Support NeoGAF

[Sephzilla]

I'm not saying the multiplayer is the next coming of UT99 or anything, but it's not any more 'measurably bad' than friggin overwatch. Which, btw, I can't wait to see the reviews for Waifu Fortress 2 and how it gets a pass because the characters are pretty....

Clearly lots of people like the game simply because it has pretty characters and not because it's fun

 

[TheRed]

The funniest thing about the IGN review is how hard he had to think that 7.1 was the correct score over a straight 7. Lol those scoring systems are still so dumb.

 

[Courage]

I don't think multiplayer should be dragging the score down here at all. Maybe if you were reviewing the value of buying a season pass.

I don't get this. Is the multiplayer not part of the game?

 

[marrec]

I don't think multiplayer should be dragging the score down here at all. Maybe if you were reviewing the value of buying a season pass.

I think it'd be silly if the reviewer didn't consider the merit of everything included in the game.

 

[Boogdud]

Yeah, thats why everybody likes that game. Because its pretty. Not because a lot of people find its class-based, objective focused, highly polished game/art/sound design good...

But, but, this isn't new.

Clearly lots of people like the game simply because it has pretty characters and not because it's fun

See, that's exactly what we're talking about here. It's not enough to be fun, clearly.

Let's be honest here, if overwatch was made by anyone other than Blizzard, and had sub par character design it wouldn't be a blip on anyone's radar. Nothing wrong with enjoying it, and having fun with the game.

 

[Sullichin]

I don't get this. Is the multiplayer not part of the game?

I don't think it's terrible. I think it's fine. Fine enough to not bring a score down imo. But the real value of the game is the single player. I wouldn't score Uncharted lower because of multiplayer either.

 

[Joaby]

I'm not saying the multiplayer is the next coming of UT99 or anything, but it's not any more 'measurably bad' than friggin overwatch. Which, btw, I can't wait to see the reviews for Waifu Fortress 2 and how it gets a pass because the characters are pretty....

For whatever it's worth (and I know it's nothing) myself and some other members of the Aussie TF2 community have been predicting that Overwatch will peter out extremely early once people recognise the inherent lack of real depth.

 

[Sephzilla]

(For the record, I haven't touched Doom's multiplayer yet)

It kind of seems like it's a sticky situation where if you include multiplayer and its mediocre, you get docked review points for having tacked-on multiplayer. But if you exclude multiplayer in general and make it single player, you run the risk of getting docked points for omitting a multiplayer mode in general. If I remember right, I remember some reviews ripping Vanquish for not having multiplayer back in the day

 

[tuxfool]

I haven't played a ton of multi, maybe 15 games or so, but I have had several (actually I can't even think of one) where one team won on the merits of the rune. Anecdotal, but I've had several matches where we didn't get the rune once, and they had it at least 3-4 times and we still won. Used ranged, if you don't have ranged you can still win... just get the hell out of the way. A demon with nobody biting his ankles means he's getting no points and he'll just run out of time. I mean, these are fairly obvious strategies aren't they?

I'm not saying the multiplayer is the next coming of UT99 or anything, but it's not any more 'measurably bad' than friggin overwatch. Which, btw, I can't wait to see the reviews for Waifu Fortress 2 and how it gets a pass because the characters are pretty....

It isn't a question of winning, it is a question of whether there is moment to moment interest when these things happen.

I'll not defend "measurably bad", but the MP certainly feels superfluous. As I mentioned elsewhere, I can get all of that from UT4.

 

[JaseC]

I don't think it's terrible. I think it's fine. But the real value of the game is the single player. I wouldn't score Uncharted lower because of multiplayer either.

You should, because you're evaluating the entire product offering rather than just that which tickles your fancy. If something about the product you are critiquing is less-than-ideal, then it absolutely deserves to be weighed as such.You can make the argument that a product is worth the price of admission despite its secondary component falling short of the mark... or even the opposite. Your readers, by virtue of them being intelligent enough to be dubbed "readers", can make their own inferences. It's called "Being objective".

 

[ViewtifulJC]

For whatever it's worth (and I know it's nothing) myself and members of the Aussie TF2 community have predicting that Overwatch will peter out extremely early once people recognise the inherent lack of real depth.

I see it more like LOL vs DOTA 2. Sure Valve's game is the deeper, "better" of the two, but there's something to be said for something so polished and accessible that anybody can just hop on and play, and there's gonna be free heroes and maps and modes to keep it going.

 

[rtcn63]

The multiplayer emphasis of the game's marketing basically opens the door for reviewers to... emphasize its contribution to the review score. That said, I do hope the MP improves in time, seeing how legit the combat of the singleplayer supposedly is.

 

[MiguelItUp]

I haven't played a ton of multi, maybe 15 games or so, but I have had several (actually I can't even think of one) where one team won on the merits of the rune. Anecdotal, but I've had several matches where we didn't get the rune once, and they had it at least 3-4 times and we still won. Used ranged, if you don't have ranged you can still win... just get the hell out of the way. A demon with nobody biting his ankles means he's getting no points and he'll just run out of time. I mean, these are fairly obvious strategies aren't they?

I had those kind of experiences in the alpha and betas alone. I think people tend to forget that while knowing the map layout is incredibly beneficial, so is knowing where powerups and power weapons are. Well, and their respawn times. Generally the person / team that gets first dibs will get leverage over the other(s), and that's something about the MP that reminded me of arena shooters the most. People talk about balance and how it's unfair that the power weapons are SO powerful, but that's the point. They don't require skill to shoot, they more so require skill to obtain. Especially since everyone will be scrambling to get them. In multiple classic arena shooters the strongest weapon would take you out no matter what, and the skill was really slim to none usually. All you could really do to avoid it is try to GTFO.

I really hope that when Quake is rebooted they include the Thunderbolt and the ability to off everyone in water. That was always so hysterical.

 

[swearing-circle]

I clicked off his channel and vowed to never ever go back when he said Dark Souls should be first person. He has the most obnoxious opinions and refuses to budge on them. Even insisting on not using a controller for any PC game even if it is the far superior input method for that game.

Fuck that guy.

Glad i'm not alone in this. I find him genuinely frustrating to the point where I feel a bit sad that his opinions piss me off so much lol. But yeah, he's terrible.

 

[psychotron]

Welp...it's something I guess. Saw this in NYC today.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

You're being a bit uncharitable right?

My complaints are that the MP is entirely team based shooting, and those team based shooters hinge on a team's success in exploiting the way the game uses weapons. So because its primary use of weapons is via loadouts (all players get to pick two weapons from the MP player list which they will get upon spawn, and BFGs, Gauss Rifles and Chainsaws are excluded from this) the game's level design is counter-intuitive to its game design. The level design adheres to old-school classic architecture (as it should, because the game doesn't allow you to regen health) but the loadouts imply and support a game wherein weapons are not permanently available on the map.

It's hard to describe in full without fully copy and pasting my description of what I think is critical for Arena Shooters I guess.

Yeah it's a weird place between halo/quake and satisfies neither I think. They should have just did a reskinned quake 3 for its multiplayer mode. I would have loved that.

 

[Joaby]

I see it more like LOL vs DOTA 2. Sure Valve's game is the deeper, "better" of the two, but there's something to be said for something so polished and accessible that anybody can just hop on and play, and there's gonna be free heroes and maps and modes to keep it going.

Oh yeah, I can't disagree with this. And I think the LOL comparision is spectacular, and more to it Overwatch doesn't have anything to actually compete against. But competitively (and with the context of replying to the idea of Doom's MP being measurably worse than Overwatch's (which even despite my concerns it obviously is)) Overwatch has challenges before it.

 

[BiggNife]

The IGN review is mine. I wrote it and I didn't change the score from the review in progress. I wrote 3100 words about how Doom is a 7.1 /10. I think it's off that people who know the process would question the score, but that's ok. What I find interesting is that people who have played the multiplayer are trying to still push the idea that it's good -- it's specifically and measurably bad. I guarantee you SnapMap will dictate most of Doom's mp numbers in 3 months time regardless of Bethesda's optimistic DLC plans

So, here's my issue - if you really liked the campaign but didn't like the MP, shouldn't the strong campaign give the game a higher score since it's good enough on its own to sell the game to people?

For example, Dead Space 2 is a fantastic single player game with bad multiplayer. Greg Miller admits in his review that the multiplayer "did nothing for [him]" but he still gave the game a 9 because of the strength of the single player. If he scored this the same way you scored Doom it would've been like a 7.5.

If one part of the game is strong enough to warrant a purchase, I feel the score should reflect that.

edit: To be absolutely clear, I respect your opinion and I totally get that the MP just isn't your cup of tea. I just disagree with the score your gave it based on your review.

 

[Kintaro]

I honestly forgot Doom had a MP mode. =x SP is soooo fun.

 

[EvSOLO]

The IGN review is mine. I wrote it and I didn't change the score from the review in progress. I wrote 3100 words about how Doom is a 7.1 /10. I think it's off that people who know the process would question the score, but that's ok. What I find interesting is that people who have played the multiplayer are trying to still push the idea that it's good -- it's specifically and measurably bad. I guarantee you SnapMap will dictate most of Doom's mp numbers in 3 months time regardless of Bethesda's optimistic DLC plans

Did the initial review in progress score of 7.1 reflect any input from multiplayer?

 

[Momentary]

I would score SP and MPLAYER separately. ESPECIALLY since they are made by 2 different Dev teams.

 

[Joaby]

So, here's my issue - if you really liked the campaign but didn't like the MP, shouldn't the strong campaign give the game a higher score since it's good enough on its own to sell the game to people?

For example, Dead Space 2 is a fantastic single player game with bad multiplayer. Greg Miller admits in his review that the multiplayer "did nothing for [him]" but he still gave the game a 9 because of the strength of the single player. If he scored this the same way you scored Doom it would've been like a 7.5.

If one part of the game is strong enough to warrant a purchase, I feel the score should reflect that.

I suppose this is the eternal question right? Like I didn't review Dead Space 2, which is the common and obvious deflection. And I say that dismissively, but there's merit to that specific argument, right?

Still, I'm down to answer your actual question anyway. Here's my thing - I liked the SP, but I didn't love it. I thought it was a spectacular homage to the older, 23 year old games, but I didn't think it was all it could be. The MP was a hefty knock against it, but SnapMap was a balancing factor. In the end, it didn't feel like the negative feelings I had about the MP impacted my SP first impressions to a point that I would reduce the score, so I left it as is.

 

[EvSOLO]

So, here's my issue - if you really liked the campaign but didn't like the MP, shouldn't the strong campaign give the game a higher score since it's good enough on its own to sell the game to people?

For example, Dead Space 2 is a fantastic single player game with bad multiplayer. Greg Miller admits in his review that the multiplayer "did nothing for [him]" but he still gave the game a 9 because of the strength of the single player. If he scored this the same way you scored Doom it would've been like a 7.5.

If one part of the game is strong enough to warrant a purchase, I feel the score should reflect that.

edit: To be absolutely clear, I respect your opinion and I totally get that the MP just isn't your cup of tea. I just disagree with the score your gave it based on your review.

But his initial review in progress score was the same as the final after the multiplayer was played. So it's very unclear if multiplayer really affected the score in the end at all

Edit: disregard, question was answered above

 

[Momentary]

I would score SP and MP separately. ESPECIALLY since they are made by 2 different Devs.

 

[Sephzilla]

I would score SP and MP separately. ESPECIALLY since they are made by 2 different Devs.

