Yes. If you completely ignore story. Game pacing. and level design.

The game would really benefit from a COD like zombie mode since the game has mushroom head zombies.

I'm personally very excited for the multi-player. Multi-player almost always provides me with much more gaming hours than the singleplayer. And oftentimes, a single moment of multiplayer can be just as enjoyable as a single moment of singleplayer for me. I don't think there's anything about singleplayer that somehow makes it a bigger priority than multiplayer. It's just different tastes for different people.

That's where I disagree with people who disapprove of the multiplayer because it takes resources away from the singleplayer. People have to realize that the singleplayer isn't inherently more important that the multiplayer; it comes down to your own opinion and preference. I could perhaps understand if the singleplayer is clearly bad due to low resources. But if the single player is excellent, then it's extremely selfish for you to demand even more resources at the expense of a group of players missing an entire mode.

Besides, I fully trust Naught Dog. This is the team that worked on Uncharted 2, which had multiplayer that didn't stop them from making one of the most praised singleplayers of all time. The multiplayer wasn't amazing. But it was better than most multiplayer games these days. And I think it was definitely worth the investment by Naughty Dog. If they feel that they can complete their story by using only a certain amount of resources, then I say let them create a multiplayer mode. They've already proven successful at doing so.

And they seem to have much more freedom and time with this game. Since this is the team that worked on Uncharted 2, we can assume they've been developing the game for 2-3 years already. By the team the game releases, they would have had 3-4 years on this title. That seems like more than enough time to wrap up whatever story they wanted to tell while also creating an enjoyable multiplayer mode. It seems to me like they decided their release date without too much pressure from Sony (of course I can't know for sure). This tells me that they feel that they will be complete with their vision/objectives. 

As for the multiplayer being tacked on, we'll have to wait and find out. No use in blindly drawing assumptions at the moment.

And besides, multiplayer is fun as hell. I'm interested in how it'll play out. Left 4 Dead style, I hope. Or better yet, they should create a unique style never seen before. I'm hyped!

the same shit happened when they announced multi-player for uncharted 2...and what happened then? didn't stop U2 from becoming one of the highest rated games of all time along with most goty of all times as well. I can't believe people are bashing an aspect of a game THEY HAVE NOT SEEN!!! what kind of logic is that!?

Not that I'm against them going their own route, but if they're going to take impressions from another game, it should be Left 4 Dead instead of Call of Duty. 

I've played zombies mode in both Black Ops 1 and Black Ops II. CoD's zombies mode is incredibly shallow in comparison to Left 4 Dead. L4D has better enemy variation, weapon-types, tension, atmosphere, unpredictabiliy (by a longshot), more emphasis on teamwork, etc. It just doesn't compare to the depths of Left 4 Dead. 

But of course Naughty Dog should add their own style to whatever it is they do. But I think I'd really enjoy a mode similar to Left 4 Dead's mode.

even if it would be the worst mulitplayer ever, as long as the singeplayer will be exactly as it would be without multiplayer i don't get how people can have a problem with that.

Multiplayer is mostly standard and more people enjoy it than those that do not. Years back it was surprising if many games like Bioshock 2 added multiplayer. It is mostly standard now and Naughty Dog has only gotten better as they have done more. I agree with Jay that it should be like left 4 dead, though I have a hard time imagining it being like left 4 dead as L4D focuses completely on multiplayer and the Last of Us will not.

Uncharted 1 was the only game that didn't have multiplayer and yet it was the lowest scoring out of the three. People are too worried, this is Naughty Dog.

Intrigued to see what the MP actually consists of.

JayWood2010 said:   Naughty Dog defends The Last of Us multiplayer December 11, 2012 10:24AM PST By Eddie Makuch, News Editor Community strategist Arne Meyer says resources were not not taken away from single-player to work on multiplayer. Just this week, Naughty Dog confirmed that http://www.gamespot.com/the-last-of-us/">The Last of Us would feature multiplayer, but not all were thrilled by this decision. Responding to comments on the PlayStation Blog, Naughty Dog community strategist Arne Meyer defended the PlayStation 3 game's multiplayer component. He said resources were never taken away from single-player to work on multiplayer.   "We don’t approach [multiplayer] in any of our games as tacked on," Meyer said. "And we also always have separate teams working on the different components so that we can maintain full focus on making [single-player] and [multiplayer] up to our standards." Meyer said Naughty Dog has faith that multiplayer in The Last of Us will "stand on its own," and that if there were any ever concerns of it feeling "tacked on," then the studio would not have added it in the first place. It was not much of a surprise for The Last of Us to feature multiplayer. The company's most recent games, Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception and Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, both featured multiplayer components after the original Uncharted: Drake's Fortune did not. The Last of Us is Naughty Dog's first game outside of the Uncharted universe since 2005. It is a postapocalyptic survival game set in the United States that follows the efforts of main characters Joel and Ellie as they fight to survive.

the very first sentence isnt true. we have know about multiplaer pretty much since the game was announced.