Should there be 2 Different ratings for ps3 games... ONLINE and SINGLEPLAYER??

Some of us are mutliplayer gamers...some of us are singleplayer gamers....some are both...

But many games seem to get 1 solid rating... and the ratings points usually seem to be based on the solo campaign....and maybe an extra point for two for multiplayer..

should we see games have to ratings...

example: reddead redemption 9.5/8.3 the first being the single player and the second being the multiplayer rating?

That way players really know what to expect from there game. Reviews usually NIT pick at single player and do a Quick rundown on Multiplayer....

Why not approach a multiplayer review with the same integrity as a solo players?

We do like to know if theres ingame chat ,in game menu navigation quality, multiplayer ENDgame quality (when you max level for example).... whats ur thoughts?

lol I like how you brought your RDR opinion into this thread :P. I see what you mean about having two scores, but no overall I do not like the idea. Some games need MP, some do not. Some games put more emphasis on MP then others (Battlefield and Diablo games to name a couple), and reviewers take this into account. Most good reviewers also flesh out if the SP and MP are good or bad so its not hard to tell if you want to buy a game for one or the other.

lol :) yea i had to slip that into this thread lol....but one of the main reasons why i would like 2 seperate ratings..is because red deads videos reallllllly led people to believe that the Lasso rope and the Texas holdem games would be included in multiplayer. Along with the ability to skin your animals....and the multiplayer looked to be EPic....

But in the end...the multiplayer was an empty paradise of its solo counterpart.

I feel that it is the reviewers responsibility in a way to inform us how in depth the multiplayer or single player is? i feel as though a lot of people were tricked into expecting a lot...

Example: they show a video of a solo player hunting and skinning a bear...then follow it up by saying " YOU CAN HUNT WITH YOUR POSSEE"....and it leaves u with the impressing that SKinning is in the game... :(

No, a game should never get a lower or a higher score just because a multiplayer, when you play a video game you play it for the single player and not the extra bonus of online.

Now for a sperate rating I could see it, but why even waste the energy of doing it? online should just be a luxury and not a demand in a game.

No, a game should never get a lower or a higher score just because a multiplayer, when you play a video game you play it for the single player and not the extra bonus of online.

Now for a sperate rating I could see it, but why even waste tje energy of doing it? online should just be a luxury and not a demand in a game.

Melpoe

What a RIDICULOUS thing to say. Yeah I bought Battlefield for the SP :roll:. Seriously, some games are MP based such as Mario Kart, Battlefield, Modnation Racers, WoW, Diablo II, and more. So no you dont ALWAYS buy games for the SP.

[QUOTE="Melpoe"]

No, a game should never get a lower or a higher score just because a multiplayer, when you play a video game you play it for the single player and not the extra bonus of online.

Now for a sperate rating I could see it, but why even waste tje energy of doing it? online should just be a luxury and not a demand in a game.

NaveedLife

What a RIDICULOUS thing to say. Yeah I bought Battlefield for the SP :roll:. Seriously, some games are MP based such as Mario Kart, Battlefield, Modnation Racers, WoW, Diablo II, and more. So no you dont ALWAYS buy games for the SP.

I bought Bad Company for both, but I loved the SP and would have still purchased it with or without the MP.

I do agree though that certain games games might be obligated to have a MP choice like any war game lol, but a game should not HAVE to have a online feature and no one should NOT purchase a game just because it has no online feature. Now renting a game because maybe it is to short is a different story (Uncharted 1).

Oh and yes I always purchase games for the SP, Online is just an added bonus and I think I feel this way mainly because I never played online on any consoles until I was two years into my Xbox 360. I have played online on Diablo 2 before I bought an 360 but that is different then playing online on a home gaming system.

[QUOTE="Melpoe"]

No, a game should never get a lower or a higher score just because a multiplayer, when you play a video game you play it for the single player and not the extra bonus of online.

Now for a sperate rating I could see it, but why even waste tje energy of doing it? online should just be a luxury and not a demand in a game.

