Poll: Do you play the single player of Military Shooters?

[tippy2k2]

After seeing this news story (CoD Black Ops 3 will not have singleplayer campaign on last gen systems)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.882837-No-Singleplayer-Campaign-For-Black-Ops-3-on-PS3-Xbox-360#22257418

it made me wonder how much this actually matters. That thread has a number of people saying "Who Cares?" as well as people saying "I care!" so I figured a poll on my favorite website would help answer the question!

After getting zero responses on sweatysexyfanfic.org, I figured I'd try my second favorite website, The Escapist.

I do....I really really do. I'm not 100% sure why because for the most part; the stories are always just kind of Meh but I like the genre. I used to buy Call of Duty at launch because I'd play both multiplayer and single player but I would also buy Battlefield as well just for the single player (though I would wait for those to plummet in price before I buy since...well...I still recognize that those stories are not great even though I love to play them).

So do you play single player on Military Shooters?

 

[Lightspeaker]

I basically ONLY buy them for the single player these days. Battlefield has been on a solid downhill trend since Battlefield 2 (and was never about the SP anyway) and Modern Warfare's best multiplayer was back when it was actually "real" Call of Duty, a WW2 shooter. United Offensive to be specific. Its been pretty much junk ever since. Ten and eleven years ago respectively.

Only shooters I've played to any great extent and actually enjoyed multiplayer of in the last decade were TF2 (before it jumped the shark), Titanfall, Bet on Soldier, CSS and more recently I'm actively playing CSGO. Yes I did notice that I seem to have a bit of a thing for the source engine in shooters.

So yeah, the single player is pretty important to me. Its the sole things these games have that give me any reason to buy them

 

[Evonisia]

I usually do yeah. Hell with the Call of Duty games I play singleplayer first (and in the Treyarch games, the singleplayer, then the Zombies before multiplayer).

Hearing that Black Ops 3 doesn't have single-player on PS3 or Xbox 360 means that I'll probably never end up playing the game. I haven't gotten to any of the CoD games since Black Ops, but I'm probably going to play their single-player modes out of curiousity, particularly Advanced Warfare because I actually hear really good things about it despite the whole Press X To Have Emotions bit.

I whole heartedly recommend giving Advanced Warfare's singleplayer a go. It balances spectacle with the gameplay so very well and the EXO suits make for a lot of fun, and its so ridiculous that I could not help but be engaged even if the plot is as generic as they come.

 

[Zhukov]

Back when I would buy the occasional military shooter, yes, I would play the single player.

However, I was there for the multiplayer. Playing the campaign was just a sort of it's-there-so-I-might-as-well preamble. The campaigns were generally weak as fuck and if they weren't so mercifully short I probably wouldn't have bothered.

I'm totally fine with a shooter, military or otherwise, focusing on multiplayer entirely.

 

[tippy2k2]

Hearing that Black Ops 3 doesn't have single-player on PS3 or Xbox 360 means that I'll probably never end up playing the game. I haven't gotten to any of the CoD games since Black Ops, but I'm probably going to play their single-player modes out of curiousity, particularly Advanced Warfare because I actually hear really good things about it despite the whole Press X To Have Emotions bit.

I whole heartedly recommend giving Advanced Warfare's singleplayer a go. It balances spectacle with the gameplay so very well and the EXO suits make for a lot of fun, and its so ridiculous that I could not help but be engaged even if the plot is as generic as they come.

I would also second Advanced Warefare's campaign if you can find the game nice and cheap. It was a very solid story...even if the ending was so dumb that my eyeballs fell out of my eye sockets due to how quickly they rolled. It was months of physical therapy to fix them...

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I hardly ever even touch the multiplayer in my shooter games. Usually, the only time I will even bother looking into it is if there are trophies for playing, and even then, the trophies better be easy to get (play each class, reach level whatever). And the only reason I do that is because I want the platinum.
I actually loved the fact that you could get the platinum in the only Call of Duty games just by playing single player, or the zombie or co op stuff. I was pretty hurt when Black Ops decided to change that, but I still got the platinum.
So yes, I play the single player in military shooters. In fact, it is the only reason I will buy a shooter. The only time I found myself playing--and more importantly enjoying--any multiplayer in a military shooter was Modern Warfare 2, and that's because I could play as a sniper. The maps were big enough to make it possible, and with the right perks I could easily vanish like a ghost. Plus, people died from one shot most the time.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

I haven't bought a military shooter (unless you count WH40K: Space Marine) since MW3. I played the single player for several Medal of Honor and CoD games back when multiplayer meant four guys huddled around the CRT TV. I played the MW single player because those campaigns were like an interactive Michael Bay adaptation of a Tom Clancy novel. I got World at War for free with a video card and loved the campaign.

I tried MW3 and Blops' multiplayer and didn't really like it. The whole killstreak/perk system and the over-seriousness of the online community (even compared to Halo's) didn't jive with me. Nazi Zombies also wore off its welcome after a couple hours (of course that was also because of the player count limitations at LANs). I haven't tried Battlefield or something else similar to CoD, because I would likely be wasting my money to find out I'm worn out with all of this ultra-realistic gung-ho military stuff.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Hearing that Black Ops 3 doesn't have single-player on PS3 or Xbox 360 means that I'll probably never end up playing the game. I haven't gotten to any of the CoD games since Black Ops, but I'm probably going to play their single-player modes out of curiousity, particularly Advanced Warfare because I actually hear really good things about it despite the whole Press X To Have Emotions bit.

I whole heartedly recommend giving Advanced Warfare's singleplayer a go. It balances spectacle with the gameplay so very well and the EXO suits make for a lot of fun, and its so ridiculous that I could not help but be engaged even if the plot is as generic as they come.

I would also second Advanced Warefare's campaign if you can find the game nice and cheap. It was a very solid story...even if the ending was so dumb that my eyeballs fell out of my eyes due to how quickly they rolled. It was months of physical therapy to fix them...

I really didn't like Advanced Warfare's campaign because the main character made a number of stupid decisions. After playing Black Ops 2, where your actions influenced the story and multiple endings it was a massive disappointment.

 

[beastro]

Only series I give a pass on is Battlefield, but it's more to due the lack of single player being something of a tradition in that series than anything else (what passed for SP in 1942 was a joke, was only good for practicing with and testing new mods).

 

[Sarge034]

Poll kindda shoehorns a little. I always play the sp first and a game that doesn't have a sp is not very appealing to me. HOWEVER, if I'm going to play a CoD for long it's the mp *cough*and the achievements*cough* that'll keep me around. Unfortunately I dislike the direction mp has been going for a loooooong time now. That being said, I'm certainly one of those people who play CoD for the story, but if we're just saying all military shooters? Well that opens you up to the likes of Spec Ops: The Line and... some other military shooters that had deep stories? XD

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

depends entirely on the game, however I do tend to play single player more, just so I don't have to deal with annoying OP combos/weapons online that everyone insists on using instead of just playing for fun (which is fine, why I don't play multiplayer really.)

there are some games I go into full knowing I'm just there for the multiplayer, but that's few and far between.

 

[Worgen]

I always play the single player, usually a bit before I go multi. While the story tends to be crap, the set pieces are usually interesting and fun.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Only series I give a pass on is Battlefield, but it's more to due the lack of single player being something of a tradition in that series than anything else (what passed for SP in 1942 was a joke, was only good for practicing with and testing new mods).

IMO, there was always a wee bit of selective memory when it comes to Battlefield and singleplayer.

The first Battlefield to have a "proper" singleplayer mode was Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, which was the fourth game in the series, console-only, and released in 2005. It wasn't much, but it did have a storyline that the player progressed through by completing missions.

In 2008, Bad Company was released, which had a far more elaborate campaign. In 2010, Bad Company 2 was released. Again, a more complex singleplayer campaign. In 2011 came Battlefield 3, with a campaign that was basically a loose, unofficial remake of the game BLACK. The game's biggest criticism was excessive scripting including a weird sequence where you got into a jet but didn't actually get to fly said jet, instead operating the weapons. In 2013 came Battlefield 4, with its rather more freedom-oriented story driven campaign. In 2015 came Battlefield: Hardline, with a stealth-oriented singleplayer campaign where you play a Cuban-American police officer doing cop stuff.

So there have been 14 Battlefield games, six of which have featured a "real" singleplayer campaign. That's not even mentioning the fact a few of those MP-only games are now defunct or were simply F2P remakes. People aren't wrong that Battlefield started out as an MP series, but the idea that singleplayer campaigns haven't been a part of Battlefield for quite some time is wrong.

 

[Mutant1988]

In order of importance, of what makes me purchase a military shooter (Or nearly any shooter).

1. Offline splitscreen Co-op campaign/mode.
2. Singleplayer campaign.
3. Offline splitscreen multiplayer with bots.
4. Online/LAN co-op campaign/mode.
5. Offline splitscreen adversarial multiplayer
6. Online multiplayer.

So yeah, I picked option 1, since it's the closest to the top of my priority list out of the available poll options.

Black Ops 3 removing singleplayer from the PS3 and Xbox 360 version is ****ing awful. And here I've been praising them for at least getting the splitscreen part right (In, you know, having it at all *Cough* Halo 5 *Cough*), where others have failed and then they go and do something stupid like that.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Black Ops 3 removing singleplayer from the PS3 and Xbox 360 version is ****ing awful.

The fanboish argument would be that this allows them to create a singleplayer campaign that is totally unrestricted by the tiny memory and slow processors of 7th generation consoles. However, I have yet to see any footage of Black Ops 3 demonstrating the technological jump. Even Call of Duty: Ghosts looked more impressive in scope.

 

[Mutant1988]

Black Ops 3 removing singleplayer from the PS3 and Xbox 360 version is ****ing awful.

The fanboish argument would be that this allows them to create a singleplayer campaign that is totally unrestricted by the tiny memory and slow processors of 7th generation consoles. However, I have yet to see any footage of Black Ops 3 demonstrating the technological jump. Even Call of Duty: Ghosts looked more impressive in scope.

Well, you see - It's to allow them to make the campaign play optimally with 4 players online.

Because it's not like World at War managed to do that years ago with barely any issues, on an earlier iteration of the same engine.

Tin foil hat mode activate: I'm sure it has something to do with all that money Microsoft and Sony offered them to give their respective "next-gen" consoles selling points. Assuming it's something subtle, like reduced licensing costs or some such.

That or they're just lazy and don't really respect their customers. Could be that, probably is that.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Black Ops 3 removing singleplayer from the PS3 and Xbox 360 version is ****ing awful.

The fanboish argument would be that this allows them to create a singleplayer campaign that is totally unrestricted by the tiny memory and slow processors of 7th generation consoles. However, I have yet to see any footage of Black Ops 3 demonstrating the technological jump. Even Call of Duty: Ghosts looked more impressive in scope.

Because it's not like World at War managed to do that years ago with barely any issues, on an earlier iteration of the same engine.

WaW was a bit different. Much simpler level designs with way more frequent load breaks. IIRC, WaW used less memory than, say, Black Ops II. Supposedly, the reason Black Ops and Black Ops II have progressively less gore is because the gore system was using up too much memory and the PS3\360 were running out.

 

[Hero of Lime]

Honestly, if Activision gave me the choice to buy the Call of Duty campaign by itself for like 25, 30 dollars, I would probably do it. I haven't played a new Call of Duty since Black Ops 2, which I really enjoy by the way. I figure that it's just not worth it since I only play the single player, and multiplayer is the main focus.

I have several Call of Duty games to fall back on if I need to scratch that military shooter itch. I know yearly release games like Call of Duty go down in price fairly quickly, especially used copies, so I guess I could just wait four months to get the game for cheap.

As a side note, it's funny how much my mind has changed regarding multiplayer focused shooters since Splatoon came out. I used to think a game that was primarily multiplayer based was not worth my time, but three months later and I am still playing Splatoon multiplayer.

 

[Mutant1988]

WaW was a bit different. Much simpler level designs with way more frequent load breaks. IIRC, WaW used less memory than, say, Black Ops II. Supposedly, the reason Black Ops and Black Ops II have progressively less gore is because the gore system was using up too much memory and the PS3\360 were running out.

Didn't really make the game any worse. It didn't really add much to either WaW or Black Ops. I don't think I'd accept any justification they could present anyway, since it's just way too big of an omission to be excusable.

If they have to cut that much, why even bother releasing it at all?