Who doesn't care about online gaming??? should it factor into review scores?

being 24 yrs old i really don't have much time for games...but when i do i prefer an immersive single player experience rather than some frantic repetetive death match crud with little kids screaming and what not.

I really want to get into online gaming my little brother plays cod4 multiplayer all freaking day...and i think how the heck can you not get bored of the same old crap....

one thing that bothers me is a game not getting a good review score because it lacks online...as a person who could care less about that aspect it offends my intelligence that a game may get an 9 and up solely based on the multiplayer when i don't even play it and a game that may have a better singleplayer experience will get a lower score just because its weaker in the online area...anybody else bugged by this??

if a game has great multiplayer potential but no online then yes it should factorair_wolf_cubed

I think thats what happened to mp3

[QUOTE="air_wolf_cubed"]if a game has great multiplayer potential but no online then yes it should factorVendettaRed07

I think thats what happened to mp3

[QUOTE="VendettaRed07"]

[QUOTE="air_wolf_cubed"]if a game has great multiplayer potential but no online then yes it should factorair_wolf_cubed

I think thats what happened to mp3

ah i see, I know it is a single player game, i most likely wouldnt have even played online if it had it, but thats all i can think of as to why it got 8.5ed here

There should be 2 separate scores for solo and online.

I don't really care much myself for online play on consoles. I just want a good singleplayer experience, i might still play online every now and then but it's definitely not what will make me buy a game.

A game should be reviewed for what it is, not what it could be. If a game ships with no multiplayer, then it should be reviewed strictly as a single player experience, regardless of whether you think it should have multiplayer or not.BZSIN

I agree...but i mean geez ...once you've played one fps mp...you've played them all honestly

i want to see online mp be a bit more innovative than repetetive shooting deathmatches...

how about a friggen powerstone remake or something with like 12 fighters in an arena where you can even balance it with projectile objects...now that sounds like fun...

A game should be rewarded for good online but not penalised for the lack of it.locopatho

This has to go case-by-case though....I mean if Halo 3 was annnounced w/o multiplayer then it definitely should have been docked for it.

A game should be rewarded for good online but not penalised for the lack of it.locopatho

This I like.

The only people that don't like online are non competitive people. Talking trash is part of competition people need to realize that. If you have a problem with it your not a competitive person.

Now racism and just being rude shouldn't be done, but the mute button does wonders.

it should absolutely factor into scoringMikeE21286

It depends on the game. If IGN gave Oblivion an 8.8 because it didn't have multi-player I'd be scratching my head.

There should be 2 separate scores for solo and online.

I don't really care much myself for online play on consoles. I just want a good singleplayer experience, i might still play online every now and then but it's definitely not what will make me buy a game.

Tykain

The only people that don't like online are non competitive people. Talking trash is part of competition people need to realize that. If you have a problem with it your not a competitive person.

Now racism and just being rude shouldn't be done, but the mute button does wonders.

too_much_eslim

I've been doing sports competitively for most of my life and talking trash has never been part of competition. And i'm a very competitive person myself, but don't like online on consoles much.

There are some PC games i really like to play online every now and then tho.

[QUOTE="MikeE21286"]it should absolutely factor into scoringVoodooGamer

It depends on the game. If IGN gave Oblivion an 8.8 because it didn't have multi-player I'd be scratching my head.

well the expectations of RPGs multiplayer component are so little that it didn't hurt it's score.

The only people that don't like online are non competitive people. Talking trash is part of competition people need to realize that. If you have a problem with it your not a competitive person.

Now racism and just being rude shouldn't be done, but the mute button does wonders.

too_much_eslim

Now this isnt necessarily true. Im a pretty competetive person (really cant stand losing in anything), but online doesnt appeal to me much. Personally, I've always prefered local multiplayer with friends, family, and others. Going to tournaments. Things like that. The environment of competing against someone right next to me.

Not docking online of course. It's a wonderful feature for those who enjoy. Just not my cup of tea.

To answer the thread, I'll just echo what others have said and say that a game should be judge on what's there already, not what you think should be there. This is especially true if the game is otherwise high quality and really well made.

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"]

The only people that don't like online are non competitive people. Talking trash is part of competition people need to realize that. If you have a problem with it your not a competitive person.

