Poll: Campaign or multiplayer?

[The Rusk]

What most influences you when deciding whether you like a game or not? Is it a well written, lengthy campaign or a stupidly addictive multiplayer? The example I'm going to use is Call of Duty 4.

Campaign - For some reason the campaign in this game gets a lot of flak and I'm not really sure why. It's long enough, it has a well written script with likeable characters, there's a lot of variety in the levels and it simply plays well.

Multiplayer - One of the best multiplayer games I've yet to experience. The levelling up system and the perks are well balanced and provides a fair amount of variety. The maps are good and the gameplay allows you to play however you want to play, without being biased to a certain style; eg. sniping. The lack of co-op is somewhat disappointing however.

For me the campaign is more important than the multiplayer seeing as it's what makes the game what it is. The campaign gives a meaning to the game, tells a story that makes you want to keep playing until you reach the end. The multiplayer is still important and is generally what gives a game its replay value, yet for me it always seems kind of pointless if it doesn't have a story to back it up.


P.S. I searched the forums for a similar post and didn't find one so don't berate me if this has been done before.

 

[SargentToughie]

I don't have any online connection, so I'm usually swayed by the campaign

 

[Aries_Split]

I think game developers need to start putting back great single player campaigns.


ONLINE.DOES.NOT.MAKE.A.GAME.

It can make a good game great, it can make a bad game fair. It can NOT make a shitty game a good one.

 

[Helmet]

Taking into account that I loathe the majority of people on Xbox Live, I'm going with campaign.

 

[The Rusk]

How about co-op?

I was thinking of including that in the main post, but I'd say if co-op is the thing you value most in a game then it counts as multiplayer.

 

[Humanfishboy]

I like CoD 4's campaign WAY better than I like it's multiplayer.

Halo 3's campaign sucked, but I like the multiplayer enough (it's also something i can play with my little brother). But generally I like to see a game with a good campaign, mindless multiplayer can get a little bit meh, very quickly.

 

[Joeshie]

I think game developers need to start putting back great single player campaigns.


ONLINE.DOES.NOT.MAKE.A.GAME.

It can make a good game great, it can make a bad game fair. It can NOT make a shitty game a good one.

Right, which is why Battlefield, Unreal Tournament, Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, World of Warcraft, and Guild Wars have been monumental failures and totally aren't considered some of the greatest or most well known games of all time, despite their lack of single-player.

I think you should try again.

 

[the monopoly guy]

Both is more important.

It doesn't really matter to me, I made a sacred vow to finish campaign before I played online.

...my fingers may or may not have been crossed.

 

[tk1989]

I think game developers need to start putting back great single player campaigns.


ONLINE.DOES.NOT.MAKE.A.GAME.

It can make a good game great, it can make a bad game fair. It can NOT make a shitty game a good one.

Does tht mean that all online only games are shitty? jk

I know where ur coming from; i generally find that the single player campaigns in most games today are too linear, basic and boring. Half the time i feel like my hand is being held as i go through the levels with ease. While multiplayer is important in regards to replayability and lengthening a game, a game needs a strong campaign mode, something you don't see very often today...

 

[meatloaf231]

How about co-op?

I was thinking of including that in the main post, but I'd say if co-op is the thing you value most in a game then it counts as multiplayer.

Technically though, Co-op is not the thing the multiplayer-lovers value, as it is not nearly the same experience. Multiplayer is usually considered to be the whole competetive, kill each other, steal the flag thing.

Co-op is really important, because it makes the single player a whole lot more awesome. Co-op is a whole separate category.

 

[The Rusk]

I think game developers need to start putting back great single player campaigns.


ONLINE.DOES.NOT.MAKE.A.GAME.

It can make a good game great, it can make a bad game fair. It can NOT make a shitty game a good one.

Right, which is why the Battlefield and the UT series have been monumental failures and totally aren't considered some of the greatest games of all time, despite their lack of single-player.

I think you should try again.

I think the original point was that games that are focused on both the campaign and multiplayer have to make sure both are done well. Sure there are games like Unreal which are focused solely on multiplayer but they're a whole different breed of games. They don't have a campaign because they don't require one seeing as the gameplay is designed for online multiplayer.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Both is more important.

It doesn't really matter to me, I made a sacred vow to finish campaign before I played online.

...my fingers may or may not have been crossed.

Yeah, every game I get I finish the campaign for before I get online. Partly to make sure I have some skill at it, partly (on the 360) to get some achievements, and partly to make sure I get the most of what I paid for. How much of the production cost is the campaign?

I LOVE co-op, I get 7 friends around occasionaly and link up 2 360s for a halo 3 fest. Since it's the ONLY new gen game in my collection that supports system link.

 

[Lt. Sera]

Seeing as a lot of games these days seem to have a lackluster single player/campaign, i'd say multiplayer seems to be the most important one. Personally, I'd rather have a good solid campaign.

 

[Church256]

I buy games for single player unless recommended by friends for the multiplayer. I don't really want to have some idiot screaming at me because I'm not following his divine plan for the game which would get us all killed. I prefer private matches with friends having fun to being slaughtered by people who waste thier lives trying to be the best by cheating or glitching.

 

[NeedAUserName]

I think game developers need to start putting back great single player campaigns.


ONLINE.DOES.NOT.MAKE.A.GAME.

It can make a good game great, it can make a bad game fair. It can NOT make a shitty game a good one.

One Word : Counter-Strike
Two Words : War Hawk
Three Words : World of Warcraft
(I can go on)

 

[unholy vagrant]

I care more about the campaign. Multiplayer has a habbit of making companies focus on it, and it creates a lack-luster single player experience. This sucks as I refuse to pay to play online and I don't have a PS3.

 

[z121231211]

I definately prefer campaign more than online multiplayer. There's enough online multiplayer games.

 

[The Rusk]

How about co-op?

I was thinking of including that in the main post, but I'd say if co-op is the thing you value most in a game then it counts as multiplayer.

Technically though, Co-op is not the thing the multiplayer-lovers value, as it is not nearly the same experience. Multiplayer is usually considered to be the whole competetive, kill each other, steal the flag thing.

Co-op is really important, because it makes the single player a whole lot more awesome. Co-op is a whole separate category.

I'd disagree and say that co-op would technically be classed as multiplayer. The term multiplayer has taken on a general meaning of what you described but technically co-op is still multiplayer. That's another thing that seems to be dying out in games now as well, the option to play split screen co-op. Everyone keeps raving about online co-op but it's ridiculous seeing as most of my friends don't own a 360. What happened to the days of sitting down with a mate (IN THE SAME ROOM) and playing through a game together?

 

[Arcticflame]

Multiplayer.

Because I enjoy MMO's, Multiplayer FPS and RTS.

And they tend to be the genres where the multiplayer makes the game.