what,s the point of the COD SP?

[RUINER ACTUAL]

its REDICIOUSLY short and most people buy it for the MP why dont they make it a MP to begin with? it would allow them to pour more time and money in the maps and allows them to work out more bugs for example TF2 most people hate it with all the updates but its a amazing game because they put all their money and resource into it
PS I realy like the SP but it feels more like its tacked on and too short

I agree for Blops. Probably the worst campaign I've ever played, and I usually enjoy any single player. It would not have mattered if they spent more time on multiplayer. It would still be unbalanced with broken or OP weapons, superhuman perks, and maps with the flow of a clogged drain.

 

[Wintermoot]

Because not all people agree with you, and enjoy playing the single player.
I've found all of the Call of Duty single player portions to be good, personally.

I like them too but they are too short and feel more like a addon to the MP I just wonder why tehy still bother making it

Because people like them, and don't always have an internet connection.
Kind of hard to sell a multiplayer only game to people who have choppy/no internet.

I get that but I finished the BLOPS SP in a day that doesnt justify the 60$ price tag I get it that some popel take longer but its very short

There is such a thing as renting...

renting it for the PC is pretty hard with the steam requirements and stuff

 

[Marik2]

Because they usually tend to be good.

Story-wise, they're a mixed bag. But the campaigns are usually fun.

CoD4 doesn't get all the praise for it's MP alone, you know. Campaign was epic.

Agreed COD 4 campaign was extremely intense, the only other campaign that made me feel that way was Resistance 1.

 

[Wintermoot]

Since when does short = bad?

I never called the COD games bad just overpriced for its short story I really liked the SP but its simply too short too be any fun and its pretty obvious they cared more for the MP COD 7 had a pretty cool story that I realy liked

 

[Wintermoot]

I believe if you watch the Extra Credits from 6th January you will find reference to why Movie based games don't do well, because of the lack of time in development.

They stated that they normally get a year in comparison to the normal time spread of 2-5 years to release with the movie I think this is like the situation CoD is currently in.

Activision clearly aware that their multiplayer is what makes them the most money with CoD especially with downloaded map packs would like their developers to concerntrate on making the Multiplayer good before fleshing out the campaign mode and because there is a CoD game due to be released every year this gives the development team a very short amount of time to work on both Multiplayer and Singleplayer.

So in order to make the most amount of money in the time available to them they flesh out and try to balance the multiplayer with the most of their time only allowing them a very short time frame to put together the singleplayer levels I'd estimate around 3-4 months possibly making them rather short, so if Activision were to raise the deadline to a CoD game every 2 years or more you might see a much better game at the end of it with a much longer Single player.

sorry if it's a bit long but I have been thinking about this a lot. *blush* my two cents, not fact. ^^

I think I get it so its basicly peer presure from fans that only want to see a MP?

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Because there is still single player for those of us who get annoyed with multiplayer being taken over by noob campers and elitists. Call of Duty's single player was pretty fun in 1, 2, 4 was ok, and 5. MW2 sucked.

 

[Chappy]

I believe if you watch the Extra Credits from 6th January you will find reference to why Movie based games don't do well, because of the lack of time in development.

They stated that they normally get a year in comparison to the normal time spread of 2-5 years to release with the movie I think this is like the situation CoD is currently in.

Activision clearly aware that their multiplayer is what makes them the most money with CoD especially with downloaded map packs would like their developers to concerntrate on making the Multiplayer good before fleshing out the campaign mode and because there is a CoD game due to be released every year this gives the development team a very short amount of time to work on both Multiplayer and Singleplayer.

So in order to make the most amount of money in the time available to them they flesh out and try to balance the multiplayer with the most of their time only allowing them a very short time frame to put together the singleplayer levels I'd estimate around 3-4 months possibly making them rather short, so if Activision were to raise the deadline to a CoD game every 2 years or more you might see a much better game at the end of it with a much longer Single player.

sorry if it's a bit long but I have been thinking about this a lot. *blush* my two cents, not fact. ^^

I think I get it so its basicly peer presure from fans that only want to see a MP?

Pretty much, the way I'm looking at it the fans want a game every year and they also want the multiplayer and there isn't enough time in a year to make a good Singleplayer and Multiplayer experience so one of them will suffer.

 

[slycooper20]

Because there are some people, like me, who actually enjoy playing single player and aren't interested in wading into the racist 12-year old infested wasteland of CoD multiplayer. But that's my opinion.

 

[Jorias]

PPS I dont think the SP is bad its just too short to justify the 60$ price tag

I can see by that statement alone, what is the main reason for your bitching. I think your rant should be more along the lines of why developers of a video game have such creative imaginations in gameplay, but really really shit the bed when it comes to storylines....

 

[Wintermoot]

PPS I dont think the SP is bad its just too short to justify the 60$ price tag

I can see by that statement alone, what is the main reason for your bitching. I think your rant should be more along the lines of why developers of a video game have such creative imaginations in gameplay, but really really shit the bed when it comes to storylines....

I dont think the story is bad its just way too short in most COD,s

 

[BioHazardMan]

ALOT of people buy COD for the Campaign. More people have an Xbox offline, then have one online, that's why.

Where are you getting these statistic(s)?

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Ridiculously, please, if you're gonna put it in all caps, spell it right.

That said, ya, I didn't enjoy the single player either. It was too short, the setting did not agree with the tools I was using (Come on now people, you expect me to believe multiple Viet-Cong Guerrillas were carrying a Spas-12 during the Tet Offensive? I mean, the least they could have done was use music from 1968. Fortunate Son for example, was produced in 1969. Ya, this might be nit-picking, but this is a series that spent a lot of time on being historically accurate. There is no excuse for them.) and lastly, it wasn't even a very good story. You could see the surprise twist coming a mile away.

That said, a lot of people still buy the game for the single player and it would be wrong on its own to take that away from them. I don't like the single player, but that doesn't mean everyone loathes it as well.

 

[auronvi]

The day they cut out SP from COD is the day I stop playing COD.... although I believe that day is coming anyway. Need to stop wasting hours on Blops online. So many other games to play and WoW!

 

[Karma168]

Since when does short = bad?

The CoD4 campaign was no longer than MW2 or Black Ops, and people cant stop masturbating to how "awesome" it was.

I liked the Black Ops(not Blops. That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen) campaign. It was original, and most of all, fun.

It's not the length that people hate, it's the content. the new games are missing 'something' that would turn a 2/5 story into a 4 or 5. people love cod 4 as it has an amazing story and goes into enough detail to allow the player to become fully immersed.

MW2 tried to improve on the compact story of its prequel but failed miserably; to much action but not enough story to keep people interested beyond the 1st playthrough. Black ops tried this as well and fell just as flat. the story had amazing potential but was told in such a bad way it ruined any immersion and instead relied on constantly running at break-neck speeds to keep people playing.

As long as the story is told in a good way people don't care how short it is. when story is sacrificed for action scenes people will always slate it (look at the transformer films)

 

[binvjoh]

I've enjoyed the ones I've played (WaW, MW2, BO).

It'd be hard for me justifying buying a CoD game without single player since I usually don't play the other modes for very long.

 

[Lord Kloo]

I play single player to feel like a real soldier with scripted sequences that are much better than any on-line game.. Also the SP is the only bit that can be used without on-line so if you're internets a bit dodgy like mine you want something to do in all that down time, other than fire up the PS2 and relive my later childhood..

But yeah you make a good point that no-one takes the SP seriously anymore, my friends who are all X-bros and exclude (i mean worship me) for being a PC gamer and they didn't even look at the campaign for BO.. considering it was pretty good and they missed out on the Prison escape mission, probably one of the best from any game..

 

[-Samurai-]

Since when does short = bad?

The CoD4 campaign was no longer than MW2 or Black Ops, and people cant stop masturbating to how "awesome" it was.

I liked the Black Ops(not Blops. That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen) campaign. It was original, and most of all, fun.

It's not the length that people hate, it's the content. the new games are missing 'something' that would turn a 2/5 story into a 4 or 5. people love cod 4 as it has an amazing story and goes into enough detail to allow the player to become fully immersed.

MW2 tried to improve on the compact story of its prequel but failed miserably; to much action but not enough story to keep people interested beyond the 1st playthrough. Black ops tried this as well and fell just as flat. the story had amazing potential but was told in such a bad way it ruined any immersion and instead relied on constantly running at break-neck speeds to keep people playing.

As long as the story is told in a good way people don't care how short it is. when story is sacrificed for action scenes people will always slate it (look at the transformer films)

Every CoD complaint thread, including this one, complain about the actual length of the SP mode. Some people say 6-8 hours is too short for it to be good. Hell the first line in this thread is:

its REDICIOUSLY short

People are bitching about the length along with the content.

 

[Karma168]

Every CoD complaint thread, including this one, complain about the actual length of the SP mode. Some people say 6-8 hours is too short for it to be good. Hell the first line in this thread is:

its REDICIOUSLY short

People are bitching about the length along with the content.

people associate length with content, the longer the game the more it has in it. because cod 4 has a lot of content people feel that the game is longer than it actually is, as MW2 and BO have less content it feels shorter. The complainers are working off a perspective rather than actual timing of their gameplay.

 

[Brawndo]

The campaign of MW2 was the best part (srs). I couldn't stand the MP after a few hours