Does it make or break a game?

I have to say that it usually breaks a game. What could have been an amazing singleplayer game was screwed because they spent a lot of time trying to half-ass some multiplayer. Or worse, the shitty multiplayer can dim the experience of an otherwise great game.

An example: The Darkness. Now I'm not saying it's a bad game. It's actually a very high-quality, creepy, action-y FPS. However, it relates to Chronicles of Riddick, in that it takes one large area and adds in sidequests. That's fine in a prison, but not so in Manhattan. The "open" world feels a little closed to me. That, and it's simply not worth it to travel to an area just for another anemic sidequest. Other than those gripes, the singleplayer game is a fun ride.

Now, when we come to the multiplayer, it's a half-assed attempt utilizing boring character models, a lack of originality, the Darkling mechanic really isn't so super after you play as one, and the guns are utterly generic. This dims an amazing experience, for me.

Thoughts?

 

Multiplayer makes a game, for certain.

Halo would not be the most popular Xbox game would it not have had multiplayer, and that is more true for Halo 2 (It's singleplayer mode was poor.)

GoldenEye, as well - it's singleplayer was decent, but I played GoldenEye for years and years, purely for its fantastic multiplayer.

A poor multiplayer tarnishes a good game, but it certainly doesn't break it. I'd much rather it had a multiplayer mode than would not - even slightly poor multiplayer modes extend the games replayability. I likely wouldn't say this if I wasn't quite sure that there is a set 'multiplayer team' on the development team whose only job is to work on the multiplayer and network code. This is true for the higher-budget games, anyhow.

And if you're disappointed by the Darkness' multiplayer, a quote from the 1up.com review;