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

[Michael Hirst]

Single player shooters are becoming more of a rarity. I think the least that should be done for the less informed buyers of games is a big warning saying "THIS IS A MULTIPLAYER GAME" on games like COD and Battlefield.

I do love my single player campaigns though, we can get good stories and set pieces out of them but from a design standpoint online is much easier to create, there's so much in terms of tone and pace that just doesn't matter online since the players create all the action for themselves and don't even need a reason besides "we're red, they're blue lets get em"

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.

Really sad thing about this is that compared to the likes of COD and Battlefield...7 hours is quite long, some games I can literally buy, win and return on the same day (usually with a credit note but I'm only going to buy more games anyway)

 

[Steve the Pocket]

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.

Once upon a time, game developers would actually do this (Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament come to mind). I can't help but notice the shift came around the same time Halo came out and everyone suddenly wanted to cash in on its success by bringing their FPS games to the consoles. So, I assume they were trying stick as closely to its formula as possible. Never mind that even that game had to resort to copy-pasted environments and backtracking to pad its campaign mode out to a respectable length.

Brink, from what I've heard, is a rare game that actually follows in the Quake III/Unreal Tournament tradition by making the single-player mode just the multi-player maps with bots. Not sure. Can't be assed to buy it. Maybe if that game hadn't completely bombed, we'd have developers going back to the old model in an attempt to ape its success.

 

[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.

Once upon a time, game developers would actually do this (Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament come to mind). I can't help but notice the shift came around the same time Halo came out and everyone suddenly wanted to cash in on its success by bringing their FPS games to the consoles. So, I assume they were trying stick as closely to its formula as possible. Never mind that even that game had to resort to copy-pasted environments and backtracking to pad its campaign mode out to a respectable length.

Brink, from what I've heard, is a rare game that actually follows in the Quake III/Unreal Tournament tradition by making the single-player mode just the multi-player maps with bots. Not sure. Can't be assed to buy it. Maybe if that game hadn't completely bombed, we'd have developers going back to the old model in an attempt to ape its success.

I played Brink and the problem with bots in that game is there all idiots. They dont even bother going for the objective. The game only functions with human players which I guess sums up the games you said.

 

[Zhukov]

Wait... you bought a Battlefield game primarily for the single player?

 

[thiosk]

I agree. I don't like the multiplayer component, and as such have not participated in the medal of call of battlefield duty: modern teabagging trends of the past 5 years.

I first noticed this trend after purchasing quake 3 and discovering that there was in fact not really a single player game there.

 

[Dragonbeard]

Never had a problem with any of the games I've played (Halo Trilogy, all the COD games to date).

 

[Soviet Heavy]

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.

Wow, he makes a lot of good points in that video. Interesting. I find that a comparison to a similar scene in COD4 is apparent. Before the railroading really caught on in the series, there was the one level in COD4 where you had to fight through the middle eastern city, and you had loads of different directions to go.

Its a shame how linear things have become since then.

 

[DirgeNovak]

I buy FPSes for the single player. But I don't buy them on release day for 60$. I might pick up MW2 soon.

 

[FireCoroner]

I think we may be going through the same kind of FPS slump that we had in the late nineties, where publishers & developers saw the popularity of multiplayer and started making solely multiplayer games like Quake 3 Arena, and Unreal tournament. Thankfully Half Life came along with forgotten features, like a narrative and immersive gameplay, and blew them out of the fucking water.

And, who knows? maybe Half Life Ep3 will come along and save the world again?

 

[rje5]

I personally believe that every game needs to stand up if it is played on a console that isn't hooked up to the internet. I should be able to complete the game to 100% and get all achievements this way. So in this case, the single player should hold up and be worth the purchase price. If it can't do that, it should be like TF2 and just release the multiplayer as a separate, low price game. Of course this will never happen. Why charge $30 for single player, or $30 for multiplayer?

Lets say there's two people, one wants single player, one wants multiplayer. If they each spend $30 for the part of the game they want, the publishers get $60. But if they keep it together, and make each pay for the whole product at $60, they get $120. Each person still only plays the part of the game they want, but the publisher gets double the money. You'll never see a business cut revenue in half just to do the "right thing".

 

[ResonanceGames]

Most FPS campaigns are very poorly designed lately. The last one I can think of that had excellent design principles was Crysis (for the first 2/3, anyway).

It seems like once Half-Life 2 hit, everyone tried to hop on board the linear, tightly-scripted bandwagon, but completely ignored the brilliantly inventive encounters that made that game great, instead replacing them with whack-a-mole shooting and bad cover mechanics ala Call of Duty.

I'm hoping someone comes out of left field and drops a nuclear bomb on the genre soon, because it is stagnant as hell. That hasn't really happened since 1998.

 

[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 think like you do, but I was fortunate enough to find this out (BF3 mediocre single player) before I spent my money!

Did you try RAGE? I wasn't a fan of Crysis 2 to be honest.

EDIT: I still say multiplayer should be sold separately.

I agree with that as well. Either that or don't add a 5 hour campaign that isn't very good. The amount of money they spent on everything they could have hired someone who could write a good story even

 

[Arawn]

It's sad that people wanting an engaging single player campaign are being told "You're an idiot to think you'll find one, this game is made for multi-player." (I'm paraphrasing) What's more depressing is that people find this acceptable and quite normal. Story has taken a backseat in gaming of late. Honestly it's laying comatose in the trunk with shovels stacked upon it's body. Graphics is behind the wheel driving over the speed limit, while Mr Cut-scenes is fiddling with the radio. Why are these games getting so much praise for PvP gameplay which they have less control over than the PvE aspect? Are we really going to call a game good because I had fun playing against some other guys on the internet? I recall when PSN went down people were furious they couldn't play online.What about those that don't have internet(yes, some people don't have it, or have to cancel their services)Since you can't play against bots in situations like that(at least not on console games) you have single player.

 

[Netrigan]

The campaigns are seriously too short which is why I so rarely buy a FPS for more than $20. Only if I hear that there's a fairly meaty campaign will I buy it new. Of late, that's been Deus Ex, Crysis 2, Bioshock 2, and Rage... all of which have managed to provide enough single player content that I didn't feel cheated. Portal 2 got the nod because the promise of the promise of free DLC and I do love the game.

 

[Korten12]

Meh, honestly I like short SP's. For FPSs, I feel like when they reach the 10 hour mark they outstay there welcome.

Though there is some few cases which I wanted them to be more then 10 hours.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

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.

That actually sounds like something that could do a lot of good for the industry. And before you call me a knee-jerk CoD hater, which I guess might be justified by the fact that I only have Modern Warfare 1, I really liked that game. Pity the servers were mostly ghost towns.