Who buys shooters for single player?

[Shadowkire]

What I hate about shooters with crappy single player is that I spent ~$60 on a game where the single player campaign is crap and half of the entertainment of the multiplayer aspect of the game stems directly from others who bought the game.

Q:Where did my money go?

Hint: Not into development for the game. Else the SP would be better or I would see so many different kinds of maps for multiplayer that I would struggle to memorize the ins and outs of them all. Rarely are either of these two things present in any shooter that has come out in the last decade.

 

[Robert Ewing]

I always buy FPS's for single player. I hate fps multi player. All of them.

 

[BlackWidower]

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?

Here's my question. Why do you like multiplayer so much?

Is it for the interaction with your fellow man? I doubt it because you're likely talking about online multiplayer and you aren't really interacting with anyone.

Is it the challenge? Okay, there's a good reason. Because I remember trying to get into multiplayer myself with Team Fortress 2. It wasn't bad...until I left the base and got sniped in the head. The difficulty curve was through the roof. I simply didn't have fun, so I left.

But here's another question. Why buy any sequel? What does Modern Warfare 2 add over Modern Warfare 1? What about Halo 3 and Halo 2? The only thing I can think of is the story. Unless you'd like to enlighten me.

Then there's the reliance on external forces. You have to be pissed over paying $50 for a game that will be unplayable in a few years when you are the only one on the servers. Aren't you?

These are all honest questions by the way. I've had a problem recently about people thinking I'm insincere. I'm not.

 

[Teh Jammah]

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?

If a game includes a single player mode it SHOULD be able to stand on it's own - otherwise it's a pointless add on. Shocking as it may be in this day and age but not everybody WANTS to play online.

If a game includes multi-player then that too SHOULD be able to stand on it's own. As you yourself said, there are also people who will buy a game and play the multiplayer mode almost exculsively.

If your shooter or whatever is all about the multiplayer, don't shoehorn in a BS '4 hour' single player experience and market the game around it. Just make it exclusively MP. (likewise don't shoehorn in MP to a single player game that doesn't need it)

I am, admittedly, not much of a shooter player, and I've only dipped my feet in the world of multiplayer stuff, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I DO tend to buy the few shooters i do for the single player. Mainly because the computer never calls me a 'f###w#### n#####f## c##b#####!!!'

 

[eternal-chaplain]

I have to say, it was a bit humorous when I finished reading this and the song by The Smashing Pumpkins I was listening to reaches the verse "Everyone is going to shoot someone/Everyone is going to ruin our fun/Because everybody's business/Is everybody's business." And now that the formalities are out of the way:

It seems to me as though you are posing a purely hypothetical question: "What would people who are looking for a multiplayer focused game do if every game was focused around single player?" (See lines 7 & 8) A glance at the modern market will reveal to you that most casual players seek a game with multiplayer support and actually let that become the center of the experience, thus it would be true to say that multiplayer drives the modern shooter market with multiplayer being a structure of a game that ensures its playability as while many would be slow to admit, it cannot go unsaid that a game fails without an online mode. This is simply because we have grown to bore quickly with shooters as they are based on action and story with single player campaigns posing little to no replay value. So because the market (as we just proved in brief) is driven by multiplayer support in games, I think your hypothetical question of an alternate future shouldn't be fretted over in the real world. But because you took the time to pose it on a forum:

If games focused on single player rather multiplayer (as depicted in your crude simulation of our world), the fact that humans bore easily would come into play at some point in time and the single player market would begin to slowly but surely fail if it does not collapse in one event and this is an unavoidable fact of human nature that must be applied to your scenario for sake of accountability. Out of the ruins of the fallen market will surely rise the unavoidable multiplayer market that evolves in all societies in any alternate future in which humans still retain all their humanity and the masses will have their satisfaction for that is the nature and the way of the modern market: supply and demand. So to directly answer your question:

Those who seek multiplayer over single player should wait for the market to reconstruct itself in accordance to common demand.

 

[flaviok79]

007 Goldeneye invented (more like stumbled upon) multiplayer. Halo perfected it; But both had solid campaigns. The multiplayer is the bonus, the thing you bring friends together and pizza to celebrate the game. It is older than fast internet and yes, a US$ 60,00 game must have a decent single player experience.

When I put down US$ 60,00 (or over US$ 100,00, living in Brazil and all) I want my experience to be professionaly made levels, with a great story mode. I don't want it to relly solelly on the shoulders of stupid 13 year old kids who shoot me in hte back for picking up the weapon they felt entitled to.

