Vote for SC2!

[Jabber Wookie]

So you're saying that if Valve had actually released some half-assed form of multiplayer to go along with Portal completely separate from its single player, the game would deserve a LOWER score? Sounds pretty fishy to me. If a game deserves a 10/10 and then adds something mediocre, mediocre or not that feature is still a bonus ON TOP OF the 10/10.

Just because SC2 has a single player and a multiplayer doesn't mean both are just as important in determining the game's intrinsic value, or its worth to gaming, and should be weighed equally. I can't begin to imagine what the appropriate split ought to be (50/50, 80/20, 100/0), but the very fact that that this is up for debate puts your grade school math logic to rest.

I completely agree with this. First of all, Starcraft 2's SP isn't even half-assed, it's just mediocre compared to its multiplayer. However, if the game's multiplayer is groundbreaking and phenomenal then its SP shouldn't be weighed equally.

If all aspects should be weighed equally, then Red Dead Redemption deserves a much lower score as its multiplayer is clearly a just-for-fun addition to a game that was primarily meant to be single player. If both were rated equally as many of you are suggesting, then Red Read Redemption's overall rating should plummet cuz its multiplayer is incomparable to Reach, SC2, Black Ops, etc...

That's ridiculous as single player or multiplayer can be simple additions to the primary intentions of a particular game. IMO, Starcraft is primarily a multiplayer game, and therefore it should be judged more so based on that aspect than single player, as should Reach, Black Ops, etc...

And games like Red Dead Redemption should be judged primarily on single player as that is clearly the main portion of the game.

[DemolitionSquid]

If either the mutiplayer or single player portions of a game are going to be half-asses, mediocre, or a just-for-fun feature, than shouldn't that part of the game be scrapped and the effort and resources spent on it better suited to further improving the better part of the game? Single player and multiplayer behave like completely different games and could easily be sold separately as such. If you're going to box them as one then both should be evaluated together as a package.

[spychi]

if the game is designed for the multiplayer, than it should have mp only and rated for it
if the game is designed for both mp and sp it should be rated for both no matter what people say, if you rate the sp only or seperatly, note it in your review
thats a fact, people who think otherwise are biased and they didn't write a damn review in their life

[Louis]

How old are you spychi?

[spychi]

22 years old why do you ask?

[pure.Wasted]

It's a subjective evaluation, not just a mathematical sum of all the aspects that a game could have.

I'm surprised that you can agree with DS after claiming that it's a 'subjective evaluation.' His point is that there's nothing subjective about it. If the game has features X and features Y you're supposed to put the two together and average it out, regardless of the fact that feature X may have been added with a specific goal in mind that ALLOWS it to be half-assed, ie, catering to a minority that would be upset if this feature didn't exist, when the majority doesn't care about it.

If either the mutiplayer or single player portions of a game are going to be half-asses, mediocre, or a just-for-fun feature, than shouldn't that part of the game be scrapped and the effort and resources spent on it better suited to further improving the better part of the game? Single player and multiplayer behave like completely different games and could easily be sold separately as such. If you're going to box them as one then both should be evaluated together as a package.

So Red Dead Redemption is a shitty game because its multiplayer sucks?
So Half-Life 2 was a shitty game because its multiplayer sucked?
So Left 4 Dead was a shitty game because its single player sucked?
So GTA3: SA was a shitty game because its multiplayer sucked?
So Bioshock 2 is a shitty game because its multiplayer sucks?
So all of the Civilization games suck because their multiplayer is an afterthought? How about the Age of Empires series, where some factions made others absolutely unplayable? How about Quake 3 with its mindless duel single player?

And these are just the extreme examples, where one half is at least pretty good, if not friggin' awesome, and the other just straight-up blows. What about all the games where the bad half isn't bad, it's just not as good as some expected -- a la SC2?

[DemolitionSquid]

So Red Dead Redemption is a shitty game because its multiplayer sucks?
So Half-Life 2 was a shitty game because its multiplayer sucked?
So Left 4 Dead was a shitty game because its single player sucked?
So GTA3: SA was a shitty game because its multiplayer sucked?
So Bioshock 2 is a shitty game because its multiplayer sucks?
So all of the Civilization games suck because their multiplayer is an afterthought? How about the Age of Empires series, where some factions made others absolutely unplayable? How about Quake 3 with its mindless duel single player?

And these are just the extreme examples, where one half is at least pretty good, if not friggin' awesome, and the other just straight-up blows. What about all the games where the bad half isn't bad, it's just not as good as some expected -- a la SC2?

As a whole, they are lesser games than they could be.

[pure.Wasted]

As a whole, they are lesser games than they could be.

BioShock is also a lesser game than it could be if the devs had simply taken two years to make up a really friggin' awesome multiplayer mode for it.

That potential is always there. So what now? BioShock doesn't get GOTY because it doesn't have a multiplayer, when a multiplayer for BioShock could have been the greatest thing in the world?

Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[Jabber Wookie]

As a whole, they are lesser games than they could be.

No not at all. Take custom maps in SC2 for example. Many of those are silly games made just for fun. It doesn't take anything away from the time Blizz put into making multiplayer the best e-sport in the world. So should crappy custom maps also lower a rating of SC2? I mean it's a company offering more and more features for the same price of a game that refuses to add these things. Why should they be pentalized for that?

[Perfecttear]

I read rumors that if SC2 wins the whole thing it would get its own show on g4. Would be nice having SC2 on tv. So i hope it wins.