NaveedLife

What a RIDICULOUS thing to say. Yeah I bought Battlefield for the SP :roll:. Seriously, some games are MP based such as Mario Kart, Battlefield, Modnation Racers, WoW, Diablo II, and more. So no you dont ALWAYS buy games for the SP.

I have to agree with you. Some games are clearly multiplayer based even though they have single-player campaigns (insert any recent FPS here). Even though, games shouldn't have two seperate ratings for online and offline play. One single rating sends a clearer message about the game then two seperate ones. I also have to disagree with you saying most games' ratings being based on single-player. Example: Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Clearly both games wouldn't have gotten 9s if they didn't have multiplayer.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think EVERY game should focus primarily on single player and multiplayer is an added extra. However, IF a game is gonna have MP in it, it shouldbe just as amazing as the single player version. An epic, story-driven, high quality game with lots of extras and replay value should ALWAYS be the focus of a game. The fact that people look forward to a game because of the multiplayer just saddens me. And it tells the devs the forget about making a decent SP game and just focus on MP.

Anyways, that was a rant. But I both agree and disagree. If a game with solid SP content gets a good review, it should reflect what the MP should get. With that said, I also think its a bad idea, because nowadays, manypeople buy games strictly because of a good MP, so if people see a bad online MP review, they won't buy it, even if the single player is amazing. Well, thats just my two cents, of course.

i actually think it'll be a great idea, unless the game is online-focused like MAG.

This is how games should be reviewed..... If MP is a bigger part of the game (like COD MW2 or BFBC 2), then the multiplayer gameplay should be the main focus of the review, and it should be graded accordingly. If the game is SP focused with a MP option (like RDR), then more emphasis should be placed on the SP. And ofc, if the game is SP only, it should be graded SP only. There should not be two reviews.... just one score. However, that score should be weighed differently depending on the focus of the game.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think EVERY game should focus primarily on single player and multiplayer is an added extra. However, IF a game is gonna have MP in it, it shouldbe just as amazing as the single player version. An epic, story-driven, high quality game with lots of extras and replay value should ALWAYS be the focus of a game. The fact that people look forward to a game because of the multiplayer just saddens me. And it tells the devs the forget about making a decent SP game and just focus on MP.

Anyways, that was a rant. But I both agree and disagree. If a game with solid SP content gets a good review, it should reflect what the MP should get. With that said, I also think its a bad idea, because nowadays, manypeople buy games strictly because of a good MP, so if people see a bad online MP review, they won't buy it, even if the single player is amazing. Well, thats just my two cents, of course.

KamuiFei

I totally agree with your point about MP. It saddens me also that games are focusing more on MP than SP. For this reason, I don't own any FPS in which the focus is on MP (except Halo: ODST because it came with my 360). I enjoy SP. MP is something that I might play around with, but SP is what I buy the game for.

I wouldn't mind it for, RDR SP 9.5 MP 7.0

[QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

[QUOTE="Melpoe"]

No, a game should never get a lower or a higher score just because a multiplayer, when you play a video game you play it for the single player and not the extra bonus of online.

Now for a sperate rating I could see it, but why even waste tje energy of doing it? online should just be a luxury and not a demand in a game.

What a RIDICULOUS thing to say. Yeah I bought Battlefield for the SP :roll:. Seriously, some games are MP based such as Mario Kart, Battlefield, Modnation Racers, WoW, Diablo II, and more. So no you dont ALWAYS buy games for the SP.

I bought Bad Company for both, but I loved the SP and would have still purchased it with or without the MP.

I do agree though that certain games games might be obligated to have a MP choice like any war game lol, but a game should not HAVE to have a online feature and no one should NOT purchase a game just because it has no online feature. Now renting a game because maybe it is to short is a different story (Uncharted 1).

