Vote for SC2!

[TheEconomist]

DSquid is the same person who admitted that StarCraft was a 7/10 because it was lower than his expectations while Mass Effect was a 9 because he had no previous expectations.
You cannot rationalize with DSquid or Spychi (aka Ferrous Cranous)

[Norfindel]

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.

When he says:

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.

i take that as "Portal has no multiplayer. Wasn't intended to have one, so it was evaluated as a single player game". To me that's part of a subjective interpretation of the game. It isn't the same to have a game like Portal without multiplayer than an RTS without multiplayer. It's understandable why Portal didn't have it, but nowadays who's going to buy an RTS without MP? With a mathematical approach, Portal had no MP, so even if it's SP is 10, as MP is 0, that would average to 5.

Of course, i may have misinterpreted him.

[DemolitionSquid]

Of course, i may have misinterpreted him.

You did not.

[TheEconomist]

Norfindel gives you too much credit.

[pure.Wasted]

When he says:


i take that as "Portal has no multiplayer. Wasn't intended to have one, so it was evaluated as a single player game". To me that's part of a subjective interpretation of the game. It isn't the same to have a game like Portal without multiplayer than an RTS without multiplayer. It's understandable why Portal didn't have it, but nowadays who's going to buy an RTS without MP? With a mathematical approach, Portal had no MP, so even if it's SP is 10, as MP is 0, that would average to 5.

Of course, i may have misinterpreted him.

Care to comment on the list of games I drew up a few posts back?

I guess Red Dead Redemption deserves a 3/10.

[spychi]

You cannot rationalize with DSquid or Spychi (aka Ferrous Cranous)

you disagree with everything I have to say or DS without having a valid reason or point, it looks like you are the Ferrous Cranous

[Norfindel]

Care to comment on the list of games I drew up a few posts back?

I guess Red Dead Redemption deserves a 3/10.

I only played the SP of Half-life 2, so cannot comment on the MP.
Civilization, i seen my brother play it, and almost fall asleep.
Never liked the "Age of" series. After playing SC they're boring.
Quake 3 losses some points for really not having a SP, it's just a predefined MP against the CPU that loads a map after another, while all it's predecessors had SP. It's very dynamic for MP, however. I prefer the DooM series.

[TheEconomist]

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

To a certain extent, yes, if other games in the genre have set the standard that it should have an MP of a certain quality than it could lose a few points for not having it. However, if a game decides to perfect the SP (10/10) but leaves out the MP (0/10) then it is illogical to expect the game to deserve a 5/10.

[Gifted]

Could someone please tell Tychus not to respond to my posts, because I have him blocked and thus don't read anything that seeps out of his facehole.

Unfortunately that's how life is DemoSquid. While you may ignore him, you have no control over his actions no matter how informed he may be. If you are truly ignoring him you wouldn't care if he responded or not. It's your choice that matters, not your impression of his choice.

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.

Unfortunately this is flawed in my eyes. Your opinion that your opinion is a fact... is merely your opinion

Just like Blizzard's opinion that the Mothership doesn't need more use... it is a fact that it is their opinion.

In this case their opinion is more respected and holds more value that others. They can also bring forth information to help support their opinion, but don't disillusion people with the way you interchange the words to reduce the value of opinions against you.

you disagree with everything I have to say or DS without having a valid reason or point, it looks like you are the Ferrous Cranous

I would like to say that in my cause I don't disagree or agree blindly with you two as I've agreed and disagreed based on the point.

In this case I find me on the terms of both sides. I will agree that you two have full reason to state your opinion. I also disagree with your opinion. (Likewise, I disagree with people who are trying to prove your opinion false, it's a double-edged sword afterall)

I will be the first to say that the single-player itself I would give an 8. I found it enjoyable enough as a singular product. I will not go forward and say "This is a single part of a three part story" because I'm not judging the trilogy, I'm judging this portion of a trilogy. People don't go out and say "Oh, Lord of the Rings was an "ok" epic, but it'll make more sense and feel better as we get the other two novels." and that's the approach I'll move with.

I will say that by the same nature, I made sure not to compare this story with the first one in my impression. In comparison I would rate it a 6, MAYBE a 5. But by removing this comparison and enjoying the singleplayer for all it's worth, I found it better than DoW: Dark Crusade, which had a similar interface and gameplay model. The storyline in SC2 was far better though, especially with it's production value and involvement of character development.

In terms of the multiplayer I would personally rate it 9 between it's accessability, good focus on balance, excellent patch support, interface improvements (such as icon updates), custom map gameplay, overall good connectivity and other reasons I need not speak on. The only reason it lacks the final point in my eyes is improvements that could happen to the B.net interface and it's features that it may lack. Some of which is coming, such as chat, clans and community improvement. While other features seem to be on the wayside, such as the ability to join games as an observer while it's in progress, multiplayer replay support, delayed observer for coordinated commentary, joining disconnected games among other options.

