Mediocre Single Player Campaign with Amazing Online.....

Halo 3 had a great single player campaign. I don't know why people whine when people criticize MGS4, yet will turn around and make a silly thread like this. We get it, you don't like Halo 3 because it isn't on the PS3. Go play Haze. You are doing the same thing lemmings do when bashing MGS 4, and it's dumb no matter where it comes from.

Both MGS 4 and Halo 3 are excellent games for different reasons in fact they complement each other quite nicely.

Halo 3 good single player campaign, STELLAR multiplayer

MGS 4, STELLAR single player, multiplayer is a big question mark. All I know is, I will never play it.

Cows and lemmings win. People like me who have both systems:

:D

[QUOTE="TheSeaBehindYou"]

[QUOTE="crunchUK"]halo 3 was nearly 20 on legendary... probably 100 or more with all skulls on. and it is great. really they do have good sungle players, just FPSes get repetivie if they are too long.HAZE-Unit

just 1 question: is halo 3 on legendary with all skulls turned on hard?

:lol: sig worthy.

why is that funny :?

MGS4 can be beaten in two hours and thirty-hour minutes. I've seen it done. The MP definitely isn't something to write home about either. COD4 was short, but was a fun game, you can't take that away from it. The multiplayer on COD4 is godly. The closest thing to compare it to is Counter-Strike on the epic scale.

MGS4 can be beaten in two hours and thirty-hour minutes. I've seen it done. The MP definitely isn't something to write home about either. COD4 was short, but was a fun game, you can't take that away from it. The multiplayer on COD4 is godly. The closest thing to compare it to is Counter-Strike on the epic scale.

MadExponent

What?:lol:

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"][QUOTE="TheSeaBehindYou"]

[QUOTE="crunchUK"]halo 3 was nearly 20 on legendary... probably 100 or more with all skulls on. and it is great. really they do have good sungle players, just FPSes get repetivie if they are too long.lawlessx

just 1 question: is halo 3 on legendary with all skulls turned on hard?

:lol: sig worthy.

why is that funny :?

I've deleted the post and you got me, it was HUGE misunderstanding, I thought he/she was saying is Halo 3 on legendary was turned on hard? his/her post was confusing.

Halo 3 had a great single player campaign. I don't know why people whine when people criticize MGS4, yet will turn around and make a silly thread like this. We get it, you don't like Halo 3 because it isn't on the PS3. Go play Haze. You are doing the same thing lemmings do when bashing MGS 4, and it's dumb no matter where it comes from.

Both MGS 4 and Halo 3 are excellent games for different reasons in fact they complement each other quite nicely.

Halo 3 good single player campaign, STELLAR multiplayer

MGS 4, STELLAR single player, multiplayer is a big question mark. All I know is, I will never play it.

Cows and lemmings win. People like me who have both systems:

:D

heretrix

*facepalm*

[QUOTE="TheSeaBehindYou"]

[QUOTE="crunchUK"]halo 3 was nearly 20 on legendary... probably 100 or more with all skulls on. and it is great. really they do have good sungle players, just FPSes get repetivie if they are too long.user_nat

just 1 question: is halo 3 on legendary with all skulls turned on hard?

According to Bungie 1 month ago, only 2 people have beaten it on legendary with all skulls turned on.

Anyways, thats your opinion TC, what if I think games should be weighed more on multiplayer cause thats were the long term value is?

there you go then. only 2 people in the world have truly completed halo 3 single player. cows=fail. they should release a massive 1000GS achievement for doing it on legendary solo with all skulls on.

[QUOTE="user_nat"][QUOTE="TheSeaBehindYou"]

[QUOTE="crunchUK"]halo 3 was nearly 20 on legendary... probably 100 or more with all skulls on. and it is great. really they do have good sungle players, just FPSes get repetivie if they are too long.TheSeaBehindYou

just 1 question: is halo 3 on legendary with all skulls turned on hard?

According to Bungie 1 month ago, only 2 people have beaten it on legendary with all skulls turned on.

Anyways, thats your opinion TC, what if I think games should be weighed more on multiplayer cause thats were the long term value is?

WHOA WHOA? IS IT TRU, SOURCE PLEX!

From here

"Players who have completed the campaign SLASO (Single-Player Legendary All Skulls On): 2"

*facepalm*W1NGMAN-

This entire thread is a facepalm...at times a deskpalm. Maybe you should think harder before you make your next topic.

[QUOTE="TheSeaBehindYou"][QUOTE="user_nat"][QUOTE="TheSeaBehindYou"]

[QUOTE="crunchUK"]halo 3 was nearly 20 on legendary... probably 100 or more with all skulls on. and it is great. really they do have good sungle players, just FPSes get repetivie if they are too long.user_nat

just 1 question: is halo 3 on legendary with all skulls turned on hard?

According to Bungie 1 month ago, only 2 people have beaten it on legendary with all skulls turned on.

Anyways, thats your opinion TC, what if I think games should be weighed more on multiplayer cause thats were the long term value is?

WHOA WHOA? IS IT TRU, SOURCE PLEX!

From here

"Players who have completed the campaign SLASO (Single-Player Legendary All Skulls On): 2"

wow, all saying halo 3 is easy and short, owned.

I've edit out the two titles people kept b****ing about so that we can focus on the topic on hand. My reasoning for even listing them in the first place was because 1. they are AAA titles here and Secondly they were more known for their mulitplayer player rather then its single player portion.

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]*facepalm*NiTiZ

This entire thread is a facepalm...at times a deskpalm. Maybe you should think harder before you make your next topic.

This entire thread has been a big facepalm because of people like you would rather complain about the games I listed rather then actually talk about the topic.

[QUOTE="NiTiZ"]

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]*facepalm*W1NGMAN-

This entire thread is a facepalm...at times a deskpalm. Maybe you should think harder before you make your next topic.

This entire thread has been a big facepalm because of people like you would rather complain about the games I listed rather then actually talk about the topic.

There was fanboy spin in it, thats why. You listed Halo 3, saying it can be beat in 5 hours. Well so what, so can MGS4, why not list that? It has a short SP AND a medicore online.

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]*facepalm*NiTiZ

This entire thread is a facepalm...at times a deskpalm. Maybe you should think harder before you make your next topic.

I smell something fishy about you, are you JiveT?

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"][QUOTE="NiTiZ"]

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]*facepalm*NiTiZ

This entire thread is a facepalm...at times a deskpalm. Maybe you should think harder before you make your next topic.

This entire thread has been a big facepalm because of people like you would rather complain about the games I listed rather then actually talk about the topic.

There was fanboy spin in it, thats why. You listed Halo 3, saying it can be beat in 5 hours. Well so what, so can MGS4, why not list that? It has a short SP AND a medicore online.

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"][QUOTE="NiTiZ"]

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]*facepalm*NiTiZ

This entire thread is a facepalm...at times a deskpalm. Maybe you should think harder before you make your next topic.

This entire thread has been a big facepalm because of people like you would rather complain about the games I listed rather then actually talk about the topic.

There was fanboy spin in it, thats why. You listed Halo 3, saying it can be beat in 5 hours. Well so what, so can MGS4, why not list that? It has a short SP AND a medicore online.

yeah right, when you can beat h3 legendary all skulls on, pigs can fly, and i didnt see your mom above my house yesterday, i was dreaming!! good job, i think h3 is a bit longer than mg4

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"][QUOTE="NiTiZ"]

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]*facepalm*NiTiZ

This entire thread is a facepalm...at times a deskpalm. Maybe you should think harder before you make your next topic.

This entire thread has been a big facepalm because of people like you would rather complain about the games I listed rather then actually talk about the topic.

