Homefront Dev Will Make Sequel's Campaign Longer if Fans Want It
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
The fact they say they will make the sequal longer since the last game is like saying "i failedHankMan said:
to make a great game but if you want me to try harder i will", which is really silly coming from a game studio don't you think and i agree with you on the next installment not selling any better.
This. This, this THIS.joeman098 said:
I too am sick of the focus on multiplayer in blockbuster titles. Or in general, for that matter. Part of the reason i migrated from shooters to RPGs is so i could have a meaningful single player experience again. People suck, i don't want to be expected to have to play with them just to get my money's worth and enjoyment out of something. I feel multiplayer should always be secondary, not primary to the game's content. It's so frustrating.
What makes it even more baffling is how much effort in advertising and marketing went to pushing the concept of the single player campaign, that it was an enemy occupation scenario of something that would affect the player on a significant level, since it's an invasion of a western territory. (even if you don't like in the US, you can still appreciate the scenario if you live in western Europe) Why would you spend all that money on live action advertisements and pushing the ad campaign for a lacklustre single player in favour of a supposedly superior multiplayer component? *Facedesk*
While I haven't finished the game yet, I am already to kill the AI teammates! Apparently I've been rescued(in the campaign) cause I can fly a fricking helicopter but YET I am unable to move a filing cabinet blocking a door in a stairwell(why is that there in the first place??), jump down off a building OR climb up or down a ladder without being prompted! Either the developers have very little faith in the intelligence of their target market or they tool the easy way out.
And why is it the in EVERY FPS your character, ALONG with the AIs, get caught up in a car/truck wreck or some explosion and you move about the speed of a fatty who just woke up and your 'teammates' are fine yelling at you to 'HURRY THE F*** UP!' Really!? I've played as a Marine, SOG, Delta, SEAL, SECOPS Operator, Ranger, SAS, etc (the list goes on) with all this awesome, over the top, virtual training, and STILL get slowed down by an explosion or little car wreck. IF that stuff slows me down then WHY AM I STILL IN THAT UNIT OR JOB in the first place!? Just saying.
And is it possible to get rid of all the 'hidden' items of intelligence, COG tags, newspaper clippings, and other BS that(IMO) detracts from the SP game play. I understand that there has to be a 'challange' or achievement' to be completed, but make it part of the GAME, not something that takes away from the game. It doesn't add to the story.
And why is it the in EVERY FPS your character, ALONG with the AIs, get caught up in a car/truck wreck or some explosion and you move about the speed of a fatty who just woke up and your 'teammates' are fine yelling at you to 'HURRY THE F*** UP!' Really!? I've played as a Marine, SOG, Delta, SEAL, SECOPS Operator, Ranger, SAS, etc (the list goes on) with all this awesome, over the top, virtual training, and STILL get slowed down by an explosion or little car wreck. IF that stuff slows me down then WHY AM I STILL IN THAT UNIT OR JOB in the first place!? Just saying.
And is it possible to get rid of all the 'hidden' items of intelligence, COG tags, newspaper clippings, and other BS that(IMO) detracts from the SP game play. I understand that there has to be a 'challange' or achievement' to be completed, but make it part of the GAME, not something that takes away from the game. It doesn't add to the story.
I thought they actually gave the player a ending, not just credits... Thanks for informing me, I'm probably now going to wait till the game goes down in price before getting it. What must have they been thinking?:Zhukov said:
Development team: "Hey Guys I have a great idea for the ending! Lets not do a proper one and just slap a cliche with credits attached. Thats sure to get people wanting to play a sequel!"
Marketing team's thoughts: "Oh god, how are we going to market a game that ends like that to the public... Let's just base the trailers on Multiplayer and the good parts of the game!"
Thats the old Idea Board. It now goes a little like this:GrizzlerBorno said:
Mass Effect 3 Idea Board: Finish the Story in an epic believable way... BUT add a major twist at the end that links the game to DA3 as the Reapers have discovered the ability to TIMETRAVEL!!!!
Why on earth do they think they are getting a sequel? I thought bad things tended to die off unless someone thought there was money to be made by bombarding us with it en mass. Honestly did they think they were going to topple Halo or COD as the multiplayer kings? Why does everyone keep trying to focus on multiplayer when they know they can't win at the cost of their single player campaign? Hey Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 2 how many people are lining up to play your amazing multiplayer? This is why I stick to TF2 and Halo for multi and fallout and Mass Effect for single.
This has to be the funniest thing I've seen all day! Very nice!GrizzlerBorno said:
I hadn't considered that. That was stupid of me. When it comes to FPS's, I only ever think in terms of the PC. It sucks that MS would have policies that aid in the destruction of such a high potential game. All well. I think they shot themselves in the foot by hyping the game up so much.ZippyDSMlee said:
Oh aye, I know battlefield is a multiplayer centred game. But I'm just praying that now they are actually making a singleplayer campaign, that it's actually something different than CoD. Bad Company 1 was on the right tracks, but then took a drastic turn to the normal in the sequel.kane.malakos said:
A guy can dream of a modern FPS with a good story. The last one was Modern Warfare 1.
I was wondering: how short could it possibly be to stand out like that? Every FPS I've played this gen has been absurdly short. I understand that the main draw is multiplayer but the single player game is what we're going to be left with when the servers shut down.TheGuy(wantstobe) said:
You can't sell me on how amazing the dinner is, give me a plain burger, and then try to convince me I really came in for the ice cream. If multiplayer was your big selling point, you would have damn well advertised it as such instead of pimping how you brought in heavy hitters from all corners to make the story amazing. News flash; unless you're telling the story THROUGH multiplayer, you sold us a bill of goods. Instead of worrying about making the campaign longer, worry about having a job next month.
And no, they CAN NOT blame THQ's marketing department for this. Those guys did EVERYTHING they could to build hype for this game, everything under the sun, short of actually convincing Korea to invade the US as a promotional gimmick. Were some of their efforts idiotic? Well, yeah, the whole balloons incident was downright rediculous. But damned if they weren't trying every trick in the book and inventing a few new ones. Take a look at the booth they had up at E3 if you can find photos or video of it online. Check out the various ads and what not. THQ did their fair share; Kaos dropped the damn ball on delivering something even vaguely worth the hype.
And no, they CAN NOT blame THQ's marketing department for this. Those guys did EVERYTHING they could to build hype for this game, everything under the sun, short of actually convincing Korea to invade the US as a promotional gimmick. Were some of their efforts idiotic? Well, yeah, the whole balloons incident was downright rediculous. But damned if they weren't trying every trick in the book and inventing a few new ones. Take a look at the booth they had up at E3 if you can find photos or video of it online. Check out the various ads and what not. THQ did their fair share; Kaos dropped the damn ball on delivering something even vaguely worth the hype.
There are already enough fps multiplayer games to choose from, and most who play them have already sworn their allegiance to on of them (CoD, Battlefield, Bad Company, Halo, etc....)
So unless they had something interesting going on from the start, there was no point focusing on multiplayer so much...so far as I have seen on youtube videos of the multiplayer, its pretty generic...
*edit* one of the maps reminds me of a cod1 multiplayer map
So unless they had something interesting going on from the start, there was no point focusing on multiplayer so much...so far as I have seen on youtube videos of the multiplayer, its pretty generic...
*edit* one of the maps reminds me of a cod1 multiplayer map
You mean you don't already? I just go outside with a gun and blame it on gang violencePaulH said:
Like a lot of people said already.
Why did you want people to "immerse themselves in the fiction" and see an America that's only a shell of its former self... and then just piss it all away on some damn multiplayer game. This mildly interesting setting gives something to the single player. It COULD have given something to the multiplayer but from the looks of it, it didn't.
Why did you want people to "immerse themselves in the fiction" and see an America that's only a shell of its former self... and then just piss it all away on some damn multiplayer game. This mildly interesting setting gives something to the single player. It COULD have given something to the multiplayer but from the looks of it, it didn't.
I'm just hoping that THQ/Kaos don't get greedy and say "you wanted a longer story, here buy some DLC for a few extra SP missions".
Is there even opening for a sequel? I'm almost beginning to think it was deliberate. If you give us Bioshock 2 it can be 80 hours long and we still won't like it.
Now this is a game I would play and not nag about, my chaps.The Cheezy One said: