It's the singleplayer that draws me in, but at the end of the day it's the multiplayer that keeps me coming back.
Who buys shooters for single player?
- Thread starter ChildishLegacy
- Start date
Until I got to that bit I didn't know what the point of your rant actually was.Midgeamoo said:
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.
I buy shooters because I like shooters, and I play it all and enjoy it.
Why shouldn't multiplayer focused games have at least a decent storyline? It's perfectly reasonable to have separate teams working on the separate sections, and come out with 2 really good halves that amount to an excellent game.
If you don't have those kinds of resources, just go the TF2 route and create a fully multiplayer only game. No reason to make one mode worse just to have another. Options are good, but a shitty option might as well not be an option at all.
Why shouldn't multiplayer focused games have at least a decent storyline? It's perfectly reasonable to have separate teams working on the separate sections, and come out with 2 really good halves that amount to an excellent game.
If you don't have those kinds of resources, just go the TF2 route and create a fully multiplayer only game. No reason to make one mode worse just to have another. Options are good, but a shitty option might as well not be an option at all.
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.
Thank-you.orangeban said:
If you are giving the game a campaign, don't bloody well complain when other people say that said campaign made them want to vomit through their nostrils. If single-player is advertised, put a good deal of effort in, or don't bother at all!
OP, your post... you may want to edit it.
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!
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!
That alright, some people have to have these things spelled out infront of them to understand them.Guy Jackson said:
Did. Not. Say that.Guy Jackson said:
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?
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.The-Epicly-Named-Man said:
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 :/
.) 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 :/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Rasputin1 said:
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.
