MGO is truly half assed and doesn't deserve more than a 7. I'd even argue for a 6.5 in this case. It was made by a studio outside of Konami Japan and it shows. It was meant to be a tack on to the existing single player experience simply because reviewers and gamers today think that games without multiplayer aren't worth buying.

I also do not care much...as I'll be jumping back into the SP mode on a higher difficulty

mgo is superb and a free add on thats a big well done for me.

eurotoilet are the ones who gave ms. pac man on 360 an 8/10, id take mgo over ms. pac man anyday

they are a toiletised biased site, that will go to any lenths to lower down the ps3 but thier rabbid plans will fail.

mgo is like a fee add-on thats free to play and will be massivly updated in the coming months including exclusive chars to use for good players.

even IGN did.

Plus MGO is a bonus pack-in with the game. This is basically the same thing as Valve did with Peggle Extreme if you bought it through Steam. It isnt really apart of the Orange Box but they added it in as a bonus if you got it through Steam.

This is why it is the MGO STARTER PACK. It is not even the full game.

Oh god, I love how the internet is available to 12 year olds.

And I don't see how MGO can be considered a free add on when I spent $60 for a disc that included it.

As a game reviewer who didn't have the chance to cover the Orange Box, I will argue that anyone who gives the same rating to Portal as they do to Team Fortress 2 because you buy them together is off their rocker. That's like giving all three Metal Gear Solids preceding 4 the same score because they're all part of the same package. Truth be told, people didn't review the games that were new to the Orange Box, they just reviewed the package itself - which is an entirely different matter, and lazy more than that.

If Metal Gear Online is different enough and handled so seperately that it comes across as a different experience (it's billed as such), there is nothing wrong with reviewing it apart from Metal Gear Solid 4.

Well, they gave MGS4 an 8 so compared to that a 7 is justified. However, that is only because their scale actually is 1-10 instead of the usual 4-10 with scores lower than 4 given occassionally. An 8 would be appropriate on the usual scale I think.

MGS4 and MGO should be reviewed as a whole, though. The Orange Box is the closest comparison and almost no one reviewer the games it contained seperately.

Are you implying that Portal and Team Fortress 2, which can be bought seperately, should be treated as the same game?

@sieanr

insulting people because of their age makes you seem a stuck up prick....

{striked sieanr of sensible poster list}

I agree with Khuutra on some level. The thing is MGS has always been a single player experience that has consistently scored in the mid 90's. MGS4 however expands upon that not only giving us an improved SP but also a multiplayer option, however mediocre it may be.

The question is should we simply score MGS4 higher than previous iterations for going beyond merely SP and dipping its toes in to the online pond? Or should we score the package upon the individual merits of it's components?

If we go with the former than we should justifiably arrive at a score higher than that of previous installments but if we go with the latter than the medicority of the online aspect should drag down the overall value of the package.