My idea is far from implemented. Actually it will only be functional the way i have described it. Without a numbered score for each part how will i know how good each part is? (single and multi).
I will then have to rely on words alone. Words like great ,good, exellent, issues, weak and sofort are realtive and open to iterpretation. They tell me something, but without a numbered referance (score) how should i interprete the text?
If the reviewer gave the game a 7 will the words mean the same as if he/she gave it a 9?
Whitout a seperate score for the single player and multiplayer how will i know if the final score is the same for both parts?
If such a game gets a 9,5. Will both the single and multiplayer be equally strong? Or was the multiplayer so wonderfully exellent that a game that would have gotten an7 for the single player was pushed up all the way to 9,5 overall?
Without my idea of seperate scores we just can't tell. That is why i hope someone at gamespot sees this. Using such a system would only add to the accuracy of the review not take something away. And that can only be a good thing......
bobbo
I completely agree. If a game gets a 9.5 does that mean that is has a 9.5 single player game, or does it mean that the multiplayer is a 9.5?
I believe a lot of games get scored higher because of the multiplayer element even if it has a mediocre single player. But that doen't work for me since I prefer single player games.
You guys should have the review of the single player with a score and a paragraph of the multiplayer with a separate score. Then you can add or average the two scores and give the game an overall score. But have separate scores for the different elements.
Then everyone is happy. Two separate scores and an overall score.
Log in to comment