113 réponses à ce sujet

[ODESSA_Z]

Started to see some people posting on Twitter negativity or aprehensiveness about the upcoming Multiplayer addition to Mass Effect 3 and I had to write this post. 

I support Bioware's decision 100% to add CO-OP. And I wanna thank you guys for all your hard work and can't wait to play by myself AND with MY FRIENDS!!!

The whole..."To MP or to not MP" issue is something that I am well versed in with arguments from both sides and have written numerous threads on the subject. We have people who are flat out against the CO-OP addition, people who don't care one way or the other, and people who are Pro-CO-OP and support Bioware's decision.

So, I'll make this as simple as possible....

You are either an inclusionist or a segregationist. ???? What does that mean?

Multiplayer "Inclusionists" are gamers, like myself, who WANT game developers to experiment and innovate and create new aspects of gaming for ALL TYPES of gamers. Casual gamers, Hardcore gamers, Professional Gamers, Family Gamers....if they love a franchise and they are interested in buying a game....why not try to put as many game modes as possible in a game to INCLUDE as many types of tastes in gaming as possibel?

1. The vast majority of gamers want to play with friends.

2. In order for games to compete in the marketplace against similar big name titles...more modes are a MUST.

3.
Would you agree that additional modes to accomodate other gamers is a
good thing. We want to "include" as many types of fans as possible
right? Why exclude or alienate a whole segment of gamers. So, if it is
possible and if it can be done properly, adding modes to lure other
types of gamers to the franchise is a necessity.


Multiplayer- "Segregationists"

The "segregationists" are those who believe that SP MUST be preserved by EXCLUDING MP and other modes. They believe that adding additional modes "takes away" from the story line and that the devs don't get to spend enough time working on the SP to make it good enough. Segregatioists in gaming would rather see a GREAT SP experience that only has a limited "shelf life"...than a great SP backed up by a great MP that has EXTENDED PLAY. Because of their gaming lifestyle, they don't care if the company is truly successful, (MP games are far more successful than SP only games in most cases), and are selfish in wanting very narrow to no online capabilities.

What is funny is that you will never see a Multiplayer gamer ask for SP to be removed from a game or fight to keep SP out of a game. But you see tons of Single Player complainers who wish for MP to be taken out or fight prior to release the aspect of multiplayer to be included. They are truly segregationists.

Not all segregationists are hardcore MP haters, but you would think that most of them are in the way they constantly beg game developers to "not ruin my experience" sounds pretty selfish...doesn't it.

I argue that....

1. The creation of new modes by a game development company DOES NOT "take away" from the SP experience. Why? Because the decision to add MP is normally done at the BEGINNING of a project. Bioware didn't wake up one morning half way through development and say, "You know, we should take half of our team and start making MP."  IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY. So, the whole "takes away" argument is bunk.

2. If you love the Mass Effect franchise, you would want Bioware to succeed against its competitors and be profitable....right? Adding additional modes is proven to raise the shelf life of the game, thus keeping the game in the public eye longer, thus creating more credit and street value of the franchise.

3. Be nice to MP gamers...we want to experience Mass Effect in our own way, with FRIENDS. please let MP gamers be included in the fun of Mass Effect, why would you want to alienate us.


I am hoping to see a Versus Mode in a future release....if you want to exclude me or hate me for wishing that...it says alot about the mentality of a segregationist.

Last I wanted to put this quote in from someone I would consider somewhat segregatioist to illustrate their sentiment.

Before you post...really examine what kind of gamer you are and ask yourself if my points are valid. Don't get mad...i respect the segregationist view, I just don't believe it is the best way.

Veritable Sage wrote...

Hi all,

I don't post often,
but I'd like SOMEONE, but also BIOWARE, to understand that there are
many, many gamers out here who don't WANT to play multiplayer.  For me,
it's basically because I want to play the game myself, not with other
people.  I don't want to play the game with friends I don't have either.
I am a loner, intend to stay that way.  I also believe there are many
gamers who play for the feeling of being involved and being able to win
without having to worry about "friend" issues.  Please, Bioware, don't
give up on the single player.  There are a lot of us out here.

I
adore the Mass Effect games. I've bought ME3 and will enjoy the single
player game.  As far as I'm concerned, the multiplayer portion doesn't
exist. The fact is the multiplayer option is NOT an option for me. 

