Poll: It is foolish to expect a decent single-player campaign in an FPS.

[Thunderhorse31]

Agree or disagree?

This is admittedly a thinly-veiled attempt to question Homefront's campaign, but the same criticism can apply to recent entries in Call of Duty, Battlefield, Halo, etc.

I rented Homefront and started the campaign last night at 7pm, and finished by 11:30. Half of the chapters were boring even with the heavy narrative, but the other half were well-paced and pretty damned exciting. I was left with mixed-feelings about the whole thing. Decent story, decent gameplay, but atrocious length. That got me thinking:

Should I be satisfied with this single-player experience? Should I even care at all if an FPS campaign is short/weak/stupid/boring/nonsensical if it offers decent multiplayer as well? I mean, that's what everyone buys FPS games for anyway, right?

 

[InfiniteJacuzzi]

How do I agree with a question?

 

[Thunderhorse31]

How do I agree with a question?

Read the topic title again my friend.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

No, I don't think we should be satisfied with sub-par single player campaigns.

It's a nasty trend and it's the reason a lot fans freak out when they hear whispers of multiplayer being mentioned for games like Mass Effect or Silent Hill.

 

[baddude1337]

It is the unfortunate effect of more casual gamers picking up shooters to play online with friends. Because a lot of games sell highly due to the multiplayer factor developers care less and less about the single player.

 

[Nightrunex]

No, I don't think we should be satisfied with sub-par single player campaigns.

It's a nasty trend and it's the reason a lot fans freak out when they hear whispers of multiplayer being mentioned for games like Mass Effect or Silent Hill.

Silent Hill Multiplayer?

The only thing I can imagine is pyramid heads chasing humans.
Or a japanese girls screaming contest.

EDIT:
OT, I've been assimilated by Yahtzee and demand that singleplayer must be good before moving onto multiplayer.

 

[Flac00]

Disagree, its not the genre that makes bad games, its the developers. In fact, FPS's are great games by their own merit, as their gameplay is far beyond RPG's, TBS's, etc. The only problem is developers forget that gameplay isn't everything, and they don't focus on level design, story, or balance.

 

[Phlakes]

DICE did pretty well with their single player in the Bad Company games, especially the first one, and I'm sure they'll do well with Battlefield 3. Then there's DNF, Bioshock Infinite, the new Deus Ex (if you can really classify it as an FPS), etc. So no, it's not foolish unless it's a CoD clone.

you want a FPS with a half arsed single player play the console version of battle field 2,

I'm sure it is half arsed, considering Battlefield 2 didn't have single player.

 

[normalguycap]

If we don't expect the best, then what's the point? Having high expectations is the only way to improve quality.

 

[Flac00]

Should I be satisfied with this single-player experience? Should I even care at all if an FPS campaign is short/weak/stupid/boring/nonsensical if it offers decent multiplayer as well? I mean, that's what everyone buys FPS games for anyway, right?

I think homefront is a bad example as it was made by a developer who lacks the sort of experience needed to make a more inspiring games. There are other FPS's out there, and many have much better campaigns. I know it is a badly overused example, but take Half-Life into account. I think that developers just aren't given enough incentive to make great campaigns, and the ones who try just end up failing by their own merits.
PS: ITS OVER NINETHOUSAND (i just had to say that)

 

[EllEzDee]

Back when online gaming was one of those "trends" the PC guys were pissing around with, a campaign was the back, front and side bone of a game. The 4-player multiplayer thing was just tacked on, and you'd leave your game feeling like you'd spent your money on something worthy.
Now, multiplayer is deemed "fresh" if you have more than 30,000xp to earn before unlocking the best gun, while single player is for the noobs to l2p.

EDIT: Also, do you mean it is stupid to want a decent singleplayer campaign, or that in todays terms, singleplayer is worth fuck all? Because if it's the latter, i can't click that agree button any harder.

 

[PayneTrayne]

I thought that the Halo FPSes were quite fun actually. Not the most innovative story, but it was still fun.

Also, I liked playing Left 4 Dead's campaign with bots before I learned to play with friends.

Now, go ahead and flame me for liking Halo, I know you want to.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

While you shouldn't necessarily accept it, you should sure as hell expect it. That line of thinking has saved me from playing a lot of terribad FPS campaigns.

i agree with i have no exceptions of a fps have a good single player campaigns but i don't really accept it. they always focus on multiplayer more anyway.

 

[Astalano]

FEAR, Crysis, Half-Life 2, Half-Life, Metro 2033, Left 4 Dead, Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl and especially Call of Pripyat for design, original Halo was good, etc.

I don't understand why I should expect to constantly play yet another military multiplayer shooter that is so devoid of innovation that it is totally boring.

I can understand playing Red Orchestra online and the first Modern Warfare and Halo 2 and Battlefield 2, etc. All offer something relatively new, especially in the case of the first game.

What I don't understand is why you would want more of the same. I get incredibly bored of multiplayer FPS these days because they're either badly designed or devoid of innovation. I don't find that much enjoyment in Bad Company 2 now that I've got past the destruction element and I can't even stomach playing Halo 3 or yet another Call of Duty game when they offer pretty much the exact same multiplayer as the last iteration. What is worse, I'm somehow expected to like the multiplayer in the dozens of copycats as well.

Competitive multiplayer in FPS has always been an important aspect, but it's just one side of a coin. Cooperative and more importantly, single player are the other side of the coin. Single player FPS, especially with good AI, can challenge you and provide an experience like the original Crysis, which was amazing (only first half of the game though). There's also the potential for immersion and better storytelling (Metro 2033 and Half-Life 2), as well as great graphical quality and the opportunity to keep innovating with close up visual beauty.

I prefer single player FPS, but it's a damn shame that consolitis has simplified all modern first person shooter single player campaigns on console to basically corridor shooters and taken away from the fantastic PC orientation of better AI and such to appeal to the Michael Bay crowd of gamers. Even multiplayer FPS is affected and we have rubbish like from DICE telling us that 64 is the maximum for multiplayer. That's bullshit, we should constantly be pushing the limitations of multiplayer first person shooters, with higher player counts, more immersion. If you didn't know you were playing a multiplayer game with Red Orchestra for instance, you could confuse it for a single player game based on the immersion and the overall tension of the experience. It's those types of experiences we should be moving towards, more innovative and fresh and constantly challenging, not this garbage minimal innovation from games like Battlefield 3, anything after Halo 2 and Modern Warfare, etc.

 

[Xiorell]

I don't think it's foolish to expect it. I think you should expect the SP to be as polished as the MP, if the game doesn't provide that, then it's the game that failed not your expectations (Unless of course it's a multi-player only affair). I couldn't really give a fuck about MP for the most part, the odd team deathmatch here and there, occassional visit to WoW but for the most part I want a good single player then when I am done with that, I'm done with the game.

 

[Valksy]

Is it foolish to want a decent product? No. Is it foolish to expect that you will get it from the current crop of FPS games? Afraid so.

I totally understand where you are coming from though. I was vaguely interested in Homefront, but having heard more details (I swear reviews are more important now than they ever have been) the publishers can go to hell, I might buy a second hand copy in 6 months time. Kiss my arse will I pay full price for something that short - the hour/£ ratio just isn't worth it.

 

[Mozared]

As a 'general rule', it might be 'foolish' to expect a decent single player campaign in 'the average FPS'. That doesn't mean they don't exist or are really all that rare, though.