Poll: Should the Call of duty series stop releasing campaigns.

Recommended Videos

fer1wi

New member
Jun 4, 2009
213
0
0
I REALLY don't think they should just sell multiplayer-only games. Besides what others have said before me, there ARE some people who do not have online connection. I myself don't have an online connection with the consoles, so single-player is a BIG point I take into consideration when buying a game.

Besides that, the single-player is what kinda shapes the multiplayer. Think about it: with no background or setting coming from the single-player, the multiplayer lacks those things, and we might as well be playing the same game with better graphics. It'd be like the Madden of the FPS's.
 

RAMBO22

New member
Jul 7, 2009
241
0
0
Yes

The COD campaigns are nothing but superficial training apparatus (cleverly disguised as a 'campaign') for players before they devour the online multiplayer.

No gamer ever finds themselves going back to COD Mod 2 or Black Ops to 'beat the campaign again' or to 'hone up my campaign skills'.

They play the game again to gain one more level, to hear the level-up music that fills the void in their lives, to get the next weapon that is 1% more effective than the last weapon they coveted.

Edit: Of course, the price should be adjusted accordingly for the omission of a single player campaign (35$-45$).
 

omicron1

New member
Mar 26, 2008
1,729
0
0
Azaraxzealot said:
omicron1 said:
Azaraxzealot said:
omicron1 said:
My personal thought is that they should charge $15 for the singleplayer (is it really worth any more?) and have the multiplayer under a subscription fee. I'm never going to shell out $60 for such a short singleplayer component (since I don't touch the multiplayer side of things) and waiting four years for it to drop in price (seriously, COD4 is still at $30!) is just unacceptable. So this pricing method seems to provide a reasonable alternative.
But then, that's just me.
30 dollars? where do you get your games?
Steam, mostly.
Even during the last Christmas sale I don't think it dropped below $20.

It's also about $30 on Amazon, Direct2Drive, and GameStop.
well if you bought your game for a console its down to around 15 dollars at retail (10 dollars used at gamestop)
Oh, silly me, buying my games for the single main gaming system I have... now I'm just wondering who's to blame for not cutting costs on this thing - Activision, or the retailers?
 

Azaraxzealot

New member
Dec 1, 2009
2,403
0
0
omicron1 said:
Azaraxzealot said:
omicron1 said:
Azaraxzealot said:
omicron1 said:
My personal thought is that they should charge $15 for the singleplayer (is it really worth any more?) and have the multiplayer under a subscription fee. I'm never going to shell out $60 for such a short singleplayer component (since I don't touch the multiplayer side of things) and waiting four years for it to drop in price (seriously, COD4 is still at $30!) is just unacceptable. So this pricing method seems to provide a reasonable alternative.
But then, that's just me.
30 dollars? where do you get your games?
Steam, mostly.
Even during the last Christmas sale I don't think it dropped below $20.

It's also about $30 on Amazon, Direct2Drive, and GameStop.
well if you bought your game for a console its down to around 15 dollars at retail (10 dollars used at gamestop)
Oh, silly me, buying my games for the single main gaming system I have... now I'm just wondering who's to blame for not cutting costs on this thing - Activision, or the retailers?
they BOTH want you to buy the console version. me being a console gamer already this was no problem for me and i was actually able to get a game of CoD4 for less than 5 bucks thanks to coupons (yay for being a smart shopper)

but with PCs and their bigger emphasis on digital distribution they kind of got you by the balls there
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
Professor James said:
See, I know a lot of people who play Multiplayer(and zombies if treyarch) to death, but don't even touch the campaign. whats the point of making a campaign if a good percentage of your fanbase doesn't even play it. plus, let's be honest, COD(post 4) is not known and critically acclaimed for it's singleplayer. Lastly, with less time and resources on singleplayer, they can spend more time balancing and adding more maps on multiplayer(and zombies if treyarch).
I am more yes and no. I know ill hate myself tomorrow for saying this, but they should release a single, two COD games, one is the normal game, and the other is a mp only game disk. Now, logically, this would be cheaper in the sense that the person buying the game isnt getting the whole game, just the multiplayer (Of course, like I said, this makes logical sense, and kotick discards logic for money.)

And im not sure how it will turn out, but from what I understand, there are three developers working on the game, two on the SP and one focused completely on MP. Instead of deverting resources (in the way of manpower and equipment) have two teams work on the different game modes. So lets see how this MW3 turns out, and if having seperate studios helps...
 

euro2019

New member
Jan 10, 2011
158
0
0
Absolutely not, I think they should keep it. Another FPS on multiplayer is the same as every other FPS on multiplayer, especially when it comes to COD imo. I like the SP because it gives what you're doing a purpose and if done right I enjoy it very much. I wouldn't buy a new COD just to play MP on it. I want the story, otherwise its just a cheap expansion, with a few different guns, not worth my time.
 

darkfire613

New member
Jun 26, 2009
636
0
0
The single-player campaigns are the only reason I play the games any more at all. The multiplayer is the same stuff we've been getting since 4, and I've grown absolutely tired of it. However, the campaigns, while corny, are typically adrenalizing and explosive enough to keep things entertaining for the ~6 hours it takes to beat.
 