Did it never occur to Bioware that many players play their games to stay OUT of social bull****?  ../../../../images/forum/emoticons/blushing.png

Modifié par ODESSA_Z, 12 février 2012 - 08:53 .

[Descy_]

If you dont want to play it then dont. Simple.

Couldnt you have posted this in the thread which you quoted at the end?

[G3rman]

You are about 8 months late to the argument bud, whether people like it or not its in the game now it really doesn't matter.

[curly haired boy]

sup odessa

i'm a big fan of the ME3 co-op multi, but i don't think symmetrical, guns versus guns competitive play will fit well with the ME universe

if they make some sort of ME spinoff game where it's alliance/aliens versus reaper forces, then they could do something like soldiers versus husks. if a developer is including versus play, then they have GOT to separate themselves from the traditional guns vs guns shooters that already dominate.

[Kusy]

Odessa, lay off, go grab a cool drink, and do something productive... I'll see you in one of those multiplayer co-op missions I'm going to play without making a religion out of it.

[Justicar]

You missed an on the fence part :s

I'm happy if MP is or is not in ME3, I'm very happy either way.

I'm not pushing them to include multiplayer but I didn't go "Pre-Order Cancelled!" when it was confirmed to be included.

[KefkaGestahl]

ODESSA_Z wrote...

1. The creation of new modes by a game development company DOES NOT "take away" from the SP experience. Why? Because the decision to add MP is normally done at the BEGINNING of a project. Bioware didn't wake up one morning half way through development and say, "You know, we should take half of our team and start making MP."  IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY. So, the whole "takes away" argument is bunk.

There are only so much time and so many resources that can be devoted to a project.  The decision to introduce multiplayer does limit how much of both can be applied to the single-player campaign.  Bethesda has said as much to explain why they refuse to add multiplayer to their Elder Scrolls games.  And Skyrim did quite well without multiplayer...

Modifié par KefkaGestahl, 12 février 2012 - 08:59 .

[N7Kopper]

curly haired boy wrote...

sup odessa

i'm a big fan of the ME3 co-op multi, but i don't think symmetrical, guns versus guns competitive play will fit well with the ME universe

There is no versus.
Also, indoctrination. It could fit, because of that. (America's Army style, where it's always the opposing side who are indoctrinated - that way success could have influenced Galaxy at War... but eh, they made it co-op only. Not that I care.)

Modifié par N7Kopper, 12 février 2012 - 09:00 .

[chengthao]

no need to bring more controversy to BSN

[ODESSA_Z]

G3rman wrote...

You are about 8 months late to the argument bud, whether people like it or not its in the game now it really doesn't matter.

Not late at all, just refining my eralier comments I made in a previous post. and you are right....it doesn't matter because it is in the game already. But the people arguing against the CO-OP addition are still very audible, and if Bioware wants to try their hand at VERSUS in the future, this argument may enlighten people who would be against that.

[Pee Jae]

My feelings: It's here. You're paying for the game. Don't you want to explore every nook and cranny of it? I do.

[ODESSA_Z]

KefkaGestahl wrote...

ODESSA_Z wrote...

1. The creation of new modes by a game development company DOES NOT "take away" from the SP experience. Why? Because the decision to add MP is normally done at the BEGINNING of a project. Bioware didn't wake up one morning half way through development and say, "You know, we should take half of our team and start making MP."  IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY. So, the whole "takes away" argument is bunk.

There are only so much time and so many resources that can be devoted to a project.  The decision to introduce multiplayer does limit how much of both can be applied to the single-player campaign.  Bethesda has said as much to explain why they refuse to add multiplayer to their Elder Scrolls games.  And Skyrim did quite well without multiplayer...

But Skyrim WITH multiplayer would have been SICK!!!! The decision to add multiplayer DOES NOT limit...if you think that, then you think that NO PLANNING or PREPARATION goes into a decision to add new modes. you don't understand how games are made...sorry.

[ttchip]

KefkaGestahl wrote...
There are only so much time and so many resources that can be devoted to a project.  The decision to introduce multiplayer does limit how much of both can be applied to the single-player campaign.  Bethesda has said as much to explain why they refuse to add multiplayer to their Elder Scrolls games.  And Skyrim did quite well without multiplayer...

