[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]
Yeah! I like getting games with unneeded Multiplayer or Singleplayer! (Mass Effect was the last game to get Multiplayer and Battlefield 3 did not need a Single Player.)
LegatoSkyheart
No offense but I don't understand this line of thinking. Multiplayer is there as an option, it's there for people who like it, if you don't want to play it simply ignore it. Also Mass Effect 3's multiplayer is actually quite good, I like unlocking the different races and trying to survive against waves of enemies. Very strategic and great with friends.
Battlefield has never had a good single player, but it's still important to be in there. I hate games without single player modes.
The Main Line of Battlefield games were and for most Online Multiplayer games, or what not, Lan Parties can be had with Battlefield 1942 or whatever.
For some reason, EA thought it would be a good idea to put Single Player in Battlefield 3. For what purpose? Who knows, For Benchmarking? Maybe, but no one buys Battlefield for Single Player.
Mass Effect, you're right, Multiplayer is an option, but for what purpose was Multiplayer for in Mass Effect 3? Just like Battlefield, No one bought Mass Effect 3 for the Multiplayer.
Single player is a necessary component to games, especially console games. Without it there is no reason to buy the game in my book. EA knows what the market wants and it gives it, that's how you make money. People demand it, so you supply it. I don't see what's wrong with that.
The purpose for the multiplayer in Mass Effect 3 was simply to offer an option to players that want to try it, it also does effect some aspects of the story as you need to complete multiplayer levels to get your support readiness past 50% for the final mission.
You are right that no one bought the game for the multiplayer, but what's wrong with having it as an option? No one buys Halo or COD for the single player, it's there as an option.
Log in to comment