Who buys shooters for single player?

[ChildishLegacy]

been playing gears since gears of war 1, and at least 95% of my time on gears has been on the multiplayer, because it's one of the few shooters that is non noob friendly

Hahaha? Gears is extremely noob friendly!

Expand

been playing gears since gears of war 1, and at least 95% of my time on gears has been on the multiplayer, because it's one of the few shooters that is non noob friendly

I don't really see why you're raging about ZP's lack of interest in MP.

I'm not.
I'm stating that he reviews multiplayer focused games and ridicules them for their less worked on single players, when there are plenty of single player games for him to do real reviews on, which I would enjoy a lot more than him slating a 10 hour shooter campaign.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

1)So yeah, in terms of multiplayer and competition, if that is it's main selling point and little else, then leave me out of it.

2)Addendum: Also, you may wanna word some of rebuttals a bit differently, otherwise all you're gonna do is look like a whiny jackass because games aren't made the way you want them to made.

1) This is the kind of attitude I like, this means you won't slate a multiplayer game about single player, this is what I'm trying to put across, I agree with you.

2) Please point me to where I have said I want games made differently, and the way I want. I'm honestly perplexed about this comment, I'm trying to defend the current state of games, as I'm happy with it.

 

[Mark Hardigan]

I would agree with you OP, except your argument has one massive, massive flaw: Most of these games have single player modes. If you don't want the game to be judged on its single-player by players who prefer to play an FPS solo (like myself and many others - Yahtzee included I would assume), then don't include a single player mode.

To simply say those players' opinions don't count because "The game wasn't designed for single player," Is the equality of saying, "You complaining about that car having a non-working CD player isn't valid, because the car was designed to drive, not play music." If I buy a car that has a CD player, I damn well expect said CD player to work and be worth the money I paid for it. When I pay $60 for a game that has a single-player campaign, I damn well expect that single player to be worth that $60, or at the very least at least half of that $60 if the game has both a single player and multi-player mode.

To say that I don't have a right to demand a good product that I pay for is, at best, indignant, and at worst both indignant and ignorant.

 

[laggyteabag]

I will buy a shooter for its story, it may not have the most innovative gameplay, but more often than not there is always a decent story to be found in the campaign.

 

[Dorian6]

Well I, like Yahtzee, am a fan of games as a means of telling a story. Multiplayer doesn't do that for me. If I'm paying $60 for a game, I want characters and a setting and all that other stuff that makes a story enjoyable.

Personally I see no reason to pay that much to basically play the same four or five multiplayer maps with douchebags from around the world.

Not to say that I dislike multiplayer games. Team Fortress 2 is one of my favorites, but when I bought it for $50, I also got Half life 2 and Portal.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

To say that I don't have a right to demand a good product that I pay for is, at best, indignant, and at worst both indignant and ignorant.

Well Mr. Self entitled.
What if you bought a car, that was absolutely amazing, but was also advertised to have a faulty CD player that you could compensate for by buying a new one to serve that purpose, while the car serves the amazing car purpose. See what I'm getting at?

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I buy Call of Duty/Gears games STRICTLY for the single player. I love the stories.

With the exception of the Gears series which I haven't liked after buying the first one used and returning it the same day, I agree. Call of Duty had a story I enjoyed, single player that was fun and engaging to me. The first WW2 version was great on PC, and I also enjoy the Modern Warfare series. I didn't like BlOps because of the graphics though, it reminded me too much of being on heavy drugs.
I do play the multiplayer side as well, but I always complete the Single Player experience before delving into the other part.
If anyone wants to berate me for liking CoD's story, go ahead but you're not going to convince me that I'm wrong for liking it, only make yourself look like an ass for downing on someone's personal tastes. If you don't like it, good for you. Everyone is different, if people can't accept that then I feel they've got a lot to learn about society.

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.

Because new Fallout games are shooters. Sure, they have RPG elements mixing up the formula, and they are better for it but seriously...Fallout is a Shooter.

Fallout isn't a traditional shooter at all. The RPG elements change the gameplay in such a way that personal accuracy means jack squat if you haven't put enough points in said gun type. Whereas in "modern" shooters you can pick up any weapon and headshot away. Big difference... I also don't understand how shooting someone in the head with a .50 cal, .45, or the like DOESN'T instakill them. Especially if its more than one shot. I'd rather see a bunch of clean misses than 3 bullets to the head and no serious damage done.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

been playing gears since gears of war 1, and at least 95% of my time on gears has been on the multiplayer, because it's one of the few shooters that is non noob friendly

Hahaha? Gears is extremely noob friendly!

Expand

been playing gears since gears of war 1, and at least 95% of my time on gears has been on the multiplayer, because it's one of the few shooters that is non noob friendly

I don't really see why you're raging about ZP's lack of interest in MP.

I'm not.
I'm stating that he reviews multiplayer focused games and ridicules them for their less worked on single players, when there are plenty of single player games for him to do real reviews on, which I would enjoy a lot more than him slating a 10 hour shooter campaign.

It's noob friendly because it's so random. Shotgun wars in Gears 1 were literally fire randomly until you got a lucky shot. It came as no surprise to me that the group of people I used to play Gears 1 with could not make the transition into Modern Warfare 1, because that game relies a lot more on accuracy with shots.

Don't get me wrong, a skilled player in Gears can rape faces with weapons such as the sniper rifle. But it's definitely wide open to noobs with things like the Lancer chainsaw and random Shotgun wars.

One of the things I liked about Gears 1 was that it played a lot on strategic positioning in many of the maps. It was an extremely well-designed game, multiplayer-wise. Shame, as you mentioned, that it had shitty lag problems.

I think the fact that he reviews games like Gears and CoD is good, because it highlights how embarrassingly bad their SP campaigns are, something people seem reluctant to admit. You know, a lot of people play these games for the singleplayer only!

Honestly though, whenever he goes into MP hate mode I just tune out and wait for him to get back to the point.

I agree with you mostly, but have you not played gears for a while? The shotgun accuracy is now where the skills really shine, if you get really good, 100% of your shotguns hit, and you can avoid the enemy's shotgun fire while bouncing and sliding into cover, it's not random at all.

 

[SageRuffin]

2) Please point me to where I have said I want games made differently, and the way I want. I'm honestly perplexed about this comment, I'm trying to defend the current state of games, as I'm happy with it.

I didn't say you were sounding like that, I said you could sound like that. Remember, how a statement was said carries far more weight than the terms used to say it.

 

[Da Orky Man]

The way I think of it is that multiplayer is something to pad the gameplay well. Single-player is always the meat of it for me, with multi something to do with friends, or when I just want to shoot things. the only games I own that you could say are multiplayer-focused is Reach and Section 8. All my other games are single-player based, like Oblivion, Mass Effect, Mirrors Edge, Metro 2033, Fallout 3, new Vegas, Portal/2, and many others.

 

[Mark Hardigan]

To say that I don't have a right to demand a good product that I pay for is, at best, indignant, and at worst both indignant and ignorant.

Well Mr. Self entitled.
What if you bought a car, that was absolutely amazing, but was also advertised to have a faulty CD player that you could compensate for by buying a new one to serve that purpose, while the car serves the amazing car purpose. See what I'm getting at?

So your solution is for the game to advertise, "Crappy single player," And then for me to buy a replacement single player for that game? WHAT.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

To say that I don't have a right to demand a good product that I pay for is, at best, indignant, and at worst both indignant and ignorant.

Well Mr. Self entitled.
What if you bought a car, that was absolutely amazing, but was also advertised to have a faulty CD player that you could compensate for by buying a new one to serve that purpose, while the car serves the amazing car purpose. See what I'm getting at?

So your solution is for the game to advertise, "Crappy single player," And then for me to buy a replacement single player for that game? WHAT.

Yup. If the multiplayer shines enough, I don't give a crap about the single player experience, it could be 5 hours of me hitting the right trigger and I wouldn't care because the multiplayer is amazing. Just read some reviews, watch videos of gameplay on youtube before spending your money to judge whether it's worth it, not expect that you spending money on their game means they need to stride to meet your tastes in both single player and multiplayer.

Would a nice shiny new car with a duff CD player ruin the whole thing and make it not worth it? Hardly.

 

[chadachada123]

I play it for single player. Multiplayer is fun for awhile, but I'm quick to move on from those. Singleplayer, though, is where a game has its true replay-value, if any.

