I'm hoping that we'll increasingly see more story delivered in the multiplayer content derived from single-player games. Even little bits like the way Max Payne 3 carries a bit of narrative in Gang Wars reminds players that there's more to the game than just getting the next headshot. Still, I hope that developers will realize that single-player experiences can be some of the deepest, most profound experiences gamers can have with their games, and shorting us on quality single-player games will hurt everyone in the long-run.

Very well written article, some games like Call of Duty can do a good job on the different fronts, as can others like Assassin's Creed, but putting a focus on titles (like BF3 should have done with multiplayer and Dead Space should have done with single player) is definitely what some developers should do, and why I'm glad the new Hitman doesn't force it, even with some good MP potential behind it.

I like when developers are being creative and trying new things. I dont like when the new things are there because they want more money. The passion for the project shows through when you play and you can easily tell when they threw it in there.

I can deal with multiplayer in games like Assassin's Creed and Uncharted, but the thing that I hate is the fact that more and more sports titles are starting to ignore the franchise modes, and are putting so much focus on the online experience. I don't mind the multiplayer modes, but I've always preferred the single player gameplay.

I think developers are trying to add replay value to their games. People want to get the most out of games and if a single-player game is only a couple hours long they won't want to pay $60 for it. I'm all for multiplayer in a traditionally single-player series as long as it doesn't detract from the quality of the single-player. Single-player only games will always have a big place in gaming.

If devs have an idea to make a fun experience that uses the technology of today, go for it.

I agree with your article, sir. I would also like to point out that SOME games are moving backward on this position. See Dead Space 3, which according to the preview article says there will be no online multiplayer, just local co-op. Sometimes someone tries it, and at least has the good graces to backtrack if it seems too out of place. I applaud this notion and hope others will continue to re-examine their multiplayer  plans in order to ensure good experiences.

We can get an article about this but no article about the much more saddening death of local co-op. I don't want to have to buy a second console, TV, and game just to play a game co-op with someone 3 feet away from me.

I'm fine with games being only single player, or being both multi and single. But you shouldn't add it to every game. There are some games that are made that "act" like they should only support single player. (Dead Rising, Mass Effect, BioShock, Assassins Creed)Then there are games that have both from the first game introduced, being build to support it form the beginning. To me, unless a new I.P. is introduced supporting both features, the multiplayer experience should not be added to a sequel when the first introduced as single only. So unless they add both in at the first game, they should not add it into future titles.

I remember being disappointed when I heard Metroid Prime 2 would have a multiplayer element.  When it released I was unimpressed with what multiplayer had to offer, and the single player, though excellent, wasn't quite up to par with the original or the third.  I can't help but wonder how much better it could have been had Retro not spent time developing the multiplayer.

Sadly it's what new generation gamers want. I guess it'll make those great single-player campaigns all the better...*sigh*

Haha I love that "internet rage" is set apart from all other forms of anger

I think the reason for adding multiplayer to formerly singleplayer only games is for the purpose of DLC. It is much easier to make a map pack and sell it for $10 than it is to make a worthwhile addition to the singleplayer unless you cut content out as most singlplayers tell a story. Once the story has been finished it is difficult to add something to it that is not an expansion or a full blown sequel. Uncharted is a good example the first game had no DLC, the second however had DLC all of which was for the multiplayer same with the Third. The only games that can have singleplayer DLC easily added are open world games where you can just add a new side quest story line that can be done even after you have completed the main game in the free roam mode.

I hate multiplayer. When I'm playing games I want to be antisocial and if I do play with anyone I rather it be family or friends then some random stranger yelling obscenities in my ear. Its like the new generation of gamers are a bunch of mindless drones who want nothing but to shoot virtual people in the head. What happend to the appreciation behind the story and the experience of single player?

Companies like EA have verbalized that they want to make sure you're connected with other people at all times... which is insane. It's a Halo syndrome that continued with Call of Duty and kept on through the fact that less people finish their games. It has got to be harder to come up with an engaging campaign every time than it does repeating the shooter or sports modes every time and letting the player's friends do the work. Some people, such as myself, play alone and want to deal with these changing fads of what a game ought to be as much as they do vile-mouthed teenagers.

I like playing alone. I've given the multi-player argument lots of chances, but at the end of the day I find that it really doesn't enhance my love for a specific game any more than I already feel for a game. The only time I appreciate MP is when they include some sort of co-op mode (i.e. Gears of War, etc.) where I can still play the entire game with a friend. But more often than not MP is just reduced down to competitive DM and TDM frag-fests that I care nothing for.

If a game is good I will play it and continue to play it; sometimes years later. The deal is developers today are so terrified of used games that they think shoe-horning in a MP portion is going to lead gamers to keep those games longer than if it was just a single-player experience. Where they ever came up with this false belief is beyond me since it simply isn't true, and there's no data (as far as I know) to support that claim.

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic is a perfect example. I still own that game and I've played it multiple times. Even though I've beaten it over and over, the fact that I willingly continue to play it again even though I already know what's going to happen speaks VOLUMES for the argument that a game doesn't need forced MP for gamers to keep it for years and replay it; a game just needs to be GOOD.

It's probably just me, but I've never really been a fan of the God of War series. I just don't like the, in my opinion, overly simple fighting system that was in every game, but just with new weapons. I can already hear the trolls coming...

I hope multiplayer dies a slow & painful death.