Good reason. It's pretty much why he's one of my favourites too. Also because, well... I'll always prefer local at-the-tv multiplayer, where you can just reach across the sofa and slap whoever you play with for hogging all the powerups.xRBEASTx said:
Poll: Do you still play a shooter's campaign?
- Thread starter easternflame
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OI do. I mean, you paid for it, and you might as well get accustomed to the controls. So why not?
besides, trophies/awards/achievements and such.
besides, trophies/awards/achievements and such.
The only shooters I've enjoyed were Fallout 3 and New Vegas, mostly because they aren't shooters (yes, there's shooting and yes, it's in first person, but even with "true iron sights" New Vegas has a long way to go to reach the level of even a basic FPS---it's a cross between an RPG and a straightforward GTA/Mafia-style action adventure game.)
Just wondering: have you ever played the original F.E.A.R.? Because if you haven't, it's worth checking out, if only because the A.I. is so intelligent. At times, it feels more like a puzzle game where your goal is to outsmart the opposition than it does a standard FPS. The second game had dumber, more COD like A.I., but the first one is still really impressive. It's cheap too -- the non-sale price on Steam is $9.99, and that includes both expansion packs. I paid $20 for a used copy of the game and the first expansion before it was available on Steam, and I absolutely felt like I got my money's worth.xDarc said:
I usually only buy shooters for their multiplayer, though I do play through the campaign once I've grown bored of multiplayer. I almost never play the campaign first, because the campaign is generally the less awesome portion of a shooter these days.
If you don't play, or at least try out the campaign you're taking value out of your game. TF2's seldom played single player campaigns had some of my memorable gaming experiences.
If a shooter can't stand up on its solo gameplay alone, it has no business existing in this world.
Hmm... sounds a bit extreme doesn't it. what I meant to say was
IF A SHOOTER CAN'T STAND UP ON ITS SOLO GAMEPLAY ALONE, IT HAS NO BUSINESS EXISTING. IN. THIS. WORLD!
Hmm... sounds a bit extreme doesn't it. what I meant to say was
IF A SHOOTER CAN'T STAND UP ON ITS SOLO GAMEPLAY ALONE, IT HAS NO BUSINESS EXISTING. IN. THIS. WORLD!
Right on.Roxor said:
I always complete the campaign before playing online, in fact I've been playing Black Ops' campaign a lot recently to get all the trophies.
I still disagree with you sir but at this juncture I have decided that a continuation of trying to change your mind would be unsuccessful; our sides have been chosen and neither of us stand to gain from continuing this argument. So I will leave by saying that I respectfully disagree but will offer no further views on this subject. Good day to you sir.Iron Mal said:
Signed,
Sinker.
If you play with children you've got to expect....well, children. What exactly is your point here? Which isn't to say I don't understand where you're coming from, just that you're not proposing any sort of solution. unless your solution is to just not play multiplayer at all which seems pretty weak to me.Dr. McD said:
What what what? TF2 has single player?Pumpkin_Eater said:
While I respect your point (and your very formal and respectful manner) it should be noted that there is always point and gain to an arguement, arguements force us to defend our opinions and ways of thinking, in doing so we have to re-evaluate our opinion and beliefs, look at the faults in our thinking and ask ourselves 'why did I agree with this in the first place?'.Sinker said:
Discussions like this (in my experience) always end in either you finding that maybe your thinking doesn't quite sound right now, so you form a new opinion that you agree with more, or that you have rethought your original standpoint and have now gained a deeper understanding of it as a result of having to argue it with someone who disagrees.
You're either incredably lazy or incredably naive (possibly both).Dr. McD said:
You are dealing with children, unsupervised on the internet, what more did you expect other than for them to turn out to be vile little shits with mouths like hardened storm troopers?
If having to deal with people who say hurtful and insulting things bothers you, there is a mute button, or better yet, don't plug in a damn headset.
Both of these are incredably easy and simple solutions, neither is technically difficult or physically straining, you have no excuse for having a problem with these (it's not as if you have to install a ABX21-TYPE-A node into the NEXUS-hive mind core and run the installer wizard, I'd understand and sympathise if that was the case).
To me it just sounds like you're looking for something to complain about.
That's a massive oversimplification (the whole 'it's only fun because your friends are fun' thing that is), watching paint dry with friends isn't actually fun (I should know, I've done it), it's sitting around and chatting with your friends that's fun (it just so happens that you're watching paint dry at the same time although you'll probably all be commenting on how boring it is), the same applies to games.Dr. McD said:
As I've said before, multiplayer games have a form of self-regulation that singleplayer games don't have in the way of if the game isn't interesting or enjoyable then no-one will play it so you won't be able to play it either (try to get into a game of Quake 4 on the Xbox 360, you'll be waiting for a very long time), as much as we like to complain about games like CoD and Halo being boring, unoriginal and lowest common denominator they actually are all pretty good in both single and multiplayer (there are a lot of people who enjoy their campaigns and thousands and thousands of people still play these games even when they've been out for several years, look at CoD4, it's been overshadowed by MW2 and Black Ops yet there is still a large number of people playing online and it is still widely popular).
About your claim of all shooters doing the same thing that everyone else has done, that's not true.
Look at Bioshock 2's multiplayer (as broken and unbalanced as it is), it was an interesting attempt to bring a seperate story and narrative into the multiplayer with seperate characters who gain more backstory as you level up by way of audio logs like the singleplayer but overall it seemed to forget that your rise from small, scared survivor to big, hulking titan of Rapture doesn't really translate well into deathmatch style multiplayer. I can tell you that playing this game will get irritating for most people without even having to play a single game (although I have played a fair few to lend some extra weight to my observation).
Look at Borderlands' vast, open-world, Diablo II style co-op shooting. It encouraged teamwork and co-operation yet still allowed players a certain level of independance and freedom as well as a limited form of 'personalisation' to their character (in the form of unique weapons, class mods, elemental upgrades, skill trees etc.) mixed with some genuinely funny characters and moments (as well as some immature ones but who ever said that was a bad thing?). People still take issue with this game for a 'lack of depth' (mostly because there's little characterisation, some of the missions are rinse and repeat and the only sign of any plot is a bunch of completely skippable text boxes) although this 'lack of depth' never really bothered me and the game only got boring for me after you've been playing it for a few hours solidly.
The former game tried something unique with the multiplayer to bring it closer to the singleplayer experience and suffered as a result, the latter departed fro the standard shooter formula and brought it closer to being like an MMORPG like World of Warcraft and it was an immensely more fun and memorable game as a result.
I tend to ignore multiplayer unless it's me and my friends on a LAN, I can't stand any other sort... Mainly due to the rather pathetic gamers that feel the need to constantly spout swear words, sexism and racism.