 

[Xariat]

i buy for the singleplayer and then i play multiplayer if its any good, i do this because i dont want my gaming experience to depend on other people, i want the game to be as good as i can make it, not as bad as a 12 year old kid who thinks swearing is cool can make it.

the only fps i play solely for the online part is Css because i have lots of friends who play it, and i only play on one or two public servers

 

[ChildishLegacy]

I play it for single player. Multiplayer is fun for awhile, but I'm quick to move on from those. Singleplayer, though, is where a game has its true replay-value, if any.

You say that as if it's a fact.
Most single player games are boring to me, I'm pretty much a multiplayer gamer, because I love testing my skills against other people, playing and communicating with friends, having a laugh and having amazing moments (like quad kills, flawless games and hilarious deaths) that just don't have meaning when it's against a bunch of AI, it's the fact that you are with/against other living people that makes games worth playing for me, as your achievements can be witnessed and enjoyed with others, rather than by yourself as you trudge against AI.

Obviously there's exceptions for me, I do love games like Elder scrolls, Mass Effect and Dragon Age etc. Those games are really well made specifically for single player.

 

[RelexCryo]

I prefer singleplayer. Metro 2033 was a good game. There are many, many Singleplayer shooters that are good. However, Multiplayer can only be as good as the average of the people you play with, your internet connection, and the availability of the network you play on, which is often Steam, which in my case is often down.

Singleplayer is just more reliable. There are less variables beyond your control, making it easier to have a consistent experience. Having glitchers/hackers to play with, which happens a lot on Xbox Live, occasional internet crashes, or networks going down for some reason- which for me happens with XBL, PSN and Steam- with Steam unsurprisingly being the most reliable- all hurt my ability to enjoy the game. Less popular games, like Lead & Gold: Gangs of the Wild West, have almost no one to play with. Singleplayer is immune to all these problems. Also, for people who enjoy roleplaying and immersion, it is pretty hard to be immersed while playing with other people. Not impossible certainly, but hard.

Singleplayer is more reliable, immersive, controllable, and utterly immune to an absence of local players due to low sales figures in your area.

 

[Mark Hardigan]

Yup. If the multiplayer shines enough, I don't give a crap about the single player experience, it could be 5 hours of me hitting the right trigger and I wouldn't care because the multiplayer is amazing. Just read some reviews, watch videos of gameplay on youtube before spending your money to judge whether it's worth it, not expect that you spending money on their game means they need to stride to meet your tastes in both single player and multiplayer.

Would a nice shiny new car with a duff CD player ruin the whole thing and make it not worth it? Hardly.

So by your logic, if I gave you an amazing chocolate cake that was frosted with literal feces, it would still be a great cake for you?

You save your confusing logic for yourself. I myself demand that if something is included in a $60 game, it needs to be worth $60. If they don't want the game judged on the single player, then they shouldn't include the single player unless they are willing to make both single player and multiplayer equally good.

 

[Stormz]

I`m a huge gears of war fan I`ve never bought the games because of it`s multiplayer. Just putting that out there. I read the books and usually only play campaign.

 

[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.

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.

3 and New Vegas are RPGFPS.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

Yup. If the multiplayer shines enough, I don't give a crap about the single player experience, it could be 5 hours of me hitting the right trigger and I wouldn't care because the multiplayer is amazing. Just read some reviews, watch videos of gameplay on youtube before spending your money to judge whether it's worth it, not expect that you spending money on their game means they need to stride to meet your tastes in both single player and multiplayer.

Would a nice shiny new car with a duff CD player ruin the whole thing and make it not worth it? Hardly.

So by your logic, if I gave you an amazing chocolate cake that was frosted with literal feces, it would still be a great cake for you?

You save your confusing logic for yourself. I myself demand that if something is included in a $60 game, it needs to be worth $60. If they don't want the game judged on the single player, then they shouldn't include the single player unless they are willing to make both single player and multiplayer equally good.

So a game with amazing multiplayer and a crap single player isn't worth $60.
But that same amazing multiplayer without the single player in at all is worth $60.

It's not like a shit covered cake, it's more like complaining about a diamond with a bit of pasta sauce on it, you can see past the pasta sauce and see that it is worth it. Just throwing another random image in there since you seem to be so fond of them.

Talk about confusing logic.
Also stop embarrassing yourself by taking my examples that far that they sound ridiculous.