FPS and single player
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
story mode is pretty much the only reason i play shotters so its pretty important to me. the day that an entire genre goes under like that is the day I take up jrpg's... ugh...
I'm not sure what exactly you mean.
Are you saying you'd prefer the FPS with solely single player or just feel that lately FPS single players haven't been upto par on campaigns?
If its the latter, I agree. Then again, the genre has been pretty much dominated by Call of Duty, and as a result, we find most developers trying to emulate the same experience in their games.
I think most FPS from now on, are going to have multiplayer as a big component. We can only expect strong single player campaigns from titles like BioShock; or new franchises that need the single player to make a name for themselves.
As for your question...
No
[small][small]It will be interesting to see how bulletstorm turns out though[/small][/small]
Are you saying you'd prefer the FPS with solely single player or just feel that lately FPS single players haven't been upto par on campaigns?
If its the latter, I agree. Then again, the genre has been pretty much dominated by Call of Duty, and as a result, we find most developers trying to emulate the same experience in their games.
I think most FPS from now on, are going to have multiplayer as a big component. We can only expect strong single player campaigns from titles like BioShock; or new franchises that need the single player to make a name for themselves.
As for your question...
No
[small][small]It will be interesting to see how bulletstorm turns out though[/small][/small]
Singleplayer is an almost entirely subjective experience. Whether or not you enjoy an FPS' campaign depends mostly on you.
So they're not, and are unlikely to ever become, a thing of the past. People will keep making FPS single player campaigns, which some people will like and some won't. But going and saying "singleplayer in FPS games is dead!" (which I've seen some people do) is... I think the best term is "doom-mongering".
So they're not, and are unlikely to ever become, a thing of the past. People will keep making FPS single player campaigns, which some people will like and some won't. But going and saying "singleplayer in FPS games is dead!" (which I've seen some people do) is... I think the best term is "doom-mongering".
Judgeing from what I hear of the Crysis 2 leak, it sounds like it has a pretty solid SP.
Please don't ban me.
Please don't ban me.
thats what I ment, 5 hour campaign is hardly worth it if oyu dont like multiplayerBradd94 said:
I am kinda interested in Bulletstorm (wont be getting it anytime soon due to money) I dont know if it has decent singple player, its its trying to get away from the whole COD thing I thourght that it might
I kinda hear what you're saying. Most games are going down the MP route with the likes of Halo and CoD and use their SP campaigns basically as MP 'trainers', a brief 5-6 hour bulletfest to get players prepared for the main event. But other games are staying the course and focusing on SP, either mainly or solely - Metro: 2033 is a brilliant example of this, and I'd even argue (against my previous point!) that the campaign in CoD4 was engaging enough to at least claim IW split the gaming experience 50/50 on that one.
The industry is geared towards continuing the MP trend, however. With the influx of 'casual' gamers into the market these days gaming is becoming more of a social activity, which of course means more attention is being paid to the more social gamemode, whether co-op or competitive.
The industry is geared towards continuing the MP trend, however. With the influx of 'casual' gamers into the market these days gaming is becoming more of a social activity, which of course means more attention is being paid to the more social gamemode, whether co-op or competitive.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R
And I'd leave it at that, but the mods might send me to hell for low content.
Problem is - a lot of games are playing by profit under their publishers and company directive: make it super pretty, super easy to play and get into, and as similar as possible to the most popular thing around this side of the decade - it's possibly one of the things I hate about gaming in this decade; Trends. Almost every game made these days follow popular trends; and thus- I can never buy a new game regretting that it's too much like every other game I had bought within the last year or so.
And then of course- way too much focus has been put into multiplayer - and I am quite certain that this is also very motivated by profit; no multiplayer or a lack of focus on it means that people can't get all their friends in on it and maximise sales for the publisher. I can see a massive exodus of FPS from deep and immersive singleplayer to mindless multiplayer fragfests. Our FPS games are actually LOSING singleplayer hours- that's definitely a trend we can't miss - FPS games are now having this strange trait of being 6 hours or less in single-player time. To me this is just lazy profiteering because they are just counting on the multiplayer to keep sales up.
