Robot Monkey Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 I would also like to see the online aspects of a game addressed separately, and NOT being online-compatible isn't a worthy criticism of a game Allen made the above comment in another thread, and I thought it merited discussion here. My feeling is that it is indeed a valid criticism of a game in certain contexts. I don't think it would be a valid criticism of a game like Metal Gear, Resident Evil or KOTOR, but other games cry out for multiplayer. In some cases, I believe online play goes to the heart of the game's value -- like Midtown Madness 3, Time Splitters 2 or Freaky Flyers. Am I alone here? -j Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whooter Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 You're not alone. The fact that the new Worms game doesn't support online multiplayer boggles the mind... And I think KOTOR would kick ass as a multiplayer game, too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bryan Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 edit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romier S Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 It most definitley is a worhy criticism of a game but as was mentioned its determined on a game by game basis. Surely no one can tell me with a straight face that the Playstation 2 or GC version of Ghost Recon should be reviewed in the same breath as the Xbox game. I find it a difficult proposition that someone would want both games to be compared without a single criticism being lobbed at the PS2 and GC versions for lack of online play. It is for the most part a defining characteristic of the series and both games should be taken to task for not including said features across the board, regardless of background machinations between developers/publishers and console manufacturers. However in the same regard its silly as hell IMHO to criticize a game such as Splinter Cell, Metal Gear, KOTOR for lack of online play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark E Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 Game developers need to decide if a project has online multiplayer possibilities and either go for it wholeheartedly or leave it alone. I had a huge response killed by a network crash, but this sums up my thoughts very well on multiplayer, plus to agree with what Jay said about it applying to certain games more than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starhawk Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 Mario Kart: DD comes to mind, but that's a whole 'nother thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyN Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 Worms isnt online @#%#@$^#@^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamsappel Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 Nope, you're all wrong. As always, liberally distribute "IMO" and smilies in the below. A game "cries out" for multi-player? Sure, many games would be a lot of fun played online, but to disparage a game because it doesn't have that mode is silly. Not buying it for that reason is another matter. Why do certain games get a pass on this criticism? Brute Force got a lot of negative press since it had been rumored to be online (and did cry out for it, since I found it to be pretty boring single-player), but faulting a game for what it doesn't have (and you thought it should) isn't valid. Surely no one can tell me with a straight face that the Playstation 2 or GC version of Ghost Recon should be reviewed in the same breath as the Xbox game. I find it a difficult proposition that someone would want both games to be compared without a single criticism being lobbed at the PS2 and GC versions for lack of online play. It is for the most part a defining characteristic of the series and both games should be taken to task for not including said features across the board, regardless of background machinations between developers/publishers and console manufacturers. Is Ghost Recon a good single-player game? Is it a good online game? I want to know both things, but you only need mention the online part in the review of the compatible system's title. Is every GameCube game going to be criticized for lack of modem support? In the other thread I said I wanted to know the best version of the game, but first tell me if the game is good on the console you're playing it on, then you can tell me that the other console's version is better and if online/progressive scan/5.1/whathaveyou makes it so, and I'll decide what's important to me. NFS:HP2 is a shitty game on the GameCube, end of discussion, and is a great game on the PS2. I want to know the merits of the game irrespective of the console. "Are the graphics of Splinter Cell on PS2/GC great?", not "Are they as good as on the Xbox?" Surely we're all tired of seeing "Why isn't Game X coming to the Xbox, it would be so much better!" Does online add value? Of course. I've yet to play the single-player of RTCW and I'm perfectly happy, but I hear the single-player is still a good game. I'm more worried about developers designing good online modes and letting the single-player suffer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robot Monkey Posted August 27, 2003 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 Originally posted by adamsappel@Aug 27 2003, 02:50 PM I'm more worried about developers designing good online modes and letting the single-player suffer. That's an understandable concern and one that I share. I think, however, that my original contention still stands -- criticizing a game for not having online features can be valid. It's true that not every game demands it or even benefits from it. Still, online features becoming more and more a part of the developer's arsenal. Not putting in these features is very much a reasonable criticism. If might analogize: I can review a sedan -- great in every other way -- and criticize it for its lack of split-folding rear seats. I can even put it up in the summary box under "Lows". Why? Because the technology is widely available. I can criticize its lack of folding seats because it is expected in the market segment / cars in general / cars at this price or because consumers expect it and will be disappointed to see the absence. None of this detracts from my assessment of, say, the car's sporting abilities. Instead, my criticism serves to warn people to whom this is purchasing factor as well as to put the manufacturers/auto industry on notice that consumers expect these features. -j Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelley Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 Originally posted by CaptDS9E@Aug 27 2003, 12:18 PM Worms isnt online @#%#@$^#@^ Thats what I thought also Capt. when I found out. I can say I would have bought Freaky Flyers on release date if it had online support, but now I will wait until it hits the bargain bins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ktulu Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 criticizing a game for not having online features can be valid. But it shoudnt take away from the offline qualities of a game. The fact that a game has excellent solo game play but would also be excellent to play online shouldnt result in a negative judgement on the game overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlot Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 One can most definetely critisize games for lack of online play. I won't rehash prime examples already used though. Unlike graphics, sound, widescreen support, etc..., online play enables a rewarding expeirence in different degrees of difficulty. It takes imperfect AI out of the equation and adds a true human element to the game. It sets the stage for true competition. It let's friends engage in mutliplayer games even though they are miles apart. The technology is there, so why would you not add such a great feature to a game? It's sad that Nintendo hasn't entered the online arena. I seriously think it won't happen till the next console for them, but hopefully I'm wrong. It's unfortunate though, that 3rd parties don't create more online games for it. Sure, Nintendo probably prefers to have something like LIVE, that's well organized, rather than leaving it up to the 3rd parites. Without that type of network, it's no surprise then that games like F-Zero & Mario Kart won't see online play. But that won't stop me from purchasing them. There are games though, that I would never purchase unless they had online. RTCW, MM3, any sports game, and one day, fighting games (I think DOA Online will be the cause for that). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romier S Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 Is Ghost Recon a good single-player game? Is it a good online game? I want to know both things, but you only need mention the online part in the review of the compatible system's title. "Are the graphics of Splinter Cell on PS2/GC great?", not "Are they as good as on the Xbox?" Surely we're all tired of seeing "Why isn't Game X coming to the Xbox, it would be so much better!" Ah but in your own words Allen: I like a review to tell me not just that a game is good or bad, but to compare it to other games in that genre. Sure, SCII is great, but how does it rate against VF4:E? In the case of a multi-console game, which version is best and why? So which is it? Would you like honest comparisons between multi-console games letting you know which version is truly better? Or should multi-console comparisons, including lack of online modes, not count? Your contradicting yourself here. Ghost Recon on the Xbox should be compared to Ghost Recon on the PS2 and GC and in that comparison there should be mention of the the latter two not having an online mode. For that criticism is completely merited. Plain and simple. Any gamer wants the most bang for their buck and if I'm reviewing a multi-console title, which for all intents and purposes offers identical single player content, yet one of which has online play, its very easy to see which title will be recommended as the best for your money. Should those other version be reviewed on their merits? Sure, no argument there but their shortcomings should also be brought to light when there is a better product out there. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ktulu Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 The technology is there, so why would you not add such a great feature to a game? Would you prefer that developers compromise the single player game in order to fit multiplayer in? Or how bout comprimising both aspects of the game? In a perfect world developers would have time to create an excellent solo player game as well as a great multiplayer game but we all know this isnt a perfect world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlot Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 Originally posted by Ktulu@Aug 27 2003, 03:11 PM The technology is there, so why would you not add such a great feature to a game? Would you prefer that developers compromise the single player game in order to fit multiplayer in? Or how bout comprimising both aspects of the game? In a perfect world developers would have time to create an excellent solo player game as well as a great multiplayer game but we all know this isnt a perfect world RTCW and MM3 are two prime examples where single player is lacking, but multiplayer is not. However, no, I would not want any compromises. What I wouldn't mind, is waiting longer for the game, rather than having an unfinished product... something that seems to happen a bit too much because of the