Half life and Half life two were very immersive and fun single player campaigns. I don't see why it shouldn't be Goldeneye springs to mind also.
Poll: It is foolish to expect a decent single-player campaign in an FPS.
- Thread starter Thunderhorse31
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Gameplay is all I care about so I really don't give a shit. I'm serious. If they came out with a FPS with a story comparable to a Hitchcock film but with game mechanics that suck ass... Well I won't buy it. But if they create a story with a super cookie-cutter plot and gameplay that is the gaming equivalent of Jesus Christ... Well I'm definitely getting it.
It depends, I think an FPS should shoot either for multiplayer or single player, sure it can do both but the focus should be one or the other. More than that I think its acceptable for the focus to be multiplayer, so long as the player understands that that is what they're getting. I believe there is a market for both types of game.
So I would say its foolish to expect a good SP in a blatantly MP focused game, but perfectly acceptable to expect a good SP in an SP focused game.
Sounds logical to me
So I would say its foolish to expect a good SP in a blatantly MP focused game, but perfectly acceptable to expect a good SP in an SP focused game.
Sounds logical to me
Diagree very much.Thunderhorse31 said:
STALKER, Far Cry 1, FEAR 1, Halo 3:ODST (bit short but still good).
There's been a fair few shooters with excellent campaign in the last five years. The problem is that the A-listers, like films and music, are all lowest common denominator crap. They all ape each other for fear of losing sales and the result is you end up with the same homogenous rubbish.
Generic 6-8 hour campaign of linear corridors with 'epic' stuff happening in the sky box for the single player. 4-16(or 32 sometimes) player multiplayer with a level based progression and unlock system. Boring, look at older games instead.
Depends. If the game is something like Unreal Tournament or Team Fortress 2 or whatever then yes it is foolish to expect a good singleplayer campaign. I'd like to point to the Battlefield series in general as a reason why multi-player centric FPSs should stay that way. Originally singleplayer in Battlefield was just multiplayer with bots, however with Bad Company DICE appeared to have done good. (I haven't played BC but it looked really funny). Then along comes BC2 and it goes all serious and Scalar weapon bollocks. The problem with the poor story was that it made it hard to enjoy the campaign, as the gameplay wasn't hooking me in either due to stupid enemy AI. The campaign just didn't feel like battlefield. Of course I don't really mind that much because the multiplayer is AWESOME.
However for Call Of Duty, Homefront and all those sorts of games that have more of an emphasis on singleplayer then yes. They should give you a good campaign.
However for Call Of Duty, Homefront and all those sorts of games that have more of an emphasis on singleplayer then yes. They should give you a good campaign.
I don't see why developers shouldn't be able to deliver both a great single player campaign and multiplayer to be honest, as long as they take their time. I'm more than happy to wait a little extra for new release if it means buying a fantastic, detailed, immersive gaming experience as opposed to a short, rushed one.
Um No? Good story and good gameplay are not mutually exclusive. Why should shooters get a free pass because they are shooters or have multiplayer?
If the games whole purpose is multiplayer then whatever but if it has SP they should actually put the effort in or there is no point. I like palying shooters. I don't buy many because if there is no decent SP why would I need to buy more than one?
If the games whole purpose is multiplayer then whatever but if it has SP they should actually put the effort in or there is no point. I like palying shooters. I don't buy many because if there is no decent SP why would I need to buy more than one?
I actually thought the campaigns for the FPS's I've played were pretty good.
Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare 2's campaigns were all action packed and fun.
Battlefield BC2's campaign had some great characters (eg the Hippy Helicopter Pilot)
The Halo storyline is just epic. End of.
Also, the Half Life series is a first person shooter. Need I say more?
There's no reason I can think of to expect a shoddy single player on a FPS game.
Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare 2's campaigns were all action packed and fun.
Battlefield BC2's campaign had some great characters (eg the Hippy Helicopter Pilot)
The Halo storyline is just epic. End of.
Also, the Half Life series is a first person shooter. Need I say more?
There's no reason I can think of to expect a shoddy single player on a FPS game.
It's a shame how later failures mar original successes. Modern Warfare's Story and execution were excellent - the single player campaign was brilliant. The fact that the low quality of its sequel suggested that the developers getting it so right in that game was a fluke should not detract from this - just like how the Matrix is still a great film, even if the second and third were absolute rubbish.
