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

[Zeh Don]

Let me put it this way:
Every moment a developer splits it's focus from the core concept of a title, it results in an end product that is less polished, has more bugs, has less content, and lower quality content overall.
Crysis 2 had a horrendous multiplayer mode. Focus on it removed quite a bit from what was a decent single player campaign that simply tried too hard to be 'Call of Duty'. This resulted in a game that underperformed across the board, and ultimately sold less than it's predecessor, depsite being multiplatform.

'Battlefield' is a PC multiplayer series. The time, effort and resources poured into the single player game should have been spent on the multiplayer portion; more maps, less bugs, less glitches; better everything.
'Bad Company' was the single player spinoff. They made a 'Single Player' spin off for a reason - to not dilute the infamous multiplayer component. Which they've now done, and resulted in a game that's going to get stale very, very quickly. Enter $15.00 PC Map Packs.

EA wanted a CoD killer. That means whatever CoD has, Battlefield 3 has to have. Even if it makes the game worse and ultimately perform worse at the cash register.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

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

So... what? You want a serious modern military game where the single player campaign is more than just a trainer for multiplayer?

Well, if you're willing to play a military sim rather than a shooter, get some of the ArmA games... if try to play those games as a regular shooter, much character death and rage quitting ensues.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

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

Why would you buy BF3 for the single player? Everybody knows, reports, and shows that it's an MP focused game. Your fault.

Yes, campaigns should be good; I'm not excusing BF3's, but you fucked up. Rent that shit.

If the game has a single player campaign, there is no excuse for it to be shit. If they aren't going to try to make it good, don't bother making it at all.

EDIT: You don't need compelling plots or angsty drama to make a single player great. Give us interesting settings, character we don't hate, levels that are fun to play and maybe some fun set pieces to get us excited. Don't keep us on a rail, pushing obvious graphic engine showoffs with no depth or complexity, distilling the story to cut-scenes and over-wrought plotting that we have no impact on. Give us some open levels with modest objectives, reasonable character interaction moments that occur in the same context as normal game-play, a plot that we feel we directly impact and some real freedom in mission progression/alternate strategies that make the experience simultaneously more replay-able and more fluid.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

EA wanted a CoD killer.

Pfffft... They also tried that with the MoH reboot and THQ tried it with HomeFront. CoD remains steadfastly and unsurprisingly unkilled... simple fact is the only thing that will kill CoD is the consumer getting bored with 'modern-army-shooty-pow!' games, like they've done with other franchises/genres.

 

[weker]

With my job writing reviews, I have somewhat felt like some of the average consumer.
Many games that I have come across have sometimes... tend to drag on occasions, however I will still mark a AAA title down if it doesn't last 8 hours, unless it feels just right like portal.

 

[Fajita]

Battlefield 2 had no single player campaign at all, and it was a fun game.

Surprised no one brought that up.

 

[ThirdPrize]

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.

The thing is, multi player is a piece of cake for the developers. How hard can it be to create a few maps and a few game rules? You just have to make sure that everyone can run around, shoot each other and that its mildly amusing. Multiplayers is mostly the same game engine with a different sets of rules for each game type.

With campaign you have to write a story, get some acting talent in for the cut scenes, create a decent AI for the opponents characters, etc. It is literally like making a whole other game with the same components.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

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.

The thing is, multi player is a piece of cake for the developers. How hard can it be to create a few maps and a few game rules? You just have to make sure that everyone can run around, shoot each other and that its mildly amusing. Multiplayers is mostly the same game engine with a different sets of rules for each game type.

With campaign you have to write a story, get some acting talent in for the cut scenes, create a decent AI for the opponents characters, etc. It is literally like making a whole other game with the same components.

Thats, rather ignorant to put it lightly, with Multi player you have to work hard on designing the maps and rules, and how the two intertwine with eachother. The hardest thing is how the players will use it, the devs have to think of everything a player might do and how they could abuse certain systems, e.g. do we leave this box in this location? Does it set up an unfair vantage point for certain players? How many entrances on this building should there be? Are we making it too easy for snipers to camp inside?.
Little things but they add up, same thing with weapons/equipment, you dont know how the community will find ways to exploit certain guns, for example, the javelin glitch. It takes time and effort to craft a good multiplayer, just as much as if you were making a good single player.