bean counters. Then again, in sports games I could give a rats ass about Franchise modes. One or two season will do it for me. I'd rather that time be spent on the mutliplayer expeirence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Monkey Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 Is it fair to criticize a game for not having offline multiplayer? Can you imagine the slams and bad reviews if F-Zero and Mario Kart had no way of playing with more than one player? There are games that I would buy with online multiplayer, and won't likely buy without. Racing, sports, and FPS titles are going to have to REALLY sell me hard if they don't have an online mode. It doesn't mean I think they are bad games, but it does mean that I think they are lacking something that is becoming expected...just like a go-kart game is expected to have offline multiplayer. And I think that's fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robot Monkey Posted August 27, 2003 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 Originally posted by Ktulu@Aug 27 2003, 04:11 PM Would you prefer that developers compromise the single player game in order to fit multiplayer in? Or how bout comprimising both aspects of the game? Well, obviously I want it all. But that's not reality. There are many reasons why online features might be left out. Remember, I argue that some titles can be validly criticized for lacking these features, not all. Putting that aside, what are the other reasons for not including online features? Well, there's the compromise you mentioned. It could be about time (which is money), money, staffing, resources, or technical expertise limitations. So people are forced to make compromises. Big deal. As long as we are talking about something you pay for (or hell, even art), it is more than valid to discuss those compromises and even criticize that those compromises were made. -j Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamsappel Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 Would you like honest comparisons between multi-console games letting you know which version is truly better? Or should multi-console comparisons, including lack of online modes, not count? Your contradicting yourself here. Yep, I want honest comparisons. Saying the online mode is a great feature is perfectly fine. Saying the other console version is shit because it doesn't have it, isn't. Appels to appels. If online or not is the only distinction a reviewer can make between versions, he's not doing a very good job. Not everyone has or wants three consoles, broadband and Live. IGN eviscerates the GameCube Ghost Recon and never mentions lack of online. Criticizing GameCube titles for not having online play or EA for not supporting Xbox Live is going to get a bit tiresome. Why not also criticize Xbox games for not supporting GBA-connectivity? This thread grew out of a "what do you want in a review?" poll. I want unbiased review(er)s who don't tell gamers not to bother with Game X because their version is "merely" single-player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romier S Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 If online or not is the only distinction a reviewer can make between versions, he's not doing a very good job. Not everyone has or wants three consoles, broadband and Live. Well of course not. That goes without saying and no where did I say that said games should not be judged on their merit (in fact I do very much believe that they should) but your on the other side of the extreme saying "BAH! These things (ie online play) shouldn't even be taken into account at all!" which is just as absolutely silly. I agree said game should not be labelled as shit for not including online play (especially if the single player game is compelling) but that is something that should be mentioned and examined in a true review. Why not also criticize Xbox games for not supporting GBA-connectivity? A counterpoint to your own words, apples to oranges. The Xbox has never touted as having such connectivity while Nintendo took the time to release a broadband and 56k modem which as of yet has almost ZERO use. Lets keep things in perspective here. IGN eviscerates the GameCube Ghost Recon and never mentions lack of online. Is that right? From the IGN review: And there's even a two-player cooperative mode that goes beyond the gratuitous deathmatch scenario to allow players to attack a single mission together. Considering the lack of online support in this Cube port (a feature the game was built around in its PC and Xbox renditions), it's a fine addition for those who can manage to look past the game's many frustrations and shortcomings in the process. The did their jobs well, they gave the game a less than wanting review for a myriad of single player technical problems. Highlighted the fact that the game was in fact built around online play in its previous incarnations. Highlighting that such mode is not found in this version while letting the gamer know there is an alternative to that with the two player co-op game which is one of the games saving graces. I apologize but I see little problem with what was done in this review. What you seem to have a problem with is a review that somehow discounts EA games because they are not on Xbox Live (ie fanboyish nonsense) which (again goes without saying) has no place in a review to begin with. However mentioning that the Playstation 2 version of said EA game does indeed include online support and may be a better money expenditure, I don't see a problem with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robot Monkey Posted August 28, 2003 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 Appels to appels I understand where you are coming from. But I think you are reacting to real or perceived (real, IMHO) deficiencies in