Consider it this way: Giving customers additional options (i.e multiplayer in this case) widens the potential market the product could be targetted at. This would lead to an increase in ressources (money spend on hiring a second team -> effectively spending more time on the product) since the product is almost certainly going to sell more copies. Thus arguing that adding MP to ME3 takes away from the ressources spend on making a solid SP becomes obsolete.

Modifié par ttchip, 12 février 2012 - 09:08 .

[corporal doody]

tl:dr. bioware was nice enuff to make it so it isnt required to play MP to get the best ending or max out on the achievements.

[Berkilak]

Why create a new thread to reply to an existing one?

[ODESSA_Z]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Odessa, lay off, go grab a cool drink, and do something productive... I'll see you in one of those multiplayer co-op missions I'm going to play without making a religion out of it.

Sorry I am passionate about my style of play, Hardcore MP...actually...no I'm not sorry. Its not a religion...already have that aspect of my life covered.

Simply stated...I hate to see the devs at Bioware subjected to petty requests to kill CO-OP...something that THEY believe in. I hate to see Casey Hudson in front of cameras forced to explain why CO-OP fits in this game because people are "concerned" that it will "take away" from the game.

I TRUST the guys at Bioware and I know the game will be great.

This is really the only gaming subject that I am passionate about.

[William Shakespeare]

i'll probably play mp more then single player. just how i am. if a game offers mp, i barely touch single player.

[ODESSA_Z]

ttchip wrote...

KefkaGestahl wrote...
There are only so much time and so many resources that can be devoted to a project.  The decision to introduce multiplayer does limit how much of both can be applied to the single-player campaign.  Bethesda has said as much to explain why they refuse to add multiplayer to their Elder Scrolls games.  And Skyrim did quite well without multiplayer...

Consider it this way: Giving customers additional options (i.e multiplayer in this case) widens the potential market the product could be targetted at. This would lead to an increase in ressources (money spend on hiring a second team -> effectively spending more time on the product) since the product is almost certainly going to sell more copies. Thus arguing that adding MP to ME3 takes away from the ressources spend on making a solid SP becomes obsolete.

YES!!!! you got it...Awesome post ttchip!!!!

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

it not as if SP has never suffered because of MP, I can understand where thease fears are coming from

plus skyrim was the biggest selling game last year and its single player

[WizenSlinky0]

I will prefrace this by saying I think Bioware got it right with multiplayer. By pushing it on to a second team they ensured the core aspects that made up the first two parts of the series would not be compromised by redirecting resources to multiplayer.

Everything I have seen has shown me good things and I expect the single player to hold up just fine. If the multiplayer is good on top of that, well yay.

But the sheer attitude of this post makes it require my response.

ODESSA_Z wrote...


You are either an inclusionist or a segregationist. ???? What does that mean?

Segregation is a loaded word. Find something more fitting.

Multiplayer "Inclusionists" are gamers, like myself, who WANT game developers to experiment and innovate and create new aspects of gaming for ALL TYPES of gamers. Casual gamers, Hardcore gamers, Professional Gamers, Family Gamers....if they love a franchise and they are interested in buying a game....why not try to put as many game modes as possible in a game to INCLUDE as many types of tastes in gaming as possibel?

Resources are limited. You're accusing those who don't want MP as not wanting games to innovate. Multiplayer, for one, is not an innovation. Secondly you will be hard pressed to find ANY gamer that doesn't want the game industry to evolve. In what direction is another matter entirely.

1. The vast majority of gamers want to play with friends.


2. In order for games to compete in the marketplace against similar big name titles...more modes are a MUST.

3.
Would you agree that additional modes to accomodate other gamers is a
good thing. We want to "include" as many types of fans as possible
right? Why exclude or alienate a whole segment of gamers. So, if it is
possible and if it can be done properly, adding modes to lure other
types of gamers to the franchise is a necessity.

1. So what exactly? Because the majority of gamers want multiplayer, anyone who doesn't is regulated to a sub-par tack on to games just to appease those silly single-players?

2. Wrong, entirely. A single great and well done mode will trump 15 hastily done and badly produced modes any damn day of the week. Developers should know to stick to their strengths and improve upon their weaknesses.

