I like both. What matters to me is how well they are implemented and executed. Sometimes the MP makes up for bad SP, like Army of Two for instance. It can save or break games.

Multiplayer does not even work properly
dedicated servers there is no need for this since internet speed has increased since 2002 so why doe we keep pushing this option down our throats
If we were able to host ourselves it would also resolve a lot of lag problems with people from abroad.
Why do we put up with games that are being released without a proper testing.
And what is the deal nowadays with the run and gun playstyle.
Whatever happend to matches of Siege Ghost Recon style.
Why doe we have to make everything look and play like Call of Duty.

I quit pre-ordering games that only have a 4-8 hour single player, if it isn't 10+ i'll pass or wait until it's in the bargin bin.

Multiplayer wins! Flawless Victory!

Round 2! Fight!

Multiplayer wins! Flawless Victory!

Singleplayer, You Lose!

:P

It always matters. I'll take a good Sp over a bad Mp. I'll take a good mp over a bad game.

I wouldn't take a bad sp and bad mp.

And I would love to take a good mp with a good sp. Very few games get it right.

I would also get a game with no mp if the sp is good. Infamous 2 is an example.

And vise versa

all of my favorite moments and experiences with video games have come from single player experiences. i dont think there is a multiplayer game that would make my personal top 100. probably not even a top 500, not even close. I like mp but i have a hard time playing any sort of mp longer than 10 hours total before it becomes dull to me. i mean i can only play on the same maps and run around shooting the same stuff for so long before i just get sick of it. great story, interesting characters, good amount of content and well designed game play and game play elements are what i look for in games and multiplayer lacks just about all of those things. so its hard for me to stick with it when i cant even find one redeeming quality that suits my tastes.