If he's not going to play the multiplayer, what's the bloody point? Of course it's going to be a waste of anyone's money if they don't like multiplayer. It's not even very amusing to watch because I already kriffing know that the single player is going to suck.
Why does Yahtzee review multiplayer focused games?
- Thread starter cdstephens
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I believe that ties in to a point he made awhile back.
Something along the lines of "the single player of games should be able to stand on it's own in addition to the multiplayer." And he's right. I understand if the main focus is multiplayer for games like BF3, but if CoD or Halo can squeeze a decent campaign (imo) into their games what's EA's excuse?
Something along the lines of "the single player of games should be able to stand on it's own in addition to the multiplayer." And he's right. I understand if the main focus is multiplayer for games like BF3, but if CoD or Halo can squeeze a decent campaign (imo) into their games what's EA's excuse?
Because the people speak, and they sometimes want him to review games that are focus on multiplayer.
Also,
Also,
1 - Because there's a certain demand for him to review current and popular games.
2 - Because he's a narcissist who likes pissing on people for his amusement.
3 - What Aeonknight said.
2 - Because he's a narcissist who likes pissing on people for his amusement.
3 - What Aeonknight said.
Not sure what's the fuss about.He reviews a game mostly if not entirely from a single player point of view.You know that.He states that in the review.Lets say he doesn't like it,he bashes the SP,but clearly states the obvious;the game wasn't meant to target Single Players.
So you know his opinion on the SP aspect of the game and can search other places for information about the MP.Where's the issue?
So you know his opinion on the SP aspect of the game and can search other places for information about the MP.Where's the issue?
Because he likes bashing games, and when he does so he is funny. The fact that he is absolutely and completely wrong about Multiplayer doesn't change the entertainment value.
For what its worth, I prefer singe player nearly universally, and by a long shot. Yahtzee is still wrong about a game needing to stand on single player alone. Makes about as much sense as reading 1984 and complaining that it is a terrible book because it's not very funny. How he can in one breath complain about samey, brown shooters multiplying like flies, and in the next breath say that all shooters need to conform to a narrow standard of design philosophy is beyond me.
For what its worth, I prefer singe player nearly universally, and by a long shot. Yahtzee is still wrong about a game needing to stand on single player alone. Makes about as much sense as reading 1984 and complaining that it is a terrible book because it's not very funny. How he can in one breath complain about samey, brown shooters multiplying like flies, and in the next breath say that all shooters need to conform to a narrow standard of design philosophy is beyond me.
Because we watch him to see him rip on games and many super big popular games seem to have a heavy multiplayer focus, and we want him to review the popular games. I think that sums it up.
He gets paid by the Escapist to review popular games, or so I thought. Most of the biggest games are multiplayer. It's not his fault split-screen is dying out. As his earlier reviews have stated, he prefers playing multiplayer when the people he's playing with are in slapping distance. Besides, I thought he made a good point this week when he mentioned Dice stating that BF3's single player is just as substantial as the multiplayer.
The general principle is, if a game offers a single-player component and promotes it as a key feature, then by all means it should make sure that the single-player is good. It's an aspect of the game, and thereby subject to criticism. A criticism of the melee combat in an RPG is not invalidated because somebody points out that the ranged attacks work better, assuming that they're supposed to be equivilant.
Personally with generic shooters like BF3 and CoD I think they should just take out the single player altogether and focus solely on the multiplayer. EA made the choice of making a big deal out of their crap campaign because that's what CoD is doing, and they are paying for it.Aeonknight said:
Of course you get the problem of gameplay becoming repetitive because there's no narrative plot device behind any of the matches you play, which might be a problem for some people. But I mean, people play BF and CoD for the multiplayer mostly, so they obviously don't mind...the games would still be huge hits if they dropped the single player, used the money to work on multiplayer, and dropped the price a little bit.
It just doesn't seem fair to only focus on a game's faults because you don't like the parts that are good out of personal taste. It's like only doing a review of the rogue class in Dragon Age because you don't like playing as mages out of personal preference...it paints a misleading view of the game. It's worse in this case because the vast majority of people don't give a damn about the single player. Does that excuse it from having bad single player? No. But it doesn't excuse Yahtzee from focusing on one minor component of the game.
And yes, I got that EA claimed that the single player was important. But who in their right mind listens to what EA has to say anymore?
Exactly. EA should be honest with themselves and their clients - the Battlefield series is a multiplayer franchise and they should drop the single player campaign entirely. It has been done before. Team Fortress and Unreal Tournament come to mind, where the only singleplayer modes are matches with bots.Hal10k said:
I honestly believe its a good thing. If a game is going to have a single player, it should be able to stand up for review just like the multiplayer. If its not going to be worth while to play, or suck to play, why put it in?
You do realize there are people like me who buy these games for the single player. I love shooters and I'm always on the look-out for a quality single player campaign.
The role of the reviewer (or critic if you want to pick nits) is to give *his/her* opinion of a game and to provide context for that opinion. If you're not a horror fan that doesn't mean you can't review the latest Friday The 13th movie, it just means you need to be upfront and honest about this not being your bag... then you can tear it apart with a clean conscience. Horror fans know to ignore your opinion, while still providing a useful opinion for non-horror fans... namely, this isn't going to change your opinion about the genre.
These companies spend a lot of time and money making a single player campaign and if it's shit, then I want more reviewers out there saying "this is shit"... because if they think it's shit and they don't say "this is shit", then they're not doing their job.
The role of the reviewer (or critic if you want to pick nits) is to give *his/her* opinion of a game and to provide context for that opinion. If you're not a horror fan that doesn't mean you can't review the latest Friday The 13th movie, it just means you need to be upfront and honest about this not being your bag... then you can tear it apart with a clean conscience. Horror fans know to ignore your opinion, while still providing a useful opinion for non-horror fans... namely, this isn't going to change your opinion about the genre.
These companies spend a lot of time and money making a single player campaign and if it's shit, then I want more reviewers out there saying "this is shit"... because if they think it's shit and they don't say "this is shit", then they're not doing their job.
I'll answer your thread title question rather than your post text. Ahem:cdstephens said:
Because he's a game reviewer. The Escapist pays him to review games. He does so, whether he likes the genre or not. See Final Fantasy 13.