Vote for SC2!

[DemolitionSquid]

Don't know how true that is. Portal won a shitton of awards and its multiplayer is a solid 0/10. Clearly people didn't consider it to be a 5/10 title for its 10/10 single-player.

Portal didn't have a multiplayer component to separate the scores. It was evaluated as a single player whole, as it should be. SC2 is both a single player and multiplayer game and both can be evaluated to determine the worth of the game as a whole.

Your straw-logic is pathetic.

[pure.Wasted]

Portal didn't have a multiplayer component to separate the scores. It was evaluated as a single player whole, as it should be. SC2 is both a single player and multiplayer game and both can be evaluated to determine the worth of the game as a whole.

Your straw-logic is pathetic.

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.

[DemolitionSquid]

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.

No, it just means everyone but me is wrong. Their grading systems are flawed.

[Zeraszana]

@Zeraszana
A game with a 10/10 in multiplayer but only a 4/10 in campaign is still only a 7/10 game. It also depends on taste. Personally I love FPS and enjoy the multiplayer in Reach, thus I cannot instantly say even StarCraft 2 multiplayer is the best.

jeah i agree with you i would have loved it if they had actually used the whole decade in between releasing the sequel but hell might as well...i'll wait and see, plus i never played on bnet so i wouldn't know how good the multiplayer is but from what i see here and there i think its pretty well done

Yeah, they still can make the remaining parts great, it's not too late. I just hope they put all the effort and resources this game deserves, as it's not only a multiplayer game. Even if that's considered the most important part of the game, SP is still very important, and is one of SC1's most praised aspects.

jeah, true that, but for me sp is the most important aspect since it IS the story and all that, MP is just money and rep making (my opinion) part of the game, and thus comes in second (yeah, i'm a total pain in the butt when it comes to trivia and crap people usually don't even notice)

[TheEconomist]

No, it just means everyone but me is wrong. Their grading systems are flawed.

Clearly, the only correct grading system is to give even a perfect SP game deserving of a 10 a 5. So sayeth teh Squib.

[Norfindel]

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'm with DS on this. If the game has no multiplayer, but it's not meant to have multiplayer, you can at most substract points for it lacking MP, but you cannot otherwise judge something that isn't there.

Portal is a puzzle game, and was a very smart move in terms of gameplay mechanics. No one had done that before. But the game as it was cannot possibly have MP. If they make a FPS and add the portal mechanics to it, it would be very interesting, however.

Also, it's more natural for a game to lack MP than to lack SP. Historically, many games completely lacked MP, and some games don't have mechanics that lend well to MP. I doubt that if some of that games have a half-assed MP it will substract points, but it won't add any, either.

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

[spychi]

No, it just means everyone but me is wrong. Their grading systems are flawed.

I am right, the game should be rated as a whole, never otherwise, you need rate every aspect of the game and than pull an average of all scores

[SinsWage]

Why would I vote for SC2? IMO it was garbage. I will ignore it to let Blizzard know they dropped the ball.

finally someone actually agrees with me

There you guys go. I made your comments statements of fact rather than wild supposition that everyone feels the way you do and that intelligence is directly related to sharing your opinions.

Bold and bolded words in mine.

[DemolitionSquid]

There you guys go. I made your comments statements of fact rather than wild supposition that everyone feels the way you do and that intelligence is directly related to sharing your opinions.

Bold and bolded words in mine.

I'm surprised you haven't learned by now that my opinion is indeed fact.

Just like Blizzard's opinion that the Mothership should be useless is fact.

[spychi]

There you guys go. I made your comments statements of fact rather than wild supposition that everyone feels the way you do and that intelligence is directly related to sharing your opinions.

Bold and bolded words in mine.

seriously lay off drugs, DS clearly made a point that is a fact, Reach as a whole is alot better than WoL as a whole
and when you vote otherwise in that contest, it's clearly because you are either a fanboy or you are a fanboy that doesn't see reason
I dislike Halo at some point, I didn't play it but I see why it's alot better than WoL
ugh you are such a waste of bandwith