 

[Torrasque]

I enjoy'd CoD4's and MW2's campaigns, but hated the fuck out of Black Ops.
Even Bulletstorm, a game that practically has no multiplayer, had a really crappy single player that was a chore to finish.
Gears 1: Fun story.
Gears 2: Alright, but brutal cliff-hanger.
Gears 3: Holy shit can you rush the ending any faster?
The only FPS games that have good story that I love replaying, are the Halo games. Halo 2 sucks to replay because of all the GODDAMN FLOOD LEVELS THAT DRAIN YOUR AMMO, but even it is more enjoyable than Gears 1-3.

So yeah, I get your point. Battlefield games are exactly what you'd expect from a current-gen FPS: HOLY SHIT AMAZING MULTIPLAYER... Oh yeah, there's also a single player... But its basically a tutorial for multiplayer. I don't even like Battlefield, and won't be buying BF3, lol. My older brother who defends BF2 all the time, even said that BF3's campaign was the worst campaign he's played on an xbox.

I'll always agree with Yahtzee on this one:
<quote=Yahtzee>A game has to be able to stand up on it's single player, before I give a damn about it's multiplayer. You won't always have friends around to play with, and online multiplayer sucks
^ hella paraphrase

 

[Torrasque]

Battlefield 2 had no single player campaign at all, and it was a fun game.

Surprised no one brought that up.

I have no problem with games that lack single player campaigns.
TF2 has no campaign, and I love playing it.
What sucks is games that throw in a campaign that sucks dicks, campaigns that are just a tutorial for the multiplayer, and expect people to like it.

 

[bificommander]

I haven't played BF3, but if the campaign sucks that is a black mark against them since they heavily marketed that this time BF3 would have an awesome campaign. The other BF games had no campaigns (not counting the Bad Company additions), but didn't promise you a campaign either. Personally I wouldn't have minded if BF3 had just sold itself again as a multiplayer-only game, with perhaps some single player bots on the maps for practice or filling up slots during a small lan party. But when you include and heavily market your single player campaign, you have a duty to make it a decent one.

 

[repeating integers]

I haven't played BF3, but if the campaign sucks that is a black mark against them since they heavily marketed that this time BF3 would have an awesome campaign. The other BF games had no campaigns (not counting the Bad Company additions), but didn't promise you a campaign either. Personally I wouldn't have minded if BF3 had just sold itself again as a multiplayer-only game, with perhaps some single player bots on the maps for practice or filling up slots during a small lan party. But when you include and heavily market your single player campaign, you have a duty to make it a decent one.

I'm pretty sure the singleplayer trailers actually existed for one reason: to show off the graphics. It was hinting that the graphics would be that good in the multiplayer, too. As for why they didn't release instant multiplayer trailers, I imagine it was because they wanted to keep people guessing about how awesome the multiplayer would be and inflating their own expectations.

The thing is, multi player is a piece of cake for the developers. How hard can it be to create a few maps and a few game rules? You just have to make sure that everyone can run around, shoot each other and that its mildly amusing. Multiplayers is mostly the same game engine with a different sets of rules for each game type.

With campaign you have to write a story, get some acting talent in for the cut scenes, create a decent AI for the opponents characters, etc. It is literally like making a whole other game with the same components.

Forgetting for a moment how much you sound like Jeremy Clarkson ("How hard can it be?" indeed...), do you seriously believe that? Multiplayer is NOT a piece of cake to make. I think the amount of time Valve spent painstakingly making TF2's maps, classes, gametypes etc. and balancing it to perfection in the end attests to that (even if it is Valve time we're talking about here).

You're massively oversimplifying the process.

 

[viranimus]

Want it to change? Well You have the power. Get not only yourself, but your friends neighbors casual acquaintances and the grannie down the street to get rabidly throwing money at developers on the first day for titles like Borderlands, Bioshock, Rage, Deus Ex, etc and other FPS that are centered around single player games.

That or... yanno, stop playing hyperrealistic military shooters. Seriously, what campaign can you really do in a modern military setting that has not been done to death yet?

So, its one or the other, get people to REALLY support the alternative games, or stop people from supporting publishers who put out things you find to be crap.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Re length? I don't really care about short SP campaigns. All I really care about is if it's paced and designed well, and if it's an enjoyable ride.

Two very different FPS's - Medal Of Honor Honour, and Metro 2033 - were both quite short. And I thoroughly enjoyed both (obviously the latter more than the former). I don't bother with MP, so, COD4 aside, I skip MW and Battlefield altogether.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

You are never the only one.

And FPS single player campaigns have really only been training simulators for online MP for years now. I had a look at my MW2 stats the other day - apparently I have spent 2 full days playing the campaign, 3 days playing Spec Ops, and 15 days playing online. So looking at the breakdown of my playing habits, I'm quite happy that more effort is devoted to online MP, because that's clearly where I spend my time. FPS games are all about competition and tests of skill, and no matter how advanced the AI a comp will never be the same challenge as a human.

 

[Treblaine]

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'm a huge fan of the great singleplayer FPS games but I sense that they jsut aren't so lucrative due to the Network Effect.

See the "Network Effect" is how things like Facebook have gotten so incredibly popular. You get a critical mass of people loving it and they pester their friends to join then and then they get locked in. Examples in Gaming would be Call of Duty and World of Warcraft. These have been HUGE financial successes and publishers push this angle as they want to emulate the same success.

But my best memories of gamign have to be with single-player games. Half Life, the original and HL2 as well as uber classics like Doom.

Say, if you want a nice return to classic Duke Nukem 3D I recommend buying it on GOG but playign it in an emulator like eDuke that adds in a load of modern bells as wistles like full mouse look:

http://eduke32.com/

I do that and I have to say even 15 years later IT IS PURE BLISS! The graphics are simple but they score everywhere where they need to, just needs a bit more suspension of disbelief. It's so different from Duke Nukem Forever its like they were made by a completely different team.

The computer game "Blood" that's another great FPS game on GOG.com though you'll have to settle with native DOSBOX emulator for that

But more recent stuff, the great single-player campaign isn't dead:
-Hard Reset
-Serious Sam 3
-RAGE
-E.Y.E
-Resistance 3
-Prey 2
-Bioshock Infinite
-Dishonored

But rolling back to say 2001-2002 for great single-player FPS games:
-Serious Sam 1
-Half Life blue Shift
-Red Faction
-Clive barker's Undying
-Return to Castle Wolfenstein
-Aliens vs Predator 2
-Soldier of Fortune 2
-Medal of Honor: allied Assault
-Iron Storm
-Serious Sam 2
-No one Lives Forever 2
-C&C Renegade

Things have changed. There just aren't as many great single-player FPS games.

 

[Treblaine]

Re length? I don't really care about short SP campaigns. All I really care about is if it's paced and designed well, and if it's an enjoyable ride.

Two very different FPS's - Medal Of Honor Honour, and Metro 2033 - were both quite short. And I thoroughly enjoyed both (obviously the latter more than the former). I don't bother with MP, so, COD4 aside, I skip MW and Battlefield altogether.

Correct spelling is "Medal of Honor" even if you are British, because it is a title of a product which is in reference to an specific American military medal.

Example, a British person would write:

"I had a great time Scuba diving in Pearl Harbor as it was my first experience diving in an active harbour"

Because "Pearl Harbor" is a name with fixed spelling, but harbour is a general noun used to be descriptive of the situation.

Same with "Gameboy Color" and other things, it works in reverse. Americans who are transcribing the titles of British film/game/product that include words of British Spelling must maintain the British Spelling for the titles and so on.

PS: There is no absolute "correctness" of spelling. Whether it is "Color" or "Colour" depends on context, of who is saying what and from where. Definitely titles and quotes should keep original spelling, after all, who would refer to Tarantino making "Inglorious Bastards" insisting on "correct" spelling?

 

[darthotaku]

my parents refuse to let me have any online multiplayer because they think it'll give the computer viruses. I seriously want a great single player fps, but they just don't make them anymore. and just so you know that there is no way I can convince my parents otherwise, they wouldn't allow me on these forums if they knew I was on. My stepdad thinks people on facebook can get into the hard drive.

so long story short, I can't play online because my parents are scared of the magic internet box. so I'm stuck with sub-par single player

 

[Something Amyss]

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

Yeah. No offense, but you HAD to know going in it'd be short.