Food for thought: the first Metroid Prime had zero multiplayer, and has been (for the most part, if you drown out the complaints of those who couldn't adjust to the simple controls) critically acclaimed and considered a success. If I recall, it came out after Halo which, though no Live, still had a robust and popular multiplayer component, and considering it was years after Goldeneye and Pefect Dark, it's not like deathmatch was anything new at the time. Thing is, people didn't care, the single player was compelling enough that nobody missed the deathmatch in that game (most were busy declaring Prime a failure , before it's release, by virtue that it was in first person perspective).
Basically what I've read or have summed up from the posts is that the Wii is, or will be, a failure because Metroid Prime 3 doesn't have online, and I find that hard to believe. Actually, since reading many of the pre-Wii launch complaints, I've learned to drown out most of them unless I really find it damning; anybody remember the sunlight against the sensor bar 'issue' that crept up prior to launch, that has turned out to be anything but? Say what you want about Nintendo fanboys defending their system against any scrutiny, there are people just as bad on the other side of the fence to blow things out of proportion.
Yes, it's hard to defend Nintendo on their lack of online thus far, that's a safe synopsis. But in this particular example, it's not a cause for armageddon. I personally would much prefer a standalone Metroid Wii title that would focus solely on deathmatch type gameplay much akin to the Unreal Tournament games, and have a single player mode in that game that is something like what the Arcade League/Challenges were in Timesplitters 2. Leave MP3 as a single-player title. I would rather they do one component phenomenally then do two things half-assed.
Who cares if it multiplayer wasn't as good as single player; it's still an option to get a little longevity out of the game. Would you Goldeneye fans have played the game as much as you did if it didn't have multiplayer? Hell no. You play through the 1p mode to see where the story goes, and when you're done, the game's done - unless you have multiplayer (local or online). These days, a lack of online IMO is inexcusable, especially in a game that already has multiplayer, or could have multiplayer. It should be second nature at this point in time, and for the 360/Ps3, they're putting online play into their games. I'm sorry...anything that's a shooter (whether first or third person) should have local multiplayer and some sort of online (either multiplayer or co-op), period. And 99% of them do.
Back in the day people played Contra over and over because it was fun; no extra hidden stuff, no deathmatch, no nothing. Sure, times were simpler, but it's still possible these days to have a game that, if it's compelling enough, will warrant replays just because it is fun itself. Many of the games as of late seem to artificially add to replay value by merely forcing you into accomplishing achievements or going on a virtual scavenger hunt to find 300 hidden whatchamajigs, where sometimes most developers miss the fact that if you create a game that has phenomenal gameplay, then that might take care of itself. I've replayed the original Metroid Prime several times just through fun factor alone, as I have God of War. And in your Goldeneye case, I bet you people would keep on playing, as the difficulty levels that increased really added a whole different level of depth to the game itself (00 mode was a pain), and even still that's a special case as the game pretty much revolutionized deathmatch play on consoles, so that's not really a level comparison to the current state. I see deathmatch play as overdone and rather bland anymore, a dime a dozen pretty much (as you said, most of them do, but how many of them are actually 'good' or well designed). If it isn't going to be done good, then don't bother doing it at all.
