Single Player Dying?
- Thread starter tkioz
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't like multiplayer games, because I don't have live. Offline co-op is kickass, though. L4D, Borderlands...
Also, if you like lengthy single player, I would suggest borderlands. I'm on playthrough two, and its still engaging.
Also, if you like lengthy single player, I would suggest borderlands. I'm on playthrough two, and its still engaging.
I never play online any more. I'm not paying that much a year just to be screamed at by a lot of small children with language problems.
Halo vs matches are not fun. At all. There I said it.
Halo 1 got it right. A really good story, quite long and not to hard to do on the average difficulties. The multiplayer was good too, for those who just can't get enough of feeling superior because they spend longer "practising" online than others.
COD4's story was miserably short and not all that gripping. I really don't see why an FPS can't ever have a decent story. Sure it came closer than most FPS games in terms of story to being good, but it was over so fast even on hardest mode that it really doesn't matter.
Before someone says to stick to some other genre of gaming, I say why can't I buy an FPS and expect to get a good single player off it? Is is so unreasonable that I want to get my money's worth from it offline instead of having to spend even more on top of an already hefty release price to fight for no reason? PvP never entertains me in any game, it's just a waste of time that could have been spent developing better story lines.
Halo vs matches are not fun. At all. There I said it.
Halo 1 got it right. A really good story, quite long and not to hard to do on the average difficulties. The multiplayer was good too, for those who just can't get enough of feeling superior because they spend longer "practising" online than others.
COD4's story was miserably short and not all that gripping. I really don't see why an FPS can't ever have a decent story. Sure it came closer than most FPS games in terms of story to being good, but it was over so fast even on hardest mode that it really doesn't matter.
Before someone says to stick to some other genre of gaming, I say why can't I buy an FPS and expect to get a good single player off it? Is is so unreasonable that I want to get my money's worth from it offline instead of having to spend even more on top of an already hefty release price to fight for no reason? PvP never entertains me in any game, it's just a waste of time that could have been spent developing better story lines.
I kind of miss how games used to be really long in single-player, but never lost it's sting. I dislike games like Fallout 3, where you can play for 30 hours, but only be half-enjoying the experience. A game that really shines as an example for me is FFVII. It was fun every 80 hours of it, although if I would only do fighting while going on a table map, it'd get kind of boring. But what kept me going was the story. While the game play wasn't the best, it was still fun and the extras were worth getting.
You could say I'm a sucker for stories. They make the game more approachable so you don't play for only a few hours after having experienced what most of the game is about.
It's like you want something to eat with the chicken (which symbolizes the gameplay), so you go with the rice (which symbolizes the story), which can be really good depending on how you cook it. If it's good, you get a tasty meal. If not, you can still enjoy the chicken and ignore the rice, but it will be eaten faster and you'll still feel hungry. If the chicken's bad, you can still eat the rice, but it's not a complete meal. And if both are bad, you'll just throw it away and think over why you bought it from that horrible restaurant.
But short games can be good too. Portal is probably the one with the largest entertainment density. It only lasted for three hours, but it still ranked up as one of my favorite games.
When it comes to multi-player, I get pretty bored quickly, cause then my enjoyment is based on my skill in comparison to the other players. This really shows in Unreal Tournament, as I suck at the game, and there are always pros kicking my ass at it, so I hate playing it.
You could say I'm a sucker for stories. They make the game more approachable so you don't play for only a few hours after having experienced what most of the game is about.
It's like you want something to eat with the chicken (which symbolizes the gameplay), so you go with the rice (which symbolizes the story), which can be really good depending on how you cook it. If it's good, you get a tasty meal. If not, you can still enjoy the chicken and ignore the rice, but it will be eaten faster and you'll still feel hungry. If the chicken's bad, you can still eat the rice, but it's not a complete meal. And if both are bad, you'll just throw it away and think over why you bought it from that horrible restaurant.
But short games can be good too. Portal is probably the one with the largest entertainment density. It only lasted for three hours, but it still ranked up as one of my favorite games.
When it comes to multi-player, I get pretty bored quickly, cause then my enjoyment is based on my skill in comparison to the other players. This really shows in Unreal Tournament, as I suck at the game, and there are always pros kicking my ass at it, so I hate playing it.
No, it is not dying. What, just cause MW2 had a 6 hours campaign? Big fat jolly bollocks. Uncharted, Fallout, Street Fighter, Burnout, Bioshock, Abe's Odyssey, Arkham Asylum, Braid, Wipeout HD, God Of War, Grand Theft Auto, Crash Bandicoot, Explosion Man, Devil May Cry, Super Mario, Metroid, Zelda, Resident Evil 4, Pure, Infamous, Prototype, Final Fantasy, Demon's Souls, Brutal Legend, Psychonauts, Spiderman 2 and Ultimate Spiderman. All these were games that shined through the single player. Multiplayer will always rank below it.
Why are we comparing gameplay time to movies? Remember when 15-20 hour campaigns were the norm?
