Nerds on the Rocks takes a look at the idea of separating reviews of the single player and multiplayer component of a game. With recent games like Uncharted 3 and Battlefield 3, does the review give the full picture?
Personally, I'm all for this idea. A seperate score for single-player, multiplayer and then a score for what the reviewer thinks of how the whole package ties together. Count me onboard
That what I was thinking.
I've always thought this for years.It's nice to see other people feel the same way.
Many sites already review multi and single player separately.
This is somewhat off topic, but I think it would be interesting if in some games you could buy the different components seperately.I'm not getting MW3, but if they sold the local multiplayer seperately online for a cheap price, I might buy it. Besides, there are plenty of people who only play online in games like cod and bf.
Why world they do that when 20 million people bought blackops and probably only a quarter did the sp.
True they would lose money that way. The people like myself who would buy wouldn't be enough to profit from doing that. Oh well, I sure wish it could happen...
The big problem I see is these reviews are less analytical and more about the general opinion. I do not want to read a review about someone's opinion but a less bias, more objective view of a game which, sadly, few publications achieve. On the topic in question a different score is a good idea. Some games fall for one aspect which some reviews ignore because the aspect they like is excellent. It also gives a clearer picture for people buying the game. Basically the review system in general is flawed. Too much opinion not enough analytical view on things.
How do you suppose an "objective" video game review would work exactly? I mean even within the category of things like graphics and game play, opinions will vary. So its not like you can say.. the shooting is a 5/10.. because what's the baseline for the shooting? Or graphics? What do you say is a 10/10 in graphics and a 1/10... do you put more value into the technical achievement or the artistic... do you combine then.. then artistic I feel is slightly more subjective... And it becomes a mess
I agree 100% with this comment ^^^^^
Well metacrtic was the main factor for game makers started to add multiplayer because stupid reveiewers were docking points for no multiplayer. This was huge years ago so these sites docking for single or multiplayer is stupid because when you leave one out they dock points also.
Uncharted Singleplayer = 10/10 Uncharted Multiplayer = 6or7/10
BF3 MP 10/10 BF3 SP 6 or 7/10
good question, the thing is some games are entirely about the multiplayer and the campaign is an after-thought, and in some games is the opposite, so what can you do. I think that the real problem is reviews with numbers or grades, a good review should just focus in talking about the game, its strengths and weaknesses and not put out any score, i know is a very ingrained thing in the culture, movies do it as well, and it doesn't work for movies either, it doesn't mean anything.
While I agree that numbers and scores don't always contribute positively to a review, I think that the general problem stems from how the public comes to understand these scores. For instance, on a scale of 1-10, 5 would be average, but the way that games are graded now, many people would likely consider a 7 to be average. Perhaps the solution lies with using a smaller scale so as to make for more concrete scores with little to no room for misinterpretation.
nope, i say no scores, it is not a sport, simpe as that, if i make a list of all the games i enjoyed that reviewers gave it an average review, and the worst part a lot of people buy games based on that
Yes it should. I feel most reviewers that gave UC3 a perfect score didnt factor the multiplayer into the full game that much.. I know the single player is the best thing about UC3 but multiplayer has a larger role in the game.. Especially since ND expanded their audience. However, BF3 got criticized for its campaign... even though multiplayer is what BF3 is all about.
See, I disagree with part of that notion. While I assume a vast majority of people buy Battlefield for its multiplayer component, what of the handful who honestly will buy it for the single player or the co-op with a friend. I mean I guess for a better example... before HomeFront came out.. would you focus the review on the single player or the multi-player? How do you determine what will be important in that game before its out?
I don't think it should. when I'm buying a game, I'm not buying it for multiplayer only nor am I buying it for single player only. I'm buying a complete package. I would like them to review both parts of the game in detail and explain the pros and cons of both. that way I can sort of judge which part il be spending more time on. instead what we get are half assed reviews that focus on bitching and moaning about irrelevant crap. trying to dock points because of their biased-ness and fanboyism. we get more comparisons than anything else. I just think reviewers need to be more aware of what they are meant to do. if they taking the time to write a review, do a complete job. I mean, if I'm taking the time to read it, surely it should have info in it to make want to buy a game for what it is or skip it coz its not in my taste or even make me try it out if I'm borderline.
no. u should review a game-a product, not the gameplay. might as well review the audio seperately.
I though paragraphs existed for something. Oh but wait a minute you guys dont READ the reviews just want scores...
good point, but no... its sad enough people review and compare demo's, because they dont enjoy there job at taco bell enough!
No. Developers hope and pray that their generic multiplayer that no one will play for more than a few days will look like it adds more value to a game, thereby distracting its consumers from the 5 hour single-player campaign.
If people actually read the freaking review or watched the video review instead of just relying on the score, we wouldn't even need this article, though reviews sometimes include spoilers and that's a huge problem for me...
Singleplayer and Multiplayer are different experiences...so yes,it would be nice to have seperate reviews for each
In other news only 18.6% have completed CoD Black Ops about the same numbers for BF3 http://n4g.com/news/879565/... SP, CoOp and MP are very different It would be very interesting to see a full replay of single full BF3 Rush game. As one example take the James Bond BF3 moment http://www.youtube.com/watc... Wouldn't that make a great SP mission to get variation? But would it fit in SP? Would reviewers like it? Sometimes I don't understand what reviewers want from SP... * Replay value I have not rewatched Hurt Locker and it got six Oscars! And I even have it on Bluray... * Free roaming, do anything you want * Great AI - it should feel like you play against humans... To me it sounds like reviewers of SP really would like it to be like MP, but why not play MP then?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.