And while i get the sentiment (and also share it to an certain dagree) of 'not every Singleplayer needs Multiplayer', Ravenfield isn't an simple example of an true Singleplayer-Game, where the whole Gameplay, Pacing etc is developed around this, maybe even story / narrative driven and such. And that's why people, who get confused how an multiplayergame can miss an multiplayer and now need to express their feeling and opinion about that, and how they find it an bad game-design choice. It emphasis everything what Multiplayer does, only with the difference that IRL players are swapped out with bots, like classic Bot-Possibilties in Games like Battlefield. Sure, it singleplayer in that sense that you can play it exclusively solo, but that itself doesn't make it an exclusively Singleplayer Game, because it's core-concept and overall Gameplay is still Multiplayer.

Or would you call BF1942 or Battlefield 2 Lan-Server with Bots as Singleplayer because with that you could play it solo? As example: If you install a private Server of World of Warcraft, is it now less an MMORPG and more of an Singleplayer? Or is it still an MMORPG but you found a way to play it offline Solo. I mean maybe it's an deeper argumentation of semantics, and we could argue, is an Singleplayer-Game only an Singleplayer-Game because you can play it Solo, or is the whole Gameplay and Core-Concept a huge Part of it as well. Originally posted by Mason™ of Germany:In case you didnt notice, Ravenfield is exclusively a singleplayer game.

Ravenfield play for free