Poll: Do you still play a shooter's campaign?

[Jesus Phish]

Multiplayer rarely makes a game, unless it's the sole focus of that game, CSS, TF2. I like the campaigns of shooters more.

 

[Captain Epic]

I play for the multiplayer in most shooters, but I certainly enjoy a good campaign.

 

[VelvetHorror]

I always give the campaign a try before multiplayer. Gets me accustomed to the various weapons and the campaign should be enjoyable to play.

With Black Ops, I originally was going to play zombies before the campaign, but I had to wait for the original 4 zombie map packs to download, so I just started playing the campaign. Playing the campaign helped me figure out that dual mags rocked!

 

[TerranReaper]

I'm a devoted Halo fan, but I very rarely play online multiplayer at all. Just far too many people on there who are in it to win at the cost of having fun.

>Implying you can't have fun trying to win

OT: Depends, I usually jump into singleplayer to see how it is, I don't see why you would skip on any aspect of the game though, you paid full price for the game, at least play for a little bit before ragequitting.

 

[mirror's edgy]

It bothers me nowadays how so many people passingly refer to "the campaign" like an afterthought. I'm not accusing this thread, just some guys I know. It seems weird how all the MW- like realistic shooters have good multiplayer attached to (arguably) weaker single player games. Why doesn't Activision just make a multiplayer only game? Valve has made single and multiplayer shooters well, but waited like, ten years to make a game with both (Half Life's deathmatch... thing doesn't count). There's something to be said for specialization.

 

[Goldeneye103X2]

I play campaigns, although sometimes I may just dig in the multiplayer and other modes inbetween, just so I get some variety during my sessions. Despite what people say about it's story, I think that Modern Warfare 2 had an excellent campaign, and my only criticism is that it wasn't long enough. I would have loved a war epic. Wolfenstein's campaign is Brilliant, but hard. Same with Timesplitters 2, although it's campaign was shorter, but had variety in spades.

 

[randomsix]

I havnt bought a shooter in ages, over the last few years they have all become generic and linear and completed in 5 hours ish. The stories have become boring and the only thing that spices them up is the adding of a few 'action scenes' here are there to make you go "WOW". All the effort seems to have gone into the online gaming and i have no interest in online gaming. Since i played the 2nd call of duty on the XBOX i dreamed of how these games would increase in size and instead of linear level design you would be on huge maps with loads of fellow troops fighting along side you. They have tapped into this slightly with the Normandy Beach landing levels but never to the extent as to putting in the middle of a massive battle. Seems to me the games dont change much, if anything with every increase in technology on the consoles all that extra power goes into making the graphics look better and the rest of the game seems to get smaller.

Get out of m mind!

OT: It's unfortunate that cranking out slightly altered multiplayer builds and selling them each year ala Madden formula is starting to make inroads in what should be story driven games.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

I always despised people who got a game and went straight to multiplayer. But when I picked up Black Ops, I went straight onto multiplayer. Really, the only reason I bought it was to play online with friends. So I was at work a few days after I bought it, and one of my co-workers started talking about how awesome the single player campaign was. So over the next few days I played through it. It was the blandest thing ive ever seen. The storyline was uninspired, and the enemies were generic (Russians?,Germans? really?). You might as well face the fact that its the multiplayer thats most important here (even to the developers), and single player campaigns are just going to get worse in this franchise. Personally, if I want a good single player campaign, ill buy a single player game. Theres plenty of good ones out there.

 

[LogicNProportion]

I do the campaign first, then the multiplayer.

Or if the campaign is really good (MW1/Reach/Killzone 2) I will play it over and over and over.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Yes. I usually play through a campaign twice before moving to the multiplayer when I first get a game.

 

[altobizzaro]

I'm not really a multi player kinda person, I throughly believe that a game has to be able to stand up on its single player alone. I have dabbled a bit in multi player but that game play never really holds my interest for very long

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

I'm a halo canon nerd.

Of course I play campagin.

 

[Choppaduel]

I play multi-player campaigns.

Synergy ftw.

 

[goddz001]

i end up not playing the mutiplayer that much except when my friends are there otherwsie its just annoying rather than funny.

 

[Megacherv]

Well, I try, but sometimes it's impossible. I mean, take TF2's, it was practically non-existant.

 

[albania614]

Play Campain to get use to guns in game. Find which ever one i like the best. Then own in multiplayer

 

[Kelethor]

I sorta view the campaign as a tutorial for the online bits.

At least, thats what the manual in MGS4 told me...

Man that was a good time.

 

[Wolfe90]

I always play the campaign then if i'm in the mood to be called a noob, hacker or cheat by a numbskull 12 year old i'll play some multiplayer.

 

[Nadiril]

I will always finish the single player before I play the multiplayer content. at least for the PC anyway, on my ps3 I play single player only, simply becuase I don't like playing console shooters online.

 

[FinalHeart95]

Campaign first. Always.

There are few exceptions where I actually went to multiplayer before FINISHING the campaign, Halo 3 being one, I believe. I've never went to multiplayer before starting the campaign though.