Where did we go wrong?

Multiplayers are fun. They have offered us countless extra hours milked from our $60 purchases. They have allowed us to bathe in the joy of playing with and against real thinking opponents, and offered the entertaining unpredictability that no AI computer can conjure up. They have expanded gaming to become a social activity, and opened the door to new gaming experiences, and new friendships.

So why then am I really starting to hate them?

Because they have seemingly killed off the campaign, or at least the emphasis on atmosphere and story.

Maybe I'm a dinosaur, a dying breed of gamer that actually basks in the single player experience, but in all the hoopla over leaderboards, LAN vs network, I POWNED you, etc etc I can't help but miss the good old days when I just cozied upto play my way through a worthwhile and satisfying story mode. Simply put, its a trend that I'm very concearned about, and one that I don't see going away anytime soon, what with the popularity of Call of Duty 4, Killzone2, Gears of War, Halo just to name a few. The problem is, those games are the upper echelon. The creme de la creme of games that actually manage to put both components together in a worthy package. But there is a much darker side. What about those countless games flooding the shelves that tried to offer both, and ended accomplishing neither?

When I think back to the most interesting FPSers I've played, it isn't the multiplayers that come to mind. Its Half Life. Deus Ex. Chronicles of Riddick. Doom3. And most recently BioShock that have stood the test of time, and kept thier place in my heart.That was due to how entertaining and well developed thier campaigns were, not because I shot my buddy in the face 600 times.

Its not that I dislike multiplayers. On the contrary, I've had a blast with them. But it just seems like somewhere along the line something got skrewed up. When did a 5-6 hour campaign become acceptable? Or how about the online component that barely resembles the subject matter?Is there some law thats been passed that says any FPSer must contain an online component? Or are developers just worried that they don't have the talent to produce an engaging and lengthy campaign? Perhaps greed is a factor, with publisher's wanting a sliceof the online pie even if the game they're publishing is best suited as a single player experience?

MoH:Airborne contained only 6 short missions for the entire campaign that lasted about 4 hours. FEAR pulled off its atmospheric campaign well, but couldn't resist cramming in a forgettable online. HalfLife's Orange Box collection followed suit by tossing an online mulitplayer into the package, which while fun in short bursts, certainly didn't uphold the quality of the campaign episodes. Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Athena offered up a nice remake, followed by a substandard second campaign, which was rushed to allow for a very lame online component. Barely 3 months after release, nobody was even playing.

Now, my two favorite releases from last year, Uncharted and BioShock,have both opted to add mulitiplayer into their respective sequel efforts, and while I'm still looking forward to both titles, I can't help but be skeptical. Even if the mulitplayer components are done well, it'll still leave me wondering how much more developed or impressive the campaigns could have been had the devs not spent so much time adding multiplayer.

There's obviously many benefits and aspects to appreciate about online multiplayers.

But is the truly atmospheric single player experience drawing its last breath and witnessing its final days?