3. Loaded question. Sure, we could have every single game have something for everyone but at the end of the day those games would have sub-par content for every player. That is why there are genre's and a differentiation between multiplay and singleplay content. So people can buy to their preference and, hopefully, experience something amazing that suites their taste.

Multiplayer- "Segregationists"

The "segregationists" are those who believe that SP MUST be preserved by EXCLUDING MP and other modes. They believe that adding additional modes "takes away" from the story line and that the devs don't get to spend enough time working on the SP to make it good enough. Segregatioists in gaming would rather see a GREAT SP experience that only has a limited "shelf life"...than a great SP backed up by a great MP that has EXTENDED PLAY. Because of their gaming lifestyle, they don't care if the company is truly successful, (MP games are far more successful than SP only games in most cases), and are selfish in wanting very narrow to no online capabilities.

The shelf life of a great single player game is the same as a shelf life of a great novel. Forever. If a story is good enough you will always want to come back to it eventually. I know people with good books or good games that go through them once a year religiously.

No one is going to complain if an amazing single player also has a good MP once it's over. They are just concerned they WON'T get that amazing single player experience because of this addition. That is a different debate entirely and has to do about developer resources.

Also, you completely ignore the fact two games in the series have already been without multiplayer. So players have a certain expectation at this point of what the third game should entail. Many of those players did not envison multiplayer.

It's absolutely positively terrible of you to accuse players of not wanting a company to be successful just because MP is more popular. Selfish? Really? You just can't help yourself. Why are multiplayers the only ones who get good games, why can't single-players still get games marketed to them? 

What is funny is that you will never see a Multiplayer gamer ask for SP to be removed from a game or fight to keep SP out of a game. But you see tons of Single Player complainers who wish for MP to be taken out or fight prior to release the aspect of multiplayer to be included. They are truly segregationists.

Not all segregationists are hardcore MP haters, but you would think that most of them are in the way they constantly beg game developers to "not ruin my experience" sounds pretty selfish...doesn't it.

That's because most multiplayer focused games have an absolutely terrible single-player experience. Very few developers have successfully managed to pull off both in a single game. Some do, mind you, and those are TERRIFIC. But people have the right to be nervous considering the track record.

I argue that....

1. The creation of new modes by a game development company DOES NOT "take away" from the SP experience. Why? Because the decision to add MP is normally done at the BEGINNING of a project. Bioware didn't wake up one morning half way through development and say, "You know, we should take half of our team and start making MP."  IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY. So, the whole "takes away" argument is bunk.

It does and it doesn't take away from it. Depends on the developer, the resources, the budget, etc. Not every game is set up to be a singleplayer game and not every game can adaquately tack on a singleplayer. It depends on the game and the studio.

What most people aren't understanding about this specific case is that a second bioware team is handling bioware. Therefore, the argument that it will take away from it IS debunked. But this is a specific case. You're often speaking in generalized cases and this isn't always true.

2. If you love the Mass Effect franchise, you would want Bioware to succeed against its competitors and be profitable....right? Adding additional modes is proven to raise the shelf life of the game, thus keeping the game in the public eye longer, thus creating more credit and street value of the franchise.

Loaded question is, once again, loaded. You are attempting to make people feel guilty for legitmate concerns. How about one for you. If you love mass effect you wouldn't really want profit and capitalism to get in the way of making a great game, would you?

See, I actually don't believe that, but it's a pretty terrible question to ask someone.

3. Be nice to MP gamers...we want to experience Mass Effect in our own way, with FRIENDS. please let MP gamers be included in the fun of Mass Effect, why would you want to alienate us.

Why would you want to alienate, rather than debate with, single-players? You've accused them of being selfish pricks throughout your post and now ask them for friendship.

I am hoping to see a Versus Mode in a future release....if you want to exclude me or hate me for wishing that...it says alot about the mentality of a segregationist.

Wait, back to guilt ridden insults.

Modifié par WizenSlinky0, 12 février 2012 - 09:23 .

[ODESSA_Z]

DinoSteve wrote...

it not as if SP has never suffered because of MP, I can understand where thease fears are coming from

plus skyrim was the biggest selling game last year and its single player

But Skyrim would have been INCREDIBLE to play with friends and against other gamers competitively. I'm a level 75 in Skyrim and I'm done with it until DLC...what does that say?