Actually- I also thought Wolfenstein: Return to Castle had an awesome story too. I mean; what's not to like? Nazis, zombies, super soldiers and etc - and that was a very immersive game.
The saddest thing now is that, there are so few FPS games we can count on to have amazing single-player modes - I love a game for its story and it's willingness to make me want to BE the character in the game, guns blazing and kicking ass. Nowadays, we're mostly just waiting for HL:EP3 to come out and possibly praying for the designers to undermine their overlords and make the best story-driven FPS ever made.
In fact, I challenge a game design company/studio/etc to make the best story-driven FPS ever made that is NOT Half-Life (I have nothing against HL, but if that is all we'll be looking forward to in single-player FPS, then the future of gaming is dim indeed).
And I'd leave it at that, but the mods might send me to hell for low content.
Problem is - a lot of games are playing by profit under their publishers and company directive: make it super pretty, super easy to play and get into, and as similar as possible to the most popular thing around this side of the decade - it's possibly one of the things I hate about gaming in this decade; Trends. Almost every game made these days follow popular trends; and thus- I can never buy a new game regretting that it's too much like every other game I had bought within the last year or so.
And then of course- way too much focus has been put into multiplayer - and I am quite certain that this is also very motivated by profit; no multiplayer or a lack of focus on it means that people can't get all their friends in on it and maximise sales for the publisher. I can see a massive exodus of FPS from deep and immersive singleplayer to mindless multiplayer fragfests. Our FPS games are actually LOSING singleplayer hours- that's definitely a trend we can't miss - FPS games are now having this strange trait of being 6 hours or less in single-player time. To me this is just lazy profiteering because they are just counting on the multiplayer to keep sales up.
Actually- I also thought Wolfenstein: Return to Castle had an awesome story too. I mean; what's not to like? Nazis, zombies, super soldiers and etc - and that was a very immersive game.
The saddest thing now is that, there are so few FPS games we can count on to have amazing single-player modes - I love a game for its story and it's willingness to make me want to BE the character in the game, guns blazing and kicking ass. Nowadays, we're mostly just waiting for HL:EP3 to come out and possibly praying for the designers to undermine their overlords and make the best story-driven FPS ever made.
In fact, I challenge a game design company/studio/etc to make the best story-driven FPS ever made that is NOT Half-Life (I have nothing against HL, but if that is all we'll be looking forward to in single-player FPS, then the future of gaming is dim indeed).
Tell me more about Metro: 2033 - I always looked at it with curiosity and hoped it would be anything like S.T.A.L.K.E.R - yet original to its own; I know they're both based somewhere in/around Russia and involves the apocalypse of some sort and mutants, but doesn't mean you can't do anything original with that.Grouchy Imp said:
I was just never able to find any more information about how good Metro: 2033 might be...
As always, singleplayer is all that interests me in a game 99% of the time.
To answer your question about Bulletstorm, the singleplayer is a blast. Nevermind the fact that the story is a load of bollocks on a skillet, the gameplay and over-the-top silliness of the whole thing make it all worth it.
I just hope the game will do well enough to show developers and publisher alike that it's ok to make something other than the dreary, 'realistic' Call-of-Duty-style shit we've been inundated with for the past few years. It's becoming the AAA equivalent of shovelware in my mind.
To answer your question about Bulletstorm, the singleplayer is a blast. Nevermind the fact that the story is a load of bollocks on a skillet, the gameplay and over-the-top silliness of the whole thing make it all worth it.
I just hope the game will do well enough to show developers and publisher alike that it's ok to make something other than the dreary, 'realistic' Call-of-Duty-style shit we've been inundated with for the past few years. It's becoming the AAA equivalent of shovelware in my mind.
