anothername: I can agree to that "multiplayer" in itself (just like "singleplayer") is merely a gameplay option.
But both require a game. Unless its from Blizzard; ppl would buy an empty box if the Blizzard logo is on it & still be happy :P
neurasthenya: This is insanity.
MP is not relegated to a mode, it can and it is
a game made to be played by more than one person.
But somehow you guys are transforming it in
"corporations are bad and people are fanboys therefore not a game".
Unless you are talking about a game that specifically is called "Multiplayer" as in "Multiplayer - The Game" (which ironically might not even have a multiplayer mode because its i.e. a point & click adventure) then we are talking about two different things.
Sure, for multiplayer to exist you require a game as a mandatory prerequisite.
I disagree to the notion that games with either also multiplayer or only multiplayer (like MMOs) are not games just because someone either don't like or don't get them.
Enough of stating the obvious from me :P
neurasthenya: But somehow you guys are transforming it in
"corporations are bad and people are fanboys therefore not a game".
Fenixp: Well naturally, when a company wants to spend its budget on creating a fun, polished and well thought-out multiplayer game as opposed to diverting some of resources needed to create such a game to also add a shitty, tacked-on offline campaign, they're totally bad people! I mean, are you blind? Damn greedy corporations wanting to make ... quality ... Prod... My brain hurts.
Some are totally willing to remove quality elements from a game for the prospect of the bigger buck from a bigger audience. Just my personal opinion, but thats the line crossed far to often these days.
