I would'nt say this game is bad, because alot of people is playing it online. But most review sites must get they're scoring rules right. Because a game like this is'nt a 9 or more. A good singleplayer game is punished if the multiplayer is bad or non existent, why should'nt a good multiplayer game be punished if the singleplayer is bad?? A game like this has soo much potential in the singleplayer and even Co-op. This game is far away from what it could have been, and that should be reflected in the score.
lol @ ANYBODY who plays Left 4 Dead 2 solo. I'm glad review sites have overlooked the AI issue because it is a complete non-issue for people who play this game right.
When a MP FPS game gives me 3-5 times more play time then any single player campaign then I'd say the price is justified. Single player gets you hooked, but its MP (or lack of) that determines the game'slife span. To me single player (as far as FPS go) is icing on the cake.
karasill
And what about games where multiplayer doesn't work? A lot of people I think are lead to believe that multiplayer actually "extends" a game's lifespan, but they actually haven't realized that a multiplayer is even more repetitive than a singleplayer... especially if that singleplayer has a branching plot and customizable characters. Most MP experience are just running through the same levels, killing the same people (whether human or bot) over and over and over again.
I used to love MP-only games like Day of Defeat... but once I realized that all I was doing was fulfilling the same goal over and over again, in the exact same progression, it kind of lost its point and I stopped playing them. Even TF2, which appealed to me when it first came out, got boring after I realized I was doing exactly the same thing on every single map.
MP gives a false sense of "replay value," and (hopefully) will always remain secondary to singleplayer experiences. Left 4 Dead could have been fantastic with a single-player narrative and story-progression, a la Half Life 2. But it just ended up being a zombie shooter-fest. Sure, it's good... but it isn't worth more than $25-30. Just like all of VALVe's other MP-only offerings.
Its amazing how much people are bashing this game for this one instance. How often does this happen in peoples games? Everyone knows this game is meant for online play, buying this game to play singleplayer is a dumb as buying battlefield 2 for its singleplayer. The AI director in this game is actually great, its really a different experience everytime you play.
[QUOTE="karasill"]When a MP FPS game gives me 3-5 times more play time then any single player campaign then I'd say the price is justified. Single player gets you hooked, but its MP (or lack of) that determines the game'slife span. To me single player (as far as FPS go) is icing on the cake.
foxhound_fox
And what about games where multiplayer doesn't work? A lot of people I think are lead to believe that multiplayer actually "extends" a game's lifespan, but they actually haven't realized that a multiplayer is even more repetitive than a singleplayer... especially if that singleplayer has a branching plot and customizable characters. Most MP experience are just running through the same levels, killing the same people (whether human or bot) over and over and over again.
I used to love MP-only games like Day of Defeat... but once I realized that all I was doing was fulfilling the same goal over and over again, in the exact same progression, it kind of lost its point and I stopped playing them. Even TF2, which appealed to me when it first came out, got boring after I realized I was doing exactly the same thing on every single map.
MP gives a false sense of "replay value," and (hopefully) will always remain secondary to singleplayer experiences. Left 4 Dead could have been fantastic with a single-player narrative and story-progression, a la Half Life 2. But it just ended up being a zombie shooter-fest. Sure, it's good... but it isn't worth more than $25-30. Just like all of VALVe's other MP-only offerings.
Your argument seem to boil down to you not liking multiplayer games.
[QUOTE="karasill"]When a MP FPS game gives me 3-5 times more play time then any single player campaign then I'd say the price is justified. Single player gets you hooked, but its MP (or lack of) that determines the game'slife span. To me single player (as far as FPS go) is icing on the cake.
foxhound_fox
And what about games where multiplayer doesn't work? A lot of people I think are lead to believe that multiplayer actually "extends" a game's lifespan, but they actually haven't realized that a multiplayer is even more repetitive than a singleplayer... especially if that singleplayer has a branching plot and customizable characters. Most MP experience are just running through the same levels, killing the same people (whether human or bot) over and over and over again.
I used to love MP-only games like Day of Defeat... but once I realized that all I was doing was fulfilling the same goal over and over again, in the exact same progression, it kind of lost its point and I stopped playing them. Even TF2, which appealed to me when it first came out, got boring after I realized I was doing exactly the same thing on every single map.
MP gives a false sense of "replay value," and (hopefully) will always remain secondary to singleplayer experiences. Left 4 Dead could have been fantastic with a single-player narrative and story-progression, a la Half Life 2. But it just ended up being a zombie shooter-fest. Sure, it's good... but it isn't worth more than $25-30. Just like all of VALVe's other MP-only offerings.
If battlefield 1943 actually worked more than 20% of the time it would have been perfect with its 15$ price tag.
I would'nt say this game is bad, because alot of people is playing it online. But most review sites must get they're scoring rules right. Because a game like this is'nt a 9 or more
Martin_G_N
Says who? you? then go start your own review site, because there is no right or wrong scrore in a review.
Its amazing how much people are bashing this game for this one instance. How often does this happen in peoples games? Everyone knows this game is meant for online play, buying this game to play singleplayer is a dumb as buying battlefield 2 for its singleplayer. The AI director in this game is actually great, its really a different experience everytime you play.
Sully28
Uh, you can still easily get bots when playing online, they dont just stop existing.
I would'nt say this game is bad, because alot of people is playing it online. But most review sites must get they're scoring rules right. Because a game like this is'nt a 9 or more. A good singleplayer game is punished if the multiplayer is bad or non existent, why should'nt a good multiplayer game be punished if the singleplayer is bad?? A game like this has soo much potential in the singleplayer and even Co-op. This game is far away from what it could have been, and that should be reflected in the score.
[QUOTE="karasill"]When a MP FPS game gives me 3-5 times more play time then any single player campaign then I'd say the price is justified. Single player gets you hooked, but its MP (or lack of) that determines the game'slife span. To me single player (as far as FPS go) is icing on the cake.
foxhound_fox
And what about games where multiplayer doesn't work? A lot of people I think are lead to believe that multiplayer actually "extends" a game's lifespan, but they actually haven't realized that a multiplayer is even more repetitive than a singleplayer... especially if that singleplayer has a branching plot and customizable characters. Most MP experience are just running through the same levels, killing the same people (whether human or bot) over and over and over again.
I used to love MP-only games like Day of Defeat... but once I realized that all I was doing was fulfilling the same goal over and over again, in the exact same progression, it kind of lost its point and I stopped playing them. Even TF2, which appealed to me when it first came out, got boring after I realized I was doing exactly the same thing on every single map.
MP gives a false sense of "replay value," and (hopefully) will always remain secondary to singleplayer experiences. Left 4 Dead could have been fantastic with a single-player narrative and story-progression, a la Half Life 2. But it just ended up being a zombie shooter-fest. Sure, it's good... but it isn't worth more than $25-30. Just like all of VALVe's other MP-only offerings. I'm not talking about other games. I'm talking about L4D2 and that it justifies it's pricetag. If you want to boil down MP to a dull and boring activity of doing the same thing over and over again then thats fine, that doesnt stop me from spending quite a bit more hours in L4D2 then most single player campaigns.
Valve has some of the best AI, especially with the special infected. This is what you call a glitch, and what it can happen in any game. For some reason though, they've been making the survivor bots stupider for every update, it could have something to do with they were just too good before. They basically serve as a placeholder for a real player anyways.
Log in to comment