There was fanboy spin in it, thats why. You listed Halo 3, saying it can be beat in 5 hours. Well so what, so can MGS4, why not list that? It has a short SP AND a medicore online.

If I wanna try to do something like in MGS4, I think Halo 3 is going to be finished in half an hour, just saying.

[QUOTE="NiTiZ"][QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"][QUOTE="NiTiZ"]

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]*facepalm*heretrix

This entire thread is a facepalm...at times a deskpalm. Maybe you should think harder before you make your next topic.

This entire thread has been a big facepalm because of people like you would rather complain about the games I listed rather then actually talk about the topic.

There was fanboy spin in it, thats why. You listed Halo 3, saying it can be beat in 5 hours. Well so what, so can MGS4, why not list that? It has a short SP AND a medicore online.

LOL OMG are you being serious right now? I edit out Halo 3 since people like you can't handle exclusive games being listed. Oh and sorry that XBL helps my case.

LOL OMG are you being serious right now? I edit out Halo 3 since people like you can't handle exclusive games being listed. Oh and sorry that XBL helps my case.

W1NGMAN-

I own a PS3 and a 360. I also own a PC. What the hell do I care what titles you listed?

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]

LOL OMG are you being serious right now? I edit out Halo 3 since people like you can't handle exclusive games being listed. Oh and sorry that XBL helps my case.

heretrix

I own a PS3 and a 360. I also own a PC. What the hell do I care what titles you listed?

Why do you care? You were one of the first to point out which titles I chose, give it up I'm being honest with you when I say this had nothing to do with trying to bash the 360....

Explain this to me, what other AAA titles from GS could I have possibly listed that would have helped with my agenda? Heck are there any PS3 exclusives I could use that have recieved AAA here or on gamerankings that I could have used?

[QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]

LOL OMG are you being serious right now? I edit out Halo 3 since people like you can't handle exclusive games being listed. Oh and sorry that XBL helps my case.

W1NGMAN-

I own a PS3 and a 360. I also own a PC. What the hell do I care what titles you listed?

Why do you care? You were one of the first to point out which titles I chose, give it up I'm being honest with you when I say this had nothing to do with trying to bash the 360....

Explain this to me, what other AAA titles from GS could I have possibly listed that would have helped with my agenda? Heck are there any PS3 exclusives I could use that have recieved AAA here or on gamerankings that I could have used?

I think it's a weak argument and completely unnecessary. It's just as bad as the people bashing MGS 4.

I dont really buy games for there MP. I buy games so I can be sucked into a story with good character development and be sucked into the players universe.

I find this quote to be funny since in your sig you have 3 games which are very story driven games.

I dont really like single player so im fine with it.epic_pets

So heres my shot at logic-ign the mgs4 length out. It can be beaten in under 2 hours if you dont watch the cutscenes. So if your not watching the cutscenes is that becuz you already played through the game b4? then you add those 2 hours on as additional game play. If you have played the games before your can beat the game quickly because of your experience at least on easier modes but you wouldnt want to becuz of cutscenes. THat leaves people who skip cutscenes but also aren't fans of the series which kindof beg the question as to why they are playing the game and secondly how they got so good at it the first time through. Also most people can't get through the 2 harder modes their first time playing it without dying or killing anyone to get the big boss badge without dying and turning it off without saving and stuff which creates an innaccurate play time. So a person who would be done with mgs4 in 5 or less hours would be a newcomer to the series who is naturally very good at the game but only has an interest in gameplay and skips all movie parts?

in response to the topic i think game can be reviewed seperately from online within the review but can also get an overall score, because you are paying for the online capabilities and the review makes all this clear etc.

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]

LOL OMG are you being serious right now? I edit out Halo 3 since people like you can't handle exclusive games being listed. Oh and sorry that XBL helps my case.

heretrix

I own a PS3 and a 360. I also own a PC. What the hell do I care what titles you listed?