Ldude893

Elite Member
Apr 2, 2010
4,114
0
41
The single player campaign is the only reason I buy the game in the first place. They're thrilling, they've got a exciting storyline and they're fun to play. I was never interested in Multiplayer because there's zero teamwork, it's just too hard for newbies to fit right in, and the highest ranking players get a better advantage and lower ranking players.
Take single player away and I'll never buy another game from the series.
 

Tdc2182

New member
May 21, 2009
3,623
0
0
No.

Like the story or hate it, CoD4 still remains my favorite ever FPS with not many close competitors. Ever play it with slo-mo on? Almost an entirely new game.

And MW2 also had a slightly overboard, but never-the-less entertaining campaign.
 

Tdc2182

New member
May 21, 2009
3,623
0
0
theguitarhero6 said:
I think TreyArch should stop making campaigns......
You said it there. Treyarch's single players honestly just appear tobe missing the point to me.

Not to mention the fact that popular to contrary belief, we are not all twelve years old and don't need the unnecesary violent gore they cram in every game.
and multiplayer, still waiting for MW3 desperatley. And mabe you will agree with me, but something just doesn't quite feel...right about their Campaigns. Its not as satisfying.
Now check yourself. Nearly perfected multiplayer. Nothing to overpowered (Ak74u and RC cars be damned), takes a reasonable amount of skill. Somethign we've been waiting on since the end of CoD4.

Seriously guys, Call of Duty; Advanced Warfare? Think of the possibilities?

Each person gets perks that affect a power suit or some bullshit.
-Have a killstreak that is invisibility, like Crysis.
-Have orbital launch killstreaks,
-underbarrel laser grenade launchers or something
-Instead of gun sights, have like hologram sights? It goes on and on.
 

Jodah

New member
Aug 2, 2008
2,280
0
0
omicron1 said:
My personal thought is that they should charge $15 for the singleplayer (is it really worth any more?) and have the multiplayer under a subscription fee. I'm never going to shell out $60 for such a short singleplayer component (since I don't touch the multiplayer side of things) and waiting four years for it to drop in price (seriously, COD4 is still at $30!) is just unacceptable. So this pricing method seems to provide a reasonable alternative.
But then, that's just me.
This a zillion times. I hate shooter multiplayer. I've actually been trying to find a good story driven shooter to kill some time (something like Resistance which I have already played).

I paid full price for CoD4. Don't get me wrong, the campaign was great but definitely not worth the price. If both the Modern Warfare campaigns were combined into one game I would gladly pay full price for it but not for what is offered atm.
 

Tdc2182

New member
May 21, 2009
3,623
0
0
xXDeMoNiCXx said:
No they should stop making multiplayer cause I think we've all had enough of the same thing every year.
1.5 million people beg to disagree with you.
 

Liquid Ocelot

New member
Nov 6, 2010
128
0
0
Your 'no' option is not big enough for my HELL NO.

I bought MW and MW2 for the story. It's also why I will buy MW3, to see the plot concluded.

Soap is just too awesome.. ;=;
 

Hiroshi Mishima

New member
Sep 25, 2008
407
0
0
I read the line the TC said about "why would removing singleplayer and making it a multiplayer-only title affect the industry?" and I just started laughing because they obviously have no idea the domino-effect that decisions like this have on the industry.

"Oh, I say.. I have this fabulous idea, let's remove the single-player aspect of a game altogether and just make it a multi-player game!"

"Reginald, you cad! That's a brilliant idea!"

*sometime later*

"Ginger, did you see what Company X just did? They cut out all that development time AND removed wasteful spending on things like cut-scenes, music, and CGI.. and they're raking in the money!"

"I know, darling, we HAVE to get in on it! I'll go let Square-Enix know, right away.. I'm sure Gladis will just die if I don't tell her we can make the next FF a fighting game - it worked out so well with Ergheiz, after all!"

*even later*

"Games for practically nothing, and we're still charging full price! Why the hell didn't we think of this sooner?!"

"I'm not sure, Herb, but I think we were waiting for the general public to become so wretchedly stupid that they'd actually support something like this."


I'm being cynical, witty, and quite silly. But the point still stands. You make something like this, and it sells, and the next you know there is going to be many, many attempts to cash in on this. Look at how many of the older series have taken to putting mini-games into their games cause one person did it and it worked out for them. Hell, go back and look at Final Fantasy and Tomb Raider, they got away with Tifa and Lara's designs, now women with big breasts and very little character development are commonplace in the industry - they actually make games where that's all you see! Oh, and they're multiplayer games, who would've thought!

I'm sorry, but no.. insofar as I dislike the Call of Duty games, anyhow.. if I WERE to play one, you can bet your bullocks it won't be for the gods-damned multiplayer. Most actual game critics and reviewers who aren't being paid to say something is good will tell you that multi-player isn't what over 70% of the gamer populace is actually buying games for. While many may dabble in the multi-player, most will be hitting the single player first, if they touch it at all.

Turok Rage Wars and Metroid Prime: Hunters tried leaning towards the "oh let's just forget about single-player and focus on the real point of the game, and neither went over well. Even Starcraft players will often tell you that what got them into the game was the campaigns and they just stayed for the multiplayer.
 

xXDeMoNiCXx

New member
Mar 10, 2010
312
0
0
Tdc2182 said:
xXDeMoNiCXx said:
No they should stop making multiplayer cause I think we've all had enough of the same thing every year.
1.5 million people beg to disagree with you.
That's just 1.5 million people who don't mind repetitive, generic, multiplayer but hey I'm an open-minded person so more power to em then.