Oh and yes I always purchase games for the SP, Online is just an added bonus and I think I feel this way mainly because I never played online on any consoles until I was two years into my Xbox 360. I have played online on Diablo 2 before I bought an 360 but that is different then playing online on a home gaming system.

thanks for all the responses all...i read em all and i can see everyones point. But the main thing i wish is for the reviewers to Review games not for the single player and not for the multiplayer...but for BOTh...so that the respected players of each genre can get an honest review of whats to come...

isn't that why we read reviews in the first place?

it hurts to see a game get a very high rating only to find out its multiplayer was bad...

it also hurts to see games get a high rating with poor single players and only a great multiplayer...

games should be reviewed based on the "TOTal package" with Sp and Mp being 50/50 of the weight....or have 2 seperate ratings...

after all... we live in the age of online gaming...?

i just feel that its the reviewers duty to tell us the quality of each. After all....the research we find (in all due respect to the poster above)....IS THE reviews... and most reviews don't shed an even amount of light on the quality of each...

maybe they will mention some things in mp...but they don't go in to great detail..

Example: they won't mention how horrible a lobby is...like in Bad company 2...there are so many different screens to go through just to play with a friend instead of ONE button.

No, a product should be reviewed as a complete product not as a bunch of pieces. Since that is how a person is going to buy it anyway. Sepewrath

All games should be rated for the single player, and I'm sure nearly 100% of gamers are single player people more

I didnt realize how many people prefer single player over multiplayer. I love both but it really shocks me to see the majority of responses support single player over multiplayer...

MMOs are the dominant genres in gaming today IMO...but It seems that not to many games can make a solid multiplayer game on CONSOLES aside from FPS games.

I didnt realize how many people prefer single player over multiplayer. I love both but it really shocks me to see the majority of responses support single player over multiplayer...

MMOs are the dominant genres in gaming today IMO...but It seems that not to many games can make a solid multiplayer game on CONSOLES aside from FPS games.

uso_outkast

anyone who's been gaming since even the PS2 days can see that alot of the time now multiplayer is tacked on and completely unnessesary, a great example of this is Bioshock 2.. when it comes to sacrificing story for MP it shouldn't even be a second guess.. Story and Single Player experiences comes first.. even in shooters you have to have a decent single player to build a great multiplayer component...

Sry bout that. But i meant dominant as in the Longest lasting games that bring in the most money.... example: World of warcraft will still alive...STRONG...and it came out a LONG time ago...

They have monthly fees and there games are usually so deep and finely tuned that it makes other games look sloppy....at times... (in the multiplayer aspect that is.)

and also MMos found a great way to incorporate the SINGle player storyline INTO and ALONG with its multiplayer experience so that the two are COmbined at once.... (i know it doesnt make sense)...

ive had games from sega ps1 snes n64 gamecube wii ps3 xbox xbox360.....and when i went into PC gaming i found out how ELITE the online experience was.

I came back to the console world...and i know the system can handle it....so im suprised there arent more games that incorporate MAssive online gaming.

Everyone likes to play alone...but when you have a lot of friends on your friends list its really cool to play with ALL of them in the same game

I'll take a 12 hour story thats gripping and paced like Heavy Rain than the thousands of hours of cheesy and predictable "storyline" to go with the hundreds of fetch quests and dungeon crawls that MMO's typically offer any day of the week, once again it comes down to a matter of quality vs quantity, and wow is quantity, compare the average WoW quest to almost any other single player RPG mission and you'll find it sorely lacking, the only difference is, WoW has thousands of them..

WoW is a fluke.. there won't be a more successful MMO for at least a dozen years.. and not everyone likes to play.. thats a big part of why MMO's have monthly subscriptions is because 90% of the average gamers (the majority of the market) don't play them and don't want to play them.. average console gamers especially..

I'll take a 12 hour story thats gripping and paced like Heavy Rain than the thousands of hours of cheesy and predictable "storyline" to go with the hundreds of fetch quests and dungeon crawls that MMO's typically offer any day of the week, once again it comes down to a matter of quality vs quantity, and wow is quantity, compare the average WoW quest to almost any other single player RPG mission and you'll find it sorely lacking, the only difference is, WoW has thousands of them..

WoW is a fluke.. there won't be a more successful MMO for at least a dozen years.. and not everyone likes to play.. thats a big part of why MMO's have monthly subscriptions is because 90% of the average gamers (the majority of the market) don't play them and don't want to play them.. average console gamers especially..

