Poll: A question for the online shooter community?
- Thread starter CatmanStu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I always play the campaign mode, so, no campaign = me not buying (unless it's genuinely dirt cheap, like the skinflint MF that I am)
Seriously, though, I can't get myself to MMO it that often because the lack of genuine co-op-ing that pervades servers is annoying. I tend to LAN it with around eight to twelve other guys (plus the occasional girl) as it's more fun, and leads to much less rage-quitting and much more friendly insults, as opposed to heartfelt insults which other players won't even hear let alone acknowledge.
This means more offline play, naturally, so a strong single-player campaign (e.g. CoD-MW which was awesome in both areas) Consequently, I will not and never will get Black Ops.
Seriously, though, I can't get myself to MMO it that often because the lack of genuine co-op-ing that pervades servers is annoying. I tend to LAN it with around eight to twelve other guys (plus the occasional girl) as it's more fun, and leads to much less rage-quitting and much more friendly insults, as opposed to heartfelt insults which other players won't even hear let alone acknowledge.
This means more offline play, naturally, so a strong single-player campaign (e.g. CoD-MW which was awesome in both areas) Consequently, I will not and never will get Black Ops.
I play the multiplayer first, and then the story.
Always.
I haven't qotten Reach yet because I need to finish ODST first.
I probably would buy it if the sinqleplayer were taken out, but I wouldn't enjoy it as much.
there would have to be some other type of thinq such as very qood splitscreen or co op activities in order for me to buy it thouqh
Always.
I haven't qotten Reach yet because I need to finish ODST first.
I probably would buy it if the sinqleplayer were taken out, but I wouldn't enjoy it as much.
there would have to be some other type of thinq such as very qood splitscreen or co op activities in order for me to buy it thouqh
I always prefer the designers to emphasize on the campaign rather than multiplayer. I still like multiplayer, but it should just be the icing on the cake. For me, the story is the core of the game. I think Halo does a good job balancing multiplayer and story, especially recently with Reach.
Me too, as long as hippies are not within an ingame mile of me. I have a feeling there would be a lot of headlines regarding that, should that ever be established.Anarchemitis said:
OT: Well, if the game offers a singleplayer experience, I tend to play it sooner or later, so yeah, you'll usually catch me shooting through the story first, and go to the fragfests later. Though, there was the exception of Unreal Championship 2, and Goldeneye, but those are the only two which I haven't played the singleplayer of it first.
On the contrary, beating up the hippies would be the best part! That or the best grind.Magnatek said:
I didn't play the campaign for Halo 3, WaW, MW2, Reach, or Black Ops. Maybe a few levels in each but games that focus on MP tend to have pretty lifeless campaigns IMO. If I want a campaign I'll go for the BioShock, Metro 2033, Fallout-style story-driven games, not the mindless shooters.
That said I would NEVER pay 60 dollars for a game that was basically just Counter Strike, maybe like 30 would be a fair price for a multi-only game.
That said I would NEVER pay 60 dollars for a game that was basically just Counter Strike, maybe like 30 would be a fair price for a multi-only game.
Well, OP, I would never pay $60 for any game. $20 is the most I'm willing to shell out for a single game, no matter how good it is, which is why I buy almost everything either used or through Steam. That said, sure, I'd be willing to pay the same amount for a multiplayer only game as I would any other game, as long as the multiplayer held up on its own. TF2 is a great example of a game like that.
Same, I've often thought how it could work, and it would be pretty damn awesome if they started putting out single player campaigns for each class with each of them having their own "origin" story or something, having to complete different objectives to prove themselves so they get hired to be on the team or something.(Example: Pyro must do single player missions to prove adeptness at spy-checking, building destruction, etc.)Anarchemitis said:
Well developers know that a games lifespan is in its online multiplayer. Why shouldn't they focus on that? Just look at the Left 4 Dead games - they essentially have no single player campaigns.
yes but, like most shooters, the people who bought the game mainly got it for the multiplayerOhJohnNo said:
I really do like a campaign, I always play it first, but it's not necessary.
It still loses points if it doesn't have one.
It still loses points if it doesn't have one.
I prefer a good co-op campaign to a multi-player death match so I probably wouldn't buy a shooter strictly for multi-player.
Hmmm while that is true, I Think also single player promotes the form of story telling other than games. Really anyone can make a multi-player game filled with everything. Though part of the multi-player is still reliant on a bit of story telling. Backgrounds of characters, why you are fighting etc. Plus, some people (I prefer) like a good video game story. I didn't play halo for the multi-player, I played it for the story and the Universe. I got Call of duty games (not black ops... yet) for the story, it seemed interesting and unique story telling.Geekosaurus said: