Money. There are a few hundred thousand to a few million people willing to buy a last-gen version of the game that only has competitive MP.Mutant1988 said:
Poll: Do you play the single player of Military Shooters?
- Thread starter tippy2k2
- Start date
One of the first things I usually do with a shooter is play the campaign if it has one. Partially because it help introduce many of the gimmicks/items I'll be using in the multiplayer in a way where I'm (mostly) not worrying about some jackass coming around the corner and shooting my face off while I figure out how the damn thing works. However, if there isn't a co-op feature for the campaign I'll usually only play through it once or twice unless it was really good or gives me an incentive to play it again, which it usually doesnt.
Should have added that it was a rhetorical question.Ambient_Malice said:
I very well know it's about money. When is it ever not? I'm just in disagreement to what extent they should be allowed to go to to get that money. This, I think, is too far. Especially if it sets a precedent in omitting features dependent on system.
Looking at say Battlefield Star Wars... I mean Star Wars Battlefield... No, sorry, I meant Star Wars Battlefront. Dice and EA realized that they couldn't do the game justice on "last-gen" hardware and decided simply not to release it. But apparently Activision's greed surpass that of EA.
Back when I had yet to utterly tire of those games, which happened around the first Black Ops, yes I did play the single player. Not because I found the stories engaging or the characters memorable, since I absolutely cannot comprehend how anyone possibly could, but just because they were there. It'd kill a few hours and let me get a feel for how the guns handled for when I played the multiplayer, where I sunk exponentially more time, because back when I was a teenager I didn't have good decision-making skills.
Just single player: Yes...
Single and multiplayer: Let me think about it while I wait for my friend to buy it, anyway...
Just multiplayer: Fuck it! I'm out! This interviews over... *takes off shirt mic and walks out of the studio building*
Other than that, the story might also play a factor in the buying/decision making, but I digress...
Single and multiplayer: Let me think about it while I wait for my friend to buy it, anyway...
Just multiplayer: Fuck it! I'm out! This interviews over... *takes off shirt mic and walks out of the studio building*
Other than that, the story might also play a factor in the buying/decision making, but I digress...
I used to be a big fan of the CoD series, ever since I got the first one as a gift. Played each one up until MW3, at which point I kinda just stopped caring anymore. I bough Blops2 on sale after hearing it was really good(all the other games I bought at launch or close to it) but I refuse to buy Ghosts because of how terrible it looks. I just picked up AW on sale but haven't touched it yet.
I've tried multiplayer(mostly United Offensive, which I believe was the one where you could drive tanks in MP) a few times but the Single Player is what draws me and CoD, for most games, has really good single player campaigns, or at least a fun 6 hour roller coaster ride. Even when the campaigns are ridiculous, like BLOPs and, to a lesser extent, MW2.(MW2 was bombastic but held together well enough. BLOPS was like a Michael Bay Movie mixed with a James Bond movie with a few gimmicks thrown in, like SR-71 mission)
MW3 is bizarre because I love half of the missions(the two in Paris, the one in Somali and Dust to Dust were awesome) while the other half are nonsensical(the one on the airplane in particular) or average(The New York Missions), and the overall plot holding them together feels really patchy and fails to address a lot of plot points from MW2(You know, like the whole killing Gen. Shepherd thing, which just kind of gets forgiven at the end, despite the fact they never proved he was a traitor or anything like that).
I was curiously optimistic about BLOPS3, but I also hate rewarding Activation for cutting out the single player and offering what isn't even a standard steam per-order discount as compensation. I don't like the series that much and I'm more then willing to just not buy the damn things anymore in protest.
I've tried multiplayer(mostly United Offensive, which I believe was the one where you could drive tanks in MP) a few times but the Single Player is what draws me and CoD, for most games, has really good single player campaigns, or at least a fun 6 hour roller coaster ride. Even when the campaigns are ridiculous, like BLOPs and, to a lesser extent, MW2.(MW2 was bombastic but held together well enough. BLOPS was like a Michael Bay Movie mixed with a James Bond movie with a few gimmicks thrown in, like SR-71 mission)
MW3 is bizarre because I love half of the missions(the two in Paris, the one in Somali and Dust to Dust were awesome) while the other half are nonsensical(the one on the airplane in particular) or average(The New York Missions), and the overall plot holding them together feels really patchy and fails to address a lot of plot points from MW2(You know, like the whole killing Gen. Shepherd thing, which just kind of gets forgiven at the end, despite the fact they never proved he was a traitor or anything like that).
I was curiously optimistic about BLOPS3, but I also hate rewarding Activation for cutting out the single player and offering what isn't even a standard steam per-order discount as compensation. I don't like the series that much and I'm more then willing to just not buy the damn things anymore in protest.
I barely ever play military shooters, but when I do it's pretty much ONLY for the single player. It's probably why I hardly touch them anymore, what with the mode being consistently given the shaft in favor of multiplayer. TF2 scratches my multiplayer shooter itch nicely, thank you very much (even if it's slowly buckling under an avalanche of weird lore and stupid hats [https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Potassium_Bonnett]).
Well, typically, if a game has no singleplayer mode, be it an FPS military game or not, I won't buy it.
But when it comes to Call of Duty... yeah, no, I won't buy any over-priced crap that Activision drops on the doormat like a cat with a dead mouse.
And with the news that they're being even lazier and cutting singleplayer from Black Ops 3... I feel vindicated for my choice to stop buying their games years ago.
But when it comes to Call of Duty... yeah, no, I won't buy any over-priced crap that Activision drops on the doormat like a cat with a dead mouse.
And with the news that they're being even lazier and cutting singleplayer from Black Ops 3... I feel vindicated for my choice to stop buying their games years ago.
That's not true, though. They're cutting the SP from the 7th generation versions, which are outsourced ports, and have been as such since Ghosts. The irony is that despite Ghosts being an 8th gen game that uses, like, 8x the texture memory of Black Ops II, people accused it of being a game "crippled" by needing to run on "outdated 7th gen consoles" despite the fact the old generation versions were ports handled by a totally different team.Katherine Kerensky said:
When I still bought military shooters? Yes.
When it comes to single-player/multiplayer games I'm the otherway around; It's the single-player that gives me the satisfaction, and the multiplayer that holds my attention but for a short while. I can't think of a strict multiplayer that I played for longer than two weeks before getting bored of the same matches over and over. Fun while they last, but they don't last long.
When it comes to single-player/multiplayer games I'm the otherway around; It's the single-player that gives me the satisfaction, and the multiplayer that holds my attention but for a short while. I can't think of a strict multiplayer that I played for longer than two weeks before getting bored of the same matches over and over. Fun while they last, but they don't last long.
Yep, usually single player is the primary reason I play military shooters, the exception being the Battlefield series. Though the last time I actually bought a military shooter for the single player was Black Ops II and that was because it was 50% off on steam and had a decent amount of replay value for a COD campaign.
So, they're just cutting it from the 360 and PS3?Ambient_Malice said:
It wouldn't surprise me if they used this to test the waters, like they did with upping the DLC price.
"Oh, it sold well, so that means it's okay!"
I'm just glad I stopped buying their games after Black Ops, and bought no DLC after World at War >.>
[small]Why yes, I am a bit of a bitter person, why do you ask?[/small]
For a singleplayer shooter, I have a lot more fun playing a multiplayer mode with bots than I do a linear story campaign.
For example, CoD tends to bore me to tears with little to no replayability, but Project Reality and Forgotten Hope 2 (Battlefield 2 mods) with 100 bots on the big open maps it's practically a sandbox I can do what I want in. And replayability is massively increased as the same map can be played with a different playstyle and experience.
It's the same for other games like Gears of War, Counter Strike, Brink etc...
For example, CoD tends to bore me to tears with little to no replayability, but Project Reality and Forgotten Hope 2 (Battlefield 2 mods) with 100 bots on the big open maps it's practically a sandbox I can do what I want in. And replayability is massively increased as the same map can be played with a different playstyle and experience.
It's the same for other games like Gears of War, Counter Strike, Brink etc...
Me personally I have zero interest in online gaming so enjoy a good story. Played all the Halo games but never online. I find the whole online gaming thing in shooters boring and repetitive. Atleast with a story you have a reason why your shooting people.
I do play the singleplayer campaigns of FPS titles, but only really as a sort of training session before engaging in multiplayer. I find that running through the story mode allows me to become fully acquainted with the new weapons/equipment/abilities/mechanics of a title in a much more stress-free environment than online gaming.
I believe it's also worth mentioning that the FPS genre is the only genre in which my preferences align this way. In every other genre, be it RPG(especially RPG), sandbox, simulator, racing, action, strategy, or whatever I'm solidly in the singleplayer camp.
I believe it's also worth mentioning that the FPS genre is the only genre in which my preferences align this way. In every other genre, be it RPG(especially RPG), sandbox, simulator, racing, action, strategy, or whatever I'm solidly in the singleplayer camp.
I really only ever have one main FPS for multiplayer at any given time. Right now I have Destiny and whatever COD is new at the moment. So anything else I buy is typically for the story mode.
I like a good military campaign story. Usually I really feel like playing a military shooter after I watch a movie or something that makes me want to feel like a badass in that certain soldier-like way. Single player is the best for that, because online multiplayer quickly deconstructs itself to a regular game, as opposed to an "experience."
Of course I do. I know that now-and-days most shooters are all about the multiplayer, but I always play the single player as a way to break int the game (get used to the controls, etc.).
Most times I find the single player to be fun and challenging.
Most times I find the single player to be fun and challenging.