PoisoN_Facecam0

and also MMos found a great way to incorporate the SINGle player storyline INTO and ALONG with its multiplayer experience so that the two are COmbined at once.... (i know it doesnt make sense)...

ive had games from sega ps1 snes n64 gamecube wii ps3 xbox xbox360.....and when i went into PC gaming i found out how ELITE the online experience was.

I came back to the console world...and i know the system can handle it....so im suprised there arent more games that incorporate MAssive online gaming.

Everyone likes to play alone...but when you have a lot of friends on your friends list its really cool to play with ALL of them in the same game

uso_outkast

you'll be surprised to know that the biggest MMO shooter ever created on any platform is actually a PS3 exclusive called MAG.

i came from pc gaming too, and i know very well how much of that sense of elitism is just biase and self-deceit. the only thing i'm gonna say to you is.... why come back? return to pc and wow and continue being an ELITE gamer. no one is stopping you, right?

WoW is a fluke.. there won't be a more successful MMO for at least a dozen years.. and not everyone likes to play.. thats a big part of why MMO's have monthly subscriptions is because 90% of the average gamers (the majority of the market) don't play them and don't want to play them.. average console gamers especially..

PoisoN_Facecam0

also i believe that a good portion of those "90% average gamers" have never even EXPERIENCED an MMO....

Example: people were DROOOOLING over REd Dead Redemptions online possee mode....why? because it had MMO elements....a small 16 player online mode

that could have had the elements of MMO to make it ELITE...but it failed at too many things in its multiplayer mode...

[QUOTE="uso_outkast"]

and also MMos found a great way to incorporate the SINGle player storyline INTO and ALONG with its multiplayer experience so that the two are COmbined at once.... (i know it doesnt make sense)...

ive had games from sega ps1 snes n64 gamecube wii ps3 xbox xbox360.....and when i went into PC gaming i found out how ELITE the online experience was.

I came back to the console world...and i know the system can handle it....so im suprised there arent more games that incorporate MAssive online gaming.

Everyone likes to play alone...but when you have a lot of friends on your friends list its really cool to play with ALL of them in the same game

Jinroh_basic

you'll be surprised to know that the biggest MMO shooter ever created on any platform is actually a PS3 exclusive called MAG.

i came from pc gaming too, and i know very well how much of that sense of elitism is just biase and self-deceit. the only thing i'm gonna say to you is.... why come back? return to pc and wow and continue being an ELITE gamer. no one is stopping you, right?

I Love Mag... This isnt about me being an "elite gamer" i just believe that PS3 games should INCORPORATE MMO elements more often LIKE MAG did...(sorry caps)...

This is not about me. Please keep it in context.

Raven Prestige 7 Btw.... but i quit at 250 hours... Mag failed to live up to making new maps fast enough and the population suffered for it.

I don't think it should get 2 different ratings. GS says enough about both in their reviews so I get a good feeling what the game is like both offline and online. And if you know there is a multiplayer in a game you can find enough of it in the review, other reviews and video's.

[QUOTE="PoisoN_Facecam0"]

I'll take a 12 hour story thats gripping and paced like Heavy Rain than the thousands of hours of cheesy and predictable "storyline" to go with the hundreds of fetch quests and dungeon crawls that MMO's typically offer any day of the week, once again it comes down to a matter of quality vs quantity, and wow is quantity, compare the average WoW quest to almost any other single player RPG mission and you'll find it sorely lacking, the only difference is, WoW has thousands of them..

WoW is a fluke.. there won't be a more successful MMO for at least a dozen years.. and not everyone likes to play.. thats a big part of why MMO's have monthly subscriptions is because 90% of the average gamers (the majority of the market) don't play them and don't want to play them.. average console gamers especially..

uso_outkast

[QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

[QUOTE="uso_outkast"]

and also MMos found a great way to incorporate the SINGle player storyline INTO and ALONG with its multiplayer experience so that the two are COmbined at once.... (i know it doesnt make sense)...

ive had games from sega ps1 snes n64 gamecube wii ps3 xbox xbox360.....and when i went into PC gaming i found out how ELITE the online experience was.

