Single Player-Only and Multiplayer-Only

[Evill_Bob]

Call of Duty should not has a Single Player Campaign.

GRRRRR! I remember a time when the only good thing about Call of Duty was its singleplayer, a time when it and Battlefield were never mentioned in the same sentence because there were two almost complete different games. *waves a stick in the air* Damnit! A time when there were no DLC, we had to wait for a $50 expansion to come out! Back then Halo was some young dumb punk all the frat boys were inviting over for parties, Samus was badass and not a whiney daft *****, and Quake was still fun! Back then if we wanted a badass multiplayer experience with a solid singleplayer we warmed up the newest MechWarrior! Oh but then came the whiners! ?OHHH! The controls are too hard! I don?t know how to set my controls to my preferences! HOW I MINE FOR FISH!??

Seriously though, there used to be a few games out there with solid multiplayer and single player. Though a few of those single player campaigns were basically a multiplayer tournament with bots with decent scripting so you don?t end up with aimbots that are foiled with a chair the fell in front of them obscuring their one botpath in a tiny map. Granted some games have flourished under multiplayer only or singleplayer only arena. I?m just not a fan of the grindfest that many console shooters have devolved into. I liked it when it was:
?Okay you selected your character, made any applicable customizations, here?s your gun, go.?
?What??
?GO DAMNIT!?

 

[DasDestroyer]

Some games need no Multiplayer, like Fallout, some games need both, like Minecraft, and some games don't need Singleplayer, like Call Of Duty, at the very least Modern Warfare 2.

 

[Crises^]

What about rts games like c&c and warcraft 3.
I think rts games are a perfect example of where the single player prepares you for the multiplayer and both can be rich and a different experience of the game.