Poll: Would you rather have...?

[dreadedcandiru99]

Campaign. Have never, ever cared about multiplayer.

 

[WickedArtist]

I would prefer if both campaign and multiplayer were good. The wording on the poll makes it rather limited and extreme. But anyway, I really like a good campaign. Multiplayer might last longer, but the nature of online gaming communities can greatly subtract from experience. Aside from that, campaigns usually offer a deeper experience than multiplayer, which is normally focused on challenge and competition rather than story, narrative and the likes.

P.S.
In the end, my real vote goes for variety. I'd like to have games of all sorts, some with great campaigns but weak multiplayer (and if it's weak it might as well not be there at all), and others with great multiplayer but weaker campaigns. I enjoy campaign-centric games like Half Life, Bioshock and the likes, as well as multiplayer-centric games like Team Fortress 2.

 

[A Weary Exile]

I don't play online so campaign/story is most important to me.

 

[hazabaza1]

What about a great campaign and no multiplayer? That's what I'd vouch for.

Ditto. I don't like online because A: I'm silent naturally.
and B) People are dicks to silent people.

 

[Sion_Barzahd]

What about a great campaign and no multiplayer? That's what I'd vouch for.

Ditto. I don't like online because A: I'm silent naturally.
and B) People are dicks to silent people.

I'll second that. Fuck multiplayer, take Halo 3 for example. I played the campaign about 7-9 times, but never got that into the multiplayer.

 

[lizards]

the games that have good campaigns are not the ones being played hugely 2 years after release

multiplayer matters more

 

[zombflux]

Multiplayer is where the money is

Would like to see more great and imaginative single-players, though.

 

[Fallingwater]

I'm a hardcore single-player gamer. I occasionally do play multi, but only over LAN; I guess I'm just too social to have much fun playing with people I've never met and will never see in my life. Therefore, I'll always take a good campaign over multi.
Also, personally I'd like to see all games split in entirely different releases for single and multi, with prices halved. This way those who only want one of the two varieties can only get that, and not pay for the development of the half they're uninterested in.

 

[Toty54]

I prefer my multi-player games to be separate to my single-player games so that none of your circumstances occur.

 

[0p3rati0n]

I want half and half. I want to play a good SP and then say "ok done! On to pwning Noobs on Multi!" When ever I get a CoD I'll play the campaign first then move on to multiplayer. Then again The Conduits SP was amazing (in my opinion) but it has a below average Multiplayer. I have to aim for the head and pump lead into that head for 3 seconds. I thought one - two bullet(s) to the skull kills you! Also what about gut shots! They are just as fatal as headshots if it's in the heart!

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

Depends on what i'm currently looking for in a game.

 

[rhyno435]

I accidentally voted for multiplayer, but now that I think about it, I would rather have an amazing campaign that is different from any other game. If the multiplayer is bad, I'll just play Modern Warfare.

 

[azncutthroat]

Good campaign and good multiplayer. I live for both video game plots and online competition.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I play much more single player, so I go for campaign any day. If a game is good enough, the multiplayer will stand up by itself, designing it solely for multiplayer is a kick in the teeth to single players.

(NOT FOR FLAMING: This is where I draw the difference between Halo and Left4Dead, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE!)