Ok so after reading the amount of pure bullshit written in the last few zero punctuation threads for the shooters hes reviewed, I'm taken aback by the amount of people that think shooters have anything new to add to the single play gaming.
Before I start ranting I'm not talking about games such as Deus Ex or Bullestorm, that were designed FOR single player and should have to bring something unique to the campaign aspect of things, but more the "generic shooters" that everybody seems to think it's cool to hate on lately.
I understand a lot of people don't like multiplayer, and so want a good single experience for their £40, but realise that this is the other way round for a lot of people, including myself, who are looking for multiplayer in their games, and single player is just an 'extra'. Please don't give my Yahtzee's "it has to stand up on it's single player" crap because it doesn't, what would people who are looking for a multiplayer focused game do if every game was focused around single player?
Let's use Gears of War 3 as an example, since this was the last one that everybody has been slating. I've been playing gears since gears of war 1, and at least 95% of my time on gears has been on the multiplayer, because it's one of the few shooters that is non noob friendly, requires a while to gain skill at and continues to be challenging, you actually have to be good to do well. Do I give much of a shit about it's story? Not really, it was good for one playthrough but I left it there, then went back to multiplayer (for gears 1,2 and 3), because it's always fun and challenging to play (it's a shame only gears 3 has dedicated servers though, 1 and 2 had horrible lag problems). Despite this game being thought of as mainstream, it's multiplayer is actually the opposite, not many "casual" gamers will enjoy it because they wont put the time in to get good at it, don't understand how this can be considered as mainstream as other, more noob friendly shooters.
It really seems pointless to me for people who like single player games, to buy something that isn't intended to be focused around it's single player and then MOAN about how unoriginal it is, go buy something like Deus Ex, Mass Effect, Oblivion etc for something that will give you your moneys worth in single player, and let us multiplayer fans enjoy the stuff you call mainstream, like Halo or GoW.
TL;DR (lazy bugger): If you wasted your £40 on a modern shooter for it's single player, you're just wasting money. Either rent it or buy it if you're willing to give the multiplayer a shot, not buy it, play the campaign and ASSUME that that is all the game has to offer, then QQ about how unoriginal and mainstream it is.
Before slating something, please take multiplayer into account. [/rant]
Before I start ranting I'm not talking about games such as Deus Ex or Bullestorm, that were designed FOR single player and should have to bring something unique to the campaign aspect of things, but more the "generic shooters" that everybody seems to think it's cool to hate on lately.
I understand a lot of people don't like multiplayer, and so want a good single experience for their £40, but realise that this is the other way round for a lot of people, including myself, who are looking for multiplayer in their games, and single player is just an 'extra'. Please don't give my Yahtzee's "it has to stand up on it's single player" crap because it doesn't, what would people who are looking for a multiplayer focused game do if every game was focused around single player?
Let's use Gears of War 3 as an example, since this was the last one that everybody has been slating. I've been playing gears since gears of war 1, and at least 95% of my time on gears has been on the multiplayer, because it's one of the few shooters that is non noob friendly, requires a while to gain skill at and continues to be challenging, you actually have to be good to do well. Do I give much of a shit about it's story? Not really, it was good for one playthrough but I left it there, then went back to multiplayer (for gears 1,2 and 3), because it's always fun and challenging to play (it's a shame only gears 3 has dedicated servers though, 1 and 2 had horrible lag problems). Despite this game being thought of as mainstream, it's multiplayer is actually the opposite, not many "casual" gamers will enjoy it because they wont put the time in to get good at it, don't understand how this can be considered as mainstream as other, more noob friendly shooters.
It really seems pointless to me for people who like single player games, to buy something that isn't intended to be focused around it's single player and then MOAN about how unoriginal it is, go buy something like Deus Ex, Mass Effect, Oblivion etc for something that will give you your moneys worth in single player, and let us multiplayer fans enjoy the stuff you call mainstream, like Halo or GoW.
TL;DR (lazy bugger): If you wasted your £40 on a modern shooter for it's single player, you're just wasting money. Either rent it or buy it if you're willing to give the multiplayer a shot, not buy it, play the campaign and ASSUME that that is all the game has to offer, then QQ about how unoriginal and mainstream it is.
Before slating something, please take multiplayer into account. [/rant]
