Who buys shooters for single player?

[Nobodyman]

I do. Even ones like call of duty. I am really intrigued to see what happens with Soap and Price... and kill Makarov.

 

[Kestor]

I think its about time the devs stop with the multi/single platform, and just release one or the other.
Look at the hundreds of shooters released over the last 10 years, and then try and find a server for any of them, you wont. You simply cannot compete with the games that have been made purely as a multiplay game, like the Battlefield, Team Fortress and Counter Strike series, yet these dumb devs continue to waste thousands of man hours tacking on multi to fill in a checkbox?

They would be much better off, selling one or the other, and use a DLC system to sell the other part, thats if they think its worth their time to build and sell the other.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

I bought Resistance 3 for both SP and MP
I will get UC3 for both as well. The subway promotion for UC3 is really great. The SP parts they've shown have been epic

 

[Cheery Lunatic]

Good going OP.

At first I was gonna rage at you that there are plenty of single-player centric shooters out there, until I actually read your post.

And to your point, I agree. It always bothers me when vidya game elitists go on about how CoD "meatheads" never play the single player and only play multiplayer.
GG missing the point of games, dickheads. D:
Some shooters are MEANT for the multiplayer, with the single player being just an extra.

Of course there are some special shooters that have an equally strong multiplayer AND single player experience. Resistance, Uncharted, and Halo come to mind.

 

[Aleol]

I buy every game for its single player.

The multiplayer just sweetens the deal

 

[Echo136]

up until a few years ago, I have never bought a shooter only for the multiplayer. I CRAVE story driven games, and I also love me my shootemups, but it seems they've become mutually exclusive.

 

[Particulate]

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]

It's not about what new gameplay the game might have to offer, it's about the story for me. That's right, the story of a shooter.

I've read every Tom Clancy novel, some more than once. I fucking love that shit. This is the way I've enjoyed things:

Ghost Recon (series): Tom Clancy

Call of Duty 1-3: World War 2 makes for great entertainment, it was the last war where the "bad guys" were obvious to everyone and was fought with flags and uniforms. Modern wars involve Asymmetric engagements, guerilla groups, insurgencies, and even stickier concepts.

Call of Duty 4, MW2, and the coming MW3: Tom Clancy if he did a lot of cocaine

Far Cry 2: I loved the heart of Darkness, one of my favorite stories.

And the list goes on and on. It's a subject matter that I enjoy and while many of the narratives being portrayed are all iterations on similar themes they're themes I enjoy. So while the gameplay might not be that different between the various games the stories and concepts being conveyed are ones that I enjoy and more than that I like seeing how different teams and companies portray things. I mean MW2 and Bad Company 2 both take place in the modern realm, involve a sketchy conspiracy, and paint Russia as the bad guys but they're still very different.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

I don't usually expect a original story in video games, I do expect a quality story and original characters though. Bf are the only games I buy for the online. I got gears for the co-op with my friends. other than that the only other game that I will buy that will have legitimate muliplayer will be SWTOR.

 

[INF1NIT3 D00M]

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?

Okay, this is the bulk of what I really want to reply to.
I believe that if a game is going to include a single player portion, that single player portion had better be damn good on it's own. It goes both ways. If a game's going to include multiplayer, that had better be good on it's own as well. I don't think that's an unfair policy. "Good" is subjective, but I don't think you want half-assed multiplayer modes any more than I want half-assed singleplayer modes.

I believe that the problem you're perceiving isn't actually there. You won't find very many people talking about multiplayer in reviews because multiplayer experiences are far more subjective than single player. In recent games multiplayer get more attention than single player, and that creates an imbalance in the quality of the game. The multiplayer's great, but the single player isn't worth looking at. Many people don't like that. Nobody really says much of anything if a multiplayer section is no good though, they're either too busy with single player or they're too busy playing better multiplayer.

Let's say we both bought Call of Duty: MW3. The single player's a boring crap sandwich but the multiplayer is objectively the best multiplayer experience ever made. You'd be happy, and I'd want my $60 back. Now let's say we both bought... Space Marine (I've heard the single player is good but the multiplayer doesn't stand up so well). You'd be ticked you paid for the game and I'd be just fine killing orks. The difference is, you'd hear about Call of Duty's terrible single player and Space Marine's epic campaign, but you wouldn't hear as many people complaining about Space Marine's multiplayer because all those people are likely just going to go play MW3 multiplayer instead. Yahtzee will say that Modern Warfare 3: The Game is a crap sandwich filled with spunk, but that doesn't mean your multiplayer interest is any less valid. The single player, the game he and I and many people paid for, was crap. The multiplayer might as well be it's own game. The merit of multiplayer doesn't carry over. Neither does the sheer terribleness of the single player necessarily taint the good name of multiplayer. Thing is, the single player works alone even after the servers shut down and people move on. The multiplayer was great while it lasted, but it doesn't last forever. The single player does, so we judge it separately and hold games' in differing esteem based on how good that portion is.

*not including the jerks I encounter in multiplayer, the developer can't really be held responsible for those people.

 

[Darth Rahu]

I do. Crysis 2 was a decent length, Half Life 2 is all singleplayer. Yeah, that's all I can say, I do get shooters for single player.

 

[boyvirgo666]

But why? I hate multiplayer with strangers. I've never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever EVER found it to be a good thing. This would be like me accounting that the game came with a stinkbomb when I bought it. I'd really rather pretend it didn't.

Then again, maybe this is why I generally hate all new modern shooters.

Yeah i agree with this, Frankly i only play 1 shooter for multiplayer and thats team fortress. And really you cant say "dont count bulletstorm" or whatever because they are shooters and they all count. I bought homefront for the unique story but found its multiplayer pandering to be what ruined it. They should have worked on the damn single player more

 

[TheEldestScroll]

i buy them for their single player. i find most shooters multiplayer modes annoying, so i usually just let the price drop.

only multiplayer i like is arma 2. i will definitely give battlefield 3 a shot though.

 

[Zorak the Mantis]

I personally enjoy shooters that are single player. Stuff like Dark Forces, STALKER, Metro 2033, and Bioshock are all prime examples of great stories told from the perspective of an fps game.

 

[Vibhor]

Wait a minute. You are saying that I should pay full price for a game that only has half content?
Don't get me wrong, I friggin love multiplayer focused game(TF2 for example) but when I pay full, I expect full. Case in hand, TF2. It has no single player what so ever but the game didn't cost 60$(its free as of now). It costed something near 15$. That if fucking cheap even for a multiplayer only game. Now look at Call of Duty, every game in the series sells for 60$. If they are charging full for the game then yes, the game should be able to stand on both single player and multiplayer. If not then how dare they charge full for it. Who the fuck even set the standard price for video games in the first place?

 

[daftalchemist]

First of all, I don't really buy shooters because they're not my style. But when I do buy a shooter, and I'm not buying it just to play with my boyfriend and his cousin, I only care about the single player. Playing shooters online with strangers is the most miserable experience I've ever had while gaming. So I do tend to look over games like CoD. I have World at War, but that's only because it came with my videocard, and I did give it a go and didn't find it entirely bad, but not good enough to beat. The only shooter I buy for the single player is Gears of War. I love the story, and I love that it's co-op because co-op is absolutely my style.

Even when I do buy a shooter to play online multiplayer with my boyfriend and his cousin, I get bored after a week or so and stop playing altogether, and so do they. So we never buy that stuff full-priced.

 

[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.