Why is multiplayer a con, and PCgamer a hack?

[triCritical]

I just finished reading a excerpt from the PCgamer review of galactic civilizations. They gave it a positive review and for good reason. However, I don't like how a they can say no MP is a bad. Thats right this is coming from a gaming rag.

Lets take a brief look at the history of MP. Games that specialize in both MP and SP are not very good. Imagine how much better Arcanum's combat would have played out. Games that give a half ass implementation of either SP or MP and focuse on the other end up pissing a lot of people off. NWN OC anyone, or IE MP. Games that specialize in just a single person experience or Multiperson experience tend to be higher quality products, well this goes without bloody saying. FO and CounterStrike have shown this.

Anyhow whats I can understand is how they prop GalCIv's AI and then bitch its not MP. For crissakes what more do you want, you got good AI and the metaverse is a close approximation, and history shows that the only good MP and SP products are when there are being developed by different teams, RtCW.

Sorry just ranting,

 

[Azael]

Sounds strange to me. I could understand their complaint if the game was a FPS, a game type that is usually more fun with multiplayer, but a strategy game?

 

[Rosh]

Wow, yet another sterling example of PCMoron's usual cluelessness.

Way to go, guys!

 

[triCritical]

Not just a strategy game, but a TB strategy game. It took Firaxis almost an entire year and an expansion pack to bring MP to Civ and it sucks. In a lot of ways it can turn a good empire building and strategy game to a build and hack game not to mention all the technical problems.

I think PCmoron's fits the bill quite well.

 

[Flarnet]

The worst thing is they are not consistent in their madness. When it's the other way around (MP game with token, crappy SP), like Battlefield 1942, all the reviews comment on the poor SP but scuff it off and don't lower the score.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Games that give a half ass implementation of either SP or MP and focuse on the other end up pissing a lot of people off. Games that specialize in just a single person experience or Multiperson experience tend to be higher quality products, well this goes without bloody saying.

I absolutely agree with you. In fact that should be a rule #1 of a good game developer, either SP or MP, never both or the quality suffers. Arcanum combat is a great example of that.
As for PCgamer hereinafter known as PCmoron, it's yet another shining example of stupidity, cluelessness, and a complete inability to form an intelligent thought, that became a trait of today's gaming media.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Sounds strange to me. I could understand their complaint if the game was a FPS, a game type that is usually more fun with multiplayer, but a strategy game?

And FPS can have multiplayer better than most genres because it's a very simple genre. The more complex the genre, the harder it is to add multiplayer.

 

[evilmonkey]

games that got it all often fail, and then pcgamer is the type of gamemag me(I) disslike openly and behind closed doors, so they bashing games due to lack of MP, SP, or with 2d elements is no big suprise.

no I'll stick to Edge and gamedeveloper as it is - Now I just need to get my hands on Edges Retro issue.