What if the CoD and BF games had no single player?

[Da Orky Man]

Since I'm mostly a single-player guy anyway, it would make very little difference. I don't intend to buy MW3 or BF3 anytime soon. And since 90% of the consumer base buys those games for the multiplayer, it would affect me very little.

As long as I still have my Elder Scrolls, Fallout and Mass Effect, I'm happy.

 

[BlackWidower]

What would happen is BF would be back in its glory days and CoD would still be recycled game to game....

Then I would have even less reason to buy it over the dozens of free military-style multiplayer mods for Half-Life 2.

It's probably just me, but the reason I play games is for the story, and as far as I can tell, no multiplayer game on earth actually has a story.

MMOs do....

Yeah, but then you have another problem. There is never any closure. I like closure.

 

[Zhukov]

I actually think they would lose a few purchases, but probably not enough to matter given how much money they would save by not making a campaign.

That would give them a good reason to drop the price a touch too, which certainly couldn't hurt sales.

 

[ElPatron]

In my opinion it would be better, since multiplayer has always been their strong point.

No. The CoD2 multiplayer was magnificent, the CoD4 "very good", any CoD after 4 gets a negative score.


They have lag compensation issues, have a lot of broken features and unbalance (CoD4 has public beta... wonder why it was better than the recent ones?)






I buy Call of Duty (or used to, before WaW) for SP and borrow it for the SP too.





Also, BF used to have no singleplayer - the way it should be.

 

[lordlillen]

Then I would have even less reason to buy it over the dozens of free military-style multiplayer mods for Half-Life 2.

It's probably just me, but the reason I play games is for the story, and as far as I can tell, no multiplayer game on earth actually has a story.

brink had a story for its multiplayer, in fact that game was only multiplayer.

 

[geekRAGE]

If these series had no single that would be perfect. The single player is pathetic it's more of an interactive movie anyway but it still sucks. Then they could put more effort into the multiplayer. My friends and I only bought the games for their multiplayer anyway.

 

[Terminate421]

There'd probobly be more maps and guns.

Battlefield's single player needs to be like Bad Company 1's where it worked. The soldiers had a great degree of character and the story was pretty basic, all while following an objective.

Call of Duties single player should end now. No more to add to the story.

 

[crazyarms33]

Assuming that EA/Activision decided to take out the campaign and then drop the price a little bit, would the games be better or worse in your opinion?

In my opinion it would be better, since multiplayer has always been their strong point. As a side effect, it would get people like Yahtzee to stop complaining about how bad the single player is, more annoying than humorous at this point.

It would actually hurt Modern Warfare. The only reason I would buy MW3 is to finish out the story. MW lost me in the mulitplayer when shotguns became more lethal at long range then assault rifles.
For Battlefield though it would be AWESOME. I already prefer their multiplayer and I played the campaign just for giggles and beat it out of sheer determination, not out of a sense of fun or involvement. It was horrible. If they dropped it and focused more on their bread and butter I would be all for that!

 

[BlackWidower]

Then I would have even less reason to buy it over the dozens of free military-style multiplayer mods for Half-Life 2.

It's probably just me, but the reason I play games is for the story, and as far as I can tell, no multiplayer game on earth actually has a story.

brink had a story for its multiplayer, in fact that game was only multiplayer.

How's that? Who was the main character?