Quote:
Originally Posted by DingoEnderZOE2
^ You obviously haven't played Fear 3,Assassins creed Brotherhood or Resident evil 5. When you add multiplayer to a series that was overall a single player experience things tend to change for the worse.
However In resident evil 5's defense it wasn't AS BAD, it was still somewhat enjoyable but as a result of multiplayer and co-op the overall quality was quite lower than the prequels.
Assassins Creed brotherhood was fine since it was more or less just a DLC expansion in the form of a new game, plus the multiplayer wasn't too bad, but it doesn't change the fact that the quality of the single player was less than before.
I pray that in order to balance this risky decision E.A has like maybe 3 discs or 4 discs. One for multiplayer and 3 for the campaign.
|
I've played all three games so, you know, don't take me for an idiot. I understand Brotherhood and FEAR 3, but I loved RE5.
It should stand to reason that we can only call the multiplayer teh suck or a useless tack-on when we, you know, actually see the game's release and actually play it? Biases aside?
All this "It has multiplayer, therefore it must be worse" mentality reeks of the elitism that has been pointed against the CoD/Halo gamers of the past that's now extending to pretty much every other game that decides to try and have multiplayer. What happened to the days when we based a game's greatness of actually playing it and not of whatever trend it must be following? Just because Mass Effect 3 will have mutliplayer doesn't mean that it'll be worse off like other games that tried it. That's just pretty illogical.