Who buys shooters for single player?

[lacktheknack]

I totally agree with you. It's perfectly okay to not like multiplayer, and if that is the case there is, believe it or not, a solution to all your problems. Listen up, it might get a bit complicated.

Don't buy shooters that are clearly designed with a focus on multiplayer.


You wouldn't buy Skyrim if you wanted a shooter, and you wouldn't buy a Tupac album if you're looking for metal. Single player and multiplayer shooters are becoming two very different animals.

And yet they keep adding single-player campaigns, and people are surprised when single-player players don't like them.

All the squalling would end if they dropped all pretenses and just stopped making singleplayer campaigns. I don't remember complaints about Counter-Strike's SP campaign. (Probably had something to do with it not having one.)

 

[thibaut95]

I buy halo for the single player, i only played the MP once but i really like the story and the universe...

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

I much prefer playing singleplayer on anything (with the exception of Minecraft), including shooters.

And why does it have to bring something new, every time? I like that, certainly, but it's not always going to happen. The game isn't bad because of it. And if you're going to say that about singleplayer, then you're really ignoring multiplayer, which can be just as unoriginal and samey. In fact, multiplayer can be far closer to being a reskin in a sequel than a game's singleplayer can be, when taht term is used.

let us multiplayer fans enjoy the stuff you call mainstream, like Halo or GoW.

wut.

I like playing both the Halo and GoW series for the singleplayer. I don't give a shit if it's mainstream.

Before slating something, please take multiplayer into account. [/rant]

What if that's exactly what I do? What if I slate the multiplayer aspect of a game but prefer its singleplayer?

 

[lacktheknack]

I'll buy games according to my own criteria, thanks.

I didn't tell people what games they should buy, I didn't give them criteria. I was actually addressing the people moaning about how "bad" modern day shooters are when all they buy them for is the single player. Stop acting as if I'm telling you personally to do something, and using pompous little lines like that.

But riddle me this... if they offer me single-player, why should I not be annoyed if it's bad?

 

[DarkRyter]

Cough cough, Fallout New Vegas Cough Cough Half Life Cough Cough.

Aw man. I should not have put that much pepper on that baby.

Yeah... You're clearly one of the TLR lazy buggers?

Fallout totally has multiplayer, bro.

See you play for five minutes, then you hand the controller to your friend and they play for five minutes, and then they pass it back, rinse, repeat.

But no one every buys it for multiplayer.

 

[babinro]

All the more reason to sell these games in separate components digitally. Buy MW3 single player campaign for $15 or just the multiplayer for $45 as an example. Something like this would encourage me to buy the game for single player only as I'd enjoy it. The majority of players would buy the multiplayer only, and some would spend the normal price to own both.

I'm among the smaller group of people who love FPS games but only for the single player experience. I own MW1 and have played through the campaign about 4 times since purchase but have put less than 20 minutes lifetime online.

 

[Weslebear]

I don't know if it's because you only ever hear people on the extremes sides of the fence complaining but I didn't realise there were people who play nothing but multi, and then nothing but single-player as well.

Doesn't everyone just enjoy a mixture of both or am I going crazy here? Seriously what the shit.

There are games clearly for multi and others clearly for single, some pull off both. Often you go into a game knowing it's a certain one, don't moan if a game is geared to multi if you don't like playing with others and vice versa because it's clearly not marketed for you. Not hard.

 

[Leole]

A game has to stand up on its single player, because you spent 60$ on a game, and you should be able to play it whenever you want. If it is pure multi player, you can only really enjoy it when it's trendy, meaning, the period of time until the new game gets released (Even though, I still know of people who play MW2 MP), and/or if you have internet or other friends with the same game and that you both have spare time to play said game. MP relies on many many aspects that many people just can't deal with, while SP it only requires you, and your console, making it much more accessible.

That's how I see it.

And I'm the kind of guy who plays only SP, because my internet sucks and I live in a country where you can hardly find another gamer with the same console/taste as you. If I don't get SP, I don't get to play at all.

 

[ThePurpleCube]

I tend to only buy Shooters if the single player looks good. Well, except Tf2.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

I don't like multiplayer shootes, so I don't buy them. That's it.
Also, I am most of the time fully aware of what genre the games I buy belong to. If someone claims to be disappointed by CoD's singleplayer, it's his own fault. I don't run around claiming that Super Meat Boy is too hard, that Portal has too many puzzles, or that competitive shooters put most of their focus on being a multiplayer experience.

This.

Also those saying that they enjoyed Gears and Halo campaigns, I didn't say you shouldn't, I'm saying that they're getting way too much grief and focus, whereas their multiplayer is hardly mentioned, when its such a large part of the game.

 

[FreakSheet]

Well, Yahtzee doesn't exactly like other people, so I can take it having an age of multiplayer focused at the expense of single player doesn't make him feel highly of a game. But he has stated a multiplayer focused game selling under $30 (refering to TF2) is a-ok, but for $60 it better also have a good single player as well.

 

[SorenHasina]

If a game is focused on multi-player, it shouldn't have a single player at all then. Also, don't put Halo in your MP franchises. Halo made their legacy on SP, MP was just a bonus.

 

[mjc0961]

Cough cough, Fallout New Vegas Cough Cough Half Life Cough Cough.

Aw man. I should not have put that much pepper on that baby.

RPGs sure have a lot to do with single player in FPS games, don't they? ...Well, not really. Not sure why you mentioned Fallout actually.

 

[Neverhoodian]

I have to disagree. The problem I have with many modern shooters is that they proudly display single player mode on the box as a major selling point on par with its multiplayer, yet it often results in a half-baked campaign that only lasts four hours. There's no way in hell they'll give multiplayer the shaft because that's what's popular nowadays, but single player campaigns are viewed as little more than a marketing ploy to sucker solo players into making a purchase. Therefore they're far more likely to screw over single player mode.

If developers don't have the time and/or resources to make a decent single player mode, then it should be axed entirely. Indeed, some of my all time favorite shooters have taken this route, such as Team Fortress 2 and Killing Floor. Conversely, if they're going to have a tacked-on multiplayer, then maybe they shouldn't bother with it in the first place.

The way I see it, multiplayer gamers have never had it better. In the past it was multiplayer that got the shaft because online gaming was still in its infancy and didn't have a large following. You were lucky if you got four square maps with a few floating platforms that supported 8 players on a 56k connection. And players were happy with that, dern it!

*waves cane*

EDIT: Also, consider this: any multiplayer game, no matter how popular at launch, will eventually "die." Players will move on to newer games and/or hardware, meaning an ever-dwindling population on the servers. Many old games now have no multiplayer whatsoever outside of LAN matches because the publishers shut down the servers. Given the choice, I'd rather have a shooter with a decent single player mode I can replay twenty years later as opposed to finding an empty wasteland because it was multiplayer only.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

Well, Yahtzee doesn't exactly like other people, so I can take it having an age of multiplayer focused at the expense of single player doesn't make him feel highly of a game. But he has stated a multiplayer focused game selling under $30 (refering to TF2) is a-ok, but for $60 it better also have a good single player as well.

But WHY? Why doesn't that work both ways round, it's some sort of double standard.

It's ok for solely single player games to be sold for $60 such as oblvion or deus ex which have no multiplayer. But not ok for multiplayer focused games with a bit of single player like GoW. That's just hypocritical.

A game has to stand up on its single player, because you spent 60$ on a game, and you should be able to play it whenever you want. If it is pure multi player, you can only really enjoy it when it's trendy, meaning, the period of time until the new game gets released (Even though, I still know of people who play MW2 MP), if you have internet or other friends with the same game and that you both have spare time to play said game. MP relies on many many aspects that many people just can't deal with, while SP it only requires you, and your console, making it much more accessible.

After a while, do you not get rid of your single player games? Why can you not do this with multiplayer games that go "out of trend"
Once you have 100%d a single player game, you can either play it again (which i find boring) or sell it. Whereas multiplayer games I can happily get over 200 hours on before getting remotely bored, thus giving me more hours for my moneys worth.

 

[Xanadu84]

I largely agree with you, but think you could stand to be a bit less insistent. I generally prefer single player experiences, or coop ideally. But I think Yahtzee is a fool for saying that a multiplayer-centric game is a failure because all games need to aspire to his personal tastes. The insistence on a multiplayer component of a game is only a problem if it takes resources away from a single player, and even then the multiplayer component needs to be judged on its own merit. Personally, I buy the new Call of Duties thinking mainly about the single player (Which is excellent). Then after the 6 hours of play, sometimes there worth another playthrough, I play the goodies like Spec Ops or Zombies, and then a few hours dicking around on the multiplayer is enough to justify my purchase. And I'm happy. By and large, if a game is enjoyed by it's customers, that's all its needs to do to be a success.

 

[viranimus]

Yeah thats the problem. They HAVE single player campaigns at all. It is obvious that games like CoD, Halo, Gears are all designed around their multiplayer aspects. But heres the problem.

shooters have anything new to add to the single play gaming.

See, if you forgive a game from NOT contributing to the betterment of the genre, you open the door to not bother improving anything at all. It is not the least bit surprising that as the emphasis some shooters have on multi player increases exponetially, So increases the stagnation of the genre and why we have dozens of CoD clones. And its that stagnation to the multiplayer aspect that upsets people who do like shooters but want to see them evolve beyond what they currently are.

Heres the fix. If you want to not deal with that, then remove the single player element to those games all together. Its obviously a waste of resources and on top of that, it allows a clear division to be made that separates "narrative" shooters and "multi player" shooters. And with that division they will not be judged on the same criteria. Which really leaving out the single player element to a game that is specifically designed to be a multiplayer shooter is not an unreasonable request and it will not hurt the game. Just look at team fortress 2.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

If a game is focused on multi-player, it shouldn't have a single player at all then. Also, don't put Halo in your MP franchises. Halo made their legacy on SP, MP was just a bonus.

Excuse me? Halo on the original xbox live was one of the major developments of online gaming, it was a real kickstart for it and was one of the first popular online console games.

FOR ME anyway, Halo is all about the multiplayer, the campaign feels like a rail shooter, the multiplayer feels like a really balanced, really fun and skilful game.

 

[Leole]

A game has to stand up on its single player, because you spent 60$ on a game, and you should be able to play it whenever you want. If it is pure multi player, you can only really enjoy it when it's trendy, meaning, the period of time until the new game gets released (Even though, I still know of people who play MW2 MP), if you have internet or other friends with the same game and that you both have spare time to play said game. MP relies on many many aspects that many people just can't deal with, while SP it only requires you, and your console, making it much more accessible.

After a while, do you not get rid of your single player games? Why can you not do this with multiplayer games that go "out of trend"
Once you have 100%d a single player game, you can either play it again (which i find boring) or sell it. Whereas multiplayer games I can happily get over 200 hours on before getting remotely bored, thus giving me more hours for my moneys worth.

That is true, there are some SP campaigns I've haven't touched in a while.

But there are exceptions. Dragon Age: Origins for one, I've given it at least 5 playthroughs and I kinda want to play it again, or Oblivion, I have at least 300+ hours over there, not to mention Shivering Isles.

It eventually falls to "are you bored/hyped enough to play that campaign again?".

Again, I can only work with SP games, so I stay away from MP focused games.