I didn't say that, or if I did, it was unintentional. What I meant to say was if you're going to release a game whose single player campaign can't stand up on its own, then why even bother? Why not just release a game specifically for multiplayer if that's where you're going to pour all your effort? Its because it wouldn't sell, or that's what logic and games over history would suggest.Xelanath said:So any game that is primarily designed as a multiplayer experience should instead be an MMO? Borderlands works well with 2-4 people, and rightly so. That's not even to mention how difficult it would be (if even possible) to turn a co-operative FPS into an MMO.GameGoddess101 said:Well, really the only MMO I play is World of Warcraft and even THAT single-player campaign is reasonable! Besides, it was designed to be a multiplayer game, hence the name of the entire genre-- Massively MULTIPLAYER Online. I'm not saying this is what the Borderlands developers didn't have in mind, but if you want to do that, sell it as an MMO, not a console-based FPS.
Hurrr HurrGregor Hakha said:If anyone is amazed at seeing some post "first" they should see the museum of fluff and wood splinters.lax4life said:I think they do know. But that they want to be "cool"ProtoChimp said:When will people ever fucking learn that saying "first" always gets you a ban?Domitianus said:Somebody is getting a ban...K1LLSVV1TCH said:first
that'd blow their minds.
I dont get it, i loved the game on single player, i guess u have to know people to do it co-op and i agree with Yahtzee that random pairing in a campaign game is just stupid. I played everything but the underdome on single player and had a blast, i guess im one of the few thenThe Cheezy One said:haha
yeah i played it one player, and it did seam a bit plain