PS3 News: Wanted Producer: Saying Multiplayer Is Essential Is A "Bad Joke" - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Wanted Producer: Saying Multiplayer Is Essential Is A "Bad Joke"

Wanted: Weapons of Fate is scheduled to launch next month, and if you were a fan of the movie, you might want to try curving some bullets for yourself. But don't expect to experiment with a friend, as the game won't boast a multiplayer mode.

Why? Well, Universal Pictures Digital Platforms Group's Pete Wanat, who is also the executive producer of the game, explained why during GameSpot's HotSpot podcast. His argument seems logical: players who want multiplayer typically just play the best of the best, and the majority of titles that include the option don't see much in the way of multiplayer action online. Said Wanat:

"For the most part, we waste our money and our time building multiplayer levels. And why do we do this? Because a couple years ago the press was all about saying, 'This game has to have multiplayer, there's no replayability.' F*** that. That's a bad joke."

We've heard similar refrains from other developers this generation, and in many ways, it makes a lot of sense. It almost seems impossible for a game to release without a multiplayer mode, and yet, not every multiplayer experience can be amazing. Hence, while a zillion people will play Killzone 2 and Gears 2 online, not nearly as many would play Wanted multiplayer. Right? Added Wanat:

"What it does is it hurts the single-player game. You don't get to add multiplayer [at] no cost. If you're going to make a multiplayer version, you take people, time, and money away from the single-player experience. And that all goes to hurt the single player. ... Not everybody is Bungie. Not everybody can have 100 guys working on their multiplayer. The Call of Duty 4 guys? If they want to do multiplayer, then do multiplayer. We'll play the f*** out of multiplayer in Call of Duty. We'll play co-op in Left 4 Dead. There are places and times to do it and do it right."

Now that, we've heard before. Developers, and gamers too, have often said that this constant emphasis on multiplayer is unhealthy in regards to how it impacts the single-player campaigns. Thankfully, we still have plenty of amazing single-player experiences, but Wanat does have a point. Many times, a multiplayer option really does seem superfluous. What do you think?

2/10/2009 Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (57 posts)

ZubraZap
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 10:29:14 PM
Reply

He is right and wrong, I don't think multiplayer is required at all and should be patched later depending on the title/genre yet hordes of players would disagree with me there..

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

EddPm6
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 10:33:03 PM
Reply

Im not going to say that multiplayer is an absolute must, hes the game developer. But i guess if you want the consumer to play the game FOR the game then thats okay with me. If you dont think you can do it either thats fine.
I was more then okay with playing GT4 after online was pulled.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

GuernicaReborn
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 10:33:42 PM
Reply

Dead Space has no multiplayer, and it was my favorite game of 2008. I'm all for making the single player campaign top priority, even if it means no multiplayer.

Of course, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the 8 player co-op in Resistance 2.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 11:35:32 PM

Good example there.

Dead Space was excellent and a favorite of mine, too. It absolutely did NOT need multiplayer.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

www
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 6:11:27 AM

absolutely right,don't forget Uncharted

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

www
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 6:45:38 AM

FFrulez,definitely right,more reason why i still like square even though there turnin' states this gen.

Last edited by www on 2/11/2009 6:45:54 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Godslim
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 7:14:10 AM

amen to that dead space was one of my fav games of 08 it was brilliant.....a game that good doesnt really need multiplayer ive completed it 4 times aswell to get trophies so it lasted me ages

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Orvisman
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 9:45:21 AM

Agreed!

I believe this penchant for multiplayer modes is why most single-player games can be beat in 10 hours or less because the developers don't have the manpower to do both correctly.

I'd rather have more single-player levels and a longer single-player game instead of multiplayer in most games.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PS3_Wizard
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 10:26:00 AM

Well said Orvisman...not to mention that not EVERYONE in the world has broadband yet. I, along with many others, live in an area where I can't receive high speed internet.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

coldbore
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 2:22:11 PM

well said, even if u beat the game though, u still have all the trophies u can unlock, and u can always trade them in after u have unlocked everything, but yah i really do enjoy the campaign, i personally dont play any multiplayer until after i have finished the camaign, but it is nice when there is some multiplayer, and multiplayer can always be made better via updates and such (even if we hate updates :P)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

NoMoreWar
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 10:38:33 PM
Reply

i totally agree with him. there are places and times to do it right. a game does not require a multiplayer function to be a good game. some games are right for it and some are not. oblivion is still one of my favorite games of all time, and i can't see it having any type of successful multiplayer. and on the flip, warhawk is fun as hell with only multiplayer...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

GuernicaReborn
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 10:54:56 PM

I remember how disappointed I was when I found out Warhawk would be multiplayer only, and a year and a half later I still play it. I have over 200 hours put into that game alone, I've played it more than any other game on my PS3.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

LightShow
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 10:42:48 PM
Reply

there are multiplayer games that come with a single player campaign, and there are single player games that come with a multiplayer aspect. You have Dead Space which has no multiplayer, and you even have a scant few games, like Warhawk, that have no single player section.

Saying multiplayer is necessary for every game is like saying that maple syrup is a must have ingredient for every type of food. Some food calls for a lot, some calls for a little, and some just dont have any place for it.

If you're Will Ferrel then syrup goes on everything, but for the rest of us the analogy stands =D

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Orvisman
Sunday, February 15, 2009 @ 7:22:52 PM

Actually Warhawk had a patch that provides a one-player, practice-like mode.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fabi
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 10:45:10 PM
Reply

I hate when games get marked down for not having multiplayer, or co-op. It's great if a game has good multiplayer and/or co-op, but if it doesn't, it shouldn't be penalized.

Everyone is nuts over online these days, I don't care much for it. I would rather have a great single player experience.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

karneli lll
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 11:05:52 PM

Actually,its mostly (if not all) ps3 exclusives that are accused of lacking either co op or multiplayer

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

www
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 6:12:51 AM

Yea,everybody is nuts for online when i don't really enjoy it that much,i FAAAR prefer single player.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Godslim
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 7:15:29 AM

i find it annoying when people complain about killzone 2 not having co op....i just think its stupid really.....

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

photo K
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 2:14:14 PM

I'm one of those people who "complain" about no co-op on KZ2. I have the demo and enjoy it but how can I not be left wanting more, like a co-op campaign? I hate to compare like it has been so many times but GeoW2 is great not only because of the game but because it has a co-op campaign offline. Some people just enjoy co-op more than others. Not sure if i'll even play this dude's game anywais..

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PS3_Wizard
Thursday, February 12, 2009 @ 8:41:16 AM

Hell, the only reason I still own Army of Two and Even the terrible Conflict game is because of the Co-op offline option. Its something about playing with a friend in the room that really livens things.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

convergecrew
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 10:55:46 PM
Reply

Sounds like he's just venting. Probably frustrated at the way his future sh**ty game is going to turn out.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

www
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 6:14:08 AM

He's tellin' the TRUTH,wat tells u his game is gonna be sh***y?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 10:56:23 PM
Reply

Gotta echo everyone else, some games it just makes no sense for and I do plunk down my $60 for the single player and consider Multi a bonus, that's just how I roll. Each dev needs to decide what's best for their game and never feel pressure to add a clunky useless multiplayer mode.

That said, Wanted was a bad movie and this game is too far off from its release to garner any attention, very few will buy it I think.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PS3_Wizard
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 10:31:01 AM

Remember the game, the Darkness? That multiplayer sucked like hell. And I feel the single player aspect suffered becaue some of the game's budget went to making the multiplayer (which was a huge waste).

Hell, I didn't even finish the game because everything felt to repetitive and boring. Now imagine if all of the budget went into the single player aspect of the game.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Frenchy17
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 12:13:22 PM

I didn't finish that one either, heck I dont even remember the multiplayer so it must have been bad!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 3:52:38 PM

It was just a failure, I think I rented it and stopped playing the first day.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

karneli lll
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 11:01:49 PM
Reply

Multiplayer is'nt necessary, but effort has to be put into the single player experience. No point in paying $60 for a 4 hour single player campaign.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

www
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 6:15:49 AM

RIGHT! Multiplayer isn't always necessary.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BeezleDrop
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 11:12:24 PM
Reply

Hmm, terrible movie. Maybe this game will surprise us. Like Quantom of Solace should have.....

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 11:30:02 PM
Reply

i personally don't think they needed to make multiplayer team death matches for GTA4, perhaps some type of co op mode for the story but not head to head, and i also think this is why it felt so bare bones compared to San Andreas

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

coverton341
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 12:02:17 AM

Thank You aaron I have been saying it since it came out. GTAIV was missing way too much that was in GTA: SA like jets, sky diving with a parachute, territories, character development. I still pop in GTA: SA and play it more than I play GTAIV for that fact alone. I like all the things SA had to offer that IV lacked

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PS3_Wizard
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 10:36:57 AM

I agree with you guys. GTA got old for me before the next one was released, which is new to me. Usually I keep every GTA until a new one is made. Not saying it wasn't fun, but it got old super quick while the old GTA's never really did. Even though I did play it online alot, the fun factor only lasted about 6 months then I traded it in.

GTA 4 suffered a bit because of the multiplayer I think. Next time, I suggest them leaving it out, or making it so that Co-op story is used. (like Saints Row 2).

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 11:31:56 PM
Reply

Hmm... I was devastated to learn how poultry the multiplay on DIRT was. From then on I began to scrutinise my purchases and made sure I went with titles that had reobust multiplay options... Eventhough CODIV and CODV will age in the coming years, multiplay will make me come back for more... not to mentioned Killzone 2. Also, from what it sounds Codemasters have a good plan for Dirt2 with real head to head multiplay using the evolutionary EGO engine... it should be good fun with the updated damage model too...

Can you imagine Motorstorm 2 without multiplay... or the like. Most games could be single player only, but it just doesn't cut it today for the majority of people... sure you will get some very original titles like Heavenly Sword, Heavy Rain etc etc... but multiplay really does bring in an added dimension and longevity...

Q!

"i aM hOMe"

Last edited by Qubex on 2/10/2009 11:32:13 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 3:53:54 PM

There was chicken multiplayer in Dirt? haha j/k

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Sir Shak
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 11:58:13 PM
Reply

He is right. There are plenty of games with multiplayer in them and I don't think that anything apart from shooters and racers really needs multiplayer to be great.

To hell with multiplayer, can you believe that some people say that even games like Uncharted need to have multiplayer. Fuck them cause that game is perfect as it is.

No multiplayer game can ever beat an amazing single player experience.

And fuck co-op too.

Last edited by Sir Shak on 2/10/2009 11:59:33 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Cpt_Geez
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 12:24:16 AM
Reply

Yeah II agree and disagree even though multiplayer increases the replay value on games some games are just as good without it take God of war for instance no of them have multiplayer but it does take away the fact that its one of the greatest games ever made my thing is if a game doesnt have a multiplayer it better be one hell of a game my only gripe about multiplayer games is that im stuck between hmmm trying to finish the single player mode and trying to be the best in the online part if II spend to much time on the single player mode II usually end up not being ranked up a the top in the multiplayer aspect which part do you guys play 1st in a game the single player mode or do you just hop right online and try to rank up.

PSN ID: V-Dizzo-F

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 12:30:38 AM

Whats the double "I" deal? Just curious.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Sir Shak
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 1:07:40 AM

OCD ?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Aftab
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 1:48:10 AM

"I, too"?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

KBsocks
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 1:33:55 AM
Reply

Single Player > Multi
just because my favorite game being Shadow of the Colossus and all and it kinda sorta emphasis on the whole lone hero thing and well it wouldn't make sense to have a multiplayer nor a co op unless someone was down with playing as a horse....

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

www
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 6:42:41 AM
Reply

Multi-playa is killin' single playa

Glad guys like square are still keepin' single playa alive.U couldn't imagine FF multi playa,could u? They focus heavily on single playa,that's was good.

GAME REVIEWERS are to blame,a game like Uncharted was given a 8 by gamespot,if it had multi playa i guess it coulda had a 9.It's hard for a game to get above 9 without multi playa these days,that's very bad.

Game reviewers think we all prefer games with multi playa.Game sites are playin' a major role in steerin' the direction of the games industry now, n should be careful not to put it in a pit.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CH1N00K
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 8:45:51 AM
Reply

I will buy a single player game if it is long enough justify the cost. But for the most part, I think a game like Wanted won't be long enough for me to justify spending the 60 bucks on it, unless it has multiplayer.

It's funny, but on the PS2 I used to not like online play because of glitches. But now with better internet and better console online gaming, I don't shell out that kind of dough for a game unless it's online, or a good rpg like Fallout 3. If it's only a 8-12 hour game, I go rent it and beat it, because I probably won't play it again once I've beaten it.

I was a little dissapointed when someone bought my girlfriend Monopoly for the PS3 and we found out that you couldn't play other people online. Maybe the game isn't popular enough to justify the cost of running a server for it, but I still would have liked to see it. (that and being able to play your own music, that monopoly music in the background really annoys you after awhile.)

Putting Multi-player in a game now is something like putting the picture of a half naked girl on a magazine cover. It's not necessary, but more people will be willing to buy it because it's there.

Another thing I've always felt that what developers need to do is keep the mulitplayer option locked until the player has at least played through the storyline. I've run into a lot of people who buy the game, go online and have no idea what they are doing or how the game mechanics work.

I met one guy in an R2 match once who had no idea what the storyline was about. He bought the game and went straight online. After a few days of playing I never saw him again. I don't know if that was the reason he stopped playing, but I get the feeling he was tired of getting pummeled by players that knew how to play it properly.

In an economic crisis like what is going on now, I think that it's going to come down to value. If you're target audience doesn't feel that you game is worth the money, then you had better throw in Multiplayer. And a game based off of a movie? Yeah, those types of games have a great reputation of not sucking. (sarcasm for those who can't tell) If the Producers of the game don't do something to justify that cost, you're going to find that game in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart real quick. I'd pay $14.98 for a 8-12 hours game that doesn't have multiplayer, now that's value!

That being said though, if the multiplayer experience blows and is thrown in as an after thought, then who's going to play it anyways? Kind of a Catch-22.

Last edited by CH1N00K on 2/11/2009 8:48:59 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

big6
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 9:42:49 AM
Reply

I think the multiplayer trend started with M$ touting in their commercials, "it's good to play together".
They started the whole multiplayer-as-a-must-have movement, and magazines just followed suit, in their game ratings - whether they were paid to, or not. (arguable)

I'm glad to see that some developers are starting to see the light, and resisting the "requirement" to have multiplayer in everything they make. I believe it does hurt the single-player vision of a game, when they feel forced to add a multiplayer component to it, just to appease the masses (and reviewers).

Some of the guys here had some great examples of single-player games that have NO NEED to be multiplayer, and I totally agree. (MGS4, Dead Space, Uncharted, PoP, Heavenly Sword, etc)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jordahn
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 10:16:28 AM
Reply

The bottom line here is that a game should not be penatilized for not having multi-player options. Some games are just better being a single player mode title. Certain restaurants are great at what they serve because it's what they concentrate and emphesize. So if a game is better off just having a single player mode, then so be it. If it makes it that much better of a game, then not having multi-player options should not count against it.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FLYING_APE
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 10:52:01 AM
Reply

Metal gear online

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jed
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 11:36:03 PM

at least it didnt take away from single player

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Vivi_Gamer
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 10:52:21 AM
Reply

i reckon he has a damn good point, though i dont play much of online multiplayer, it gets boring quickly for me. Multiplayer shouldnt be a nesecity.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CaptRon
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 12:23:48 PM
Reply

as far as im concerned they can get rid of single player games completely. I like multiplayer, single player is just almost to boring for me anymore.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Vivi_Gamer
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 3:03:44 PM

CaptRon:
"as far as im concerned they can get rid of single player games completely. I like multiplayer, single player is just almost to boring for me anymore."

