ValborgSvensson

No it isn't. You are playing the game by yourself, one conscious being interacting with the artificial environment. That's not sport, and neither is it team work. Each of the characters you control are just scripted AI that still requires your participation. And there's only one person actively participating. There's nothing team nor sport about that. Context clues, man. The games we are discussing, namely BG and BGII (I'm partial to them), were multiplayer. So... yea. Also, many sports essentially are played "by yourself", or at least could be and not have anything changed, like Archery, the discus throw in track-and-field, and any sort of timed distance covering (like swimming, sprinting, etc). It's like correspondence chess, but with sticks and much shorter distances. And there is actually some debate about whether you need more than one person for a sport, though the most common definition of sport does indeed require more than one. But I contend if you can have single player games you can have single player sports.

I think it's a shame you think that the multiplayer aspects of Baldur's Gate require a lot of patience. I have never once hated playing through those games with friends and family; in fact I had more fun playing in a group than playing alone. What makes multiplayer prospects in these IE games so wonderful is that you don't have to build it any differently than you would a single player experience, content wise (I defer to your judgement on code complexity, not being a game programmer myself). We all show up for a story and a challenge, and with y'all behind the wheel it's sure to deliver. I hope you guys either reconsider soon or seriously think about adding it to a sequel, if it happens. The other thing I'm struggling with is this serious hate of multiplayer games in general. Why is everyone so dead set on having a single player only game? They are literally everywhere in the industry. What is wrong with wanting a game that tells a story like a single player experience, but being able to tackle the challenges it presents in a multiplayer format (which, by the way, the IE games are suited for in a practically ideal way)?

An interesting argument, but I've used some awesome sporks, and moreover they cater to a group of people who find them immensely useful, such as (as I will refer to them) outdoorsmen. But if we can ground this back in the realm of video games, and specifically the IE games which supported multiplayer, I contend that the theory and practice are both wonderful. Several people have already mentioned the fond memories they have of playing these games with a group of friends, so I won't beat that end of the dead horse, but I'd like to hear some specific reasons that people seem to think adding multiplayer would ruin a game like this, preferably with examples. The argument that I recall as I'm typing this is about how dialogue would be a problem in a multiplayer mode for this game, which I find to be nonsense; do you have the same problem with dialogue when running a Dungeons and Dragons campaign, or during a night of Rune or Pathfinder? There is really little difference between the two, except that the video game has to, by necessity, be slightly more restrictive in choice and speaking order. But if you can successfully play a pen and paper RPG with your friends, then there is nothing that I see stopping you from enjoying a multiplayer mode of this game; in fact, it's hard to play D&D when your friends are on the other side of the world, but having the ability to use TCP/IP connections means that I can play BGII with my brother while he's deployed in Afghanistan. And if the multiplayer development hurt some aspect of the game that I was completely ignorant of because I was too engrossed in the art, the voice acting, the game mechanics, the story, and the wonderful memories of conquering bosses with my brother through what must be now at least 50 playthroughs of varying difficulties and arbitrary rules (like the Bhaalspawn must be a dwarven kensai specializing in spears - go on and try it, it's pretty fun!), then I'm pretty sure I'm glad they took a hit on some ancillary part of the single player experience to bring me everything else. Note : I tried to not beat the dead horse and failed, twice, so I'm leaving in my little rant. Please excuse it on the grounds that we're all just passionate about this game, and want it to bring back a golden age of computer RPGs.