Now racism and just being rude shouldn't be done, but the mute button does wonders.

aldez17

Now this isnt necessarily true. Im a pretty competetive person (really cant stand losing in anything), but online doesnt appeal to me much. Personally, I've always prefered local multiplayer with friends, family, and others. Going to tournaments. Things like that. The environment of competing against someone right next to me.

Not docking online of course. It's a wonderful feature for those who enjoy. Just not my cup of tea.

To answer the thread, I'll just echo what others have said and say that a game should be judge on what's there already, not what you think should be there. This is especially true if the game is otherwise high quality and really well made.

i agree completely with this ...i like the more personal feeling of beating someone in front of you or someone you have a rivalry with...tournaments feel livelier...it also feels like your playing for nothing online sure you can be good get a good rank or something but its not like it gets you girls or something because your good online on cod4...maybe if they had regional type torunaments or rankings like for different cities counties or states it might feel like your playing for something...

There should be 2 separate scores for solo and online.

Tykain

I agree. Not everyone cares about online. No game should have points docked for not having online. But if it does it should be included in a seperate game.

Unless it is an online game itself.

I think they need seperate scores (online and SP), because some people prefer SP or don't have online, and others only care about the online play.Saturos3091

Or you could just read the review and see why the reviewer gave it the score that he/she did if you're not interested in one aspect or the other.

A game haveing online simply means that its okay for it to be short. Online adds to the general entertainment value.

if a game is long enough it doesn't need online thats what i think

I don't think a game should be taken away points for not having online...But if it does have online then it should have points taken away or added based on the online.

It not like a person does not know if a game has online before he or she buys it. So it should not be a factor.

That being said I all most never play any games online. Which is why I stopped paying for live.

It should definitely factor into the game because it is a big part of the game. To ignore the 100+ hour online segment to focus solely on the 5 hour single player game, then to say "this game is not worth the money" is ridiculous.

I understand that you have a very specific taste in games TC, but the reviews are not meant to cater to individual tastes, they're meant to look at everything that a game offers and review it based on that. I've seen people in the exact opposite position as you, saying that CoD4 shouldn't have its score pulled down by the single player experience because it is a multiplayer focused game.

Depends on the type of game. RPG's for example obviously shouldn't be deducted points for not having multiplayer but in shooters for example I think they should play a much larger role.ganon546

[QUOTE="BZSIN"]A game should be reviewed for what it is, not what it could be. If a game ships with no multiplayer, then it should be reviewed strictly as a single player experience, regardless of whether you think it should have multiplayer or not.slystallion26

I agree...but i mean geez ...once you've played one fps mp...you've played them all honestly

i want to see online mp be a bit more innovative than repetetive shooting deathmatches...

how about a friggen powerstone remake or something with like 12 fighters in an arena where you can even balance it with projectile objects...now that sounds like fun...

but thats like saying geez that football is boring, youve seen one match youve seen them all, all they do is kick a ball from 1 person to another for 90 min.

[QUOTE="air_wolf_cubed"][QUOTE="VendettaRed07"]

[QUOTE="air_wolf_cubed"]if a game has great multiplayer potential but no online then yes it should factorVendettaRed07

I think thats what happened to mp3

ah i see, I know it is a single player game, i most likely wouldnt have even played online if it had it, but thats all i can think of as to why it got 8.5ed here

Yeah, pretty sad MP3 only got a 8.5 here. It is a AAA game. Personally, I think games with MP should have 2 scores. One that reflects it as a single player experience, and one that takes into account that it has MP added in. Why not?

If a game was designed, advertised and sold as a single player game, then I don't think reviewers should mark it down because it doesn't have online. Not everyone wants online, and online done badly is worse than not having online at all.

It should depend on the game. Games like MGS4 shouldnt be critisized for the online because it was added as ana afterthought. Also the two score idea is pretty good.

A game should be rewarded for good online but not penalised for the lack of it.locopatho

i agree...

To me online play is like the extras on a dvd. They're there, but I doubt I'll use them. I don't care that I have 14 hours bonus material, I care about the movie. It's the movie/single player experience that should be the focus of the review. Not everyone that buys a game can/will play online. I have a Wii and a 360 and a wireless network. The Wii isn't compatable with my router and I don't feel like buying a new one or repeatedly changing settings, I really don't want to run wires through my livingroom or pay for the adapter for my 360.