Why do you care? You were one of the first to point out which titles I chose, give it up I'm being honest with you when I say this had nothing to do with trying to bash the 360....

Explain this to me, what other AAA titles from GS could I have possibly listed that would have helped with my agenda? Heck are there any PS3 exclusives I could use that have recieved AAA here or on gamerankings that I could have used?

I think it's a weak argument and completely unnecessary. It's just as bad as the people bashing MGS 4.

Read my entire first post and you'll know why I created the thread. I'm just saying even though I put in 10 days worth of hours into COD4 online it shouldn't have recieved such high scores because I personally think the single player portions of games should effect a games score much more then the online portion because THE SINGLE PLAYER PORTION CAN BE PLAYED BY ANY CONSUMER!

50% of consumers don't play online (well PSN for sure, don't know about XBL), reviews should not only cater to the 50% of consumers that can play online but also the 50% that can't.

I never buy a game unless it has alot of replay value. So EFF the single player, multiplayer is much more important. LagSwitch

[QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]

LOL OMG are you being serious right now? I edit out Halo 3 since people like you can't handle exclusive games being listed. Oh and sorry that XBL helps my case.

W1NGMAN-

I own a PS3 and a 360. I also own a PC. What the hell do I care what titles you listed?

Why do you care? You were one of the first to point out which titles I chose, give it up I'm being honest with you when I say this had nothing to do with trying to bash the 360....

Explain this to me, what other AAA titles from GS could I have possibly listed that would have helped with my agenda? Heck are there any PS3 exclusives I could use that have recieved AAA here or on gamerankings that I could have used?

I think it's a weak argument and completely unnecessary. It's just as bad as the people bashing MGS 4.

50% of consumers don't play online (well PSN for sure, don't know about XBL), reviews should not only cater to the 50% of consumers that can play online but also the 50% that can't.

An excellent game is an excellent game no matter what the barrier to entry is. It sucks that you have to spend money to play games, what about the people who don't want to spend money for their games? Should a game be scored lower because they may not want to play it?

A top shelf multiplayer game with an excellent although short campaign is just fine, as is an excellent single player game with a weak multplayer component. Which was what I said in my original post. Both types of games have their place and their audience.

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]

LOL OMG are you being serious right now? I edit out Halo 3 since people like you can't handle exclusive games being listed. Oh and sorry that XBL helps my case.

heretrix

I own a PS3 and a 360. I also own a PC. What the hell do I care what titles you listed?

Why do you care? You were one of the first to point out which titles I chose, give it up I'm being honest with you when I say this had nothing to do with trying to bash the 360....

Explain this to me, what other AAA titles from GS could I have possibly listed that would have helped with my agenda? Heck are there any PS3 exclusives I could use that have recieved AAA here or on gamerankings that I could have used?

I think it's a weak argument and completely unnecessary. It's just as bad as the people bashing MGS 4.

50% of consumers don't play online (well PSN for sure, don't know about XBL), reviews should not only cater to the 50% of consumers that can play online but also the 50% that can't.

An excellent game is an excellent game no matter what the barrier to entry is. It sucks that you have to spend money to play games, what about the people who don't want to spend money for their games? Should a game be scored lower because they may not want to play it?

A top shelf multiplayer game with an excellent although short campaign is just fine, as is an excellent single player game with a weak multplayer component. Which was what I said in my original post. Both types of games have their place and their audience.

You're example about spending money for their games is horribly flawed, but onto my post:

I want your explanation as to why this is a weak argument, as to me this is probably one of the better arguments that i've seen on system wars lately.

Ask yourself the TC asks you to think about: Would you recommend COD4/gears to a friend if they had no online? Or would you recomend games with more fleshed out single players such as Bioshock, Kameo, Ratchet and Clank, or Mass Effect, all games that got a LOWER rating compared to multiplayer games despite having a WAY more complete single-player mode.

