Owyn_Merrilin said:
But that doesn't mean it can't stand on multiplayer alone, it means you personally do not like multiplayer. I don't like RTS games, but I don't go around calling Starcraft a bad game and asking for a turn based mode.
We're talking about personal views here, it's not even that I don't like multiplayer. It's that I think a game
shouldn't rely/stand on it.
Referring to this argument:
Crackdown 2
Crackdown 2 seems to subscribe to the school of thought that having a multiplayer focus lets you skimp on content (see also Lost Planet 2 and that horrible Unreal Tournament/Quake 3 arena period in shooters that Half-Life thankfully rescued us from).
...
I've got nothing against multiplayer as a concept, but you shouldn't try to make it carry your game, because there are logistical problems.
If I said "a game
can't rely/stand on multiplayer." I'd have to specify what I mean (stand commercially, critically, etc)
You might be referring to this argument.
Halo: Reach
"But isn't there multiplayer as well?" Shut up! Mouth shut now! We've been over this. A full-price game has to stand up on single-player, because there are always factors in the way of multiplayer the game can't help, like its servers becoming tumbleweed-haunted ghost towns three months down the line or the aforementioned meta-cunts doing what they do best at full volume in my ear.
Which I don't know about. He's saying that games should justify their price based on single-player, but that falls into another issue.