Warhawk and Left 4 Dead

is it impossible for a multiplayer focused game to get AAA here?i would have thought that GI's ''best of E3'' game had a pretty good chance.i can't say because i haven't played it yet, but i did notice that GS's main complaint is the singleplayer stuff.just wondering if anybody else had an opinion on this.Warhawk and Left 4 Dead
linkWarhawk and Left 4 Dead
I dont really understand how can a game that is solely focused on multiplayer lose points due to the lack of quality single player. on the other hand i did not see fallout 3 lose points even if it lacked any sort of multiplayer.
Single player should be the defining factor of any game. Lacking it is a minus. Diluting it in favor of multiplayer is also a minus. Yes this is a double standard because a great single player game doesn't need multiplayer but not the other way around.
[QUOTE=''Bread_or_Decide'']Single player should be the defining factor of any game. Lacking it is a minus. Diluting it in favor of multiplayer is also a minus. Yes this is a double standard because a great single player game doesn't need multiplayer but not the other way around.[/QUOTE]

Agreed and well said.
[QUOTE=''Bread_or_Decide'']Single player should be the defining factor of any game. Lacking it is a minus. Diluting it in favor of multiplayer is also a minus. Yes this is a double standard because a great single player game doesn't need multiplayer but not the other way around.[/QUOTE]If they would have tried to put a stand alone single player section in the game it would have made the game worse.
[QUOTE=''ANeuralPathway'']link[/QUOTE]i find it interesting that they don't mention Battlefield's lackluster single player in that review, well... no i don't.they didn't need to mention it because Battlefield is a multiplayer focused game too.IMO, counting L4D's singleplayer against it is just as dumb as counting MGS4's multiplayer against it.a review should judge a game based on the total quality of the experience. i don't think there is a pc gamer out there who is going to find any trouble playing co-op.
[QUOTE=''ANeuralPathway'']link[/QUOTE]i find it interesting that they don't mention Battlefield's lackluster single player in that review, well... no i don't.they didn't need to mention it because Battlefield is a multiplayer focused game too.IMO, counting L4D's singleplayer against it is just as dumb as counting MGS4's multiplayer against it.a review should judge a game based on the total quality of the experience. i don't think there is a pc gamer out there who is going to find any trouble playing co-op.
[QUOTE=''Bread_or_Decide'']Single player should be the defining factor of any game. Lacking it is a minus. Diluting it in favor of multiplayer is also a minus. Yes this is a double standard because a great single player game doesn't need multiplayer but not the other way around.[/QUOTE] i disagree. there shouldn't be any predetermined rules on what makes a great game. you might like single-player better (same here), but single-player shouldn't be a prerequisite to a good game. no single aspect should
[QUOTE=''Guybrush_3''][QUOTE=''Bread_or_Decide'']Single player should be the defining factor of any game. Lacking it is a minus. Diluting it in favor of multiplayer is also a minus. Yes this is a double standard because a great single player game doesn't need multiplayer but not the other way around.[/QUOTE]

If they would have tried to put a stand alone single player section in the game it would have made the game worse.[/QUOTE]



Thats why the warhawk devs should have taken more time and created a complete game.
[QUOTE=''Hihatrider87''][QUOTE=''Bread_or_Decide'']Single player should be the defining factor of any game. Lacking it is a minus. Diluting it in favor of multiplayer is also a minus. Yes this is a double standard because a great single player game doesn't need multiplayer but not the other way around.[/QUOTE]

i disagree. there shouldn't be any predetermined rules on what makes a great game. you might like single-player better (same here), but single-player shouldn't be a prerequisite to a good game. no single aspect should[/QUOTE]



Depends. Co-op is a different story.
[QUOTE=''Bread_or_Decide''][QUOTE=''Guybrush_3''][QUOTE=''Bread_or_Decide'']Single player should be the defining factor of any game. Lacking it is a minus. Diluting it in favor of multiplayer is also a minus. Yes this is a double standard because a great single player game doesn't need multiplayer but not the other way around.[/QUOTE] If they would have tried to put a stand alone single player section in the game it would have made the game worse.[/QUOTE] Thats why the warhawk devs should have taken more time and created a complete game. [/QUOTE]I was talking about L4D. All of the enemies and the AI director are designed around a four person team. They would have had to change all of that.
[QUOTE=''Bread_or_Decide''][QUOTE=''Guybrush_3''][QUOTE=''Bread_or_Decide'']Single player should be the defining factor of any game. Lacking it is a minus. Diluting it in favor of multiplayer is also a minus. Yes this is a double standard because a great single player game doesn't need multiplayer but not the other way around.[/QUOTE]

If they would have tried to put a stand alone single player section in the game it would have made the game worse.[/QUOTE]



Thats why the warhawk devs should have taken more time and created a complete game. [/QUOTE]



untrue



I played Warhawk the day after it came out, and I thought it was fine, it was worth $30
[QUOTE=''Bread_or_Decide''][QUOTE=''Hihatrider87''] [QUOTE=''Bread_or_Decide'']Single player should be the defining factor of any game. Lacking it is a minus. Diluting it in favor of multiplayer is also a minus. Yes this is a double standard because a great single player game doesn't need multiplayer but not the other way around.[/QUOTE] i disagree. there shouldn't be any predetermined rules on what makes a great game. you might like single-player better (same here), but single-player shouldn't be a prerequisite to a good game. no single aspect should[/QUOTE] Depends. Co-op is a different story. [/QUOTE] my is that , IMO, setting any rules for what makes a good game is close-minded and limits inovation.its the same as the arguement over the graphics vs. gameplay. there shouldn't be a predetermined answer.building a great game is the destination, how you get there is what makes it unique.
Doesn't Lef4Dead have single player???



Also, Left4Dead is missing a lot more than a SP experience, but it's still a great game, which is why 8.5 suits it
[QUOTE=''Couth_'']Doesn't Lef4Dead have single player??? Also, Left4Dead is missing a lot more than a SP experience, but it's still a great game, which is why 8.5 suits it[/QUOTE]It does. It's just the coop with bots. 
UT2004 also got an AAA score, along with BF2 of course.
[QUOTE=''Guybrush_3''][QUOTE=''Couth_'']Doesn't Lef4Dead have single player??? Also, Left4Dead is missing a lot more than a SP experience, but it's still a great game, which is why 8.5 suits it[/QUOTE]It does. It's just the coop with bots. [/QUOTE] So pretty much just like gears. People need to stop calling L4D mulitplayer only. Warhawk is MP only, and Socom Confrontation too. You can't play by yourself in those games, at all
also I guess you could Say Guild Wars though that is a pretty unque situation...WoW and a few others if you include MMO's.
[QUOTE=''Couth_''][QUOTE=''Guybrush_3''][QUOTE=''Couth_'']Doesn't Lef4Dead have single player??? Also, Left4Dead is missing a lot more than a SP experience, but it's still a great game, which is why 8.5 suits it[/QUOTE]It does. It's just the coop with bots. [/QUOTE] So pretty much just like gears. People need to stop calling L4D mulitplayer only. Warhawk is MP only, and Socom Confrontation too. You can't play by yourself in those games, at all[/QUOTE] no, not like Gears at all.... The singleplayer in L4D is litterally multiplayer with bots...just like with the entire Battlefield series and UT series.