We are paying the same amount (most likely more) for less than we used to get. That's what should matter, not "well they're cheaper hour to hour compared to movies"
We are paying the same amount (most likely more) for less than we used to get. That's what should matter, not "well they're cheaper hour to hour compared to movies"
you aparently dont understand the reason why Battlefield Bad company sucks: good storyline and good singleplayer are so mutually exclusive, that they are fighting eachother in a chainsaw duel, and will be forever. to even spend any time on singleplayer other then an unlocking tier system for difficulty and AI is a complete waste for a multiplayer gameslipknot4 said:
Multiplayer can not be properly balanced in a singleplayer game because the differing health, armor, and bullet resistence of enemies makes it so that if you program that part right, the multiplayer has things such as noob cannons.
this is why BC sucks, while Battlefield 2 is the best game ever in its shooter sub-category.
this is why MW2 blows.
this is why GTA4's multiplayer sucks.
this is part of why halo is the worst series ever concieved
It's not Batman I have a problem with, it's sandbox games where secret-hunting is pretty much all you can do to progress your character, and those are getting really common these days. I do not enjoy taking continuous long pauses from the game's story so I can wander around like a chicken. This is enough to kill a game for me. I don't mind the challenges, although I wouldn't play them since, again, anything not driven by some sort of story is pointless for me. But they are all locked and they become unlocked in an unclear way, by finding "stuff", you never even know when you are about to unlock a challenge. I enjoyed very specific parts of Arkham Asylum, I loved taking down rooms full of armed guards, I liked the art design and atmosphere. I hated most of the dialogue (too childish), the endless flow-breaking secret grinding, the melee combat being a bit button-mashy and the shortness of the story mode.Abedeus said:
i understand what you're getting at, i rarely play multiplayer online either, if ever actually. games are much shorter than they used to be which is a shame but i guess we just have to lump it and keep shelling out lots of money. or wait and get it preowned!tkioz said:
Shooters have been getting shorter for years now. This is one of the reasons I've almost completely switched to RPGs.
I still play old shooters though. But this is mainly because those games have crazy glitches I still haven't found and it's always fun to speedrun the ones with timers.
I still play old shooters though. But this is mainly because those games have crazy glitches I still haven't found and it's always fun to speedrun the ones with timers.
There is no appeal in games like BF2 and CSS. Just an online mode, nothing immersive nothing whatsoever.toapat said:
Then there are games like UT3 witch had a story but the multiplayer part was the good thing about the game because it played exactly like single player and thing applies to halo.
Also, i was referring to MW witch had five times as good multiplayer as BF2. Not MW2 [small]my bad[/small].
Another game that worked it our perfectly was Killzone 2 witch has the best multiplayer to date and a good single player mode. Uncharted 2 is also a game that has a perfect cinematic campaign and a superb multiplayer with no flaws
I don't see why people focus so deeply on the length of the singleplayer rather then the substance of the singleplayer. A singleplayer game can be very short but still incredibly fun because, that short amount of gameplay, has been polished to a mirror shine. It's like Fine dining vs. all-you-can-eat buffets. Sure, Fallout 3 and GTA IV are all-you-can-eat buffets, and you get more food for your buck. But they don't have the same substantiality as a meal at a fine dining restaraunt. and hey, sure I eat at buffets more often but somtimes I need that really focused polish.
Fine Dining you get less bang per buck, but it's so delicious it overcomes the obstacle of lack of satisfaction. The better the food tastes the more full your gonna feel afterwords. If a game truly immerses you through the same means most movies do it's lack of content can be forgiven. Arkham Asylum and Modern Warfare 2 do exactly that.
So I'm not saying its wrong to want more content in your game, but it certainly makes people overlook the idea that size doesn't necessarily always matter.
Fine Dining you get less bang per buck, but it's so delicious it overcomes the obstacle of lack of satisfaction. The better the food tastes the more full your gonna feel afterwords. If a game truly immerses you through the same means most movies do it's lack of content can be forgiven. Arkham Asylum and Modern Warfare 2 do exactly that.
So I'm not saying its wrong to want more content in your game, but it certainly makes people overlook the idea that size doesn't necessarily always matter.
Killzone2 sucksslipknot4 said:
MW1 is an absolute peice of crap. BF2 is the best Realistic Standard state Multiplayer FPS, because it was made right, unlike every game you have praised
UT3 is an absolute piece of garbage. /Pulls out a chainsaw, and proceeds to kill Captain mcasshole with it for actually thinking the worst game in the entire series is good. UT2xx is the best in the series, 3 ruined everything, it isnt fun. and before you say anything, i have played all 5 versions of Unreal Tournament
Are you sure?sasquatch99 said:
Berlin Alexanderplatz, it's a film that clocks in at a bum-numbing 15.5 hours!
I think since "saving" was introduced, games have become alot easier so we can fly through them now. Remember playing any game that was on Sega Mega Drive Ultimate Collection, it would take weeks, sometimes, to get through them.
Improved graphics and sounds also take up space on the CD so compromises have to be made and the gun was pointed at game length.
Just my thoughts.