I came back to the console world...and i know the system can handle it....so im suprised there arent more games that incorporate MAssive online gaming.

Everyone likes to play alone...but when you have a lot of friends on your friends list its really cool to play with ALL of them in the same game

uso_outkast

you'll be surprised to know that the biggest MMO shooter ever created on any platform is actually a PS3 exclusive called MAG.

i came from pc gaming too, and i know very well how much of that sense of elitism is just biase and self-deceit. the only thing i'm gonna say to you is.... why come back? return to pc and wow and continue being an ELITE gamer. no one is stopping you, right?

I Love Mag... This isnt about me being an "elite gamer" i just believe that PS3 games should INCORPORATE MMO elements more often LIKE MAG did...(sorry caps)...

This is not about me. Please keep it in context.

what context? all i see is your rant about WoW which has nothing to do with PS3. if i wanted to hear this crap i would stick to barren chat. you didn't disguise your system war attempt very well. try harder next time.

[QUOTE="PoisoN_Facecam0"]

WoW is a fluke.. there won't be a more successful MMO for at least a dozen years.. and not everyone likes to play.. thats a big part of why MMO's have monthly subscriptions is because 90% of the average gamers (the majority of the market) don't play them and don't want to play them.. average console gamers especially..

uso_outkast

also i believe that a good portion of those "90% average gamers" have never even EXPERIENCED an MMO....

Example: people were DROOOOLING over REd Dead Redemptions online possee mode....why? because it had MMO elements....a small 16 player online mode

that could have had the elements of MMO to make it ELITE...but it failed at too many things in its multiplayer mode...

[QUOTE="uso_outkast"][QUOTE="PoisoN_Facecam0"]

I'll take a 12 hour story thats gripping and paced like Heavy Rain than the thousands of hours of cheesy and predictable "storyline" to go with the hundreds of fetch quests and dungeon crawls that MMO's typically offer any day of the week, once again it comes down to a matter of quality vs quantity, and wow is quantity, compare the average WoW quest to almost any other single player RPG mission and you'll find it sorely lacking, the only difference is, WoW has thousands of them..

WoW is a fluke.. there won't be a more successful MMO for at least a dozen years.. and not everyone likes to play.. thats a big part of why MMO's have monthly subscriptions is because 90% of the average gamers (the majority of the market) don't play them and don't want to play them.. average console gamers especially..

PoisoN_Facecam0

well this has become a WOW debate ...which went off tangent to my original point....which was that ps3 should incorporate elements from games LIKE wow...and MMOS to improve its ONLINE (sorry caps) play. Some people bought ps3 because of its FREE online and it seems that no game has taken full advantage of it aside from a small handful. MAg is well respected for what theyve done with the 256 shooter.

It is THat same gamble that i wish for other game companies to pursue...try something new like mag. if it crashes and burns so be it...but so many CONsole games are STuck in the same MODes...12 on 12...16 on 16...4 on 4 sports....why not expand the box???? after all....WOW has laid a huge blueprint on what makes multiplayer SUCCEED..

you are right the storyline isnt great but...the reason i got wow involved was for its MULTIPLAYER experience that can be incorporated into Console games....LIKE What MAG did.

please refer to the original post...*sigh*

[QUOTE="Venom_Raptor"]

All games should be rated for the single player, and I'm sure nearly 100% of gamers are single player people more

kyle_360

agreed

[QUOTE="uso_outkast"]

[QUOTE="PoisoN_Facecam0"]

WoW is a fluke.. there won't be a more successful MMO for at least a dozen years.. and not everyone likes to play.. thats a big part of why MMO's have monthly subscriptions is because 90% of the average gamers (the majority of the market) don't play them and don't want to play them.. average console gamers especially..

PoisoN_Facecam0

also i believe that a good portion of those "90% average gamers" have never even EXPERIENCED an MMO....

