I don't know, really. I value multiplayer as much as the next guy who enjoys his shooters, but I think that games like Battlefield and Call of Duty have to have single-player components that can stand on its own. I think multiplayer gameplay systems are not (and in all honesty depending on release prices) and should not be the most labor-intensive part of the game's initial development. A lot of developers for shooter franchises these days seem to place the multiplayer component above all else, likely because multiplayer extends the percieved longevity of the game and therefore appears to give more bang for the buck.
To me, however, I don't tend to dwell on a competitive scene too much unless the game I bought was solely designed to be competitive play. And especially for big-name shooter franchises founded on their storytelling component, sometimes it seems that their developer teams have forgotten the importance of an intensely well-crafted yarn. That's why despite the amount of thought and care put into Bad Company 2, I really really yearned for something more. There was so much care put into what little there was of the plot that I felt more of it would have made the game a truly complete shooter.
As for Battlefield 3, a lot of the marketing so far has been geared towards what appears to be a storyline, so fingers crossed.
