those are all games that have a single player option. so if you are some kind of recluse you can still buy the game and enjoy it. how about you get out of your mothers basement and go out into the real world. only losers play games by themself
I'm always fascinated by degenerate behaviour, and I have to say, the way this thread has been hijacked really is intriguing. Clearly we have here a five year old, or thereabouts, who doesn't realise the irony of telling someone to "go out into the real world" through the medium of the internet, for one. The fact that this person appears to have made an account here for the express purpose of making comments like these really stokes the fire of this - someone with nothing more exciting in his life than writing badly-worded messages in internet fora really makes me think that he alone is the "loser" here. As such, he deserves sympathy, of the same kind you would give anyone else with copious mental difficulties. So don't be too hard on this person, now.
More broadly speaking, I'm always interested as to why people who play games solitaire are deemed to be "losers" and suchlike. I play games solo, but I also play games with people. I have friends, both of the gaming and of the non-gaming variety. Just because sometimes I don't want to play a game with another person doesn't really have any bearing on any other aspect of my life, successful or not. I spend my working week talking to people, so sometimes I feel a need to have an evening where I give my voice a rest, though I may still want to play a game. That I can do both of these things is usually a boon, not a mark of an unsuccessful life. The fact that so many people equate solo gaming with a lack of success seems, to me, to be shortsightedness, if nothing else. But maybe these people are incapable of thinking outside of their own circumstances, where the ceaseless need for validation that they can only get through competitive gameplay precludes any other way of thinking about gaming. Yes, well done, you can use a deck of cards to beat someone else with their deck of cards - does this make you a successful human being? Successful at gaming, perhaps, but you may still be "a loser" at life more generally. One does not necessarily predetermine the other.
A more likely cause, in my mind, is that people who are used to playing games against other people are just so completely dumbfounded by the often complete change of tack involved in playing either solo or cooperatively that they just resort to that ever-faithful standby phrase, "this is stupid!" (often followed by a violent physical outburst such as overturning a gaming table). Solo games are rarely the often-seen synonym for loneliness - the solitary chess player - but are vibrant and dynamic and subtle and flavoursome. The aforementioned shortsightedness would presumably disable such a competitive gameplayer from seeing this, however. Being deeply insecure about a myriad of things, such a player craves the temporary validation they receive from beating another person at something like a card game, which begs the question: "who's the real 'loser' here?"
* * *
On the actual topic of this thread, anyway, I'm still a little saddened by the fact the original plan of co-op for this game has been scrapped. The SW theme, for me, especially in the classic period of IV-VI, just screams co-op. I made a post a few months ago now after watching Empire, where the feeling that you get when watching the entire Battle of Hoth sequence, in particular "The first transport is away", really grabs you in to the Rebels' struggle against the Empire - at that point in the film, you're cheering them on, and hating the Empire to your core. Throughout the trilogy, too, you're not meant to like the Empire, you're following the Rebels and their cause. I personally feel they have missed a trick by dropping the co-op nature. Now, this game runs the risk of being "just like any other card game", albeit with some goofy mechanics to make it stand out.