No Multiplayer if Not Necessary

So I was reading a preview of the new Max Payne 3 and I found out it was going to have multiplayer in it. I’m not quite sure how it’s going to work but it is going to be included. Bioshock 2 falls under the same category with the fact that it has an original style of FPS and a narrative that works with the style of the game. The multiplayer might work with the customization of the plasmids and weapons but I still think it is not required. I then had a thought, a game that has a history of great single player gameplay but no multiplayer makes me wonder…is it still required?

Have we gamers entered an age where games now must have some sort of multiplayer in order for it to be considered a game worth buying? If this is the case then we are in a world of hurt. Imagine if Elder Scrolls or Fallout had multiplayer. I mean sure on paper it might sound cool but without altering the gameplay a little we’re looking at a first person hack-n-slash, crazy, unstructured mess.

Resident Evil has some of the worst multiplayer (not co-op, that was good) I have ever seen. Resident Evil 5 is an okay single player but if you buy it for both, well prepare to make a stop at your local game exchange store because you’re not going to want this in your sweet plastic collection. Now some people might say “well I beat the single player, I want some more...”. Guess what peeps, we have DLC! Game developers need to make these either FREE or cheaper because we have paid for the game which costs $60, therefore the publisher and developer should have some semblance of customer loyalty and provide as much new content as possible rather then forcing us to pay for content that is already on the disc. All in all game developers need to realize that if the game has a great single player then multiplayer shouldn't be forced into the game, and if its has a great combination of the two then all the more power to the player!

P.S. Max Payne….good luck.

-Chad