This seems to be the new trend growing as far as arguments over the multiplayer aspects of games. When Battlefield 3 was announced and later bled some information about itself in the internet I saw a really odd reaction. Namely that of the single player vs. multiplayer situation of that game. To me, who probably sat hunched over the computer for as many hours (if not more) in Battlefield 2 (and it's expansions) and later on Battlefield 2142 (which honestly wasn't quite as interesting) than I've put into the Call of Duty franchise online, that debate seems really weird. But let's get back to what's known. Basically the gist of it all is that in Battlefield 3 you'll be able to play a single-player campaign where you take the role of the elite US marines in such diverse locations as New York, Paris and Tehran. There will also be a co-op campaign. 
 
To me, that's crazy.  
 
Don't get me wrong, I am sure the campaigns in the Battlefield Bad Company games are good (never tried those games past demo-stage) and I am sure Dice have what it takes to make a decent single player experience. But.. that's not what I am looking for in a proper Battlefield game. For a regular meat and potatoes Battlefield game I am only looking for the multiplayer aspect of the game. That's what drew me in and that's what kept me there.  
 
And then I read someone say "Of course there will be a single player campaign, you can't sell a $60 game with just multiplayer". And I was surprised, because I thought people who liked Battlefield games did so for the fact that they were a multiplayer focused game. And since when can't you make a multiplayer only game? If you could do so in the past when multiplayer was not as big as it is today, why couldn't you do it today? Hell, even our single player games (at least on PC) require some form of online validation these days, so don't give me that back talk of not everyone having internet connections. Besides, if the box clearly states it's online only, and you buy it lacking internet, you're stupid and deserve to lose money. But that's beside the point. 
  
I am really confused as to why, as stated, multiplayer needs to be tacked onto everything.. but somehow can't stand on it's own when it has done so in the past. I am all for a completely multiplayer focused release no matter what game we're talking about, as long as they're upfront about it so you're not buying something that isn't what you thought.  
 
Am I taking crazy pills or is the new standard "Multiplayer in everything, but not by itself"?