The best way i can explain MP and SP is SP is more like something that stays constant.  Everything is pretty much the same whether you play it one time or 100 times.  This is largely because AI and design.  You can maybe do a few things differently in more diverse games like Metal Gear where you dont kill everybody but go without seen, but again for the most part the game stays constant.  This is why many people beat a game and never play it again, and why devs are trying to add more stuff for more replayability.

MP uses real people that has unique ways of thinking forever changing each game through competition with yourself and your opponents.  Think of sports like American Football.  If the New England Patriots play really well against the Jaguars does that mean that next week they will do the same against the Dallas Cowboys?  No, because there is different strategies that will take place, different circumstances that will change the way you react.  This is why it isnt out of the ordinary for people to put 100's of hours into multiplayer games

I'm gonna wait for EA to give me it for free on Origin. Took me a year to get BF3 but I got about 6 copies of it now so no point buying this or BF4.

Good contribution to the OP.

Anyway, for people that wants to rate a game with more emphasis on MP low because of lack of traditional singleplayer, you should just stick to single player games.

It's like me trying to rate JRPGs. I don't like them and I would give them zero everytime I was "forced" to rate them. I don't like their art style, characters, story etc...

I stay away from topics involving them and I don't get all sour when most of the games released on a time period are JRPGs.

MP only games are that, MP only. Like Bomberman games; never heard anybody bitching about most of them.

Your legit opinion makes me really mad!! >:(

Why thank you. I put a lot of effort into it. Glad you liked it babe.

The only place I would neg the game is in the graphics department. If titanfall can get a 8/10 for visuals then we have set the bar REALLY low for next gen. Other x1 games look so much better and perform better. Seems like either they were rushed or ea didn't put their full backing behind the game, probably a mix of both.

As for artstyle we'll it looks exceptionally generic in that department. I noticed both j allard and jaywood gave high scores for visuals in their reviews...surely they would have compared to existing x1 games??

I blame ea though. They probably weren't sure how we'll the game was going to do and decided to not go all out on graphics ala battlefield. That will change with titanfall 2 :)

Oops double penetration. My bad ;)

Maybe the visuals aren't rated out of 10? Because the game really doesn't look very good. I'm actually having a hard time thinking of another 8th gen retail game that doesn't look at least as good besides maybe Theif.

So this is what Jay sounds like huh.

Im disapointed this is the first time youve heard -_- :P