Poll: Do you still play a shooter's campaign?

[Roxor]

I'm one of those people who thinks multiplayer support without bots is a waste of development time. I'll happily play through the single-player, but once I finish that, if I find the multiplayer lacks bots, then I get steamed.

 

[Traun]

This struck me, why only multiplayer, but then again you aren't a gamer, but 90 percent of the people in the escapist are gamers right? so I ask you now, do you still play the campaign or just the multiplayer?
EDIT as the results are going, it seems clear to me that the general gamer audience does play shooters for what they are.

So if you never played the single-player of a game you aren't a gamer? Nice to see we respect each other here...

 

[easternflame]

This struck me, why only multiplayer, but then again you aren't a gamer, but 90 percent of the people in the escapist are gamers right? so I ask you now, do you still play the campaign or just the multiplayer?
EDIT as the results are going, it seems clear to me that the general gamer audience does play shooters for what they are.

So if you never played the single-player of a game you aren't a gamer? Nice to see we respect each other here...

No, by no means, what I mean is that in my school they weren't gamers. I wanted to know if GAMERS didn't play the campaign, maybe you like RpGs and you like multiplayer but not single player. don't jump to conclusions...

 

[Kiefer13]

Always. For some games (e.g. the Call of Duty series), it's the only decent part of the game.

 

[tsb247]

I generally find the campaigns of most shooters enjoyable. I play the campaign, and then I scope out multiplayer. If it's decent, I will play it until it dies off or I find somethiing better.

Then again, I play ArmA 2 almost exclusively... The EDITOR is what makes that game truly great! If you don't like the campaign, either make your own or download one!

 

[Merkavar]

i think your wasting money if you dont play the campaign. most games campaigns are like 3-6 hours nowadays. and it familiarises you to the controls, the guns and abilities like prone jumping or stuff.

so you dont look like a complete noob in multiplayer.

 

[Sacman]

The only thing I play is the campaign... unless it's something like TF2 where it's just multiplayer but for Half price... I hate it when there is a campaign but it's just a glorified tutorial for the multiplayer... I'm looking at you CoD... I'm not paying $60 for what is essentially a quarter of a game... drop that to $30 and maybe we'll talk...<.<

 

[sneakypenguin]

I don't waste my time on the campaign, MP is just so interesting, dynamic and hysterical that playing the campaign in shooters is a huge letdown.

 

[Iron Mal]

I am with Yahtzee on this one a game needs to stand on single player alone any multi player feature is just that an added feature that I may or may not choose to use.

By the same token one could say that of the single player, it is entirely possible that the single player campaign is just an extra feature that you may or may not choose to use (look at Unreal Tournament or the Battlefield series, both are examples of games where the single player is essentially just multiplayer with bots enabled and a tacked on narrative).

A game shouldn't stand up because of it's single player or multiplayer alone, a game should stand up because it's good no matter how many people you choose to play it with (or not in the case of the single player), bashing a game for focusing on the multiplayer is just as narrow minded and stupid as bashing a game for putting too much empasis on singleplayer.

 

[Jaidenator]

I've only got Live recently so i've always been in it for the singleplayer

 

[TilMorrow]

Well it seems pretty pointless to buy a game for the multiplayer side only and single player campaigns are almost always really good. (Doom, Halo, BFBC, GOW and Tom Clancy's stuff are good examples)

However if someone went for a shooter game just for its multiplayer then it seems like it would be a waste of money. Especially if the MP isn't well done and balanced *cough* MAG *cough*.

 

[xDarc]

I only buy shooters for multiplayer. After 16 years, I couldn't care less.

The improvement in monster/enemy AI from 1994 to 2010 doesn't amount to a pile of mouse droppings IMHO.

In fact, I'll take fireball lobbing imps over chest-high-wall snooze fests any day.