This is what the TC is asking you to think about. Why is it that a games such as COD4 gets a high rating for its good multiplayer yet lacking single player mode, when games designed for single player such as Mass Effect or Bioshock get a lower rating, when their single player is way better than the 9.5 game? To me, that's a double standard, you're letting a good mp game get a high rating, yet not a good sp game.

You're example about spending money for their games is horribly flawed, but onto my post:

I want your explanation as to why this is a weak argument, as to me this is probably one of the better arguments that i've seen on system wars lately.

Ask yourself the TC asks you to think about: Would you recommend COD4/gears to a friend if they had no online? Or would you recomend games with more fleshed out single players such as Bioshock, Kameo, Ratchet and Clank, or Mass Effect, all games that got a LOWER rating compared to multiplayer games despite having a WAY more complete single-player mode.

This is what the TC is asking you to think about. Why is it that a games such as COD4 gets a high rating for its good multiplayer yet lacking single player mode, when games designed for single player such as Mass Effect or Bioshock get a lower rating, when their single player is way better than the 9.5 game? To me, that's a double standard, you're letting a good mp game get a high rating, yet not a good sp game.

ice144

I have clearly stated both are just fine and opposite sides of the same coin.

Also COD 4 has an excellent single player campaign it's just short. Thinking that every game you buy should be 100 hours is moronic. COD 4 is like an action movie and is paced that way. It came with a multiplayer portion of the game that people have been playing FOR MONTHS. Longer than people have been playing most single player long games. I have stated there are audiences for both. I believe I used those exact words too.

As for the TC it's clear to me what he was doing and if he really was above board in all of this he would have included a game like Uncharted, which is short and HAS NO MULTIPLAYER AT ALL.

Did I mention that Uncharted is one of my favorite games last year and I think it's really underrated? How's that for a double standard?

[QUOTE="crunchUK"]halo 3 was nearly 20 on legendary... probably 100 or more with all skulls on. and it is great. really they do have good sungle players, just FPSes get repetivie if they are too long.TheSeaBehindYou

just 1 question: is halo 3 on legendary with all skulls turned on hard?

It is cry worthy.

Think The Library x 1902831

Yeah I hate it when devs sacrifice SP and just add MP. I agree, not everyone has access to online play.

[QUOTE="ice144"]

You're example about spending money for their games is horribly flawed, but onto my post:

I want your explanation as to why this is a weak argument, as to me this is probably one of the better arguments that i've seen on system wars lately.

Ask yourself the TC asks you to think about: Would you recommend COD4/gears to a friend if they had no online? Or would you recomend games with more fleshed out single players such as Bioshock, Kameo, Ratchet and Clank, or Mass Effect, all games that got a LOWER rating compared to multiplayer games despite having a WAY more complete single-player mode.

This is what the TC is asking you to think about. Why is it that a games such as COD4 gets a high rating for its good multiplayer yet lacking single player mode, when games designed for single player such as Mass Effect or Bioshock get a lower rating, when their single player is way better than the 9.5 game? To me, that's a double standard, you're letting a good mp game get a high rating, yet not a good sp game.

heretrix

I have clearly stated both are just fine and opposite sides of the same coin.

Also COD 4 has an excellent single player campaign it's just short. Thinking that every game you buy should be 100 hours is moronic. COD 4 is like an action movie and is paced that way. It came with a multiplayer portion of the game that people have been playing FOR MONTHS. Longer than people have been playing most single player long games. I have stated there are audiences for both. I believe I used those exact words too.

As for the TC it's clear to me what he was doing and if he really was above board in all of this he would have included a game like Uncharted, which is short and HAS NO MULTIPLAYER AT ALL.

Did I mention that Uncharted is one of my favorite games last year and I think it's really underrated? How's that for a double standard?

Hmm, my apologies then, I guess I had interpretated that differently.

With an FPS I would rather them focus on the multiplayer. I just can't imagine a fun FPS no matter how long it is or how awesome the graphics are. COBHC_reaper

Guess you haven't played Halo.

Hmm, my apologies then, I guess I had interpretated that differently.

ice144

:)

I lol'ed at the fact that you had to take gears and halo 3 down.

Anyway amazing helps a game out a lot. Just look at BF2, it doesn't even have single player (well in kinda does, not a real campaign though), and it still got a 9.3. I mean if you want a long and deep campaign you're playing the wrong games here.

I lol'ed at the fact that you had to take gears and halo 3 down.

Anyway amazing helps a game out a lot. Just look at BF2, it doesn't even have single player (well in kinda does, not a real campaign though), and it still got a 9.3. I mean if you want a long and deep campaign you're playing the wrong games here.

Vaasman

[QUOTE="COBHC_reaper"]With an FPS I would rather them focus on the multiplayer. I just can't imagine a fun FPS no matter how long it is or how awesome the graphics are. SpinoRaptor

Guess you haven't played Halo.

Um and lets not forget STALKER. STALKER>Crysis. And most would agree. It was only hindered by its early bugs but now its all good.

I thought Halo 3's single player was fairly mediocre, yet the online was incredible! I only ever played through the campaign once, and i never wanted to do it again, but i played it online pretty much everyday for about 2 months.

I thought Halo 3's single player was fairly mediocre, yet the online was incredible! I only ever played through the campaign once, and i never wanted to do it again, but i played it online pretty much everyday for about 2 months.

SSJ_Nega

I agree about the online. I liked the single player. I thought it was epic and a great conclusion to the series.

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]

Would you guys hate the thought of games being reviewed seperately?! One score given to the single player campaign and another score given to the online play? :o

Honestly as a consumer I would love it, I can click on the COD4 review and see "well the SPC isn't all that great, but hey the online multiplayer is suppose to be freakin sick"

-GhostMLD-

one genral score is easier. Keep it simple.

besides, want to know how the SP and MP play? read the review. They are broken up into paragrapghs u know.

Besides, Warhawk and SOCOM will get AT BEST a 5 out of 10. Thats IF the MP scores a 10. however the SP being 0 each will drag down their overall score. Total ownage.....just stick to one score.

this post doesn't make sense imo, of course games with MP alone won't get >5/10 ratings and vice versa if ever an MP SP type of rating were implemented. But on topic, i agree with TC, i told my friend not to buy cod 4 because his ps3 isnt connected. But not because he can't but he doesn't know how. So i think connecting consoles online is a standard nowadays... And i guess the score a game gets represents it overall value, meaning, all of its features optimized, so i agree that cod 4 gears halo etc get the good scores because of MP alone, because it's not their fault that other people doesn't have an internet connection because its a standard 2day imo.

[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]

Would you guys hate the thought of games being reviewed seperately?! One score given to the single player campaign and another score given to the online play? :o

Honestly as a consumer I would love it, I can click on the COD4 review and see "well the SPC isn't all that great, but hey the online multiplayer is suppose to be freakin sick"

-GhostMLD-

one genral score is easier. Keep it simple.

besides, want to know how the SP and MP play? read the review. They are broken up into paragrapghs u know.

Besides, Warhawk and SOCOM will get AT BEST a 5 out of 10. Thats IF the MP scores a 10. however the SP being 0 each will drag down their overall score. Total ownage.....just stick to one score.

this post doesn't make sense imo, of course games with MP alone won't get >5/10 ratings and vice versa if ever an MP SP type of rating were implemented. But on topic, i agree with TC, i told my friend not to buy cod 4 because his ps3 isnt connected. But not because he can't but he doesn't know how. So i think connecting consoles online is a standard nowadays... And i guess the score a game gets represents it overall value, meaning, all of its features optimized, so i agree that cod 4 gears halo etc get the good scores because of MP alone, because it's not their fault that other people doesn't have an internet connection because its a standard 2day imo.