Andrew Wiggin - 46 days 18 hours ago

As a review, I know that I look at a package as a whole, not just as a single aspect that only a small portion of its intended market can only use. It would be the same as reviewing a Blu-Ray movie on how it looks on a standard definition TV. With the current market, online is not just an extra, especially in Gears and Halo 3, in which online was the main draw for the games. Reviewers look at the entire package when they review a game and if the single player is not up to par, it will say so within the review. So instead of complaining, just read the reviews, not just the score, and then determine whether or not buy the game.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

jack who - 45 days 8 hours ago

in this day and age you still dont like or have a good internet connection you shouldnt be taking into account for anything

Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply

Superted2007 - 43 days 18 hours ago

Bollix! As a PS3 fan even I have to say that Gears 1 is a great game without the online portion. The single player is intense and the cover system is very cool! Also the story is immersive and the characters engaging! As for your main point I agree that the gasme should be able to stand on its own without online mode! Games that have done this well are Gears, COD4, Resistance and Crysis.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Steven Colbert - 43 days 18 hours ago

Halo 3 by itself as a single player game sucks.I got bored the second time I played it.But games should have plenty of content in single player games to justify the purchase like Saints Row 2

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Enigma_2099 - 42 days 6 hours ago

.. it is, however, NOT fine to D*MN a game simply because of a lack of online multiplayer... which actually happens a lot more than many of you are willing to admit.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

The Kingslayer - 36 days 16 hours ago

And age you have to take both sides into account. Many players enjoy playing online as much as offline. Look at WoW, it is popular for a reason and it's on a PC. So this argument is really lame. Doing online right means you expect and want players to extend their experience beyond playing offline. I see that as a great thing. I as a consumer who's played for years enjoys and expects both to be stellar.

The argument is made worse by picking games that both have good offline and online components to make a point. Dosen't make sense. I understand you can't stand the Xbox 360 for having a great online infrastructure. What numbers on people who have broadband and don't do you have? I'd like to see you support your argument outside of blaming reviewers who do have online. Why should they take that into account when they are supposed to review all aspects of a game. All they can focus on is what is in the game. So if the single player experience is good/bad tell me about it. If the online experience is good/bad tell me about it. That's what I want reviewers to take into account. Not some sad fanboy who want's his game or system to be the best. Reviewers should ignore them. They are not here to cater to their ego...

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Zackstorm - 28 days 4 hours ago

I couldn't agree more.

I'm not a huge online gamer. I understand its fun and there's a community and people can feel like they have real friends and blah blah, but it's never really been huge for me.

I often times, when reading a review or hearing praise about a game, have to wonder if it considers the content that isn't based online.

Case-in-point: I figured I own a 360 and it was more or less needed of me to buy Halo 3. I like the Halo games and they're fun to play when friends are over. But, for me, Bioshock was sooooooooooooo much more fulfilling, because I'm not a huge online player.

I guess I'm a minority in gaming though.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply