Gearbox Boss Says Multiplayer Is Not Always the Answer


New member
Jun 17, 2009
kman123 said:
Xyphon said:
kman123 said:
Hell yes. I barely played multiplayer even when I had Gold...I focus on single player.

Which is why I still think Bad Company 2 is one of the WORST games I've played. I don't CARE how GOOD or REVOLUTIONARY your fucking multiplayer is, that does not give an excuse to tack on a shitty single player.
If you bought a Battlefield game for single player, you're doing it wrong.
Well Bad Company had a fantastic single player mode...and I'm pretty sure that the Battlefield BC games was meant to have a stronger emphasis on singleplayer/story mode.
Actually, the Bad Company spin offs were just to test out how well consoles could handle their Frostbite engine and to, I think, "compete" with CoD (which is supported by the commentary from Sweetwater and friends). I will admit that BC1 had a better SP, but that's not the reason you should be playing Battlefield. The focus of the game has and always will be multiplayer.


I'm A PC Gamer
Feb 17, 2010
ZeroG131 said:
YEEEEEEEEEEEESSSS!! Thank you! Games like Dead Space 2, Bioshock 2, Bullet Storm and a bunch of other games REALLY didn't need multiplayer. I'm hoping Arkham Asylum won't have multiplayer, because it would most likely be something just added on that no one would even play. It's usually the publishers who say, "Hey guys, nice work but we haven't seen any multiplayer yet." Then the developers either go, "Um...what multiplayer?" or "Multiplayer...OH YEAH multiplayer, hehe...we totally have that..." Not all games need multiplayer. Games like Bioshock 1 and Half Life 2 are perfect examples of that. Those games themselves have more replay value in themselves then the shitty multiplayer in games like Dead Space 2 and Bullet Storm.
Minor technicality here, Half-life 2 had multiplayer. It was called Half-life 2: Deathmatch, but it was released separate to the actual game.

On Topic: I totally agree with this guy.