Frankly, it annoys me how you're being way too generous with co-op scores for games that don't really provide any kind of co-op campaign or any other story-based content. Transformers War for Cybertron had a full-blown lengthy 3 player co-op campaign PLUS the horde mode, and it got 4/5. This one only has the meager horde mode, and it is enough to net it 2.5/5? Come on. Even if the scale is non-arithmetic, one still gets the impression that the entire War for Cybertron's co-op campaign was worth only 1.5 extra points, which, of course, is completely ludicrous.

Wave-based "horde modes" (in their earlier form, previously known as brainless deathmatches with bots) are a dime a dozen nowadays. They're everythere, even in such traditionally SP-only series like Mass Effect, Resident Evil, or Assassin's Creed. Every other 1st/3rd person shooter on the market has or is planning to get one. Why? Because when you already have your key game mechanics in place, it's just too easy and dirt cheap to implement them. Compared with the complexities of creating campaign content, they're basically an incredibly simplistic and repetitive in nature regurgitation of already existing assets and gameplay elements.

Giving high praises to a game that includes a horde mode and scoring it high just because of it, makes the entire scoring system look rather meaningless. When true co-op games like Resident Evil 5 or Saints Row The Third get 4.5/5 on your co-op scale, a "co-op" title like this should get 1/5, maybe 1.5/5 tops. It just doesn't offer enough co-op content to justify a higher score in my view.

Predicting some of your possible replies, I'll be honest, I have very little interest in any counterarguments. Just as some of us didn't like some of your earlier "co-op" reviews that were 95% about reviewing the single-player component and didn't include key facts about the cooperative part (e.g., the original Fable III review), this is just how I feel about your scoring system that awards co-op points to a game that basically has no co-op content. You may choose to ignore or disagree with my opinion, or you may find it valuable in some regard. Personally, I think that if giving lower scores is for some reason out of the question, you could at least consider making your scoring system a little bit robust. Sites like IGN or Gametrailers use subcategories to supplement their overall game scores. "Presentation", "Graphics", "Sound", "Lasting Appeal", etc. Perhaps you could think of something similar to go along with your co-op scores. Just a thought.

@Rekka, Generally I agree with your opinions about horde modes. I'm bored with them and think it's a total cop-out to replace a solid co-op campaign with a tacked on feature.

BUT, I don't see where you're going with the whole "high praise for lame co-op" argument. A 2.5/5 is only 50% and for most things a score like that is considered barely adequate, if even that much. The review's opening caption even says, "Falls short as far as coop is concerned". I think the reviewer makes it pretty clear that as a coop game it isn't worth much.

Well, as I said, I don't think that this game offers even anything close to 50% (or, more accurately, 62.5%) of its much more co-op friendly predecessor. But beside my expectations of what the 50% score should mean, here's what Co-Optimus Review Score Explanation (http://www.co-optimus.com/review-scores.php) has to say about it

3/5 means that "The game has some slightly annoying quirks in co-op. . . When it works though, it's a lot of fun."
2/5 means that "The game falls short in it's implementation of co-op. Expected features are missing or broken."
and 1/5 means that "Barely considered a co-op game. Almost no redeeming value".

I'd say that according to this explanation sheet, 1-1.5 would be a perfect co-op score for this kind of a game. The overall rating of 4/5 is pretty spot-on, though, and it should be the main guide for anyone interested in the single-player content. But for people like me who have very little interest in the SP part and are only interested in playing the game with friends or family members, the 2.5 score seems inflated and misleading, to say the least. The game has no co-op value to justify spending $15-20, let alone spending $60x2.

By the way, I agree that the review makes it clear that the Escalation mode is the only kind of co-op the game has to offer. My criticism is basically aimed at the scoring trend, not at the review itself. I think it's a safe assumption that a good portion of people check the the score first and only read the rest of the review if the score justifies it. Even then, most of us would probably skim a review for an older game, instead of reading it in full.

Rekka, I totally understand where you are coming from. I found it very difficult to score the co-op in the game. It is clearly far inferior to its predecessor in this regard. Here's why I decided on a 2.5.

3/5 means that "The game has some slightly annoying quirks in co-op. . . When it works though, it's a lot of fun."

Escalation mode, though clearly not as meaty as the multiplayer or campaign, is very fun with the right group. It's far better than that of the 1st game. Cooperative features in this mode are well done you can revive teammates, heal them, and even pool resources for upgrades.

2/5 means that "The game falls short in it's implementation of co-op. Expected features are missing or broken."

The campaign is an "expected feature" in this regard, for sure. But what co-op is there, is pretty good. Escalation mode isn't broken at all.

I felt that somewhere between 2 and 3 made the most sense. A 1 or 1.5 is too low, that's best reserved for games that are just plain broken in co-op, like OrionDino Beatdown or Watchmen. FoC is better than those games by far.

I appreciate your feedback. Rest assured that scoring is the most agonizing part of the review every time!

i agree with the review and the score, well explained DjinniMan.

i'm disappointed in a few things from the game, not only missing campaign co-op, but the choice of dlc from the get go, ok Prime is a great one to have, but megatron should also have been given in the pre-order dlc, just so we can change them both in game.

i also enjoyed the various winks at the old series, Screams coronation, and the Prime dlc.

I do have a point of contention, the dinobots were created on earth much after the TFs crashed here.

So even though its greatly implemented in game, its just not following continuity. and for some reason nobody brings it up in their reviews.

So, for my money, over all i enjoyed the game, i expected the same engine and inner-workings as in WFC but with new maps and bots. too bad they didn't just reuse the same engine and gameplay.

i despise any money system in a game, dealing with money in this manner , to me, interferes with the player "getting away from RL" part of videogames (might depend what your job is), but this one is well implemented , considering its just a device to get us spending fictional money for no reason at all except getting new upgrades, which should be given/unlocked as bonuses at the end of the previous round.

People like bonuses, its a good thing.

Scoring/grading is a point of much contention between editors and readers. There's no perfect way to do it. Just read the review, try to ascertain your own impressions from that, and leave the numbers to whom they are so vastly important to: management.