Example: people were DROOOOLING over REd Dead Redemptions online possee mode....why? because it had MMO elements....a small 16 player online mode

that could have had the elements of MMO to make it ELITE...but it failed at too many things in its multiplayer mode...

mag was a great idea for shooters..they took a gamble on how to revolutionize shooters...sure it wasn't the best but they offered something new to the table... and there are PROs and CONs u can take away from it.

[QUOTE="uso_outkast"]

[QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

you'll be surprised to know that the biggest MMO shooter ever created on any platform is actually a PS3 exclusive called MAG.

i came from pc gaming too, and i know very well how much of that sense of elitism is just biase and self-deceit. the only thing i'm gonna say to you is.... why come back? return to pc and wow and continue being an ELITE gamer. no one is stopping you, right?

Jinroh_basic

I Love Mag... This isnt about me being an "elite gamer" i just believe that PS3 games should INCORPORATE MMO elements more often LIKE MAG did...(sorry caps)...

This is not about me. Please keep it in context.

what context? all i see is your rant about WoW which has nothing to do with PS3. if i wanted to hear this crap i would stick to barren chat. you didn't disguise your system war attempt very well. try harder next time.

LoL at barrens chat...but context...for that please refer to the original post...i created this thread...that was the issue.....wow got involved somewhere later in the thread.

[QUOTE="Venom_Raptor"]

All games should be rated for the single player, and I'm sure nearly 100% of gamers are single player people more

kyle_360

Isn't a review of a game in its completion, multi-player and single-player? Also multi-player will be different for every person. Say i kill everyone every game id feel like its perfect and say high score! Say i lose every game i would say the game is bad and give it a low score.

Dante's Inferno First half 9/10, Second Half 5/10 or just go ahead and say 7/10.

Isn't a review of a game in its completion, multi-player and single-player? Also multi-player will be different for every person. Say i kill everyone every game id feel like its perfect and say high score! Say i lose every game i would say the game is bad and give it a low score.

Dante's Inferno First half 9/10, Second Half 5/10 or just go ahead and say 7/10.

jjivey

I dun feel like games should be reviewed based on the amount of times you win or lose... buuut...i do feel that reviewers should go into deep detail of multiplayer with the same enthusiasm as they do in sp....

They can tell you everything in the world about a SP campaign....

They can glorify the MP modes...deathmatches for example..maps..(in this quote im referring to Fps for example)...

but they wont mention how bad the small things are.... SUCH as not being able to communicate with other squads in BAD COMPANY 2 MP..

or having to go through an ENTIRE cycle of screens JUST to invite a friend to a game...

Or even the difficulty in trying to finds a friends game *COUGH* NO JOIN button for RED DEAD REDEMPTIONS FREE ROAM.... :(

No, a game should never get a lower or a higher score just because a multiplayer, when you play a video game you play it for the single player and not the extra bonus of online.

Now for a sperate rating I could see it, but why even waste the energy of doing it? online should just be a luxury and not a demand in a game.

Melpoe

tbh, playing online should be rated AO, it can be so vulgar on there sometimes with all the swearing and verbal abuse.The_Gaming_Baby

lol i can agree here to an extent because ive heard so many racist and vulgar remarks online that it can be jaw dropping to people not accustomed to that language.

Jumping into the fray...

Personally I prefer offline single-player because it seems like they put more of an effort into it (BioShock) however, the only argument I can give against online having a higher impact in a rating system is that I don't believe a game can be fairly rated if you need to be online and you need other people to play. There are too many variables in that. Whereas a game rated solely on single player, or at least moreso can still be valid a year or two down the line, what of the multiplayer if everyone has abandoned it or the flip side, what if everyone is maxed out and destroys any new players coming in? Now all of a sudden online that was great at release is garbage for anyone new. Or on the very end of the stick, what if someone simply doesn't have online. A game that might get a superb rating because of its' online but has a crappy single player, well they're screwed. I have nothing against online, I do prefer a good single player story, but online creates good replayability. I just don't think it should have as high an emphasis for the reasons I've listed.

That's it, that's all I've got.