ingsoc said:
I refer to this as the lowest common denominator strategy. As Ben put it in a way only he can, 75% of the consumer base is made up of emotionally sensitive retards that are mindless consumers so why not. Look at Modern Warfare 2. How many people bought that steaming pile of blank? How many bought Halo 3? Most multiplayer is mediocre or bad and simply serves as bottom line padding low cost fluff that is little more than garbage and not worth playing. These are the same morons reality TV is geared towards. Nothing more than idiocracy in action.
Not to be a jackass (too late) but which part of your post has an opinion that's yours, you know, instead of parroting stuff said by other people that may or may not be correct. Also I enjoy a lot of multiplayer games and I hate reality TV so there's your theory out the window already. Hell you don't even provide examples, just expecting us to take your word for it because "Yahtzee said it so it must be true!"
When did we as gamers decide that sequels were bad? When did we decide multiplayer was something to be abhorred? I certainly missed that meeting. Oh right, gamers are not one universal hive mind and to imply otherwise would be pretty damn presumptuous. Of course I was coming in here to joke that nobody was going to accuse Ubisoft of Franchise Milking like everyone seems to want to do to Nintendo all of a sudden (I WONDER WHY).
Paragon Fury said:
Multiplayer in every game?
But they already cut the multiplayer out of Splinter Cell: Forev....Convictions.
Oh well I guess this was an early April Fool's joke then. [http://uk.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/tomclancyssplintercellconviction/news.html?sid=6243784&mode=previews&tag=topslot;title;4]