How long is it? Cos I really want to get it but I can't really afford it and Dragon Age 2 is coming so I want to make sure I'll get my money's worth if I splash out!Sonicron said:
I think the best thing I can do is point you in the direction of a few reviews that ran on this site:SIXVI06-M said:
The official Escapist review:
[link]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.187901-Review-Metro-2033[/link]
And a user review:
[link]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.228809-Liberaliter-Reviews-Metro-2033[/link]
The main thing I found compelling was the sheer atmosphere of the game, as it depicted dishevelled survivors huddled together in the ruins of the Moscow metro system. Each station has become an island of humanity as the tunnels connecting them swarm with dangers, and as such factions have arisen in the isolated stations, warring between themselves evan as mutated monsters hunt them from all sides. Most FPS games have the player set as a badass, an all-conquering hero who will eventually save the day, but Metro:2033 instead puts the player in situations where you feel always out of your depth, sometimes only a little and other times utterly.
I would recommend it without any hesitation.
...except Halo has always cared about its campaigns and had an actual overarching story and background universe it explores.Grouchy Imp said:
Can't speak for Call of Duty... but my friend JourneyThroughHell can, and he says the campaigns are typically the best part of the games. And since he's a big fan of CoD, that's saying a lot.
This goes back to what I said in my previous post: it's all subjective when it comes to singleplayer. Come to think of it, it's all subjective when it comes to multiplayer, too. In fact, enjoyment of a game is pretty much all subjective. Getting story or gameplay mechanics so brilliant or terrible you can objectively call them brilliant or terrible is rare - usually it all comes down to preference.
The one thing I can think of that isn't subjective is graphics.
Ah, but then you get onto the subjective point of whether graphics are important.OhJohnNo said:
Sorry, I couldn't resist that. You are right, of course. Gaming in (nearly?) all it's aspects is subjective to the player, and a rewarding experience for one will be a shallow washout for another. When it comes down to it, this is a trait gaming shares with every other entertainment medium.
I'm glad we agree. Wasn't in the mood for an argument anyway.Grouchy Imp said:
I guess what I was trying to get at was:
Singleplayer FPS games don't need to make a comeback, because they never went away. Pretty much every FPS has a singleplayer. Whether or not you LIKE these singleplayers is another matter entirely.Vault101 said:
Is there anything in particular you want from a singleplayer FPS? Right now your criteria are a bit broad for a proper recommendation.
From what I saw of Bulletstorm, it looks kind of dull to me. Your only objective seems to be to earn points, the character's are trying way too hard to be better than Duke King Nukem, and you have to spend as lengthy a time as possible killing each enemy just so you can accomplish that primary objective, doing the lengthiest and most violent things you can in the brief window of time you have to fight each lifeless grunt that comes screaming your way. Oh, and you can't die (not on the demo's difficulty anyway).
Other than that, I'd like to type more but I'm all out of time; I like Single Player, and look to single player to provide a gaming experience that doesn't involve a bunch of asshats running around thinking they're hard because they're using virtual guns to digitally kill members of an opposing force. Of course, with Modern Warfare 2 gameplay saturating the market, right now even the single-player in most games have characters that boast that feature...
Which is why I really only play ARMA II now. Simulators are where gaming should be at, and ARMA II is a brilliant game. Though quite technical, that's what makes it good--you can do what you need to do to get the job done, you have the means to do it, and the resources available to use. Recommended to gamers who aren't trying to be zergling rushers, perfectionist pricks, or Final Fantasy fantasizers.
Oh, and Duke Nukem Forever will be awesome.
Other than that, I'd like to type more but I'm all out of time; I like Single Player, and look to single player to provide a gaming experience that doesn't involve a bunch of asshats running around thinking they're hard because they're using virtual guns to digitally kill members of an opposing force. Of course, with Modern Warfare 2 gameplay saturating the market, right now even the single-player in most games have characters that boast that feature...
Which is why I really only play ARMA II now. Simulators are where gaming should be at, and ARMA II is a brilliant game. Though quite technical, that's what makes it good--you can do what you need to do to get the job done, you have the means to do it, and the resources available to use. Recommended to gamers who aren't trying to be zergling rushers, perfectionist pricks, or Final Fantasy fantasizers.
Oh, and Duke Nukem Forever will be awesome.