I'd agree with this

 

[BiggNife]

I suppose this is the eternal question right? Like I didn't review Dead Space 2, which is the common and obvious deflection. And I say that dismissively, but there's merit to that specific argument, right?

Still, I'm down to answer your actual question anyway. Here's my thing - I liked the SP, but I didn't love it. I thought it was a spectacular homage to the older, 23 year old games, but I didn't think it was all it could be. The MP was a hefty knock against it, but SnapMap was a balancing factor. In the end, it didn't feel like the negative feelings I had about the MP impacted my SP first impressions to a point that I would reduce the score, so I left it as is.

Fair enough. I appreciate the level-headed response.

 

[Joaby]

I would score SP and MP separately. ESPECIALLY since they are made by 2 different Devs.

Has this been confirmed? The official word from Bethesda (last time I checked) was that Certain Affinity was merely helping develop the MP.

 

[Brian_FETO]

Has this been confirmed? The official word from Bethesda (last time I checked) was that Certain Affinity was merely helping develop the MP.

Bethesda's language was "helping" but CA's was "we are developing the multiplayer portion"

EDIT: I'm trying to find their original PR for it but it seems like a lot got buried by the recent beta. To be fair, even maps/modes/balancing can be considered "helping" (plus it's a nicer way to say outsourced)

 

[Nokterian]

I would score SP and MP separately. ESPECIALLY since they are made by 2 different Devs.

A good one since ID focused only on SP and Snapmap is made by Escalation studios and Certain affinity did the MP.

 

[IKizzLE]

I would score SP and MP separately. ESPECIALLY since they are made by 2 different Devs.

Slippery Slope.

 

[Joaby]

Bethesda's language was "helping" but CA's was "we are developing the multiplayer portion"

I mean, this is the strongest point right? And yet, what can be done if when asked Bethesda points to a blog post saying CA are helping, not in charge of.

 

[tesqui]

There have been plenty of well received games with shitty multiplayer. Far Cry 3 comes to mind. That game was praised across the board, but it's multi was pretty bad.

What makes Doom any different? Some reviewers are focusing on the multiplayer like it's half the experience.

I mean I guess it's the fault of Bethesda for marketing it and releasing an open beta for it.

 

[Brian_FETO]

I mean, this is the strongest point right? And yet, what can be done if when asked Bethesda points to a blog post saying CA are helping, not in charge of.

Pretty much. It's probably because they want to sell those fancy season passes so DOOM can be the e-sport it was meant to be

Headshot city!

 

[Joaby]

There have been plenty of well received games with shitty multiplayer. Far Cry 3 comes to mind. That game was praised across the board, but it's multi was pretty bad.

What makes Doom any different? Some reviwers are focusing on the multiplayer like it's half the experience.

I mean I guess it's the fault of Bethesda for marketing it and releasing an open beta for it.

Let's not forget that MP and SnapMap were such critical parts of the Doom experience that Bethesda didn't send out review copies until launch. They diverted the emphasis on the game away from the SP their own damn self.

 

[MythicReclaimer]

I would score SP and MP separately. ESPECIALLY since they are made by 2 different Devs.

Not when it is being sold as a single product under the "DOOM" umbrella. If it was an add-on/separate purchase then, sure, I guess. There have been many games where different modes were worked on by multiple developer studios.

Unless it is an "Orange Box" situation then it should be included in a single review score.

Maybe a compromise would be to mini-score each game-mode so readers/players could see what the reviewer thought of each offering and in helping how a reviewer concluded the main review score.

Edit: Or just eliminate the score, yes, no, etc completely and go off what the actual review is telling the reader but it seems most folks "need" a score of some sort supposedly explaining good/bad, buy/don't buy, etc.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

The multiplayer is fun and fast paced. I can't help but wonder what it would be like if there was a deathmatch playlist without demon runes and loadouts though...

 

[Protein]

Disappointing that the multi-player by a separate development team affected the score. ID gave us one of the best shooters in years and reviewers are tearing into it. If this tanks, the blood is on Bethesda's hands and reviewers.

