Extragorey said:
Multiplayer? I'd have thought he'd at least say SOMETHING about it.
I don't remember what review exactly, but I remember that Yahtzee is of the mindset that believes that a game must be able to stand on single player alone. Multiplayer is a side item, so he tends not to review such things in detail if at all.
I agree with that sentiment, because these days it seems that if a game doesn't have multiplayer, people think there is no reason to play it.
Really, multiplayer is just a way to squeeze out some extra dollars from the people that have the compulsion that they only buy games that they can play with other people and turn into a competition.
Because of that games that make no sense having multiplayer, now have it or will have it. I'm looking at you BioWare(understanding it is EA's dirty hand) with Mass Effect 3.
Same goes for Assassin's Creed when it got multiplayer in "Brotherhood". Doesn't matter if it was good or not, it is out of place.
The industry somewhere along the line has contracted a disease that makes devs and pubs think they must please every section of the market so that everybody can get in and play their game, instead of properly making specific types of games for specific people.
I play and enjoy most types and genres of games: RTS, RPG, MMO, Puzzle, Racing, Shooters, Sandbox, Linear, Single, and Multiplayer, but I understand that some things should just be kept separate and other things should take precedence over others.
Eventually it seems that every game will become some big monstrosity that is every genre and type rolled into one, because everybody must be able to play some part of the game and enjoy it, so that the creators get get money from everybody.