I think reviews should be from the single player perspective after all that's the way that everyone gets to play the game. Online and MP in general can add value to the game. Would Halo3 or CoD4 be as highly rated based on their SP components? It's not like there've never been SP fps before to base a comparison on. Or have developers gotten lazy about a SP mode, making short generic games, but with tons on online replayability?

[QUOTE="BZSIN"]A game should be reviewed for what it is, not what it could be. If a game ships with no multiplayer, then it should be reviewed strictly as a single player experience, regardless of whether you think it should have multiplayer or not.slystallion26

I agree...but i mean geez ...once you've played one fps mp...you've played them all honestly

i want to see online mp be a bit more innovative than repetetive shooting deathmatches...

how about a friggen powerstone remake or something with like 12 fighters in an arena where you can even balance it with projectile objects...now that sounds like fun...

First off, I agree with everyone who brought up 2 seperate scores. I have been waiting for this for a long time. Some games are clearly designed for one or the other. Some people obviously prefer one over the other.

TC, I had to reply to you however because I hate to see you generalize online MP as just repetitve shooting deathmatches. Glancing at your gamercard and score, it doesn't look like you've really tried much else.

I recently had a lot of fun with Soul Calibur, I've got a friend who keeps telling me how fun Civilization Revolution is online. Hell, one of my favorite MP games on 360 is still UNO.

Why don't you try out some different genres before you decide you don't like the experience?

A game should be rewarded for good online but not penalised for the lack of it.locopatho

Yup. I hate when a game that feels way more like a single player game and then the devs add a MP mode just for the sake of it. The thing is its mainly the industry fault that this happens. With the reviewers docking points when a game doesn't have MP mode when it doesn't really scream for one in the first place. I think thats why they added MP in condemned 2. Whiched sucked,but I bet some reviewers would have said "well it doesint have online MP so it loses some points there" its like WTF not all games need MP.

Solution to this thread:

Gamespot need to break down the scores so we can know for example, how many scores have been rewarded for the online play.

It should factor in the score because it adds value to the game. As some have mentioned a role-playing game not having online shouldn't be docked points however a FPS or even an action game (like God Of War or even Star Wars Force Unleashed) should all have online in some way....if not you are left with a 8-10 hr game with little to no replay value. In those cases it should be docked points if it makes sense to have online available.

I still can't believe the Wii version of Star Wars Foce Unleashed gets the online but the PS3/X360 version doesn't? WTH were the devs thinking making that decision. I could care less about online because I don't have time to play it but maybe they should have seen old games like Jedi Academy or even Star Wars Galaxies (the old pre-CU Jedi's in that game were kick arse fun to fight)

I can't see any reason why there shouldn't be two separate scores.
I mean, I don't care about multiplayer, so I'd prefer to know just how good the singleplayer is.

I still can't believe the Wii version of Star Wars Foce Unleashed gets the online but the PS3/X360 version doesn't? WTH were the devs thinking making that decision.

darthogre

That's probably the consequence of using the ridiculous physics/molecular matter engines - the consoles probably aren't powerful enough to handle multiple people blasting very complicated things around at the same time.

Should be like the old days lol. I bought mgs4, so the score should reflect that of the sp, Mp is an additional componant of the game. MP is just that, an extra bonus that comes with the game. To many games now a days are just putting so much into the online aspect that the sp is suffering from it. Prolly what happen to Halo. Games like UT and such well when you get that game you know what to expect. But if I bought mgs4 and the sp sucked and the online was awesome I would feel cheated. Cause I've enjoyed the others and the story enough and that was the reason I bought the game.

Take for instance BF:bc, everyone knows that the BF series has always been Online only, so should reviewers deduct cause the story was lousy? No, cause a person should know that the game is built around its online. So no games that are looking for that SP experience should be rated as so, while the online aspect of that game is just an extra bonus.

After all of that though I still say there is no reason to put out a crappy SP game if you put it in there though. But most people can live with a crappy mp aspect if the Sp is awesome.

A game should be rewarded for good online but not penalised for the lack of it.locopatho

Thats pretty much how I feel. I mean think about. They didn't try to make an online multiplayer, so why get criticism for it? Thats like lowering an FPS's score because it has no RPG elements. Just because other games have it, it doesn't mean it should be REQUIRED.