I love how after saying that Captron has his display picture of Obvlion....



Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

isaya85
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 1:08:43 PM
Reply

Most of the games last gen were mainly SP and I enjoyed the crap out of them, Max Payne was one of them

PSN ID Biggest_GMoney

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Robochic
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 3:35:32 PM
Reply

I agree some games don't need co-op multiplayer and some do. The reason i like playing co-op with a friend at home cause it's fun sometimes just sitting with u're best friend and playing together. Online is fun but sometimes you just want to get away from it. I loved playing co-op medal of honour front line and rising sun back in the PS2 days :)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 3:54:36 PM
Reply

I hear Left 4 Dead was only worth it for the multiplayer, that is sad.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

mastiffchild
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 6:24:02 PM

L4D's SP component was barely even a tutorial for the co-op(which was only short lived fun for me in any case)really and now when I see it referred to as survival horro it makes me laugh. it's just a run and gun co-op with one or two jumps possible(Witches are pretty surprising for a new player)once ina long while.
The fact that Capcom have insisted on even the SP in Resi5 being a kind of forced co-op has wrecked that game for me(and as a huge series fan I'm gutted). Sure, I'll enjoy the online co-op with a mate but it should be a different story and I should have the chance to play the SP without Sheva to babysit. It just frustrates me and I think it flies in the face of the series heritage just for the sake of fashion.
Also, while I can think of a few really cool ways of them incorporating MP into U2 I don't know whether people would go for it even if they did it really well. People tend to go for the FPS blockbusters for their MP fix and lots of games could have put more into their SP seeing as the MP ends up with empty servers after a couple of months.
I love Warhawk which proves the "if it's good MP it doesn't need a good SP to survive/exist" argument but, imo, games like Uncharted and Dead Space prove the opposite can be true as well and many games get hung up on doing both when the concept isn't suited(or that kind of games market)to more than the SP.
Most FPS games(ME was right to leave it out imo), nearly all racing games, only the very biggest and shooter heavy TPS games-these are where the majority of the MP crowd will come from but the exception which proves it all for me is would Bioshock have profited from losing some of that sumptuous SP for competing in the MP world that's already chock full in FPS? I doubt it.
I think they may do this time round(for B2) but that's prolly with more time /mony/staff/resources after a successful first game. Maybe we'd be awaitung the next Dark Sector now with the same anticipation if they hadn't felt the need to split their team/money between SP and a totally ignored MP?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Blaiyan
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 5:07:40 PM
Reply

I guess he didn't like or didn't play R2 since no mention but anyway I agree with him. Plus I get tired of reading comments from people saying every game needs multi-player. It's really annoying.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 6:35:55 PM
Reply

Well, I don't do on-line, but I wouln't mind having a good game having co-op for when some of my bro's come over & want to hurt something.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jed
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 @ 11:37:02 PM
Reply

I was just over at g4.com and Adam Sessler raised the same points on his soapbox.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

shaydey77
Thursday, February 12, 2009 @ 11:22:36 AM
Reply

I love multiplayer games. I think there is nothing more fun than playing with your friends. But I also understand how important the single player games are.Id definitely have kept MGS single player.

At the end of the day though it all comes down to personal preference on modes and games. I still think there arent enough multiplayer games for the ps3.

By that I mean real multiplayer (splitscreen online/offline)..not some continuation of the single player mode with harder enemies.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Did Advanced Warfare save Call of Duty?
Yes, CoD is back on track!
Possibly; it was a positive step.
The jury's still out...
No, CoD is still doomed.

Previous Poll Results