By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - EA boss proudly refuses to publish single-player games - single-player on the way out?

superchunk said:

As long as I don't have to pay extra, I don't care.

Some games are meant for solo experiences and I only play that. The last couple Assassin's Creed games had multi-player, I did not play it at all. Just beat the game and moved on.

If anything I'd prefer local multi-player in the same style as Goldeneye, but for some reason they focus on online matches and no local. bleh.

Not missed much, thats one of the worse multiplayer modes I've played. It was ok in Brotherhood but got boring and frustrating quite quickly. In Revelations you couldn't even choose a playlist but got stuck with whatever game you landed in.

Only time I've played a single-player focused game that has had a good multiplayer alongside it was Mass Effect 3. Although the horde-mode variant gets quite repetitive its still quite adicitive and the link the the single-layer isn't bad. That said, EA previous multiplayer tack-on (Dead Space 2) just showed why this approach is wrong, people hate online passes enough as it is.



Around the Network
pezus said:
^Also UC2 and 3, I enjoyed their multiplayer.


I didn't play Uncharted 2's multiplayer either and while I'm currently playing UC3, I doubt I'll touch its multiplayer.

Again, I might  consider them if they were local vs online. I want Goldeneye style as that is just far more fun for a small multiplayer scenario.

I don't understand why HDTwins have nearly all but abandoned local multiplayer. Kinda stupid.



Hardly a wonder that EA seems completely incapable of making money these days. They're well on their way to simply turning into another version of Activision at this point (minus the massive money magnets, of course).