Originally Posted by Maiky
Got mixed feelings, loved the game but now that I have finished it on the hardest difficulty I kinda feel like it was not worth the $60 just for the fact that when I play a game and I finish it it most likely ends on a shelf. If there was an MP mode things would be different. I don't see myself spending another $60 on a SP game ever again. $30 is reasonable w/o MP, $60 is just too much..
Multiplayer has the least lasting appeal in my opinion since it's the most shallow type of gaming, and also boils down to doing the same thing over and over again. The games with by far the most lasting appeal are Skyrim and Fallout 3/NV (but Skyrim has a clear lead at that, due to scale).
They're single player, but the emphasis is on open world exploration. The size and detail of their open worlds, as well as the random spawns and skill trees for unique character customization, make them a different experience for every character. I was still finding new locations in Skyrim at 400+ hours. Then there's games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age, which just have tons of choices that change the game in so many ways.
Whereas multiplayer shooters just consist of running around on a dozen or so maps, shooting people and/or holding points. I don't see this as lasting appeal, sure the end result can be win or lose, but it's awfully repetitive.
Metro LL isn't $60, but $50. It's a 14-18 hour game, and easily worth two playthroughs due to the fact that it has two endings (that depend on many choices throughout the game) and multiple ways to get through most levels (stealth + alternate routes, or guns blazing). $50 isn't bad for what you get, though I like to get an hour of gameplay for every dollar spent. LL is an exception for me since it's just such an enthralling game. Edited by boredgunner - 5/26/13 at 3:40pm