Who buys shooters for single player?

[The Cor]

I agree with the TF2 argument people have mentioned before.

If you are making a game just for multi-player then scrap the entire single player campaign and charge less for it. Just imagine how TF2 would be if it had a single player campaign and that you had to pay 50 to 60 bucks/euro's for it.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

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.

WoW: You should never buy a subscription based game anyway, even if it is an MMO.

TF2: I was going to address this in the original post, but couldn't think of an eloquent way to put it. TF2 is fine by me, it had a low price, it was obviously an online multiplayer game and anyone who doesn't have an internet connection won't be able to access it in the first place. I suppose I need a counter-point for this....

Brink: Ah, that'll do. A full priced game, a tacked on, sh*t singleplayer campaign and was given offline options. If the game had had a similar model as TF2 (or CS: S) I'd be fine with it, but as is, I class it as the worst game to come out this year.

 

[Hamish Durie]

*cracks fingers*
halo combat evolved
halo2
halo3 130 hours on campaign
halo reach disapointing but it wasn't horrible
ODST well I certinlly didnt buy it for the combat
gears of war1
gears of war 2
gears of war 3
fracture
thingy 8 sorry fergot the name

 

[Strain42]

If a game advertises itself on the multiplayer, then you can claim that it's about the multiplayer.

Gears of War 3 doesn't do that. It advertises itself on the campaign, and the fact that it's the end of the trilogy.

So yes, a game like Gears 3 SHOULD be standing up on it's own based on the single player because that's how it's being advertised.

Now if Gears had a good story (not saying it doesn't, haven't played it, can't judge) and then on top of that has good multiplayer, that's fine. But if a game is advertised on the story and then fails to deliver and focuses primarily on online multiplayer, that's a rip-off.

You don't see advertisements for WoW going "Come play us for our epic storylines"

Once a thread hits 200 posts, I'm sure the people around me are having some argument that only has little resemblance to the original topic and this post will go un-read (plus I'm sure someone has already said something along these lines)

But that's just my two cents on the subject.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Who buys shooters for single player?

I do. I admit I enjoy the MP as well but I've been thoroughly pleased with a lot of SP only, SP-focused, or even the SP of MP-focused shooters, like Metro 2033, Resistance, and CoD respectively.

Truth be told there's so much old, rehashed bullshit in every genre - at least in shooters it tends to be intense and exciting old rehashed bullshit. Besides which, I find shooters tend to patronize me a lot less than some other genres do. I was never asked to press x to hike up my skirt because that is the only way I could possibly collect useful intelligence as fem!Bishop in R6V2, or spend a level running around in my underwear, whereas in "serious", "dramatic" games like Heavy Rain apparently that's something I have to look forward to.

Furthermore, I'd rather play through a story about someone as badass as Captain Price than angsty emo kid. Those are also a strong probability when you tread outside the shooter genre. As are random cutesy schoolgirls with absolutely no business being involved in whatever scenario in which the game is set just because some otaku living in a one-room apartment in Shibuya needs something prepubescent to jerk off to. Fanservicey shooters like Duke Nukem and Bulletstorm tend to bomb completely.

Ultimately, I think it a lot of ways, I prefer the SP campaigns of shooters to the SP campaigns of other games. Or maybe that's just the burned out ex-RPG fan in me talking. I'm sick of ham-handed writers who can only tell a story through walls of expository text, forced interactions with characters I'd rather stab in the eye, suspension of disbelief shattering dumb as hell fanservice. I'll take DURR HURR GREY BROWN SHOOTER over that any day.

 

[Zoraste]

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.

It really isn't, since single player games with long, extensive campaigns take much more work in development. For pure multiplayer, you have to make all of the visuals, weapon balancing, perks, skills, etc, whatever your game has in multiplayer, certainly,but the players will take it from there. They will end up making their own entertainment with what you provide.

Single player games should have the full price tag because they also have to work on script writing, AI, narrative, and proper musical selection to go with the story rather than just something you can kick ass to (but that as well). Not to mention voice acting beyond some grunts of pain and simple commands. You know, things that can easily take as long to do by themselves as your pure multiplayer programming. So yeah, there really is no hypocrisy here. Just paying for what you get.

