Vicious wrote:stay on topic!
No chance. Most of those games suck.
xander wrote:Tufto wrote:2) This thread is terrible. No offence.
It was started by a 12 year old. What did you expect?
xander
That. The thing with multiplayer is that it is very time consuming; you traditionally have to invest a lot of time into each game you want to get enjoyment out of. Singleplayer has a more direct fun payback. Some people like to invest their time selectively and only play multiplayer games that are really worth it and bring something new. I only played MW2 a bit during the free weekend and it didn't offer me anything Quake 2 and 3 didn't already have (well, iron sights, reloading weapons, instant access to grenades, plus stuff I don't like), minus interesting weapons. Since it's usually impossible to know beforehand whether a game's MP modes will be worth it in the long run (it depends on so many factors, your hardware, the netcode, the servers, your ability to develop skill in that game, the community), I hold it with the guy with the sweet hat and say that a game needs to be able to stand on singleplayer alone. Exceptions are only allowed for cheap games, be it downloadable indies or bargain bin grabs where the financial risk is minimized, or if the game has a really fun multiplayer demo.elexis wrote:I play COD exclusively for the single player, which is why it took until that massive steam COD sale mid year to justify me buying MW1.
bert_the_turtle wrote:Exceptions are only allowed for cheap games, be it downloadable indies or bargain bin grabs where the financial risk is minimized, or if the game has a really fun multiplayer demo.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests