Poll: Does campaign matter anymore?

[mweissm]

Me and my friends were getting in a argument recently about whether campaign really matters anymore to make a game great. The argument was about the soon to be released Modern Warfare 3 and I was wondering that if all the developers working on it will actually spend as much time on it as they should. Having a Xbox myself I was always into the more of the story myself but he honestly doesn't care. His opinion is that it doesn't even need a campaign as long as the multiplayer is good. However, I strongly disagree as I always play the campaign first and always go back to it. I am not saying that a game with a bad story is bad, just not great. Please post of all your responses in the poll and I would love to hear your feedback.
Thanks.

 

[ZeroMachine]

Vast majority of the time, a game needs a single player mode or else it won't sell as well. Not only does it supply something to those of us that like enjoy solitary gaming more than multiplayer, as well as stories, it can act as a bit of a "get used to the controls" thing for those that play the multiplayer.

It is very, very rare that a game survives on multiplayer alone.

That being said, those that do are wildly successful, so if it's done right, it's done right.

 

[Kahunaburger]

It depends - I think CoD's campaign is pretty fun (although it feels like it was written by Tom Clancy with brain damage) and really enjoy co-op campaigns in Halo. Bad Company 2 is my current multiplayer shooter of choice but the campaign is terrible.

 

[Erana]

Of course it does matter in gaming. If you're going to make a campaign/multiplayer game, and one of these components is sorely lacking, then it can't really be a masterpiece of AAA gaming. If someone wants to focus on multiplayer, they should go TF2's route and perfect everything they set out to do.
The thing is, Campaign is world-building. You'd be hard-pressed to create a well-developed, serious fictional world without a narrative. TF2 can get away with it because its so silly. A multiplayer-only FPS that can reach the depth of games with campaign modes would prolly be well into full-out art territory.

Your friend is simply being disrespectful of the opinions of people who disagree with him.

 

[dyre]

Well, I guess it doesn't matter too much in mindless shooters, but it does matter in most genres. Still, most people appreciate a good campaign. I doubt you get cool snowmobile races or white house takeovers in multiplayer.

In fact, I ONLY play the campaigns in shooters, though I recognize a large number of gamers only play CoD for its multiplayer.

 

[Innegativeion]

Unless a game is designed specifically for multiplayer, nothing else (see TF2, Dota 2, League of Legends, most fighting games which despite having a tacked on campaign fall into this category) the campaign should be treated with as much intelligence and respect as the multiplayer, if not more.

And if a game IS only after multiplayer, it better damn well have some kick ass multiplayer.

 

[mweissm]

That being said the COD franchise does have a single player mode but has always been bad storyline wise. The gameplay of it has been just about fair to mediocre and most people just pick up COD like games for the multiplayer. The only reason why people play it is because of the achievements or trophies.

 

[Spartan448]

It depends on the game. With the Modern Warefare series, the story was... curious at best. The series could've sold just as well as MP only, instead of fantasizing about WWIII, and essentially offending every nation that it takes place in, with an "America is the best guyz and you can't beat us lolololz" attitude (And this is coming from an American).

The Halo series, however, started with an inviting and somewhat addictive campain (I won't say it was THAT good, although there were an above-average # of levels that blew me away... and one that annoyed me to hell.), and as such, it was pretty much a requirement by the fans that every Halo game continue the campaign.

And then, with games like Final Fantasy, Assassins Creed, and Portal, if you don't have campaign, every person who has ever played the games will go to your headquarters and burn it down... with lemons.

Other games like TF2 would really have no point in having a campaign, unless you are planning on making it essentially all comedy, like the popular web series Red vs. Blue.

 

[Dexiro]

It varies between games, there's no solid criteria for whether a game should or should not have single player. Shooters like CoD and TF2 really don't need a single player mode, but I guess it wouldn't hurt too much.

Also you better be bloody careful with the question "Does Campaign matter in big budget games such as COD?". I damn hope you're only talking about games like CoD, you know there are thousands of perfectly good big budget single player games out there right? In most games it's the multiplayer that doesn't matter much.

 

[bombadilillo]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I would rather they DONT have a campaign because I love SP and wish they would make multiplayer games only multiplayer. I am tried of token campaigns. Its offense. If you arent going to put in the time to make a decent sp game then don't bother. I want sp only games and mp only games. Make them both nice and polished instead of one or both being crap.

 

[Irriduccibilli]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I would rather they DONT have a campaign because I love SP and wish they would make multiplayer games only multiplayer. I am tried of token campaigns. Its offense. If you arent going to put in the time to make a decent sp game then don't bother. I want sp only games and mp only games. Make them both nice and polished instead of one or both being crap.

That would be your Bioshock 2 *wink wink*

Campaign matters IF the game is both singleplayer and multiplayer. As Bombadilillo said, if you dont spend enough time on either part then dont even bother, either skip the singleplayer (The Call of Duty situation) or skip the multiplayer (Crysis 2). Make them both great or dont bother.

 

[Fiad]

Yes, I play games for the story first. I will not even touch multiplayer until I have completed the campaign. There are exceptions, such as TF2, but I primarily play games to enjoy the story mode. Nothing angers me more than people who buy a game and never even play the campaign, just going straight to multiplayer and never coming back.

 

[Darius Brogan]

A Campaign in a video-game absolutely matters.

Any game I've played built specifically around multi-player has seemed very hollow, with a lot of padding around the edges to make it seem more whole. That is not to say that they're bad games, but I've never been able to get into a game for the sole purpose of killing someone with no rhyme or reason behind it.
I feel I need a story to work through, else the game just seems... stagnant.
Hell, even in Halo I view CTF, Slayer, ect... as more of a war game than an actual battle...Until your enemies play as the Covenant, then it's more of a battle, because you actually have enemies.

 

[Terminate421]

Of course it does. What else is there to do when the internet shuts off and there is no XBL and but I am in the mood for a game?

 

[Jack and Calumon]

You can have either, just make sure you do it right. They are both relevant. Evidence is Bioshock in terms of Single player and Counter Strike for Multiplayer. They didn't even glance at the other end of the Playing spectrum, and still they sold millions. All because of a little elbow grease, a gamers wallet and the fact they were awesome.

Calumon: People say I'm being anti social when I play alone, but when I play with people, they be anti-social to me.

 

[Iwata]

Of course it matters. I buy games for the single-player, and the multiplayer can go die in a fire. If a game has no singleplayer at all, then it's guaranteed I'm not buying it, no matter how good it may look.

 

[Jamash]

Without the campaign, a game like COD wouldn't be 'big budget'.

I think that about 75% of the production cost and time goes into the single player campaign, so without the need to hire voice actors, write stories, produce cut-scenes, design narrative levels with set pieces etc. then a game like COD could be produced at a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time it takes now.

Producing a game that entirely consisted of enclosed multiplayer maps without the need of any particular common theme or setting (from the story) would be a lot cheaper and quicker than what they make now, but would the developers or publishers go with that, would they be prepared to make a game that only justifies a small budget?

 

[Wireframefool]

I would have to say that it depends on the game, if it's mostly a single player game.. then uh, yeah! Of course. But if the game's main selling point is it's multiplayer, than it isn't as important. Hell, I'd say there should be more multiplayer only games so they don't have to worry about a hastily added on single player.