A game has to stand up on its single player, because you spent 60$ on a game, and you should be able to play it whenever you want. If it is pure multi player, you can only really enjoy it when it's trendy, meaning, the period of time until the new game gets released (Even though, I still know of people who play MW2 MP), if you have internet or other friends with the same game and that you both have spare time to play said game. MP relies on many many aspects that many people just can't deal with, while SP it only requires you, and your console, making it much more accessible.

After a while, do you not get rid of your single player games? Why can you not do this with multiplayer games that go "out of trend"
Once you have 100%d a single player game, you can either play it again (which i find boring) or sell it. Whereas multiplayer games I can happily get over 200 hours on before getting remotely bored, thus giving me more hours for my moneys worth.

No. Some of us prefer to be able to play through our old games again. Just because you don't prefer to does not invalidate the point. The only games I ever really get rid of are the ones I don't like, or the ones I simply cannot get to work any more, either because the programs or hardware required are no longer available or no longer exist, or because they are damaged beyond my ability to restore them to playable condition, and I am certain I am not the only one who feels that way.

 

[Joccaren]

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.

The problem most people have with multiplayer oriented games is the price.
A very popular example: CoD vs TF2
Both are multiplayer focused. Both have about the same amount of multiplayer content. CoD has a single player, albeit a very short one that really isn't that good, whilst TF2 doesn't.
Here in Aus, TF2 was $20 when it cost ANY money (Now it is free), CoD starts out at $100.
If you are in America, fine, 20 vs 60, but why is there that much of a price difference? The single player in CoD is in no way good enough to justify $40. Maybe 10-15, but that is still kinda pushing it. Why, is CoD sold at the same price as games with FAR more content than it? (Try Mass Effect as an example, which atm over here is far cheaper than CoD, and has FAR more content).
Multiplayer only games don't get criticised as much if they charge an appropriate price, and advertise the multiplayer instead of the singleplayer, yet very few do. This is the main problem people have with multiplayer only games. I will once again bring up TF2. Do you see many people complaining about it here? No? But its a multiplayer oriented game! It didn't even have a single player! Why aren't people complaining about it? It charged a reasonable price, and didn't try to sell itself as something it wasn't.

 

[Jonny49]

What pisses me off is when the focus on a single player clearly isn't there, but developers decide to stick it in anyway. Why not just make the game Multiplayer only?

It costs less on production, meaning the game can be sold for cheaper, in turn meaning the game can make more of a profit because people won't be put off by a £40/$60 price tag.

All that's left is multiplayer support through updates and DLC, and if the game is good enough a community to keep it alive.

 

[Leopard]

Is it really too much to ask for both? I mean. If they're going to do a half assed job on the single player why bother at all? You're just wasting everyones time. I say either do it properly or not at all.

 

[repeating integers]

A poll may have helped here, but oh well.

I do. I play most games for the singleplayer - not that I dislike multiplayer.

EDIT: Yeah, the guy above me I agree with. If you're a shooter that's doing both, you should do both well.

 

[DanielDeFig]

I bought Call of duty 2 and Modern warfare for the single-player. I enjoyed both Modern warfare had some quite inventive levels), and never touched the multilayer (not my thing).

I'm not a FPS fan, but like with most games, I usually check out "the best of the best" for any genre that even slightly piques my interests.
Before, that meant I knew I could enjoy a fun FPS single-player campaign, because it was a good enough game to be enjoyed by others than hardcore fans.
Nowadays, I'm know it's usually not even worth trying the best of the best", because I know that that the single-player campaign is usually treated as secondary to the multiplayer.

 

[DeleteThisAcc]

Who buys shooters for single player?
I do. I like stories
Who buys RTS for single player?
I do. I like stories
Who buys racing games for single player?
I do. I like stories
.......

Make all games multiplayer-only and I will start(again) reading books (because movies suck IMHO)

 

[Aetherlblade]

Aside from battlefield i only play SP shooters.

 

[[Kira Must Die]]

I do.

Mostly because I don't have X-Box live, and I'm scared to play against total strangers.
I know it sounds childish, but I've just never played online before, and used to playing split-screen.