Give it time, you'll burn out too.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Always play the single player first, if only there is one.
I mostly enjoy story games, and if there is no story to it then I like to get a feel for the game before jumping online.
But I do miss bots for local matches, because MP usually differs alot from SP you end up going into matches completely oblivious to what you're doing.

 

[Chris^^]

snip

you didn't give the option for 'I play campaign then maybe the multiplayer', thats how I go with FPS games.. if I enjoy the gameplay enough then I'll give it a go with multiplayer, otherwise it's all campaign for me..

Dude its right there, I play campaign then multiplater

sorry I was being petty, needed the 'maybe' =P

 

[Sinker]

I am with Yahtzee on this one a game needs to stand on single player alone any multi player feature is just that an added feature that I may or may not choose to use.

By the same token one could say that of the single player, it is entirely possible that the single player campaign is just an extra feature that you may or may not choose to use (look at Unreal Tournament or the Battlefield series, both are examples of games where the single player is essentially just multiplayer with bots enabled and a tacked on narrative).
A game shouldn't stand up because of it's single player or multiplayer alone, a game should stand up because it's good no matter how many people you choose to play it with (or not in the case of the single player), bashing a game for focusing on the multiplayer is just as narrow minded and stupid as bashing a game for putting too much empasis on singleplayer.

Actually no it is reasonable to bash a game for lacking a single player feature my enjoyment of a game should not be based solely on the actions of other people which is what happens when one plays multiplayer. Sure sometimes its great but other times you play with screaming ten year old children. If I shell out sixty dollars for a new game and find I can't play it with out being called some broken homophobic racial slur then that would be money wasted. So if a developer gives me a game and says we cut out the single player campaign so we could focus on muliplayer I say give me my money back.

 

[LaMer]

Campaign. To paraphrase: A good game has to stand on singleplayer alone.
Some shooters I'll give the multiplayer a go, I even enjoy some multiplayer-shooters like Team Fortress 2 and Quake Live. But normally if I buy a game at full price with my limited economy, I expect the single-player to hold up on it's own.

Yep. This is why Croshaw is my favorite reviewer.

 

[CrashBang]

I always play the campaign before the multiplayer, except in BFBC2 cos that campaign was dire. But in CoD and Halo the campaign is usually really fun so yeah, especially in Black Ops, the campaign fucking rocked

 

[Iron Mal]

Actually no it is reasonable to bash a game for lacking a single player feature my enjoyment of a game should not be based solely on the actions of other people which is what happens when one plays multiplayer. Sure sometimes its great but other times you play with screaming ten year old children. If I shell out sixty dollars for a new game and find I can't play it with out being called some broken homophobic racial slur then that would be money wasted. So if a developer gives me a game and says we cut out the single player campaign so we could focus on muliplayer I say give me my money back.

Now, because I like you I'll share a little secret nugget of wisdom that I have aquired over many years of observation, gameplay, suffering through crap games, enjoying great games, reading forums, wrting on forums, reading and writing reviews (including a brief time as a forum mod on a friend's site), intense thought and reflection and other such things.

I have been disappointed on many, many more occasions by singleplayer games than I have been by multiplayer games.

As a general rule, if a multiplayer game is crap, no-one will play it (meaning that I also can't play it).

Ever hear of Timeshift's multiplayer? How about Dark Messiah's? What about Quake Wars?

If a single player game is shit, you have only yourself to blame for sitting through it (this may be why we can all think of several horrible single player games but not so many multiplayer games that will make you seethe with rage due to their infinate badness).

Resident Evil: Dead Aim anyone? How about Blue Dragon? Bloodwings: Pumpkinhead's Revenge?

If all it takes to throw you off of an otherwise alright game is a bunch of whiney kids with headsets then I think you probably need to reasess your standards (or at least learn where the mute button is).

 

[bushwhacker2k]

I've never been a very competitive person, so the mass PvP environment that multiplayer is doesn't generally appeal to me for shooters. So 95% of the time I'm only doing the campaign.