reviewing done by less careful people. I think, as a general proposition, the lack of online features can be a valid criticism of a game. Again, context is king. I understand that other reviewers may have focused to keenly on online play -- but that doesn't mean the general proposition is invalid. You mention that "if online or not is the only distinction a reviewer can make between versions, he's not doing a very good job." Not true. Imagine MM3 was a cross-platofrm title and only online on the XBox. Wouldn't that distinction be valid a critical to the final assessment as to the game's value? Finally, I want to thank everyone (especially LCVG's owners and Allen for his grace and good humor here) for doing the impossible. I don't know of another place where we could have this discussion like reasonable, mature people. -j Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamsappel Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 I mentioned the Xbox-GBA as an example of similarly flawed arguments like the lack of online GC titles and EA games not on Live. Right now, all three things are equally improbable. I see online play as a bonus feature, not a requirement, and demoting a game for not having it seems disengenuous, even if it does exist online elsewhere. Should every Xbox game receive demerits for not being Live or having downloadable content, since the technology is there? I liked that IGN review and thought they did a good job. I hadn't noticed the brief mention of online, but I don't read that as really slamming the GC for not having it. The IGN review of the PS2 version is terrible, as he mostly laments all that it doesn't have from the PC version (though he doesn't care about lack of online, the dumbass). I have no problem with praising Madden on PS2 for being online, but dismissing the Xbox and GameCube versions for not having it is no help at all. Likewise is dismissing the PS2 version because of a preference for Live gaming. If it's not coming across in my comments, I'm actually quite enjoying the discussion. No need to parse my words or assume I'm criticizing anyone. I have high hopes and dreams for LCVG's reviews and don't think fanboyish sentiments will show up. You asked what I wanted from a review and I obliged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romier S Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 If it's not coming across in my comments, I'm actually quite enjoying the discussion Sure! Same here. Thats all I've seen it as Allen. Please I hope you take no offense to anything since I pretty took it as us debating here . I definitely agree with some of your sentiments and this is fascinating stuff to be truthful cause in the end this is the feedback I was looking for. To make the reviews on this site that much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyN Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 I dont think all games should have online play. Thats just silly. However there are some games that should have online play as the game is meant to have lots of people play. For example as mentioned above Worms. Worms is a game meant to be played with other people. Its a natural choice for online play. Hell even Trivial Pursuit is going online. Someone being on Monopoly :-) The thing that bothers me the most is companies who announce online play for a game and then pull back on it later on. I think we can all agree on that one. As for reviews. A game should not be judged bad because you cant play it online. However it should be mentioned in a review. capt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 RTCW and MM3 are two prime examples where single player is lacking, but multiplayer is not. I acutally enjoyed the single player RTCW game. I probably wouldn't have bought it if it didn't have online multiplayer. It doesn't have offline multiplayer split-screen, & that Does deserve some criticism. While I also believe that not every game needs to be online (believe me, I still want that one-player experience) - I do think that NOT having online play can hurt a title. And that will be more the norm as online play grows into the masses. I love SOCOM. But I wouldn't have bought it if it didn't have online play. Right now - multiplayer gaming has my gaming attention ( and most of my gaming dollars) - so if they want my cash - that is becoming more of a requirement to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 I mentioned the Xbox-GBA as an example of similarly flawed arguments like the lack of online GC titles and EA games not on Live. Right now, all three things are equally improbable. It is entirely possible for GC and EA XBox titles to be online, but they aren't due to circumstance. It is not possible for XBox games to use GBA connectivity (you might was well start complaining that the XBox game doesn't work on a Gamecube). Let's take Madden for XBox for examply. In sports games, online play is something that is becoming to be an expectation, just like league and player licenses, franchise modes, and all the other fancy options included in todays game. If you compare Maddens cross platform, the XBox version is usually rated the highest in most categories, but the PS2 version has a trump in it's online play. For many, that is a HUGE factor. If you compare the other Football games on the same console, the closest competitors, also have online play. You HAVE to criticize the XB version of Madden for excluding a feature that the other games of the same type, and even the same game on other platforms. Of course we know that the EA games aren't going to have online play, but that doesn't mean you just ignore it. I see the lack of online play in a game that demands it, to be no different from graphics, gameplay, or any other features that are to be expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.