Bethesda’s DOOM is now on our HD’s and with the first batch of reviews being uploaded from major critics, comes D4G’s next burning question – Are critics reviewing games with single player and multiplayer elements, fairly?
Why do we ask this? Well, let’s take a look at the following examples of popular FPS games:
Metro Last Light: Has no MP but offers a strong and well-sized campaign. Avg score: 8.2/10
Titanfall: Has no single player and is pure online-only. Avg score: 8.6/10
COD Modern Warfare: Had strong (but very short) SP but strong MP. Avg 9/10
Doom: Had strong and well-sized SP but had flawed MP at launch. Avg 7.6
After looking at recent releases and their critic/community feedback, it doesn’t take a rocket science to work out that multiplayer FPS games sell. However, what isn’t starting to make sense is the way in which SP+MP releases are being critiqued.
After looking at COD releases and the latest DOOM, a frightening pattern begins to emerge. Are critiques right to allow the MP portion of the game to heavily influence a games overall score? Are we starting to hear the following, a little too much: “Has strong single player experience but is let down by weak MP”.
So, basically…if the dev had scrapped the MP and released just the single player campaign, they would’ve bagged themselves a higher score???
A very simple method that could resolve this, would be to score both elements separately. A critic would give two scores for such a SP+MP game. One for its campaign and one for its multiplayer.
What do you think? Let us know by the comments below.