Who buys shooters for single player?

[Joccaren]

I only ever buy shooters for single player, or LAN parties. Or, with that new bullshit going on, private server parties. Multiplayer with strangers is almost always shit.
Yahtzee brings up a very good point to, I'm not paying $100 (I live in Aus) for half a game. If the multiplayer is the only thing they've bothered making good, then they should charge less for the game. If both the singleplayer and multiplayer are solid, then you should charge the full price.
The same can be said for many games that focus too much on single player, and not enough on multiplayer, but is often rare for games that only do singleplayer unless the game is considered bad. Why? Because that focus on purely singleplayer tend to get a longer campaign out, with better AI, Better Story and better atmosphere than both the multiplayer focus or the singleplayer focus with multiplayer extra. There are exceptions to this rule, those games where multiplayer is just tacked on for incase you want to play with friends but the singlplayer is still as good as the purely singleplayer games, but those games are becoming rarer and rarer.

And also, it is fully fair to bang on at generic shooters, even if their focus is multiplayer. They should have something new and interesting to bring to the table, or else there is no need for them; we could all go play that other generic shooter that it is the exact same as. I don't care too much about themes or graphics, its the gameplay that needs to be different. Everything else is just icing.

 

[Nieroshai]

Fascinating. I do not buy a game unless it has a good single player mode. Exceptions would be like TF2 in which the entire point is single player. Seriously, why play Gears for the multiplayer? Especially now, since every shooter has survival modes now?

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

I do, after all the ignorant fuckwits that make up the majority of online gaming chat's get old very, very quickly.

 

[PonceyMcTosserFaic]

I buy games for the single player.

at least the A.I doesn't call you a "****** hacker modding *****" when you kill it.

 

[efAston]

I only buy shooters for single player.

Rail arena's already been made and it's free. Multiplayer means making about eight small levels and a couple of gun configurations. I'm not paying for that, I expect to get it free with an actual game, if the game's right for it. And if it's a cover-based shooter, I'm not going to use it, because giving someone a sniper rifle in a deathmatch is like giving a footballer a referee whistle - it's just inviting people to be twits.

I'm paying for, I expect, 20 hours of gameplay, not ten minutes of gameplay repeated. Most of the time I finish a game I don't even try the multiplayer.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Pretty much, yeah. I mostly buy things for the campaign.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

The only shooter I have ever purchased solely for multiplayer was Bad Company 2. I haven't even finished the singleplayer in it. However it is the only game I have done so with. I think pretty much every game should stand up on its singleplayer alone unless it is designed around multiplayer like say...L4D.
So if you are going to do say...Battlefield 3, that is all about multiplayer. Cut the single, and then half the price of the game. Then I will be fine with it!

 

[Hitokiri_Gensai]

yes i do buy a shooter for single player. Ive found internet players tend to be more trouble than they're worth. Now, im not saying all of you are, but i am saying, generally, the ones ive played with, have gotten me killed, more than helped me finish a mission. When i regularly played airsoft, i found the same issues.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

generally i could agree, however gears 1 wasn't famed for it's multiplayer, it was famed for it's campaign/co-op with absurd curb stomps and chainsaw deaths.

now i'm not saying it shouldn't have multiplayer, nor should i say you shouldn't spend the majority of your time there, however the main focus of the game series at first was the campaign, in which i would like them to keep it that way for the series, at least if they don't then they need to say that, instead of ripping me off for something that i'm not going to use/hardly use at all.

also, multiplayer games "die", single player games last forever, so i can enjoy that game over and over whenever i want however i want.

 

[DementedSheep]

I play shooters for single player and maybe multiplayer with friends, not strangers. That said I don't care if a shooter is designed for multiplayer but they should stop pretending the single player is major component of the game in marketing if they are not going to actually put some effort into it.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

A lot of the shooters that I have bought (for myself) have all had a good (if not, interesting) single player campaign and that is one of the big driving forces towards getting myself interested in FPSs. I just like to think that there should be more to FPS than just the multiplayer, and I feel the the promise of a single player campaign gives the publisher the excuse to charge a game full price that will be played in online multiplayer 90% of the time.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

Ice Cap Zone Act 2 from Sonic the Hedgehog 3.

 

[Titan Buttons]

I've never been one for multiplayer shooter, I actually enjoy story a lot more then pure one team beats the other. With the only exception being Team Fortress 2 although that is an MMO and Black Ops because its single player just sucked. Gears 3 has a good story behind it but only if it interests you, I don't care if you like multiplayer over single player but what does piss me off is when someone doesn't play the single player because they believe it isn't worth player a video game unless it is just Team Death match.

 

[Venereus]

I also play CoD for the story. And it's not like there's anything else pushing you to succeed in single player.

 

[Jegsimmons]

i wont play multiplayer until ive experienced the campaign, and if the multiplayer is solid but story is filled with shit i consider it a bad game. after all, i dont always have live or online.

 

[Kadoodle]

I just bought the Resistance Dual pack.

I can confidently say that the single player in the first game is easily one of the best gaming experiences I have ever had. It is for me to shooters as RDR is to open world games; that is to say that it is outstanding.

It's like a mix of Call of Duty, Halo, and Quake.

It's got a call of duty-esque level design and atmosphere, with the sci-fi feel of Halo, and the non regenerating health and the ability to hold a million fucking guns at once from quake.

 

[Dreadman75]

I don't buy any games for the multiplayer, with the exception of a still unplayed MAG that was clearly a mistake. I've tried multiplayer on occasion: Bioshock 2, Borderlands, and Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, and the only one that I thought was most engaging was Brotherhood and I even stopped playing that not long after I started. Multiplayer has just never been very engaging to me I always preferred the single player campaign.

As for why I don't play multiplayer...I honestly have no earthly idea. I've never really liked it which is probably why I've never gotten into games like Battlefield and CoD. Guess I'm just not a multiplayer kind of guy...