Who buys shooters for single player?

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

I do! For several reasons.

1) Most importantly, I have a CRAPPY Internet connection for online gaming.

2) Chances of finding a decent server (considering my region) are pretty much non-existent.

3) Having squeaky voiced teens scream racial insults stops being funny after the first 10 minutes

4) Multi-player doesn't age well. Oh sure when the game first comes out there's thousands of players, but six months down the line? There are exceptions of course (Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike) but most games end up like 6

6) Multi-player support/servers getting pulled, I hope you enjoyed playing multi-player! Cause now that rail shooter of a single player campaign is all you are going to be able to play now!

 

[ChildishLegacy]

Until I got to that bit I didn't know what the point of your rant actually was.

That alright, some people have to have these things spelled out infront of them to understand them.

Buying a modern shooter for SP is a waste of money? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. You sir/madam have failed the internet.

Did. Not. Say that.
You fail harder for misunderstanding what everybody else in this thread understood completely.
I'm saying £40 for a 5 hour campaign (the standard of a lot of multiplayer centred shooters) and just a 5 hour campaign IS a waste of money, especially if you're not one to replay the campaigns. A lot of modern shooters have really good campaigns, and I actually enjoyed a few of the ones that I'd normally only play for multiplayer.
I'm just saying a lot of the time you need to be a multiplayer fan to get your moneys worth with these games.
Understand now?

 

[ChildishLegacy]

Well.... you're wrong. A game does have to stand on it's single player, regardless of what you buy them for. There's one key factor here; multiplayer requires an internet connection. Anyone who doesn't have a constant connection (and yes, they're are many who don't) get's absolutely no value out of a multiplayer-centric game. It should always be viewed as a bonus feature not selling point.

By that logic you should never buy a game like WoW, TF2 or Brink because pretty much all they have is multiplayer. If my internet is down I will not game, simple as, you don't have to be gaming all the time you can be.

 

[Jonas Lemstrom]

I bought MW2 and black ops only for MP because their single player just didn't work out for me. Only good singleplayer FPS's I've played are COD2&4 and MOHAA and Halo 2(which I did enjoy pretty much for coop .)

By the way guys. Do you remember Battlefield 1942, Vietnam, BF2 and 2142 which were only made for multiplayer? I have no idea why does every game have singleplayer and multiplayer modes when either of those could make the game. Yea I'm mostly talking about BF3 and I'm only excited about it's MP 'cuz last bf's i played were 2 and 2142. I though hope that people will enjoy its singleplayer but it's not made for me :/

 

[Fiad]

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.

Shadowrun is a perfect example of that, had an interesting story behind it, pretty fun gameplay, and not bad looking. Was for all points a pretty good game, but good luck finding a match to play on it.

 

[willsham45]

I generally prefer single player. Some games I play for multiplayer, battle field 2, quake wars and team fortress I played online as i did for left for dead but they are all about the multiplayer.
I play most other games for the single player maybe Co Op but even then not really If I had a console I would do split screen I enjoy that.

 

[GLo Jones]

I'm glad there's finally a thread on this, I've been wanting to say it for a while.

Completely agree with you, OP.

 

[Blt3200]

I buy it for single player honestly because well multiplayer is just boring me now a days.

 

[Magicmad5511]

I buy every game for it's single player as the main point. I have never bought a game purely for it's multiplayer.

I don't buy many shooters though. I have never bought the CoD games. I bought Battle Field Bad Company but haven't bought the sequel.
I buy games for the fun new game play or an awesome storyline.

 

[neonsword13-ops]

I play shooters without the multipayer. Uncharted 2 and Gears are fine without multiplayer.

So, I just bought RAGE today, and I have not entered the extended single player code or touched multiplayer and I am having a blast. This game is good enough it doesn't need even need multiplayer.

You see, having multiplayer is an added privalge to the package. You don't need to use it if you don't want to. There is no need to complain about it. I played CoD: World at War just for the single player. I knew multiplayer and zombies was there, but I didn't need them. I knew I was already satisfied with my purchase.

 

[Bvenged]

I actually couldn't agree more. I bought Gears 3 yesterday, and have spent the majority of my time on the multiplayer. It's the whole reason I bought it, I couldn't care for it's story line.

It bugs me when people buy a game purely for the multiplayer. Unless it's Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike or Unreal Tournament you really should take an interest into the story. You'd be surprised at how good some narratives can be these days and it annoys the crap out of me when people like you just glance over them as though they're a chore. Dev's don't spend a fortune on voice actors or script writers or storyboard drafters for nothing.

I bought Gears 3 FOR its story and then to do it again in co-op, THEN to play horde, THEN beast, THEN multiplayer. not 100% in that order but that is the order of my priorities.

I also bought CoD 4 for it's story when it came out, but then bought Black ops for a 50/50 "campaign looks good/I hope they've fixed MW2's broken multiplayer" (they partially did). But unless the game has no singleplayer or the developer distinctly states that said game only exists for multiplayer; multiplayer will always be a second glance that needs to prove it's worth my time.

EDIT: If I buy a new game for its singleplayer, play it and it's so-so, then find the multiplayer tedious; I trade it back in for 70% of it's price (usually). Looking at it that way I would've easily had 30% value out of it anyways.

 

[Pinkamena]

Who doesn't? I play games for their stories. Not for competition.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

Ok so after reading the amount of pure bullshit written in the last few zero punctuation threads for the shooters hes reviewed, I'm taken aback by the amount of people that think shooters have anything new to add to the single play gaming.

Before I start ranting I'm not talking about games such as Deus Ex or Bullestorm, that were designed FOR single player and should have to bring something unique to the campaign aspect of things, but more the "generic shooters" that everybody seems to think it's cool to hate on lately.

I understand a lot of people don't like multiplayer, and so want a good single experience for their £40, but realise that this is the other way round for a lot of people, including myself, who are looking for multiplayer in their games, and single player is just an 'extra'. Please don't give my Yahtzee's "it has to stand up on it's single player" crap because it doesn't, what would people who are looking for a multiplayer focused game do if every game was focused around single player?

Let's use Gears of War 3 as an example, since this was the last one that everybody has been slating. I've 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, requires a while to gain skill at and continues to be challenging, you actually have to be good to do well. Do I give much of a shit about it's story? Not really, it was good for one playthrough but I left it there, then went back to multiplayer (for gears 1,2 and 3), because it's always fun and challenging to play (it's a shame only gears 3 has dedicated servers though, 1 and 2 had horrible lag problems). Despite this game being thought of as mainstream, it's multiplayer is actually the opposite, not many "casual" gamers will enjoy it because they wont put the time in to get good at it, don't understand how this can be considered as mainstream as other, more noob friendly shooters.

It really seems pointless to me for people who like single player games, to buy something that isn't intended to be focused around it's single player and then MOAN about how unoriginal it is, go buy something like Deus Ex, Mass Effect, Oblivion etc for something that will give you your moneys worth in single player, and let us multiplayer fans enjoy the stuff you call mainstream, like Halo or GoW.

TL;DR (lazy bugger): If you wasted your £40 on a modern shooter for it's single player, you're just wasting money. Either rent it or buy it if you're willing to give the multiplayer a shot, not buy it, play the campaign and ASSUME that that is all the game has to offer, then QQ about how unoriginal and mainstream it is.

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

Your thread title and OP do not correspond

So to your OP I shall say this : You have valid points, especially the one about some games being more multiplayer focused

To your thread title: ME , I do, It's my fucking choice, and no I don't buy COD or something, I buy games like gears of war or killing floor because I like shooting, although gameplay like deus ex makes it more thrilling for me, sometimes I just want to go around meaninglessly popping as many headshots as I can.

 

[tzimize]

I buy more or less all games for single player. If it got good multiplayer; cool. But I'd rather take a great game with no multiplayer than a good game with multiplayer.

 

[Ursus Buckler]

Well they kind of do, yeah. I mean I don't have Xbox Live for a while and it hasn't bothered me at all; the arbitrary nature of multiplayer really gets on my nerves... Halo, Gears of War, COD, it doesn't matter: I always end up emptying entire clips into my enemy, only for them to turn around and go 'nope' and kill me in a single shot. It pisses me off, and yeah, it may be because I'm bad, but sorry, I have a life and don't have time to practice for hours on end. And besides, shooter multiplayer groups are nearly always entirely populated by the same kind of people (e.g. douchebags), so I tend to avoid them. Truth be told, I only bought WaW for Nazi Zombies, and the only reason I got sick of that was because people are shit.
That, and being paired with squeaky eleven-year-olds in a zombie scenario kind of ruins the atmosphere for me.

 

[Porecomesis]

You really need to set up a poll for this thing.

The thing is, if you're going to include a single-player mode for a game, it better be damn good. As Shamus Young said, "Why hire a master chef to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?" Please refer to here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/7025-Experienced-Points-Million-Dollar-Actor-Five-Dollar-Writer].

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Until I got to that bit I didn't know what the point of your rant actually was.

That alright, some people have to have these things spelled out infront of them to understand them.

Buying a modern shooter for SP is a waste of money? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. You sir/madam have failed the internet.

Did. Not. Say that.
You fail harder for misunderstanding what everybody else in this thread understood completely.
I'm saying £40 for a 5 hour campaign (the standard of a lot of multiplayer centred shooters) and just a 5 hour campaign IS a waste of money, especially if you're not one to replay the campaigns. A lot of modern shooters have really good campaigns, and I actually enjoyed a few of the ones that I'd normally only play for multiplayer.
I'm just saying a lot of the time you need to be a multiplayer fan to get your moneys worth with these games.
Understand now?

Er, actually, you did say that. It's in the quote.

Anyway, I am one to replay campaigns. £40 is a lot of money, so I choose my games wisely (i.e. wait until all the reviews are in and public opinion can be gauged) and as a result I'm extremely happy with my collection of FPS and TPS campaigns (with one or two exceptions) and I've replayed most of them many times.

That said, I have been suckered in once or twice. Notably, I bought COD4:MW for the SP campaign and it was shite. I only paid about £15 for it, but I still felt ripped off. The length (7 hours, I gather) wasn't an issue; I stopped playing due to boredom at around 5 hours in. So to come to what seems to be your point, would I be wrong to ***** about COD4:MW because its SP campaign is rubbish? I think not.

 

[Cpu46]

For me games are all about the story. I don't care how balanced the multiplayer is or how many people can play in a match. Does the story intrigue me? If so then I will love the game. Good game mechanics are a plus because without them it is kind of hard to progress through the story but nothing new needs to be brought to the table to transfer an effective story.

The Halo series, Call of Duty series, Lost planet, Half Life, Rainbow Six. All of these games and series are great games in my mind because of the single player story, the great multiplayer is just icing on the cake. In contrast the Shadowrun video game failed to hold my attention because it was multiplayer only ....Ok, it kinda just sucked overall, bad example.

 

[The Epicosity]

I do, because I am getting tired of multiplayer in fps games, because of the douches that roam that realm. I've gotten to the point where I don't even buy games, and rent them off of Gamefly because the single player can only last so long.

 

[Reaper69lol]

Except Tf2 I usually buy shooter and pretty much all the games for single player (unless my friends are playing MP) Cant remember last time I went "Hey this game willl have great MP i'm gona buy it!".

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.

Couldnt agree more.