 

[Brian_FETO]

Reviewers are intentionally scoring it lower to punish Bethesda for non-compliance and failing to deliver review copies in advance

Bethesda will feel the wrath of games journalism, ripping and tearing at their bottom line

 

[tesqui]

Let's not forget that MP and SnapMap were such critical parts of the Doom experience that Bethesda didn't send out review copies until launch. They diverted the emphasis on the game away from the SP their own damn self.

Yeah, I guess they did this to themselves. I kind of wish they would've just scrapped the multi all together and focused solely on campaign.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

Great thread.
The game sounds perfect for me.
Picking it up today for PS4

 

[Dakhanavar]

So, here's my issue - if you really liked the campaign but didn't like the MP, shouldn't the strong campaign give the game a higher score since it's good enough on its own to sell the game to people?

For example, Dead Space 2 is a fantastic single player game with bad multiplayer. Greg Miller admits in his review that the multiplayer "did nothing for [him]" but he still gave the game a 9 because of the strength of the single player. If he scored this the same way you scored Doom it would've been like a 7.5.

Dead Space 2 is a great example. In the case of Doom, it seems like it would actually be getting higher scores if it didn't have the multiplayer at all. (But don't you dare take out SnapMap, that has a lot of potential!)

On one hand, yeah, you should review the package as a whole. On the other hand, if you had a blast with one mode and feel the other is pretty forgettable, does knowing it exists really bring down the great time you had with the other mode? Would it be a "better" game if that content wasn't there, bringing up the overall quality of the package? I feel like there's a lot of people that are going to have a great time with the campaign and might not ever even load up the competitive multiplayer. Hell, at this point Doom is my current GOTY for sheer amount of fun per minute.

I'm not saying there's a right or wrong way to approach reviewing a game like this (Where 1 component is almost universally considered superior to the other), but the idea of what would happen if the mode was removed makes for some interesting food for thought. Also, this isn't necessarily referring to any review in particular. Just something I've thought about in the past with games in similar situations that seemed relevant to this particular game.

 

[FairXchange]

The SP is amazing so far. I don't really plan to follow any reviews especially if they insist on primarily reviewing the MP as I don't plan on touching that mode. Not sure why you'd weigh a review on the MP, when Doom is so clearly single player focused.

 

[CantTrickMe]

Hope I'm not the only person here who thought the game was terrible....

 

[Reebot]

Docking points for a subpar multiplayer mode is pretty nonsensical, and incentivizes removing features from future releases.

If we imagine some parallel universe in which Doom shipped with only single player modes, than scores improve. So it's an instance of being punished for including more content.

 

[Gutek]

Who docked the game for a subpar multiplayer?

 

[Brian_FETO]

In case folks are missing it

The MP was a hefty knock against it, but SnapMap was a balancing factor. In the end, it didn't feel like the negative feelings I had about the MP impacted my SP first impressions to a point that I would reduce the score, so I left it as is.

 

[mdsfx]

Docking points for a subpar multiplayer mode is pretty nonsensical, and incentivizes removing features from future releases.

If we imagine some parallel universe in which Doom shipped with only single player modes, than scores improve. So it's an instance of being punished for including more content.

I don't agree with this. It seems as though you are looking at the multiplayer component as just an added bonus, but all content shipped as part of a game will be reviewed. Why would they only score one mode of many available in a game? How would you determine which one they are scoring? How would scoring the single player only be any different than another reviewer scoring it only based on multiplayer?

 

[The Flash]

Updated the OP with more reviews

 

[visiblemode]

Got my copy today. Can't wait!

 

[pmj]

Let's not forget that MP and SnapMap were such critical parts of the Doom experience that Bethesda didn't send out review copies until launch. They diverted the emphasis on the game away from the SP their own damn self.

I think your score and justification for it are both fair, but regarding this, so what? Are you reviewing Bethesda PR or the actual game?