I'd pay $40 for just the multiplayer. I've been disappointed by the campaigns after Call of Duty 4. I play them once just to say I've done it, then move onto multiplayer.
Poll: Should the Call of duty series stop releasing campaigns.
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I really like the single player in COD games.
MW2's campaign was one of the best FPS campaigns I've ever played.
MW2's campaign was one of the best FPS campaigns I've ever played.
Actually if they were to remove a part of CoD I'd rather it be the part I don't touch, the multiplayer.
I highly doubt infinity ward and treyarch are going to get rid of it's cash cow.xXDeMoNiCXx said:
This singleplayer in cod big red one is what got me hooked on the series. I also loved (in a manly way) the characters and story in the cod4 campaign. The world at war campaign was also enjoyable for the most part.
I dont think they should drop singleplayer, because everyone likes a good story now and again. Btw, I think the mw2 and blops campaigns are horribly put together pieces of dung.
I dont think they should drop singleplayer, because everyone likes a good story now and again. Btw, I think the mw2 and blops campaigns are horribly put together pieces of dung.
Already made thread about theme and 80% of the voters turned out to not play multiplayer but play campaing
I enjoy the campaigns, so I would say no, but I do feel they could be a lot better. The action, the intensity of every moment is incredible; some of the best experiences I've ever had in gaming. However--the games need better plots. I am not a person who thinks all games need epic stories. But the story in Black Ops is so ADD and hard to follow that it actually hurts my experience. The developers should either pay for a good writer or go the Just Cause 2 route and not take themselves seriously. As it is, its a fantastic action experience wrapped up in a plot that thinks its deep and thrilling, but its just dumb.
I'm probably over reacting, but I have a bad feeling about removing the singleplayer.Professor James said:
I think more profit would come from doing something more like Team Fortress 2, you release ONE GAME and keep it balanced and if you add a level of customization to it like that you'd have people buying all sorts of 1-15 dollar items.
Put out maps for CHEAPER than 15 dollars because that's unreasonable, and expand on it from there.
I think it's stupid that they keep putting out new games, but then they release a map pack for 15 dollars that contains maps from a previous game ...that is still on your shelf. Just make ONE game, ONE and then after it gets 4-5 years old THEN make a new multiplayer experience.
Perhaps the new levels come with a new single player experience and weapons.
Like while I thought Battlefield Vietnam was a neat expansion and far more worth the money than a regular map pack (as it had new guns/sounds/models/music/vehicles/maps and not JUST maps) it's also a different game and separates the community a bit.
Put out maps for CHEAPER than 15 dollars because that's unreasonable, and expand on it from there.
I think it's stupid that they keep putting out new games, but then they release a map pack for 15 dollars that contains maps from a previous game ...that is still on your shelf. Just make ONE game, ONE and then after it gets 4-5 years old THEN make a new multiplayer experience.
Perhaps the new levels come with a new single player experience and weapons.
Like while I thought Battlefield Vietnam was a neat expansion and far more worth the money than a regular map pack (as it had new guns/sounds/models/music/vehicles/maps and not JUST maps) it's also a different game and separates the community a bit.
well if you bought your game for a console its down to around 15 dollars at retail (10 dollars used at gamestop)omicron1 said:
I think they should... you know... actually work on the damn campaigns again. It's damn annoying that they cost $60 when you're getting half a game.