Personally I feel that overall the product is a great product and if you want to judge it as an individual item. If you take these together it would be an 8.5. There ya go, 100% my thoughts and why I'm voting for it in this competition.

I've ALSO heard the rumor that a new show regarding gaming is coming out with the results of this contest will contribute to their consumer data research. That possibility alone will make me vote for it.

To a certain extent, yes, if other games in the genre have set the standard that it should have an MP of a certain quality than it could lose a few points for not having it. However, if a game decides to perfect the SP (10/10) but leaves out the MP (0/10) then it is illogical to expect the game to deserve a 5/10.

Tychus, I'm not stating that you're incorrect or correct, or rather any point of this silly situation in this thread is one way or another. It's just that the basis of the argument is not fully explained.

Generally for critics they approach games with specific review types. Some people do single-player reviews, others do multi-player reviews. Some do entire package reviews, even if the packages may be perceived as "incomplete". Of these reviews, they are mostly taken in a more grey spectrum where the weight of the review is exposed on how the features are perceived.

In this case, Demo/Spychi are placing 50% weight on each singleplayer and Multiplayer, which is against the industry norm. [EDIT: They are most likely using this moreso as an example of a review and potentially not even are sharing their own personal review scores. This could be their way of trying to enlighten people to another view other than the ones they hold... in terms of the benefit of the doubt] This is probably why the majority of people are "disagreeing with them". Because they are approaching it in a manner that is appealing to the way they view it, but is significantly against industry normality in terms of critiquing a product. (As a side note, some reviews will show they put weight of a product as a part of a whole series while others put zero weight on this, enabling them to review the product as an individual item.) This is why some critics say "No multiplayer is included in this singleplayer adventure, no points lost" while another reviewer may say that the lack of multiplayer would be justified in removing 2 points. A third may say that the lack of multiplayer would normally warrant no point lost, but they will give it a point lost as it's a feature that was removed from a prior game. There are so many ways to place weights to a review, which is why it's better to take an opinionated review, call it an opinion and move on...

SIDE NOTE: Want a great example? Read some of these reviews for The Last Airbender.. despite the fact that the entire community for it is literally split down the center as "best movie they've ever seen" to "They completely bastardized the series!". This is far different than the perception of the critics which almost universally dislike the series. This doesn't mean the 6% who said it was a great movie are wrong, it means that the value/weight of their opinions are different than the majority, and I'm sure they still hold it firmly. When you compare the critic score of 6% to the community, it will never match as there are FAR MORE than 6% of the population who watched it which enjoyed it. (Truth be told, I'm not part of it, but I digress)

The weights that should be placed in features of a product is something people will always disagree on and rightly so cause it's completely opinionated and will never be agreed upon in terms of discussions like this. When you realize this, I advise the best angle of approach is to merely accept that even if you feel an opposing weight scale of critique is far different than the way you see it, use it to understand them and not try to force yours to their knowledge. The biggest folly would be to try to share your self-perceived valid opinion upon a person who could also be self-percieved as ignorant. [EDIT: I'm not calling anyone on anyside as ignorant or valid, merely stating that it could be fully the way a person perceives the matter]

That's my direct advice to you and anyone else. I happily encourage people to quote this post the moment they feel that people are going too far to disrespect each other in this thread, because while what I'm saying about people needing to calm down their own sides is my opinion, the information regarding industry critic weights is rather factual and informative. I believe the discussion so far lacking that information is what's causing this "back and forth war" to begin with.

[TheEconomist]

you disagree with everything I have to say or DS without having a valid reason or point, it looks like you are the Ferrous Cranous

That's because both of you come up with some of the worst ideas imaginable. You and Squid are terrible, terrible Ferrous Craneuses. That's why Squid often times has some of the most imbalanced "balance" ideas that, if implemented, would destroy the game. He refuses to listen to reason or to accept criticism. Every idea he has is a fact and correct regardless of its contents. Your ideas, however, are far worse as, if they were to come true, would destroy the free world and all of the progress that mankind has achieved. Anarchy? Let every man do as he wants? Give me a break.

And, I ALWAYS back up my point. The fact that you think otherwise proves your generally acceptable title of Ferrous Craneus. Despite me giving you numerous walls of text countering your "opinion", all you read was "I have an agenda against you" and completely ignore the content of the post. That's why I don't bother with either of you anymore and why you have been labeled the way you have. There's a reason half of the forum immediately labeled you as the Ferrous Craneus in that topic. Unfortunately, you wouldn't be deserving of your title if you didn't ignore it simply because it offends you.

"If one person calls you a horse— laugh at him. If a second person calls you a horse— think about it. If a third person calls you a horse— buy a saddle."

Neither of you will ever be successful if you cannot learn to analyze yourself and to accept criticism. Critics are your friends in that they make you better if their points are valid. Clearly seen by rational minds, ours are valid as we give evidence and sociological/political/scientific proofs to back it up. Yours, however, are based on wild emotion and fantasy.

.