D
DArtagnan
Guest
Your line of reasoning begins with a misinterpretion.
Your comment remind me about reviews that reduce the score for a singleplayer game with the comment "do not include multiplayer".
DA:O do not have a multiplayer setting, nor a module maker, so I find it natural that I judge what the two have in common; the singleplayer campaign.
Am I to judge the multiplayer setting, or the modulemaking utility, my conclusion is also very different. I had a blast playing the OC in NWN with my friends. One of the best multiplayer experiences we had. I also led a mod community for a couple of years.
Listen, Jemy.
You're being obtuse.
However you approach your "judgements" is your business. I don't really care, to be quite honest.
My own personal approach is to evaluate games based on my own preferences, and what they do for me.
Were I to evaluate them objectively, as in a review - I would take into account the whole thing. If a game was released as a singleplayer game, but in a series that traditionally included multiplayer - then that would be a negative. If there was no reason to expect multiplayer, then it wouldn't necessarily be a negative - it would depend on what multiplayer would do for the game.
You can think of my approach just as you like, but you must understand it means very little to me.
Well, no.
A key function in our capacity of social interaction is our ability to not only assume that people are different, you must also give the effort to attempt to grasp someone else's point of view.
Precisely.
We're not talking about social interaction, though. At least, I'm not.
I'm talking about why some games appeal more to some people, and less to others.
Whatever you tell yourself to make this utterly obvious truth untrue, is your business.