Who buys shooters for single player?

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I personally think the issue is a few people just want the peanut butter and some people just want the chocolate and no one is going "... Hey, Reese, what if we combine them?"

The experience I get with single player is one I look for in all games. You play a multiplayer capture the flag, you might win, you might lose. You get a fail mission or a success at the end of the match. Adrenaline pumping for besting others... and then rinse and repeat. Good for a certain itch.

But no matter how decked out your Spartans might be in Halo, they are no Sierra 117? Why? Because they haven't gone through the mess that John has. You know what he did, you helped him do it. The odds were amazing and he succeeded. That's why we don't talk about Kat or Sam or any of the other Spartans. John has legacy. Legacy you witnessed and were apart of. Sierra 117 is one of the most celebrated icons of our generation and you walked him through it. You were there. That's a connection.

Now, AI doesn't always scratch the itch. Sometimes I don't want to be apart of something huge. Sometimes, I just want to be better at someone someday. I want to bust down the door and head shot two people and then throw a frag before anyone else gets the wiser. Sometimes, I want to descend on some blinded fools from high above and rip their armor to shreds with my chainsword. Sometimes, I gotta test the skills I created in single and see it I measure up.

And that leads the the most important reason why single player matters, and it goes to the OP's statement on why he picked Gears. Most Multiplayers are not newb friendly. And forget in the weapon unlocks are xp-based. you will be hosed if you bought the game even a week after it came out. So a pure multiplayer game that doesn't have a xp leveled lobby will just end up frustrating those who didn't get it pre-ordered. So what is there to do?

Have a single player that will at least teach some of the skills that can carry over into Multi. And it can't just feel like a six hour long tutorial. There must be a reason to fight, something to drive you to get your skills up so you can win the day. A good story will do that in spades.

 

[vivster]

hm... i don't like multiplayer and i'm not very fond of modern shooters
still i like to experience so i played my fair share of some modern shooter's campaigns
and i would still even occasionally play them if the developers had the decency to let me play the multiplayer maps with bots
then i could enjoy the work the developers had put into multiplay without the hassle of actually interacting with anonymous douches

but as you correctly pointed out the majority wants multiplayer and i can't blame the developers if they are concentrating on this
then again it would be really hard to make a good story for a shooter
it would have to be a coherent story with lots of drama and much less ridiculous action
and i know many people who would be extremely turned off by this - namely the people who love multiplayer

 

[Gregg Lonsdale]

How about this: A full price game has to stand up on single-player alone, as multiplayer isn't worth the investment. Take for example Team Fortress 2. It has pretty much just as much core content as the multiplayer in any-other shooter (except beautiful graphics, if you're the kind of person who cares about that enough to let it affect your judgement) and up until a few months ago it was no more than $20 AUS (work out the exchange yourself). And yet, games like cod, brink etc. charge full price ($70 upwards) for the same amount of game content. That is what's wrong with multiplayer-focused games, and why a game needs single-player to make it worth buying at full price.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Don't really like multiplay with strangers. There's a few exceptions, but generally I like to keep my games screaming kid free. Whatever the age of the kid.


And running out of spawn only to get butchered, and wait 5 minutes for the match to end gets boring REAL fast.

 

[A Free Man]

I will never understand people who buy a game that was made basically only for multiplayer and then complain that the single player aspect isn't good enough. If you want a single player game.... BUY A SINGLE PLAYER GAME?!?! Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. I have no problems with a game being solely multiplayer just like I don't have any problems with a game being solely single player. I have played both and some I like some I don't.

 

[Xerosch]

I buy a lot of FPS, butI hate online Multiplayer with a passion (even though it's free on PS3). The main reason is already mentioned in the OT: This fucking 'no noobs' attitude.

That said there are quite some Shooters that include a compelling single player. Just look at Resistance, Half-Life 2, Killzone, Gears of War, Halo and to some extend Dead Space, Condemned, The Darkness and Bioshock.

It just comes down to wether you are looking for fast action or pacing.

 

[I.Muir]

Ive like earlier versions of games for their single player and multiplayer such as the original halo and modern warfare over modern 2. Ive enjoyed the battlefield games almost exclusively for multiplayer. Ive bought games that were not great in either such as bad company 2 in my opinion. I like to sneak around in single player and have a chance to not be noticed rather than trying to keep my face attached around cover and I like my multiplayer to have usable vehicles because they always inevitably end up as big battles although this isn't always necessary. Im trying to curb my bitching streak because it really is meaningless unless it's specifically directed. However I think the people that play FPS games online are always going to be in minority so the single player must be up to par otherwise you might have well just done a better job making it multiplayer only.

Since we seem to be in some sort of stagnation period it's only a matter of time before some game redefines the genre, every dev and their dog is told to emulate by those soulless suits that hold the money key and we start bitching about those sequels and sameness whatever that might be (over the top color and hilarity inducing perhaps). The cycle of trend moves on and will continue always since it's a learning thing I think (monkey see - monkey do).

I wonder if I should give a disclaimer like all opinions expressed may or may not be opinions already expressed by randoms on the internet since it is highly unlikely any original thought is occurring this is the internet.

 

[Jaegermonster]

I get tired of seeing developers pushing out fps clones every year that are made for multiplayer and not put out a really good one for people who just like an exciting, sigleplayer fire fight.

Singleplayer fps's are a dying breed. If a shooter doesn't have multiplayer its seen as a flaw. For me, there really hasn't been a great singleplayer fps since half-life 2. And thats sad.

Crysis is the only one that has come close. I think Bioshock was over rated. Also, posters should stop lumping Fall out and mass effect in with half life. Although both are great, they are not the same kind of game at all.

I think the only reason singleplayer fans are getting pissed is because shooters are becoming only about the multiplayer experience. We want to enjoy a game thats looks as good and plays good as Battlefield or Gears and not have to suffer through multiplayer.

I have no problem with there being multiplayer focused fps's. They have their place. As to sigleplayer campaigns. Why should we give up a genre of great games so you can teabag some noob with a space marine's jockstrap.

 

[Kakujin]

I'm not annoyed by many shooters having a multiplayer focus. I am however annoyed when someone thinks less of a game like Deus Ex for not having it.

This has been a long standing issue for me. I remember getting pissed back in the day at people who bought Half Life just to play Counterstrike, never even trying the brilliant part of that package.

And also, as several people have already mentioned, why do game developers keep trying to do both. Focus on one aspect, either make a kick-ass multiplayer game, or a good, solid, story-driven, single-player game, since they often speak to different crowds.

Also, on a more nostalgic note, what the hell happened to modding. The time honored tradition of making our own damn multiplayer game out of the single player version.

 

[svenjl]

I haven't played multiplayer since the first Modern Warfare on PC. For the last 3 years I have mostly used my 360, and it's never been online. I don't like multiplayer anymore, so I only buy single player friendly games - mostly RPGs, Forza and Shift, and some select shooters like Red Dead Redemption, Halo, Metro 2033, Dead Space and Rage. These are games/series that have not sacrificed single player for multiplayer or are single player only. I also just picked up Dark Souls to play offline figuring that if I get stuck i'lll just go to YouTube anyway.

I'm fine with the what I see as the current balance of focus in games, generally speaking. It's a pity though that split-screen is regularly overlooked. I love me a good session of offline co-op with Halo and GOW.

ALSO: Long live Half Life!

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

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.

No, it isn't. Yes, in regards to hours, a person can get over 100 hours of gameplay from both a singleplayer centric game (Oblivion) and a multiplayer centric game (TF2). Here's the difference: the singleplayer game requires 100 hours worth of new and varied content in a well-designed campaign. That gets translated into brand new areas, dungeons, enemies, npcs, freshly-voiced dialogue, quests, and story progression that the player needs to be constantly experiencing in order to get the content he was promised.

You don't get that with multiplayer games. You get different maps, game modes, and possibly character classes (depending on the game), but that is it. Those 100 hours that the player experiences are only varied and differ due to the inclusion of the human element (the other players); if it wasn't for that, you'd be playing the same game over and over again.

Multiplayer games don't require the shear manpower, efficiency, and attention-to-detail as a singleplayer game requires. All that adds up in budget for the developers, so I am more than willing to pay $60 for an expertly-crafted singleplayer game. I would never pay the same for TF2. Ever. No matter how good it is. It isn't worth it.

 

[getoffmycloud]

The simple reason all games should have a good single player is what happens if it just doesn't sell well even if it has a really good multiplayer and then you have an expensive paperweight because the servers are always empty. As the OP mentioned it Bulletstorm is a good example of this a good game that sold poorly if it was multiplayer focussed it would have been very difficult to enjoy but because it had a good single player then it was worth it completely.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

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

This...only I don't own any COD so replace that with Halo. Now that Call of Duty 4 is $20 new at this point though I'm planning on fixing that. I played the second but I just rented that one.

Not to say shooters are or have been my favorite genre but, when I play them I'll play on my own 9 times out of 10 (especially now that my Xbox live is back to silver status)

Of course a game has to stand up on single player though. It doesn't have to focus on single player, it just has to be able to do well. Borderlands wasn't terrible playing alone when I had it, same with Left 4 Dead. Even though most will say "you're not playing it right" when you play those alone, I have and they were just fine.

 

[veloper]

I do, but then I buy different shooters, that are not COD.

Nothing is more entertaining than being pitted alone against a horde of stupid baddies and creating a bloody carnage.
You don't get that kind of crazy fun in multiplayer, because competitive MP has to be a small, symmetrical conflict.

I also play tactical/stealth shooters sometimes and those simply wouldn't work in multiplayer.

 

[Silenttalker22]

If the single-player is going to suck, then don't include a single-player campaign! If a shooter boasts about it's epic story mode then it shouldn't get all upset when people point out that it's shit.

^ This.
I can't even understand the rationale behind defending a game's right to include something and not be criticized on it. That alone makes your whole side silly. Especially since it's only your proclamation that the developers focus is that in the first place, unless you individualize games with dev quotes.

Also, me thinks he got under your skin with the scathing gears review lol. Comical stuff on how thin-skinned people are when it's obvious that he goes to the extreme and they are his opinions. He lambasts JPRGs constantly, and I love them, and think he's funny when he picks on 'em. I know it's based on his obvious biases/preferences. I don't start QQ threads about how mean ol' Yahtzee picked on my genre.

I do, but then I buy different shooters, that are not COD.

I don't know why I read this and could only see:
"I don't always play shooters, but when I do, it's not COD. Stay thirsty my friends" lol

 

[Delicious Anathema]

If the story is interesting, then the single player is important, because I don't like playing with strangers (except things like Team Fortress) and me and my friends not always play the same things, or on the same systems unfortunately.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I'd rather play multiplayer with bots than with strangers. At least then I can pretend that I'm playing a single player game and I can create a story for myself as I play.

 

[Matt Hancox]

Games should try and find a balance of all elements.
Single player isn't a bonus, and neither is multiplayer. Call of Duty: Black ops described it best on the back of the box; 3 games in one (3 being single player campaign, Multiplayer deathmatch and Nazi Zombies (arguably) cop-op)

 

[Harbinger_]

I tend to only play things in Single Player so yeah, I buy shooters for single player.

 

[Circusfreak]

I do. the halflives, bioshocks and metro2033 are all great reasons.