Not only that, but go to the Skyrim forums and try to post something about adding MP to it...you get crucified by the segregatioists...its sad that there are people who so hate the idea of accomodating others gaming preferences.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

an elder scrolls mmo would be good but also have a seperate sp game as well, thats what I would do

[WizenSlinky0]

ODESSA_Z wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

it not as if SP has never suffered because of MP, I can understand where thease fears are coming from

plus skyrim was the biggest selling game last year and its single player

But Skyrim would have been INCREDIBLE to play with friends and against other gamers competitively. I'm a level 75 in Skyrim and I'm done with it until DLC...what does that say?

Not only that, but go to the Skyrim forums and try to post something about adding MP to it...you get crucified by the segregatioists...its sad that there are people who so hate the idea of accomodating others gaming preferences.

What does that say? It says you experienced a great game. The fact you want every single player game to have multiplayer is very telling of your own views. You want your experience to trump everyone elses, just because multiplayer is 'more popular' and 'better for you'.

There's a REASON there are great single-player games AND great multi-player games. It's so everyone can buy to their tastes and not have to have this pointless, ridiculous argument.

Buy multi-player games if you like them. There's plenty of them.

Modifié par WizenSlinky0, 12 février 2012 - 09:26 .

[ODESSA_Z]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

I will prefrace this by saying I think Bioware got it right with multiplayer. By pushing it on to a second team they ensured the core aspects that made up the first two parts of the series would not be compromised by redirecting resources to multiplayer.

Everything I have seen has shown me good things and I expect the single player to hold up just fine. If the multiplayer is good on top of that, well yay.

But the sheer attitude of this post makes it require my response.

ODESSA_Z wrote...


You are either an inclusionist or a segregationist. ???? What does that mean?

Segregation is a loaded word. Find something more fitting.

Multiplayer "Inclusionists" are gamers, like myself, who WANT game developers to experiment and innovate and create new aspects of gaming for ALL TYPES of gamers. Casual gamers, Hardcore gamers, Professional Gamers, Family Gamers....if they love a franchise and they are interested in buying a game....why not try to put as many game modes as possible in a game to INCLUDE as many types of tastes in gaming as possibel?

Resources are limited. You're accusing those who don't want MP as not wanting games to innovate. Multiplayer, for one, is not an innovation. Secondly you will be hard pressed to find ANY gamer that doesn't want the game industry to evolve. In what direction is another matter entirely.

1. The vast majority of gamers want to play with friends.


2. In order for games to compete in the marketplace against similar big name titles...more modes are a MUST.

3.
Would you agree that additional modes to accomodate other gamers is a
good thing. We want to "include" as many types of fans as possible
right? Why exclude or alienate a whole segment of gamers. So, if it is
possible and if it can be done properly, adding modes to lure other
types of gamers to the franchise is a necessity.

1. So what exactly? Because the majority of gamers want multiplayer, anyone who doesn't is regulated to a sub-par tack on to games just to appease those silly single-players?

2. Wrong, entirely. A single great and well done mode will trump 15 hastily done and badly produced modes any damn day of the week. Developers should know to stick to their strengths and improve upon their weaknesses.

3. Loaded question. Sure, we could have every single game have something for everyone but at the end of the day those games would have sub-par content for every player. That is why there are genre's and a differentiation between multiplay and singleplay content. So people can buy to their preference and, hopefully, experience something amazing that suites their taste.

Multiplayer- "Segregationists"

The "segregationists" are those who believe that SP MUST be preserved by EXCLUDING MP and other modes. They believe that adding additional modes "takes away" from the story line and that the devs don't get to spend enough time working on the SP to make it good enough. Segregatioists in gaming would rather see a GREAT SP experience that only has a limited "shelf life"...than a great SP backed up by a great MP that has EXTENDED PLAY. Because of their gaming lifestyle, they don't care if the company is truly successful, (MP games are far more successful than SP only games in most cases), and are selfish in wanting very narrow to no online capabilities.

The shelf life of a great single player game is the same as a shelf life of a great novel. Forever. If a story is good enough you will always want to come back to it eventually. I know people with good books or good games that go through them once a year religiously.

No one is going to complain if an amazing single player also has a good MP once it's over. They are just concerned they WON'T get that amazing single player experience because of this addition. That is a different debate entirely and has to do about developer resources.

