in release by 3 years and didn't offer anything new.

The main, original argument is that Halo 2 on XBox is/was a great game. I've offered my opinion on why it was a great game as well as using aggregate critics scores and users scores which reflect that. You can knit pick the PC version but it had issues outside of just being on PC.

 

[syz]

Halo 2's scores are going to be influenced by the things that it does well in a single player capacity. Lots of reviews back then were based on algorithms that were heavily skewed towards games with high production values, which Halo obviously has. It looked good and sounded good and had a fun campaign, so there's most of a MC score already. The actual competitive multiplayer side of the game would make up a small part of any review, and even if it were positive I immediately disregard anything critics have to say about multiplayer anyways. When it comes to shooters or fighting games most of those people seem barely functional, so I'm not surprised that they historically gravitate more towards games with low skill floors like Halo or Mortal Kombat.

Same can be said for user reviews, to be honest. Argumentum ad populum would only be valuable if the popular opinion didn't consistently prove to be so bad when it came to media.

 

[SniperHF]

GTA takes it.

Any further 2003 thoughts? Seems like a pretty scattered year and all the responses have been scattered
Call of Duty

Final Fantasy Tactics Advance

Final Fantasy XI

Fire Emblem

Freelancer

Mario Kart: Double Dash!!

NHL 2004

Prince of Persia: the Sands of Time

Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield

Rise of Nations

SOCOM II: US Navy SEALs

SoulCalibur II

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Commander Clueless]

GTA takes it.

Any further 2003 thoughts? Seems like a pretty scattered year and all the responses have been scattered
Call of Duty

Final Fantasy Tactics Advance

Final Fantasy XI

Fire Emblem

Freelancer

Mario Kart: Double Dash!!

NHL 2004

Prince of Persia: the Sands of Time

Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield

Rise of Nations

SOCOM II: US Navy SEALs

SoulCalibur II

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

It seems Call of Duty has transcended the list.

I knew these votes were friggin' rigged!

 

[MayDay]

GTA takes it.

Any further 2003 thoughts? Seems like a pretty scattered year and all the responses have been scattered
Call of Duty

Final Fantasy Tactics Advance

Final Fantasy XI

Fire Emblem

Freelancer

Mario Kart: Double Dash!!

NHL 2004

Prince of Persia: the Sands of Time

Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield

Rise of Nations

SOCOM II: US Navy SEALs

SoulCalibur II

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Like I said up above, SimCity 4 should be on the list.

The last good entry in an all-time great video game franchise.

 

[S E P H]

San Andreas was like the fourth or fifth of the GTA series bringing nothing except a new city with tedious tasks like weightlifting and having to eat to keep your stamina. Or in other words a rehash game with just new characters. At least I get the concept and creativity of World of Warcraft even if I think those games are a waste of time.

Halo 2 was a revolutionary game which will go down in history as the blueprint in how to make a stellar FPS on the console. In SA, all you got was a lumpy bunch of cities with a ton of empty and boring open space in between.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

San Andreas was like the fourth or fifth of the GTA series bringing nothing except a new city with tedious tasks like weightlifting and having to eat to keep your stamina. Or in other words a rehash game with just new characters. At least I get the concept and creativity of World of Warcraft even if I think those games are a waste of time.

Halo 2 was a revolutionary game which will go down in history as the blueprint in how to make a stellar FPS on the console. In SA, all you got was a lumpy bunch of cities with a ton of empty and boring open space in between.

Sorry Goldeneye for n64 was the first.

WoW was the real revolutionary game on the list.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Goldeneye was a great game (and once you get adjusted to the controls, which is possible contrary to popular opinion, it's still pretty fun) but it didn't have the awesome 2 player coop that halo 2 had

 

[KingBran]

Sorry Goldeneye for n64 was the first.

WoW was the real revolutionary game on the list.

I would say Goldeneye came in saying FPS games can be fun on consoles. Halo / Halo 2 perfected the controls and multiplayer. Games today still use the Halo control scheme, game modes and gameplay. Goldeneye really hasn't stood the test of time but it was revolutionary in its own way.

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

GTA takes it.

Any further 2003 thoughts? Seems like a pretty scattered year and all the responses have been scattered
Call of Duty

Final Fantasy Tactics Advance

Final Fantasy XI

Fire Emblem

Freelancer

Mario Kart: Double Dash!!

NHL 2004

Prince of Persia: the Sands of Time

Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield

Rise of Nations

SOCOM II: US Navy SEALs

SoulCalibur II

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The list needs some Postal 2.

Also we should have an "Other" option that we can choose from here on out.

I mean what if you haven't played any of the games on a year's list? Or what if have a better nomination that's not listed??

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I would say Goldeneye came in saying FPS games can be fun on consoles. Halo / Halo 2 perfected the controls and multiplayer. Games today still use the Halo control scheme, game modes and gameplay. Goldeneye really hasn't stood the test of time but it was revolutionary in its own way.

That's fair. There are a lot of subtle things that Halo established that most FPS have adopted. Regenerating health is one that comes to mind.

 

[SniperHF]

And they've been worse basically ever since for it