Who buys shooters for single player?

[Mark Hardigan]

Yup. If the multiplayer shines enough, I don't give a crap about the single player experience, it could be 5 hours of me hitting the right trigger and I wouldn't care because the multiplayer is amazing. Just read some reviews, watch videos of gameplay on youtube before spending your money to judge whether it's worth it, not expect that you spending money on their game means they need to stride to meet your tastes in both single player and multiplayer.

Would a nice shiny new car with a duff CD player ruin the whole thing and make it not worth it? Hardly.

So by your logic, if I gave you an amazing chocolate cake that was frosted with literal feces, it would still be a great cake for you?

You save your confusing logic for yourself. I myself demand that if something is included in a $60 game, it needs to be worth $60. If they don't want the game judged on the single player, then they shouldn't include the single player unless they are willing to make both single player and multiplayer equally good.

 

[Stormz]

I`m a huge gears of war fan I`ve never bought the games because of it`s multiplayer. Just putting that out there. I read the books and usually only play campaign.

 

[DarkRyter]

Cough cough, Fallout New Vegas Cough Cough Half Life Cough Cough.

Aw man. I should not have put that much pepper on that baby.

RPGs sure have a lot to do with single player in FPS games, don't they? ...Well, not really. Not sure why you mentioned Fallout actually.

3 and New Vegas are RPGFPS.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

Yup. If the multiplayer shines enough, I don't give a crap about the single player experience, it could be 5 hours of me hitting the right trigger and I wouldn't care because the multiplayer is amazing. Just read some reviews, watch videos of gameplay on youtube before spending your money to judge whether it's worth it, not expect that you spending money on their game means they need to stride to meet your tastes in both single player and multiplayer.

Would a nice shiny new car with a duff CD player ruin the whole thing and make it not worth it? Hardly.

So by your logic, if I gave you an amazing chocolate cake that was frosted with literal feces, it would still be a great cake for you?

You save your confusing logic for yourself. I myself demand that if something is included in a $60 game, it needs to be worth $60. If they don't want the game judged on the single player, then they shouldn't include the single player unless they are willing to make both single player and multiplayer equally good.

So a game with amazing multiplayer and a crap single player isn't worth $60.
But that same amazing multiplayer without the single player in at all is worth $60.

It's not like a shit covered cake, it's more like complaining about a diamond with a bit of pasta sauce on it, you can see past the pasta sauce and see that it is worth it. Just throwing another random image in there since you seem to be so fond of them.

Talk about confusing logic.
Also stop embarrassing yourself by taking my examples that far that they sound ridiculous.

 

[JohnnyThinMint]

I'm not.
I'm stating that he reviews multiplayer focused games and ridicules them for their less worked on single players, when there are plenty of single player games for him to do real reviews on, which I would enjoy a lot more than him slating a 10 hour shooter campaign.

I believe that's what is called the "point." Yes, you can take some serious advice when it comes to games with him, Yahtzee is usually pretty good at bringing up major issues and benefits. That's about it. The rest is hilarious. He's funny. That's why he does it.

To clarify, Yahtzee is famous for being critical and insulting. He hates multiplayer, especially games that argue that it makes up for a terrible single player campaign that is usually an advertising focus. Why wouldn't he review it?

To say that I don't have a right to demand a good product that I pay for is, at best, indignant, and at worst both indignant and ignorant.

Well Mr. Self entitled.
What if you bought a car, that was absolutely amazing, but was also advertised to have a faulty CD player that you could compensate for by buying a new one to serve that purpose, while the car serves the amazing car purpose. See what I'm getting at?

You know, that'd be great if a game company were to tell me, "Hey, our games have beautiful graphics, a great community of players, and amazing online multiplayer! But, we're also giving you this single player that's kind of lack luster. Sorry about that extra bulk." Of course, it doesn't help your argument that you cant just replace a single player experience. You can't just purchase another version of COD:MW2's campaign (just an example, idk if its actually bad) to make up for it. You get to go buy a whole new 60 $ game.

 

[Mark Hardigan]

Yup. If the multiplayer shines enough, I don't give a crap about the single player experience, it could be 5 hours of me hitting the right trigger and I wouldn't care because the multiplayer is amazing. Just read some reviews, watch videos of gameplay on youtube before spending your money to judge whether it's worth it, not expect that you spending money on their game means they need to stride to meet your tastes in both single player and multiplayer.

Would a nice shiny new car with a duff CD player ruin the whole thing and make it not worth it? Hardly.

So by your logic, if I gave you an amazing chocolate cake that was frosted with literal feces, it would still be a great cake for you?

You save your confusing logic for yourself. I myself demand that if something is included in a $60 game, it needs to be worth $60. If they don't want the game judged on the single player, then they shouldn't include the single player unless they are willing to make both single player and multiplayer equally good.

So a game with amazing multiplayer and a crap single player isn't worth $60.
But that same amazing multiplayer without the single player in at all is worth $60.

Talk about confusing logic.
Also stop embarrassing yourself by taking my examples that far that they sound ridiculous.

Saying that players have no right to complain when the game they buy has a crap single player is ridiculous.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

Yup. If the multiplayer shines enough, I don't give a crap about the single player experience, it could be 5 hours of me hitting the right trigger and I wouldn't care because the multiplayer is amazing. Just read some reviews, watch videos of gameplay on youtube before spending your money to judge whether it's worth it, not expect that you spending money on their game means they need to stride to meet your tastes in both single player and multiplayer.

Would a nice shiny new car with a duff CD player ruin the whole thing and make it not worth it? Hardly.

So by your logic, if I gave you an amazing chocolate cake that was frosted with literal feces, it would still be a great cake for you?

You save your confusing logic for yourself. I myself demand that if something is included in a $60 game, it needs to be worth $60. If they don't want the game judged on the single player, then they shouldn't include the single player unless they are willing to make both single player and multiplayer equally good.

So a game with amazing multiplayer and a crap single player isn't worth $60.
But that same amazing multiplayer without the single player in at all is worth $60.

Talk about confusing logic.
Also stop embarrassing yourself by taking my examples that far that they sound ridiculous.

Saying that players have no right to complain when the game they buy has a crap single player is ridiculous.

Maybe, but it's their own fault for wasting their money on something that they would have known isn't for them if they spent 10-30 minutes checking the game out on reviews or youtube or something. It's people's decision to buy the game, not the games companies, they're just putting the shit out there, people can buy it if they think they will enjoy it, they don't deserve anything good, they try to buy the game that looks good for them.

 

[wildpeaks]

+1 for single player, multiplayer is just the lazy cherry on top of the cake.

 

[Azarhac]

Personally I have not played a single First-person shooter type of game since Half-life 2 and I really think fps games are all 99% of the same bullcrap repainted and packed up again every few years for more money. And the genre is freaking boring bland and gray, maybe a bit too harsh on them but meh almost everything that is not complete shit is usually miles better....

Oh okay, I did play Bioshock 1 & 2 but those are hardly fps games more than they are adventure/horror with some guns and such. And no I am totally not being a hypocrite here, totally not.

 

[Dusk17]

I will not buy games with multiplayer. However, if you don't want people to get angry about your game having shitty single player THEN DON'T INCLUDE A SINGLE PLAYER IN THE FIRST PLACE. IF YOU ARE DEVELOPING A GAME THAT IS FOCUSED ON THE MULTILAYER THEN DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME OR YOUR PLAYERS TIME BY INCLUDING A BAD SINGLE PLAYER. If you are going to make a single player campaign for it own sake then don't bother, scrap the single player and just make the multiplayer better. It has always been my point of view that you do something right or you shouldn't do it at all. Especially with the prices of modern games I demand that the game be amazing in EVERY SINGLE MODE AND FEATURE.

srry, I didn't intend for that to be a rant.

 

[dickywebster]

Well theres games with only multiplayer experiances and only single player, so i dont see why the single player must be so cut back in favour of the multiplayer when it could just do without the single player.
Yeah this goes both ways, but multiplayer has only become more common with all the consoles been able to connect over the net, whereas single player have been around longer.
And if you just make an entire genre about multiplayer, then that cuts back sales for those who dont like it.
Personally, while i dont play multiplayer, im not against it, i just think that both modes should get an equal par in a game with both, otherwise its just kinda silly.

 

[v3n0mat3]

I do, typically. I actually enjoy Gears of War, Halo, and Call of Duty's Single Player first before the Multiplayer. It's weird, I know. But I do.

 

[SamuelT]

How about,

And just hear me out,

How about I have my opinion, right?

And you have yours.

Fuckin' Miracles.

 

[baker80]

I do. I don't play multiplayer at all, ever.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Those of us who like campaign and games to play where we don't have to deal with some lowlife losers who play all day to came and kill everyone making the game not fun. Plus I have a job and other things to do with my life, so I don't have time for multiplayer.

What bothers me is that all these people that play Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc. go around insulting people who actually play the campaigns in the game. If a game is made "for the multiplayer" then it should only have multiplayer (Team Fortress 2), or at least do something like Quake III Arena or Unreal Tournament 3 where the campaign pretty much is multiplayer only with bots instead of some half-assed thing.

 

[Brainsaw]

I play single player for the story and because often it will help you get used to the controls or reintroduce yourself to them. Plus I like the stories in games.

 

[octafish]

I tend to buy my FPS games for the story, which is why the only CoD games I own are the first one and CoD4. Most of these "generic" shooters with the crap single-player also have pretty crap multi-player, just deathmatch with a twist, whoop-de-doo I can get QuakeLive for free. If I'm going to play multi it needs to offer something different, a sense of team and of innovation, like Red Orchestra, Battlefield, Natural Selection, Team Fortress or Enemy Territory. None of which has a single player campaign (well Battlefield 3 will, but it is just an extended tutorial for vehicles and tactics as described by DICE).