I am kind if tired of the crap single player in FPS shooters

[jacobythehedgehog]

Am I seriously the only person that goes out and buys a game for the single player campaign in shooters? Battlefield 3's campaign was seriously 5 hours long. What was the point of even having it. I would have rather have just fought bots on there massive multi-player maps so then maybe I would have stood a chance in the online mode.

Not to say a 5 hour campaign would not have been bad if it was a cheep bin game, but I paid almost $65 after taxes. I even felt the campaign in Metal of Honor(the new one) was more engaging single player then this. Is it wrong to want more Crysis 2 campaigns but with a serious deep modern war?

Any thoughts on this fellow escapist? Sorry I kind of went on

 

[Amnestic]

Any thoughts on this fellow escapist?

TotalBiscuit brought this up in his "WTF is..." of Battlefield 3's Singleplayer (Link [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnn4bG1tj-E]). He suggested that for games like this or Modern Warfare that they throw up their hands, admit that the single player will never really be all that and simply cut it out, go straight multiplayer (a la Team Fortress 2, perhaps) and shave a tenner or so off the retail price.

I'm inclined to agree with him.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

You are never alone, please remember this.

No, it's not wrong to think that. I wish developers would take time into making an excellent single player campaign, but a lot of them don't. For those games, the developers know that most people will mostly buy the game for multiplayer, so I'm gonna guess they just make the campaign short so players can jump right into MP.

Either that, or they spent so much time and effort into MP that they do create a SP campaign but it's not as great, long, or as polished as the MP experience. I think the only way to get that point across is to not buy it, or, wait weeks to buy it, and MAYBE they will take the hint.

If the game doesn't have a very long, or a decent length, campaign then I'm not spending that kind of cash.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

What you're asking is impossible. Major publishers will never change their current business model.

 

[Fishyash]

Am I seriously the only person that goes out and buys a game for the single player campaign in shooters? Battlefield 3's campaign was seriously 5 hours long. What was the point of even having it. I would have rather have just fought bots on there massive multi-player maps so then maybe I would have stood a chance in the online mode.

Not to say a 5 hour campaign would not have been bad if it was a cheep bin game, but I paid almost $65 after taxes. I even felt the campaign in Metal of Honor(the new one) was more engaging single player then this. Is it wrong to want more Crysis 2 campaigns but with a serious deep modern war?

Any thoughts on this fellow escapist? Sorry I kind of went on

I think it 'only' being 5 hours long is the least of the problems I have with it (from what i've seen, and I think I have seen enough)

Yeah I watched totalbiscuit's video, it speaks for itself, it really doesn't need the commentary (although I do think it ads to it).

Basically, the single player is just the developers saying "hey, you like shiny graphics so here you go, a way to look at shiny graphics. what? you want to play? just do multiplayer this is just shiny graphics and 'is it real?' movie like cutscenes we're just calling it 'single player'".

But yeah it seems to cover all the things wrong with single player FPSs.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, It's only worth $65 because of the multiplayer really. And if the game was acctually GOOD, I don't think it being 5 hours long would be a problem in of itself. I don't think shooters should really have long campaigns or long stories. It would probably become too repetetive as people would come up with unrealistic gimmicks. However if they pace the game properly 5 hours would be more than enough for me IMO. It's not like good games have EVER been cheap, there are shorter games have been more expensive (usually they found some way to stretch out the game though, for example making it hard to beat).

 

[Zac Smith]

Am I seriously the only person that goes out and buys a game for the single player campaign in shooters? Battlefield 3's campaign was seriously 5 hours long. What was the point of even having it. I would have rather have just fought bots on there massive multi-player maps so then maybe I would have stood a chance in the online mode.

Not to say a 5 hour campaign would not have been bad if it was a cheep bin game, but I paid almost $65 after taxes. I even felt the campaign in Metal of Honor(the new one) was more engaging single player then this. Is it wrong to want more Crysis 2 campaigns but with a serious deep modern war?

Any thoughts on this fellow escapist? Sorry I kind of went on

I do agree with you but I can't help pointing out, you expected a long, in depth story for a battlefield game?

 

[Shadowstar38]

Is say just drop the singleplayer all together and make the game cheaper. That way they drop the pretense that they didnt send all there time on the MP.

 

[Jak LesStrange]

I also mainly buy first person shooters for the single player, such as Halo. Only reason I ever bought a Halo game was for the story. Thus I own all of them ... Anyways, You should just wait until the game has been out for a few days and then ask Escapists how long the campaign was and if it was any good. For example, Blacksite, Bioshock 1 and 2 and Deus Ex Human Revolution all have amazing single player and crap multiplayer... like military shooters...

 

[repeating integers]

Well, Battlefield in particular is a multiplayer FPS. I liked BC1's campaign, but IIRC it's one of only 3 campaigns in the Battlefield series at all (including BF3's). At least it's making an effort. I for one am glad they haven't diverted too many resources away from the reason people play battlefield - multiplayer.

It's the same story for a lot of FPS games nowadays. Call of Duty being the other major example (though Halo manages avoid this ghetto, because the campaigns might be short, but they clearly have had a lot of effort put into them).

