Theoretical!

Here is a theory I have about shooter games:

You can divide the multiplayer of everyone into two categories,

the first is that in these types of games everyone on your team has to be marginally competent for you to win (or at least marginally more competent then everyone on the opposing team). If there is a tag along who doesn't have a clue usually that team will be defeated, because instead of backing up the other competent players he was running in circles or putting shotgun shells into the wall. An example of this is "Gears of War". If you have one not good person on your team, it very much reduces your chance of winning.

The second type of multiplayer is where only a few of the people have to be competent. In fact... everyone could be completely helpless but one person, a "savior", who totally pwns at the said game could win the match for that team. Now this also means that someone on the other team could be a "savior" and everyone else be competent, but the other team, if they have no "savior", will get demolished. An example of this is "Halo 2". One person can win the battle.

Now I'm not saying that the first is squad based and the second is free-for-all teams, because there are games that are allegedly squad based that can have a savior ("Ghost Recon") and there are games that are free-for-all that if everyone doesn't chip in that you will lose ("Battlefield 2").

And well, I was just bored and felt like sharing my theory.

Merry Christmas.