I play loads of multiplayer, having sunk dozens of hours in each Halo, but that is a bonus. The campaing is the reason i bought the game.

 

[adragonofgold]

I buy games for single player. If a game does have multiplayer I tend to avoid it. Now I have played a little multiplayer, didnt enjoy it. If a game has a co-op option I enjoy that much more. I have friends that start up multiplayer before they even start the single player. Here's the BIG surprise.. We both enjoy it. Neither of us feel like we wasted our money.

 

[Slayer_2]

Multiplayer is full of immature kids, who usually enjoy camping, using the most unfair tactics possible, and spouting "your mom" jokes. Take MC for example, 90% of players are under 13, and of that 90%, at least half are dicks. Same thing in most mainstream shooter games.

Singleplayer, however is usually a more deep and engrossing experience. And the enemies are unlikely to hack/glitch, camp, or call your mom a whore.

 

[bobajob]

One of the good things about living where I do is PC games are ridiculously cheap. That, combined with the fact that I don't have my own abode yet so am restricted to crappy HSDPA broadband means I only ever buy games to play alone. I love games. Weird, or what?



CAPTCHA: "lizzens confection". Lizzen? That a name, or something?

 

[Shadow flame master]

I'm not a multiplayer because I don't really get along with people well enough. Also, the fact that I pay $60 for a game that has multiplayer and try to play it only to find that I can't play all the modes on it because I don't have fucking GOLD membership is fucking ludarcris. I have to then go back out and buy a $50 gold membership card to play a deathmacth/capture the flag game. However, I learn that I can't play those because I don't have all the maps for the game and then I say FUCK IT, DAMNIT and play another game.

This isn't saying that the few times I was able to play MP wasn't fun, it's just that I don't want to waste so much money on a game that I would probally play for three months and then forget about it.

Now, for the SP part, I find it easier to play SP because all I have to do is put in the disk and make sure my controller is fully charged. And, as I have said before, I don't mix well with people. So it's refreshing to not hear someone yell at me for not getting in the vehicle, getting the specific gun, acciedently fragging them or dying for the 20th time in one game. Also, a story gets me to play a game so that I can see the ending and what happens to my character.

All in all, I'll play MP games if I can easily play with people and not worry about not having all of everything to play simple death match. I won't buy a game that's mainly MP and expect a good SP campagin, like-wise, I won't buy a mainly SP game and expect a solid MP element with it. At least that's my oppinion on this.

Capcha: tolfice secretary. Only halve of that applies to me.

 

[ezeroast]

Call of duty I generally buy for single player. I play a little of the multi but not much, with MW3 coming out and hearing that the single player campaign will be the same or shorter than MW2 I'm not impressed. Living in Australia I have to pay $100 for it and this time I don't think I'll be buying,
Sad panda

 

[gphjr14]

Bought MW1 after playing MW2. Probably get MW3 when its cheaper on ebay.

Uncharted games are great for their single player.

 

[Don't taze me bro]

Some of my favourite single player shooters have had an absolutely horrible multiplayer experience.

I'm looking at you Dead Space 2, Bioshock 2 and Uncharted 2.

 

[natster43]

I may not be buying it, but I am hoping to get CoDfish Modern Flounder 3 for Christmas ONLY for the single player. I am going to get a lot of hate for this, but I loved MW2's campaign. It was fun. Especially all of the DC stuff. I am hoping for the next one being fun as well. Pretty much any other FPS game I buy for both. Single Player for the story, Multiplayer for the fun of Multiplayer.

 

[6_Qubed]

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]

Sir/ma'am/other, please point out for me in your original post where you allow for the possibility that other gamers might enjoy other aspects of a videogame than you do, and thus prioritize them differently. I'm having trouble seeing it.

 

[Big-T]

I love single player modes in shooter games. Fallout, Half Life, Gears of War, Halo, Mass Effect, BioShock, the list goes on. I know that some of these games HAVE multiplayer, but I dont really care for it. I love the STORY in games, something that seems to get sacrificed alot with games that focus too much on the multiplayer aspect of it. So, yeah I buy shooters for single player. But thats just me.

 

[Vault101]

first of all you dont know EXACTALLY if your getting a decent single player, unless its COD or somthing which makes it a grey area

Im fine with multiplayer but I wish if they couldnt make both decent then focus on one

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

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

FALLOUT NEW VEGAS IS NOT A FIRST PERSON SHOOTER AGGHHHHHHHH....

you merely have the option of FPS, its not the games focus...oh never mind