 

[jacobythehedgehog]

Am I seriously the only person that goes out and buys a game for the single player campaign in shooters? Battlefield 3's campaign was seriously 5 hours long. What was the point of even having it. I would have rather have just fought bots on there massive multi-player maps so then maybe I would have stood a chance in the online mode.

Not to say a 5 hour campaign would not have been bad if it was a cheep bin game, but I paid almost $65 after taxes. I even felt the campaign in Metal of Honor(the new one) was more engaging single player then this. Is it wrong to want more Crysis 2 campaigns but with a serious deep modern war?

Any thoughts on this fellow escapist? Sorry I kind of went on

I do agree with you but I can't help pointing out, you expected a long, in depth story for a battlefield game?

Actually I kind of did. They made it look like it. It looked like an emotional charged campaign. It looked like it actually took more emotion out of war then just anger and death. But Thats all it had, and I was upset

 

[fraszoid]

I never had much patience for FPS multiplayer where I can't see my opponent. Best times I had on a console were Golden Eye 64 and Perfect Dark on the N64 where there were 4 of us all on the couch together playing. LAN Parties are fun too where everyone is in the big room and you ultimately get to at least see the people since everyone goes by their nicks for the most part. I was less that impressed by MW2 except for the one level in the airport, that was a lot of fun and different. I've not played Battlefield since BF 1942 and some Vietnam, but BF 1942 was a lot of fun and required strategy and coordination to win at. All the maps were the same for single player and multiplayer, and it was just bots against you in single player so it was fun picking them off as a sniper. No idea what BF3 is about but if its like 1942, I'll certainly consider it to try. Not sure if its possible, but bigger teams like 32 a side and some AI thrown in for more targets could be a lot of fun.

 

[Smooth Operator]

TotalBiscuit brought this up in his "WTF is..." of Battlefield 3's Singleplayer (Link [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnn4bG1tj-E]). He suggested that for games like this or Modern Warfare that they throw up their hands, admit that the single player will never really be all that and simply cut it out, go straight multiplayer (a la Team Fortress 2, perhaps) and shave a tenner or so off the retail price.

I'm inclined to agree with him.

I would actually suggest it goes off into two teams, one does a multiplayer game the other makes a singleplayer game and they release independently.
This way you get a much higher production quality and focus on both, not to mention customers get some nice choices.

Problem is the marketing guys are afraid, they wont be ready to chop up the golden goose formula while it still lays eggs.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Last FPS where I had a problem with the single player campaign being too short was Halo 3. It was supposed to be the last chapter of this "epic" story, yet it left me wanting after it lasted only 7 or so hours, and that was on my first playthrough and all in one go. It was obvious (and disappointing) that they made the game more for the multiplayer.

 

[haruvister]

Come now, let's not be silly, a high-quality single-player experience would require actual imagination and storytelling effort on the part of the developers.

I particularly resent the breed of multiplayer that no one asked for in the first place. I'm looking at you, BioShock 2 and Mass Effect 3. Maybe Elder Scrolls VI will have a herb-picking deathmatch mode.

 

[Aprilgold]

Any thoughts on this fellow escapist?

TotalBiscuit brought this up in his "WTF is..." of Battlefield 3's Singleplayer (Link [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnn4bG1tj-E]). He suggested that for games like this or Modern Warfare that they throw up their hands, admit that the single player will never really be all that and simply cut it out, go straight multiplayer (a la Team Fortress 2, perhaps) and shave a tenner or so off the retail price.

I'm inclined to agree with him.

I agree, nothing is more true about PC gaming as a whole then what Total Biscuit says.

Oh, and Team Fortress 2 was not a good example, since the gameplay matches the style, which is silly and not realistic.

 

[Amnestic]

Maybe Elder Scrolls VI will have a herb-picking deathmatch mode.

That's ridiculous and you know it.

Everyone knows it'll be a mudcrab hunting game. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mHKHKR8x6A]

Edit:

Oh, and Team Fortress 2 was not a good example, since the gameplay matches the style, which is silly and not realistic.

I meant as an example of a highly successful game which has no singleplayer campaign. Perhaps Counterstrike would be more appropriate?

 

[JamesStone]

Because if the 5-to-6 hour crappy singleplayer wasn´t in the game, they couldn´t ask us 60 bucks per copy, à la Crysis 2, and would be forced to sell them at Team Fortless 2 pre-F2P price.

All about bussiness, kid.

 

[Nick Angelici]

I used to buy shooters, period. I stopped because none of them wants to let me enjoy it, I tried the whole multiplayer scene, No thanks, Im dont want to deal with your stupid whining and yelling

 

[Baby Tea]

Is it wrong to want more Crysis 2 campaigns but with a serious deep modern war?

That's not wrong at all.
But you're looking at the wrong franchise.

Battlefield has NEVER been about the single player. And this latest entry doesn't change that.
Call of Duty hasn't really been about single player since CoD4 (As I see it, anyways), and that's the way that is going to stay.

So you'll have to find your modern war-fare single player fix somewhere else.
Where? I have no idea. Replay CoD4? That was pretty bitchen!