Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

Here is a question to every reviewer and gamers out there; Why do games like Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare 3, and Battlefield 2142 given even positive reviews based on their multiplayers, especially battlefield 3 where the single player was half a**. It doesn't really make sense when these games are given more praised then games like Infamous 2 whose single player is superb, and are acclaimed to have lasting appeal like Silent Hill 2.

That is what a 8/10 or a 10/10 means for a game. Even after 5 years people will still have an incentive to go back to play the game even after 5 years. I still play Shadow of the Collossus because of how unique it is and how great the game is. I still play Ratchet and Clank because I find the humor great and the gameplay fantastic. However this is where multiplayer driven games lack. If you were to ask any gamer if they still play Call Of Duty World at War, they would say no because the single player isn't that great and there are games with better multiplayer.

This is ultimately the downfall of these games. They require other people to still make it enjoyable, but if people are more willing to play the new games, the enjoyability would diminish. So the game would have to stand on its single player to rate it's last ability, but if it's crap, why wouldn't you play other better single player games. The game then just gets forgotten in time and everyone would just sell their copy to get the newer one and better one.

Also what if the player doesn't have internet connection? What if their connection sucks and they are forced to watch a slideshow of their online experience? The single player will have to be played because players want to be immersed into the experienced, and again it is better to play other better games. How can you put these games up to bar such as Resistance 3, Fist of the North Stars Kens Rage, Resident Evil 4, Fallout 3, Saints Row 2 and Ratchet and Clank A crack in Time when these games offer over 15 hours of single player experienced that is worth while to play through and experienced?

Why would gamers give these games such high ratings however? Quite simply because people think that with a great multiplayer has a great replayability, and replayability plays a major part in determining the score of a game. Score will tell a consumer either a game will last or not, and they are big on that. When you pay 60$ for a game, you want to get your moneys worth and come back to play it even after 5 years after completing the single player experienced. This is what games like Modern Warfare 3 offer to the player.

With a leveling up system, tons of perks, different ways to go into battle, and rewards for doing well like a missle strike, it gives the player incentive to keep on playing it, and come back to it. The idea of replayability is if a game can keep on rewarding the player even after completing the single player aspect, without having to start over and play at the beginning. But then a major question comes up, why is it that I was willing to pay 40$ for a PS3 import of Shadow of the Collossus even if I beat the single player 5 years earlier?

Simply put that the single player stood up even after this many years. For shadow of the collossus, there is no other games where I climb up a collossi and feel the tension of being flung around like a bug as I desperately hold unto it's fur. I never have experienced a story where it made me question my own actions and motivations as I kill every single one of those innocent collossi, just so I can bring back a dead love one.

I payed 20$ for resident evil 4 because the game has a appropriate difficulty setting where if your performance is great, you can kill every single enemy in the game and still have enough ammo to take on the village in the begining. It is still a true survival horror where i feel completely alone, with no character to rely on and everything working against me. The controls are stiff, the atmosphere can really get to you., and that bug bodyguard that you faced off in the sewers is really ******** scary.

I would still play Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare just because that nuke at the end of the game was so unexpecting and shocking that it was a great experience. The story is pretty good also as it narrates how our army efforts in the war in the east might not be as effective as we once thought. People still like to play Silent hills 2 Just how how scary it is. It isn't to say that the experience of the story is the only thing that defines replayability, as I like to play Ratchet and Clank games because they still give me rewards even after completing the main story, but it certainly determines if a game will last. It is the perfect example of quality over quantity.

It doesn't matter if the multiplayer can keep on giving me weapons, perks, bonuses, and rewards for doing well forever because I would just get bored of it. A great experience needs to come to a close, a satisfying conclusion to really appreciate it. If it keeps on going on forever, it become mundane and repetitive, which is what we were the least expecting with multiplayer. Sure time is a factor as I don't want to spend 60$ for a 4 hour game, but I do want it to end.

It how I live life. Sure I will die one day but I would appreciate it because I don't want to live on forever. I don't want to experience live forever because I get sick of it. I'm actually calmed by the fact that it will end one day and motivates me to appreciate life all the more. If I didn't I just be greedy and glutonous. Or you could be a pig and just eat it up.