My opinion would be the same. With a single engine, you don't don't have any options, so the situation is easier to manage in my mind. Also if you know you are relying on that single engine, I think you take additional precautions compared to when you have the 'safety' of a second engine.
Twice the engines does indeed mean twice the chance of failure, but the theory is that the chances of BOTH engines failing are much less than the chance of a single engined aircraft's engine failing. But this is only helpful if the twin has useful single engine performance. As you say, too many do not.
Burt Rutan's Boomerang shows that twins can be built with very much more carefree handling that 'conventional' twins, and of course Cessna's 337 should also have the same carefree handling with an engine out (But I'm not sure what the 337 is really like - there may be some funny situations or rules to be followed depending on whether it is the front or the back engine that has failed!)