Also, you completely ignore the fact two games in the series have already been without multiplayer. So players have a certain expectation at this point of what the third game should entail. Many of those players did not envison multiplayer.

It's absolutely positively terrible of you to accuse players of not wanting a company to be successful just because MP is more popular. Selfish? Really? You just can't help yourself. Why are multiplayers the only ones who get good games, why can't single-players still get games marketed to them? 

What is funny is that you will never see a Multiplayer gamer ask for SP to be removed from a game or fight to keep SP out of a game. But you see tons of Single Player complainers who wish for MP to be taken out or fight prior to release the aspect of multiplayer to be included. They are truly segregationists.

Not all segregationists are hardcore MP haters, but you would think that most of them are in the way they constantly beg game developers to "not ruin my experience" sounds pretty selfish...doesn't it.

That's because most multiplayer focused games have an absolutely terrible single-player experience. Very few developers have successfully managed to pull off both in a single game. Some do, mind you, and those are TERRIFIC. But people have the right to be nervous considering the track record.

I argue that....

1. The creation of new modes by a game development company DOES NOT "take away" from the SP experience. Why? Because the decision to add MP is normally done at the BEGINNING of a project. Bioware didn't wake up one morning half way through development and say, "You know, we should take half of our team and start making MP."  IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY. So, the whole "takes away" argument is bunk.

It does and it doesn't take away from it. Depends on the developer, the resources, the budget, etc. Not every game is set up to be a singleplayer game and not every game can adaquately tack on a singleplayer. It depends on the game and the studio.

What most people aren't understanding about this specific case is that a second bioware team is handling bioware. Therefore, the argument that it will take away from it IS debunked. But this is a specific case. You're often speaking in generalized cases and this isn't always true.

2. If you love the Mass Effect franchise, you would want Bioware to succeed against its competitors and be profitable....right? Adding additional modes is proven to raise the shelf life of the game, thus keeping the game in the public eye longer, thus creating more credit and street value of the franchise.

Loaded question is, once again, loaded. You are attempting to make people feel guilty for legitmate concerns. How about one for you. If you love mass effect you wouldn't really want profit and capitalism to get in the way of making a great game, would you?

See, I actually don't believe that, but it's a pretty terrible question to ask someone.

3. Be nice to MP gamers...we want to experience Mass Effect in our own way, with FRIENDS. please let MP gamers be included in the fun of Mass Effect, why would you want to alienate us.

Why would you want to alienate, rather than debate with, single-players? You've accused them of being selfish pricks throughout your post and now ask them for friendship.

I am hoping to see a Versus Mode in a future release....if you want to exclude me or hate me for wishing that...it says alot about the mentality of a segregationist.

Wait, back to guilt ridden insults.

You feel guilty bro? This was written by someone who doesn't understand that GAMES is a business. Finally, sorry you feel I am harsh and use loaded words...How do you think the guys at Bioware feel when they see someone post that CO-OP is going to "ruin my experience"? 

If my post is abrasive..sorry, I don't like seeing game devs on the defensive, defending their decisions agaist "abrasive" people.

[ODESSA_Z]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

ODESSA_Z wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

it not as if SP has never suffered because of MP, I can understand where thease fears are coming from

plus skyrim was the biggest selling game last year and its single player

But Skyrim would have been INCREDIBLE to play with friends and against other gamers competitively. I'm a level 75 in Skyrim and I'm done with it until DLC...what does that say?

Not only that, but go to the Skyrim forums and try to post something about adding MP to it...you get crucified by the segregatioists...its sad that there are people who so hate the idea of accomodating others gaming preferences.

What does that say? It says you experienced a great game. The fact you want every single player game to have multiplayer is very telling of your own views. You want your experience to trump everyone elses, just because multiplayer is 'more popular' and 'better for you'.

There's a REASON there are great single-player games AND great multi-player games. It's so everyone can buy to their tastes and not have to have this pointless, ridiculous argument.

Buy multi-player games if you like them. There's plenty of them.

Buy MP games if you like them??? Sounds like someone is trying to keep me buying certain types of games and doesn't want me to enjoy a different type of game in a different light? 

Oh, and I don't want MP in every game...if possible and done properly, more game modes to INCLUDE other types of gamers is what I want.