affen
Newbie
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
- Messages
- 220
- Reaction score
- 0
As a result of the discussion (HL² discussion board) about the PC Gameplay review, |Jz| mentioned that he (or she) would like to see a seperate rating for singleplayer as multiplayer. I think that might be a good idea, and I want to discuss it with you in this thread.
Compared to the other scores of game mags, PC Gameplay (PCGP) reduced its score to 90% because HL² lacks multiplayer and just offers an update of CS.
This PC Gameplay statement caused a lot of discussion; some people agreed with PCGP to reduce the score (so do I), others don't agree and think that PCGP should have rated it higher since HL² will offer the most impressive singleplayer in FPS history.
Though (in general) reviewers try to be objective in their reviews, review scores have to be seen in their context and rating still depends a bit on the reviewer. I think things might be a bit more clear for everybody if a separate score would be given to singleplayer as to multiplayer. This way people can make out if a game is good depending on their wishes.
Giving a separate score to multiplayer isn't an easy thing to do of course. What makes multiplayer good? Some gamers like fast and brainless action, others like to play in team and love to plan out strategies.
But isn't that the case with a singleplayer game too? There are gamers who just prefer a game where thinking isn't necessary and where they can test the quality of their mouse buttons. But generally, such games (like Serious Sam and Painkiller) get lower scores because they miss a well-worked-out story or because they don't offer innovative gameplay elements.
The same could be done with multiplayer; one could say that an instant-action multiplayer mode should score less than a teambased strategy mode where both cunning and skill make the score.
Another thing about scores is: most mags divide the total score in a rating for gameplay, graphics and sound. I'd prefer if they would divide it in more concrete points, for example: replayability, originality, game music, sound effects, etc. Of course the list can't be too long since it would take too much space to print all those scores, and a long list might not be interesting anymore because of too much detail.
So multiplayer could be added to this list, but because multiplayer nowadays is a very important part of the game, it perhaps deserves the same rating status as singleplayer with a division in gameplay elements, and so on. Of course multiplayer shouldn't be evaluated on graphics anymore since the same engine is used.
How do you see your 'perfect' game rating method? Post your thoughts please!
P.S.: please don't discuss about the PC Gameplay score, I think that has been covered enough in other posts. Please stick to your thoughts about game rating methods.
Compared to the other scores of game mags, PC Gameplay (PCGP) reduced its score to 90% because HL² lacks multiplayer and just offers an update of CS.
This PC Gameplay statement caused a lot of discussion; some people agreed with PCGP to reduce the score (so do I), others don't agree and think that PCGP should have rated it higher since HL² will offer the most impressive singleplayer in FPS history.
Though (in general) reviewers try to be objective in their reviews, review scores have to be seen in their context and rating still depends a bit on the reviewer. I think things might be a bit more clear for everybody if a separate score would be given to singleplayer as to multiplayer. This way people can make out if a game is good depending on their wishes.
Giving a separate score to multiplayer isn't an easy thing to do of course. What makes multiplayer good? Some gamers like fast and brainless action, others like to play in team and love to plan out strategies.
But isn't that the case with a singleplayer game too? There are gamers who just prefer a game where thinking isn't necessary and where they can test the quality of their mouse buttons. But generally, such games (like Serious Sam and Painkiller) get lower scores because they miss a well-worked-out story or because they don't offer innovative gameplay elements.
The same could be done with multiplayer; one could say that an instant-action multiplayer mode should score less than a teambased strategy mode where both cunning and skill make the score.
Another thing about scores is: most mags divide the total score in a rating for gameplay, graphics and sound. I'd prefer if they would divide it in more concrete points, for example: replayability, originality, game music, sound effects, etc. Of course the list can't be too long since it would take too much space to print all those scores, and a long list might not be interesting anymore because of too much detail.
So multiplayer could be added to this list, but because multiplayer nowadays is a very important part of the game, it perhaps deserves the same rating status as singleplayer with a division in gameplay elements, and so on. Of course multiplayer shouldn't be evaluated on graphics anymore since the same engine is used.
How do you see your 'perfect' game rating method? Post your thoughts please!
P.S.: please don't discuss about the PC Gameplay score, I think that has been covered enough in other posts. Please stick to your thoughts about game rating methods.
