Single Player FPS

[aashell13]

It seems as though most of the major FPS's released in the last few years have focused on multiplayer at the expense of a deep and engaging single player campaign.

Why does the games industry seem to have decided that there isn't room in the market for AAA-quality FPS's focused on the single-player campaign experience?

 

[HassEsser]

Because when you are done with the singleplayer aspect, most people completely drop the singleplayer aspect because they've already done nearly everything. Multiplayer lasts as long as you want it to and different things happen nearly every time. Plus, the social aspect of multiplayer is incredibly appealing to people.

 

[Trolldor]

The market demands it.
We will see less Bioshock's and more CoD for a long time yet.

PS. The single player is only as limited as the creators make it.
Allowing user-generated content expands the lifetime of the game to as long as the modding community is active.

 

[genamp]

I agree with HassEsser.
Most of these trends seem to live off of sales and the market. Multiplayer based games have a tendency to live longer than their single-player specific counterparts. People like the ability to play with other humans, as well as test skills against others. As well, games that have weak multiplayer and strong solo campaigns are often sold back used to stores that tailor in such sales. Many companies do not approve of this, as it affects their sales of new copies. But that's kind of a digression. The point being is that single-player FPS's have relatively low shelf life. With multiplayer games such as CoD, you can easily sell off DLC to a wider audience and keep those day-1 buyers around longer, without worrying too much about a solo experience. Sad, but that's what dictates the FPS genre these days.

I'm not saying that there aren't any single-player gems. Metro, the original Crysis, Half Life 2, and a few others have had solo focuses and managed to prove themselves rather successful along the way.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

Trolldor's got it right.

Supply and Demand. The demand is mostly for multiplayer, so that means that's where the money comes from. If there was more demand for improved single player FPS, then there would be a bigger market for it.

 

[PayneTrayne]

Bioshock is a better game than Halo, but it's not as fun as a shooter as Halo is.

Halo is just simple fun, nothing complicated just pewpews and gatgats.

 

[aashell13]

Interesting points, particularly about market demand. I hadn't thought about that.

It seems to me that DLC could work just as well for a primarily singleplayer game. Instead of multiplayer map packs, they could consist of additional campaign missions, new gear, weapons, etc.

I've always had this nagging thought that if a Treyarch or a DICE put as much thought and effort into a singleplayer campaign as BioWare does with their RPG stories, they'd put out something really cool and maybe enlarge the FPS marketshare by attracting people who aren't big on multiplayer. Then again, I suppose non-multiplayers like me might be far enough in the minority for it not to matter.

Further thoughts anyone?

 

[TheSchizoid]

The games that tick me off more are the games that revolve around the multiplayer aspect for the campaign but still allow for a single player campaign that just drops the ball because it doesn't seem to get enough development time to be as engaging, i.e. Left 4 Dead or Borderlands. Games like this can just take the long walk off the short cliff. If you want to make an MMO then make one. Don't hide it behind an FPS, tack on a dinky campaign and call it a game. It also irks me that the developers will almost always neglect the local multiplayer when creating the multiplayer aspect. Online's fine but sometimes you just want to have an old fashioned Goldeneye night and blow the begeezus out of your friends in the same room. Thank God Bungie still realizes this.

As for the FPS games focusing on multi over campaign, it's just the sad state of gaming that this is what people want. But, despite Halo being the arguably end-all multiplayer game, Reach showed us that the FPS can have the online AND offline multiplayer and still have a very engaging campaign mode at a decent length (for an FPS). Hopefully others will follow suit.

 

[octafish]

Interesting points, particularly about market demand. I hadn't thought about that.

It seems to me that DLC could work just as well for a primarily singleplayer game. Instead of multiplayer map packs, they could consist of additional campaign missions, new gear, weapons, etc.

I've always had this nagging thought that if a Treyarch or a DICE put as much thought and effort into a singleplayer campaign as BioWare does with their RPG stories, they'd put out something really cool and maybe enlarge the FPS marketshare by attracting people who aren't big on multiplayer. Then again, I suppose non-multiplayers like me might be far enough in the minority for it not to matter.

Further thoughts anyone?

So maybe, some sort of episodic gaming, with shorter games, more often, for less money? That could totally wor- pfffft! Hee hee, ha, oh, ho, ho, ho, sorry I couldn't keep a straight face any longer. This is a great idea in theory, but in reality, where is Episode 3?

 

[migo]

If you stop playing a single player campaign, you move on to something else. If you keep playing multiplayer, you stick with it until the next version comes out. Multiplayer sustains sequels.

 

[aashell13]

Interesting points, particularly about market demand. I hadn't thought about that.

It seems to me that DLC could work just as well for a primarily singleplayer game. Instead of multiplayer map packs, they could consist of additional campaign missions, new gear, weapons, etc.

I've always had this nagging thought that if a Treyarch or a DICE put as much thought and effort into a singleplayer campaign as BioWare does with their RPG stories, they'd put out something really cool and maybe enlarge the FPS marketshare by attracting people who aren't big on multiplayer. Then again, I suppose non-multiplayers like me might be far enough in the minority for it not to matter.

Further thoughts anyone?

So maybe, some sort of episodic gaming, with shorter games, more often, for less money? That could totally wor- pfffft! Hee hee, ha, oh, ho, ho, ho, sorry I couldn't keep a straight face any longer. This is a great idea in theory, but in reality, where is Episode 3?

that's just Valve being Valve. besides, episodic gaming and DLC aren't necessarily one and the same. I was thinking more in the vein of Fallout 3, Dragon Age, and New Vegas, all of which have a respectably long game up front and plenty of interesting DLC add-on's that don't take forever to come around.

 

[Wolfram23]

Metro 2033 fills that gap nicely, as does STALKER: Call of Pripyat. Crysis 2 should be interesting, at least, I enjoyed Crysis and Warhead campaigns. BioShock is a great SP FPS. Fear 3 will be out... sometime... Battlefield 3, well, I'm willing to bet that one has a lot of MP focus but still the campaign should be decent. And I mean, while short, the campaigns for MW2, BOps, BC2 have all been pretty fun.

As for FPS DLC, I think it depends greatly on the game. A more open world type game like STALKER that would work brilliantly, but for a game like CoD not so much.