Poll: Do you still play a shooter's campaign?
- Thread starter easternflame
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Usually just the campaign. I get games like Call of Duty with the intention of playing the multiplayer, and then I just never do, because I'd rather just play something else that's single player.
I usually start with the campaign to get a feel for the controls before I jump into the multiplayer.
The set pieces are so fucking epic. I don't understand why people hate the campaigns and just play the online shiz...ToonLink said:
Especially BlOps. Sure the pacing is a bit crap but the prison breakout and everything else (don't want to spoil it in case anyone decides they DO want to play it) is awesome.
Intresting like assassin's creed brotherhood, which the multiplayer is everything that really matters of the gamerandomfox said:
Well most people have always gotten Call of Duty for the multiplayer adn thats the truth about it really. Very few get it for the single. I always play the single before the multiplayer as it helps me to get to know the weapons and gives me a general feel for the game and mechanics. Thsi really helps me as I usually come into games after release so nearly everyone has all weapons and has a massive experience advantage at knowing maps etc.
To me, I always play the story before multiplayer, and I sometimes never play the multiplayer at all.
I don't pay $50...or now, $60, just to experience half a game. I'm a PC gamer. I want what I bloody well paid for. Thank goodness for games like ARMA 2 and Fallout 3 where community and custom additions are supported and even encouraged. I love developers like that.
To be honest, I've been skipping the campaign as of late. Of course, this is highly dependent on the game I'm playing. For example, I'll be much more inclined to jump right into the multiplayer of Black Ops. However, for most other games I'll play through the campaign first.
Being a strong follower of Yatzeeism I never dwell in online multiplayer, but I am always up for a good split-screen game.
Judging from the poll results I can see why a lot of people here hate the CoD's we are having.
I play the campaign and then multi but I mainly play any game for the single player over their multi. Still waiting for a really good FPS with a story (Not 2033, that was ok)
I play the campaign and then multi but I mainly play any game for the single player over their multi. Still waiting for a really good FPS with a story (Not 2033, that was ok)
I disagree with Yahtzee that a game has to be able to stand on single player alone. That may be true of games focused on single player, but I wouldn't even want a campaign for an arena shooter like Quake III or the Unreal Tournament series, nor for something else that is equally multiplayer focused, like TF2. As a message to Yahtzee and all of his followers: if you don't like multiplayer, these multiplayer focused games are not for you. Go play Halflife, Bioshock, F.E.A.R., or any number of other games that are focused on the singleplayer, and have excellent campaigns, and leave the multiplayer games for the people who actually like playing against other human beings.
I personally consider it much better to get an incredible multiplayer experience than a game that has a campaign, but is mediocre as a whole. However, I occasionally play other games for the single player; for example, I'm in the middle of my first Half Life 2 playthrough at the moment. That said, I find online FPS games uniquely suited to a "pick up and play" playstyle. It's true that it takes a significant investment of time to get good at most shooters, but when that investment can be spread out over hundreds of sessions that last from about 10 minutes to however long you have time for a piece, it becomes much more attractive to people like me, who don't always have a big enough block of time to get sucked into a singleplayer game, even one that only has a 7 or 8 hour campaign. Other genres can be the other way around, with a single player game easily spread over dozens of short sessions, but a multiplayer game pretty much requiring an entire afternoon devoted to a single match *cough*4Xgames*cough*.
With an FPS, I'm more likely to put in 100+ hours on the multiplayer than the 10 or so it takes to beat the campaign, but this does not mean that I don't play the campaign; it just has to be a really good campaign for me to finish it. It also doesn't mean that I'll always spend more time on multiplayer than on singleplayer; for example, F.E.A.R. has a very good campaign, but the multiplayer was a severe disappointment. I guess my vote for the poll would be "it depends on the game," which really needs to be added to it.
I personally consider it much better to get an incredible multiplayer experience than a game that has a campaign, but is mediocre as a whole. However, I occasionally play other games for the single player; for example, I'm in the middle of my first Half Life 2 playthrough at the moment. That said, I find online FPS games uniquely suited to a "pick up and play" playstyle. It's true that it takes a significant investment of time to get good at most shooters, but when that investment can be spread out over hundreds of sessions that last from about 10 minutes to however long you have time for a piece, it becomes much more attractive to people like me, who don't always have a big enough block of time to get sucked into a singleplayer game, even one that only has a 7 or 8 hour campaign. Other genres can be the other way around, with a single player game easily spread over dozens of short sessions, but a multiplayer game pretty much requiring an entire afternoon devoted to a single match *cough*4Xgames*cough*.
With an FPS, I'm more likely to put in 100+ hours on the multiplayer than the 10 or so it takes to beat the campaign, but this does not mean that I don't play the campaign; it just has to be a really good campaign for me to finish it. It also doesn't mean that I'll always spend more time on multiplayer than on singleplayer; for example, F.E.A.R. has a very good campaign, but the multiplayer was a severe disappointment. I guess my vote for the poll would be "it depends on the game," which really needs to be added to it.
Depends on the game. I've never touched the bad company 2 campaign, but largely, most FPS games I don't touch the multiplayer of. Makes me sad that previously good franchises (like call of duty) have so utterly abandoned their singleplayer roots, because there's a real drought of good singleplayer FPS recently.
I play a lot of FPSs, but I don't play the multiplayer at all. Nothing against those who do but I simply don't see the point, so if I want online interaction with other people I'll play an MMO.
Doom is definitely awesome. After 15 years of gaming from the PS1 onwards it's still easily my favourite FPS.easternflame said: