I was wonder what people prefer.

I prefer Single player although I played the crap out of UT 04.  But what I'm really getting at is I feel like I'm getting robbed (time wise) on my single player campaign in alot of game because they're so worried about the multiplayer. I remember reading Bioshock reviews that docked the game points because of multiplayer. Thats like docking Schindlers Lists because there weren't enough jokes. Personally I wish they would stop tying to put mulltiplayer with single player games. That said I feel Half Life has done a great job on all fronts. But 9 out of 10 time either the multiplayer suffers or the singleplayer. I wish they would stick to one category.

 Note: Two player campaigns I would generally file with Single player.

It depends for me really. In general I like single player better as I don't like playing with random people I don't know but I do like playing multiplayer games with people I know or XBL with real life friends.

Multi. It's a lot of fun if you have 3 friends that live within a mile of you.

I don't like playing random people with voice chat. But playing with friends is always fun.

I think the options should be Single Player, Local Multiplayer (Splitscreen or LAN) and Online multiplayer. Even then, I think there is a difference between playing coop and playing against each other too.

Using my now complicated choices :P

Local Co-op > Single Player > Local Deathmatch >>>>>>>>>> Online Co-op > Online Deathmatch.

Multiplayer gaming to me is about the social experience. Sitting around, talking, having a few drinks. This is the best part of multiplayer. This is why I place online gaming miles behind the others. If I'm not playing with people I know, I've always felt it is just like a more advanced AI. Given that, I've always got plenty of single player games I haven't finished yet, so I might as well get through those.

I also love local multiplayer(splitscreen and lan)
I dont like playing online, even with friends, save for RTS games.

I agree Local is far better I remember having LAN parties of 20-30 people in college an when you know everyone it freakin awsome.

What happen when u beat a singleplayer game?
Even if it is a great tittle it ends in the wardrobe once u beat it(100%)
But multiplayer games like PES6, SSBM & Halo 2(online) give you
a lot replay value, why? cuz the human element is simply unpredictable

Yeah but I want story. And one day I want them to make a multiplayer game like halo that 3 month after its released they reveal it's just the Com and they foolied everyone. Because thats how I feel when I play online with random people. I don't completly mean that but I feel it illustrates my point. Also I have beat Bioshock 5 times and RE4 12. So for me they have replay value kinda like an interactive movie.

Oh, mulitplayer all the way. Can't beat the good 'ol human interaction. I prefer multiplayre in person too, online might as well be single player against really good AI... AI that often does everything they can to exploit lame tactics... AI that is simply obsessed with winning, and doesn't care about anything else really...

 ...where was I? Oh yea, multplayer. I actually wrote a nice piece on the divide between Co-op multiplayers and competative ones. 

 _{Co-Op or Competative?}

_{Ah yes, the argument as old as gaming itself: Co-operative multiplayer, or competitive multiplayer. I always thought it strange that these two methods of play were lumped together under the name “multiplayer” even though they are completely opposite from each other (killing an enemy or helping a friend). Surly neither can be said to be better than the other, or more important than the other, and this brings up another interesting point. How come most of us really prefer one style to the other? Personally, most of the gamers I have talked to either love co-op or they love competitive. Why can’t we love them both? Let’s take a look at players of both games types…}

_{Jon’s palms are sweaty on the controller as he nervously walks down the dark hallway. Goldeneye is an old game but it’s his game and there is no way some freshmen in his dorm is going to beat him at his game, not today, not in Goldeneye, He glances at his ammo situation and thanks himself for going to get that AR-15, he’s going to need it. His eyes detect a flurry of movement at the corner of his screen and his hands leap into action, precisely turning and aiming the target. With reflexes and skills honed over ten years of playing he fires shot after shot with perfect accuracy. His human opponent, smarter and faster than any AI could ever hope to be, valiantly fights back with equally impressive skill and nearly takes out Jon with a grenade; Jon dodged it in a flash and returns the favor with a remote mine of his own that finishes the match. Jon stands up with an adrenaline rush and holds his controller high with a yell; he thanks his years of practice and triumphantly proclaims “HA! No one beats me at Goldeneye! No one!!”}

_{Across the hall Matt and Ryan are in the middle of a Co-op campaign in another FPS game. Best friends since they were three, Matt and Ryan knew they could count on each other as they progress through the level. They both know Ryan is better at sneak attacks so he takes a side path for a secondary objective. Suddenly Ryan yells out in alarm, he was ambushed badly. Matt does a 180 and takes off as fast as he can, he changes to his best gun and screams “Hang on Ryan!!” Ryan runs in desperation towards Matt as he gets hit from all sides; Ryan knows there is no one better than Matt when it comes to crowd control. Matt jumps off a ledge and lands right next to his best friend, tossing him a better gun before opening fire on the oncoming horde. “Ryan, I’ll hold them off, RUN!!”. Ryan makes it about ten steps before stopping and turning around, he can’t leave his friend behind, and there’s no one better at dodging then Ryan. Together, back to back, they fight for each other and emerge from the jungle level victorious and together.}

_{Naturally, first person shooting games are a great example to show the differences between the two styles of gameplay, and illustrate that they are both equally fun to play. So why does everyone take sides? If you think about it, almost all games have aspects of both types of multiplayer, from capture the flag FPS games to MMO's like WoW. So why do people usually prefer one style to another? Is one group better than the other? I wouldn't think so but often The whole co-op vs competitive preference draws a deep line inbetween gamers. This divide is based on something far greater than the simple “my console maker is better than yours” argument and this Editor finds it strange that this divide is settled relatively peacefully. Why do we all draw our swords when someone says they prefer a different company, yet when someone says they prefer a vastly different type of game (killing vs helping) we all get along? The next time someone says the PS3 is better than the 360 can't you two instead agree that console games are better than arcade games? Or agree that computer games are better than console games? Human nature seems to make us want to argue at anything and everything, but it doesn't have to be that way. People can get along just fine even if they have different tastes. I think we all need to take a lesson from the competitive/co-op debate, which rages on, peacefully.}