"A game must be able to stand on its single-player alone."
What bothers me about this statement, which I have heard numerous times from Mr. Croshaw, is that it's the one part of ZP that he never treats like an opinion. He raises this almighty statement above us lesser beings like it was in one of the fucking Ten Commandments of Gaming.
It may be true for him, but it's not true for most of us.
And he has to acknowledge that because he's not making this review solely for the denizens of Yahtzeeland. I mostly respect his harsh opinions, but he talks about multiplayer like a born-again virgin with Asberger's talks about orgies. And the only reason he's voicing his opinion is because he writes for "Parties Monthly" and is required to attend.
Saying "single-player is the only real thing of merit in a game" is like saying that "parties must stand on the quality of the food and music alone". For a lot of parties, that's true, but those of us getting laid aren't going to care much about the cold pizza. True, there's the risk of venereal disease in the form of squeakers, hackers, and trash-talkers, but it can be worth that risk.
In other words, what upsets me the most about the statement is that it says "This thing I generally hate is objectively without merit" with no awareness of the hypocrisy. You can't expect to accurately judge something's merit if you've judged it before you know the specifics. This is why those in the know ignore a well-respected critic by the name of Roger Ebert when they can tell that he's talking out of his ass.
I know what I don't like. I don't like racing, sports, and straight-up action games (a la God of War). Yet at the same time, I understand that people do and that the ultimate worth of a game is how much net enjoyment it creates per targeted user. And if I notice that the people who like this sort of thing are happy, then I'll say that the game has plenty of merit for those people and call it a success.
It'll just never be one for me.
