Then I was like: "After the demo we found out that the single-player and co-op sections were crafted to trick the attending press."

But.. but... God of War with multiplayer? I'm at least going to give these devs the benefit of the doubt, they've put together pretty solid games so maybe they know what they're doing. Plus we've had 5 single player only God of War games already, I guess at some point you need to do something to spice it up.
I also have no use for a multiplayer God of War. It's getting frustrating to see everyone shoehorn an MP aspect into their game. But that's an argument I've had many times already. I'll just let this one go.
Whether the multiplayer good or bad, I am getting really tired of seeing multiplayer pop up in a lot of games. Especially when these games that have multiplayer and/or co-op tend to neglect local co-op.
ME3's multiplayer was nice. But necessary? Nope. It held my interest for all of two days. There's just not much variety there even with the new classes and maps.
As Fugly said, its probably just something to checkbox off now so you can have an online pass which has become a first party standard for PS3. I for one refuse to support this practice any further. If PSN online play is supposed to be free, then let it be free with no exceptions.
If you're afraid of competition from Gamestop, fucking go digital and don't look back.
am still hype for the singleplayer though
Personally, I think its a great idea in theory.. GOW has always been a game series that has little replay value imho.. they always were just a rental for me... finish the campaign and move on to the next game. Mp could possibly change that fo myself and many others who do the same..
TL;DR Change is usually good, get over it and embrace it.
Or ignore it, because if you want to pretend that this somehow affects your ability to survive and function, you're a liar and probably shouldn't be doing either of those things.
Change is fine, but gamers have plenty of reasons to be cynical about these things change. ME3's Multiplayer was placed on the online-pass as a cop-out so they could charge for Day One DLC - you know, that stuff the online pass was previously for.
Meanwhile in the same timeframe EA makes SSX kind-of an online pass thing and doesn't require it for Syndicate's multiplayer at all? Inconsistent much?
As I said, plenty of reasons to be cynical about multiplayer's inclusion.
Multiplayer servers/community come and go after a few years. Couch/direct online coop lasts as long as the PSN is running.
Some games don't need mutliplayer but if they add players who cares does not effect you.Time and Time again with Uncharted,Assassin's Creed,Mass Effect they show that can have a good mutliplayer mode.A good multiplayer mode extend a game life by several months even years and puts more money in the company pocket which ensure more games with a big staff
As far as these passes go, I've said numerous times that when choosing to "keep" a game, they send you the box and everything contained in the box, including a fresh online pass. I got deadspace 2 for $7 and guess what, the passcode worked. So did bulletstorm's and so did resistance 3's.
There are countless examples of single player games that have added on multiplayer that is most definitely tacked onto it. Mass Effect 3 multiplayer is one of very few exceptions of multiplayer being added where it is actually competent and worth playing.
The fact that Sony has announced they were doing online passes for their published games and a God of War game is announced with multiplayer after that fact, calls for fair criticism.
The multiplayer has just as much of a chance at being good as it has at being bad, but there is definitely evidence that this mode being added is a result of shitty business practice (online passes).
I would like to point out that when the game was announced, a lot of you were apathetic towards the game because it was "Just another God of War." Now you have reason to believe it won't be. I have my reservations about the multiplayer as well, but let's see how this turns out, huh?
My problem isn't with the people who have mixed feelings about something like this, it's with the ones who already "know" it is going to suck. How is that? You haven't even played it yet. You have no idea what either the SP or MP is like at all, so why bash it? Being impartial is one thing, but saying "this is gonna suck!" Is exactly why I call them babies.
Taking it away from gaming: how do you know sushi is going to taste if you don't try it? How did anybody know Heath Ledger was going to have an awesome performance as The Joker before seeing The Dark Knight?
What I'm saying is to try not to be so judgemental of anything unless you've been able to experience it, or at least not until it is a finished product, you know?
If people can play single RTS units in DOTA/LoL/HoN, then surely an action game COULD receive similar depth, if they knew what to look for and alter.

surf dtoid with 






Rising (10+)
People you follow

















































follow



