mornelithe on 16 March 2014
| theshonen8899 said: I'm going to argue the exact opposite. More games should be multiplayer only. I paid $50 for Battlefield 2 back in the day and that game was rich and full of content. The fact that EA has seen fit to add a garbage single-player campaign to BF3 and BF4 instead of using those resources to add maps or more importantly POLISH THE GAME makes me furious. I've paid for BF2, MAG, and many other multiplayer only games and I enjoyed them til the very end. It crushes me to see some of these go but I'd rather have a fleeting but better multiplayer experience than have a horrible, tacked on single-player addition. |
If this were 10 years ago, pre-360/PS3 era, I'd completely agree with you. However, until Sony/Microsoft pull their heads out of their collective asses and start allowing mods, map making, and stand alone/local server options on console (and ffs, the PS4/X1 have enough resources, adopt Punkbuster, or give users Admin control on servers), we'll always be at the mercy of these companies and when they decide it's time to close down servers. That won't happen though, because people are still more than happy to pay $20 bucks for 4 maps.
