Poll: It is foolish to expect a decent single-player campaign in an FPS.
- Thread starter Thunderhorse31
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I buy games for single player not multiplayer, that is not to say I do not play multiplayer, its more I just cannot be bothered with other people, I play games to get away from people not interact with other people. But the again it depends on the game and my internet connection on my desktop at the moment it is pritty pothetic so i am a little limited.
I think a more apt question would be whether you can expect a good singleplayer campaign as well as a good multiplayer experience in an FPS. There are a lot of good first person games that focus a lot on the story and have great plots, but it general comes at the neglect of 'net play.
I think that the bare fact of things is that its not cost and time effective to have teams devoted to modern graphics, an exciting campaign and balanced and diverse multiplayer. It seems that generally two of the three of those are feasible and while some RPGs can get away with less than top end graphics, FPSs don't generally have that ability so its one of the other two that gets dropped.
I think that the bare fact of things is that its not cost and time effective to have teams devoted to modern graphics, an exciting campaign and balanced and diverse multiplayer. It seems that generally two of the three of those are feasible and while some RPGs can get away with less than top end graphics, FPSs don't generally have that ability so its one of the other two that gets dropped.
That's basically what I was getting at with the original question. Obviously games with no multiplayer are going to focus more on story or gameplay (Bioshock, Fallout, Half-Life) and hopefully do one or both of those well.Tarlane said:
Since MP is all the rage though, it seems like devs are either phoning it in on the story in favor of multiplayer (Bad Company 2) or just tacking-on weak MP that no one cares about anyway (Bioshock 2).
I guess that's why games like Goldeneye or Modern Warfare or even Halo to an extent enjoy the beloved status that they do. They got the balance right, and everyone else is just trying to copy them. Well that, and they made mad money too.
Is it foolish to expect developers to make a good single player FPS campaign? Yes.
Is it foolish to assume that a good single player campaign can be done? No.
Is it foolish to assume that a good single player campaign can be done? No.
90% of FPS games these days are built for multiplayer, and have a semi-tacked-on single player just to say "Hey look, I have a campaign too!" on the box.
Call of Duty for example... does anyone care about the single player at all after they've played it once? I know I don't. I'd gladly pay $40 for just the multiplayer portion.
There are obvious exceptions like Bioshock.
Call of Duty for example... does anyone care about the single player at all after they've played it once? I know I don't. I'd gladly pay $40 for just the multiplayer portion.
There are obvious exceptions like Bioshock.
Do it right, or don't do it at all is my opinion. If you want the next big multiplayer game, spend the development time and money on making a good multiplayer and don't even worry about single player.
UT, tribes, Battlefield 1942, 2, 2142, you're doing it right
UT, tribes, Battlefield 1942, 2, 2142, you're doing it right
It is not foolish to want a "Decent" single player, nor is it foolish to make one. It is also not foolish to make a game with a single player that is an appetizer to a multiplayer that is the primary focus. Neither choice is wrong, it's all a matter of the consumer being informed, and making there purchases according to their taste. I'm not going to get Homefront because I have Black Ops, and I am presently installing Crysis 2, and both of those games give a multiplayer that is similar enough to Homefront to make it too redundant to justify the price. If I crave a CoD inspired multiplayer with a little more variety then what I have, and that added on to a very short single player justify's a price of whatever Homefront is at the time, I will buy it.
Uh...
Yes, I agree that the OP is a thinly veiled excuse to question Homefront's scant narrative.
Yes, I agree that shooters (unless specifically designed and marketed otherwise, like Team Fortress) should be able to stand on single player alone.
No, I don't agree that's why people buy shooter games (at least as the only reason).
Yes, I agree that the OP is a thinly veiled excuse to question Homefront's scant narrative.
Yes, I agree that shooters (unless specifically designed and marketed otherwise, like Team Fortress) should be able to stand on single player alone.
No, I don't agree that's why people buy shooter games (at least as the only reason).
I could care less really about multi-player in any fps game, I hate social interaction with online games as it is, making a campaign cut short in order to sell "we have new maps on the online game" is just one the reasons why fps have turned to so much crap lately. I will admit I used to like playing some games online at a point but that was with friends I actually knew and hung around with who had a pc or xbox 360 to play online with, since that is in the past now no point worrying about it anymore. I do agree with yatzee on this "even though he hates jrps which I like" a game must have a good fps or any game in general must have a good single player experience.
