It's not the conversation I ever expected to have. But it only reminded me how much things have changed.
Anonymous Moron: "Wait…so you don't ever play multiplayer?"
Me : "No, I do when I have to. Like for reviews. But no, very rarely do I do it for fun."
Anonymous Moron: "…who the hell even lets you review games if you're not a gamer?"
Boy, I must've missed a meeting. I've been playing games for 27 years and now I'm being squeezed out of the group? I have to hand back my gamer card? I don't qualify because I'm not part of the mainstream? You will notice we weren't referring to any one particular game in that brief conversation; it was just online multiplayer in general. Things like this always make me worry about the future of the industry but developers will always say single-player campaigns can't possibly die out.
However, this got me thinking: the single-player and multiplayer elements of a game are often very different (although it stands to reason that if one is great, the other will be great, too). I mean, we see entire development teams for big-budget projects dedicated to one or the other…might critics and game reviewing sources soon have to take a similar approach? I.e., one person to review the single-player and another to handle the multiplayer? I admit, I find it difficult to give both the attention they deserve. There are only 24 hours in the day.
But I had never expected someone to say I'm not a gamer because I don't play online. That's a new one. But I suppose there are people out there who aren't surprised at all; the same people who ignore all campaigns and care exclusively about multiplayer experiences. Evidently, they're in the majority. …either that, or this guy is just a colossal douchebag.