 

[Burntpopcarn]

allow me to explain why i play the games i have for PS3 and xbox 360 (this is not my complete collection FYI)
Battlefield bad company 2: only for multiplayer. the campaign is stupid and pointless, although it is useful for warming up so that i can blow a bunch of holes in everyone online (i gotta be at my best to do my best, eh?) My friend has bad company 2 as well, but he has never been online in it and is always going on about how amazing and epic the campaign is, and i gotta tell ya, it really annoys me. but hey, all he has is a PS2 and a PS3, I have a PS3, an Xbox 360, a Mac with Tf2 on it and WII (though i regret buying it), what does he know about gaming?
Black ops: i don't like it anymore. the graphics look muggy and stupid, the storyline is even more stupid (I was expecting it to tell the story of the life of a soldier fighting in the vietnam war and have lots of stealth and stuff, not the story of a schizophrenic former soldier guy who got betrayed and brainwashed by his best friend in prison and then proceeds to slaughter a bunch of communist russians, which is bloody typical these days, killing communist russians i mean. just set it in present day and it would be a generic shooter) zombies mode is cool, i guess, but the fact that the zombies all sound like possessed demonic asylum patients and not zombies really tends to get on my nerves.
Mass effect 2: it only has campaign, and that's alright with me. while some parts bug me (getting sufficient good karma so that i can ensure the survival of my team and the loyalty of all of them, mining for stuff i can use to upgrade the ship, etc) i absolutely love the mass effect series for its epic storyline. it would be cool if it had multiplayer, though. perhaps you could play as any character from the series (humanoid characters only, no collector general, hanar, volus, rachni or reapers) use most of the guns, and have big 8 vs. 8 team deathmatches and stuff!
rAge: haven't played it yet, but i bought it for the single player.
CoD 4: loved the campaign, multiplayer is good too.
Gears of war 3: I once played nothing but gears of war 2 for an entire month, maybe more. that's how much i love gears of war, although i hated the first one for its dumb story (the story was literally the story of four freakishly muscular power armour-clad soldiers trying to blow up the locust's home turf, but it was mostly focused around killing berserkers, the stupidly short and unsatisfying chainsaw bayonet eviscerations, and closing e-holes with frag grenades) the good thing is that gears 2 and gears 3 actually have a plot and aren't just boring linear slaughterfests, gears 3 has one moment where you encounter a berserker, gears 2 has none, and nobody even cares about closing e-holes by gears 3! oh yes, and the multiplayer is fan-tas-tic!
so their you have it. some of my shooters i bought for single player (most of them, really) and some of them for multiplayer!

 

[drummond13]

So if a game has terrible pacing, writing, voice acting, character design, and/or depth it should get a free pass in reviews because it has multiplayer?

Yahtzee isn't the only one who doesn't play multiplayer. If a game has a poor single player experience guess what? People are going to complain about it, and rightly so.

 

[Jakub324]

I do. Multiplayer is usually the same game over and over again and I think it's boring without some good friends to laugh with. Single-player, on the other hand is interesting and many shooters have good stories and enemies who don't want to ruin your day.

 

[Fanfic_warper]

Honestly I love stories so I tned to hate on multiplayer focused games like Halo and Call of Duty and escpecially Gears of War.

All their stories were crap and the communities were generally very unlikeable in my opinion.

I think if a game is going to be multiplayer focused, the community should at least make the effort to be nicer and more encouaging to noobs rather than degrading them or taking advantage of them. It's letting new people in that will allow communities to grow and thrive and allow for the game you might like to develop more and possibly realease a new actually better game.

 

[Jamash]

I do. I occasionally enjoy playing shooters, but I don't really like playing with others.

I've extensively played the Multiplayer Free-Roam in Red Dead Redemption by myself in a private lobby, and I even bought games like Unreal Tournament, Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor to play solo.

A.I. Bots may be as dumb as bricks or unnaturally difficult, but at least they don't cheat, use lag switches, become abusive or cry (or both) when you beat them and are good sports who play the game properly, not bunny hopping around or twitching unnaturally due to them spamming the block/counter buttons.

It's funny, but I find that playing with A.I. puppets programmed to behave like humans is less immersion-breaking than playing with actual humans.

 

[dave1004]

I have an unstable Internet connection that hovers at 0.20 Mbps download and 900-1500 ping, that has a hard cap of 200 MB/24h. Not tell me, why am I not playing multi player? Because it sucks! I can't stand playing on-line with other people. I like to be in my own little world, not in a world full of douches.