Mass Effect 3, Bioshock 2, Dead Space 2... what is the thing that all these have in common? They're all AAA titles, yes, but they're also all (mostly) Singleplayer titles. Until those games, actually. All three of those games added in a Multiplayer mode, and while Mass Effect 3 isn't here yet, the track record for the quality of the Multiplayer isn't looking very good. Dead Space 2 and Bioshock 2 were great games, but in a way the Multiplayer felt tacked on. Unlike a game like Modern Warfare 3, Halo: Reach, or Battlefield 3, the main focus in these games was the Singleplayer, and their original titles didn't even have a Multiplayer mode. So, why include it in the sequel?
Continue reading on Examiner.com Is having Multiplayer a necessary component of games? - National Video Game Industry | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/vid...
I prefer singleplayer over multiplayer, but I think that multiplayer is becoming more and more important nowadays. And regardless of my personal preference, I have nothing against it as long as I keep getting deep singleplayer adventures and stories too.
But IMO multiplayer isn't a necessity in all games, especially if it's shoehorned in just to have it, because most other games have it too.
I'd say yes.
I do like single player but its not what I care of the most,**Goes back to playing Cod.KILLCONFIRMED** :)
It's important if and only if it does not detract from the experience that the game is made to generate.If it is a adventure game multiplayer is probably a waste if it feels tacked on. I like Single Player best but many of the games I worked on have multiplayer aspects and thus we add multiplayer. Function should follow form in the case of single player vs multiplayer.
Well I wouldn't buy CoD or BF without it.