I will never understand people who buy a game that was made basically only for multiplayer and then complain that the single player aspect isn't good enough. If you want a single player game.... BUY A SINGLE PLAYER GAME?!?! Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. I have no problems with a game being solely multiplayer just like I don't have any problems with a game being solely single player. I have played both and some I like some I don't.
Who buys shooters for single player?
- Thread starter ChildishLegacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I buy a lot of FPS, butI hate online Multiplayer with a passion (even though it's free on PS3). The main reason is already mentioned in the OT: This fucking 'no noobs' attitude.
That said there are quite some Shooters that include a compelling single player. Just look at Resistance, Half-Life 2, Killzone, Gears of War, Halo and to some extend Dead Space, Condemned, The Darkness and Bioshock.
It just comes down to wether you are looking for fast action or pacing.
That said there are quite some Shooters that include a compelling single player. Just look at Resistance, Half-Life 2, Killzone, Gears of War, Halo and to some extend Dead Space, Condemned, The Darkness and Bioshock.
It just comes down to wether you are looking for fast action or pacing.
Ive like earlier versions of games for their single player and multiplayer such as the original halo and modern warfare over modern 2. Ive enjoyed the battlefield games almost exclusively for multiplayer. Ive bought games that were not great in either such as bad company 2 in my opinion. I like to sneak around in single player and have a chance to not be noticed rather than trying to keep my face attached around cover and I like my multiplayer to have usable vehicles because they always inevitably end up as big battles although this isn't always necessary. Im trying to curb my bitching streak because it really is meaningless unless it's specifically directed. However I think the people that play FPS games online are always going to be in minority so the single player must be up to par otherwise you might have well just done a better job making it multiplayer only.
Since we seem to be in some sort of stagnation period it's only a matter of time before some game redefines the genre, every dev and their dog is told to emulate by those soulless suits that hold the money key and we start bitching about those sequels and sameness whatever that might be (over the top color and hilarity inducing perhaps). The cycle of trend moves on and will continue always since it's a learning thing I think (monkey see - monkey do).
I wonder if I should give a disclaimer like all opinions expressed may or may not be opinions already expressed by randoms on the internet since it is highly unlikely any original thought is occurring this is the internet.
Since we seem to be in some sort of stagnation period it's only a matter of time before some game redefines the genre, every dev and their dog is told to emulate by those soulless suits that hold the money key and we start bitching about those sequels and sameness whatever that might be (over the top color and hilarity inducing perhaps). The cycle of trend moves on and will continue always since it's a learning thing I think (monkey see - monkey do).
I wonder if I should give a disclaimer like all opinions expressed may or may not be opinions already expressed by randoms on the internet since it is highly unlikely any original thought is occurring this is the internet.
I get tired of seeing developers pushing out fps clones every year that are made for multiplayer and not put out a really good one for people who just like an exciting, sigleplayer fire fight.
Singleplayer fps's are a dying breed. If a shooter doesn't have multiplayer its seen as a flaw. For me, there really hasn't been a great singleplayer fps since half-life 2. And thats sad.
Crysis is the only one that has come close. I think Bioshock was over rated. Also, posters should stop lumping Fall out and mass effect in with half life. Although both are great, they are not the same kind of game at all.
I think the only reason singleplayer fans are getting pissed is because shooters are becoming only about the multiplayer experience. We want to enjoy a game thats looks as good and plays good as Battlefield or Gears and not have to suffer through multiplayer.
I have no problem with there being multiplayer focused fps's. They have their place. As to sigleplayer campaigns. Why should we give up a genre of great games so you can teabag some noob with a space marine's jockstrap.
Singleplayer fps's are a dying breed. If a shooter doesn't have multiplayer its seen as a flaw. For me, there really hasn't been a great singleplayer fps since half-life 2. And thats sad.
Crysis is the only one that has come close. I think Bioshock was over rated. Also, posters should stop lumping Fall out and mass effect in with half life. Although both are great, they are not the same kind of game at all.
I think the only reason singleplayer fans are getting pissed is because shooters are becoming only about the multiplayer experience. We want to enjoy a game thats looks as good and plays good as Battlefield or Gears and not have to suffer through multiplayer.
I have no problem with there being multiplayer focused fps's. They have their place. As to sigleplayer campaigns. Why should we give up a genre of great games so you can teabag some noob with a space marine's jockstrap.
I'm not annoyed by many shooters having a multiplayer focus. I am however annoyed when someone thinks less of a game like Deus Ex for not having it.
This has been a long standing issue for me. I remember getting pissed back in the day at people who bought Half Life just to play Counterstrike, never even trying the brilliant part of that package.
And also, as several people have already mentioned, why do game developers keep trying to do both. Focus on one aspect, either make a kick-ass multiplayer game, or a good, solid, story-driven, single-player game, since they often speak to different crowds.
Also, on a more nostalgic note, what the hell happened to modding. The time honored tradition of making our own damn multiplayer game out of the single player version.
This has been a long standing issue for me. I remember getting pissed back in the day at people who bought Half Life just to play Counterstrike, never even trying the brilliant part of that package.
And also, as several people have already mentioned, why do game developers keep trying to do both. Focus on one aspect, either make a kick-ass multiplayer game, or a good, solid, story-driven, single-player game, since they often speak to different crowds.
Also, on a more nostalgic note, what the hell happened to modding. The time honored tradition of making our own damn multiplayer game out of the single player version.
I haven't played multiplayer since the first Modern Warfare on PC. For the last 3 years I have mostly used my 360, and it's never been online. I don't like multiplayer anymore, so I only buy single player friendly games - mostly RPGs, Forza and Shift, and some select shooters like Red Dead Redemption, Halo, Metro 2033, Dead Space and Rage. These are games/series that have not sacrificed single player for multiplayer or are single player only. I also just picked up Dark Souls to play offline figuring that if I get stuck i'lll just go to YouTube anyway.
I'm fine with the what I see as the current balance of focus in games, generally speaking. It's a pity though that split-screen is regularly overlooked. I love me a good session of offline co-op with Halo and GOW.
ALSO: Long live Half Life!
I'm fine with the what I see as the current balance of focus in games, generally speaking. It's a pity though that split-screen is regularly overlooked. I love me a good session of offline co-op with Halo and GOW.
ALSO: Long live Half Life!
No, it isn't. Yes, in regards to hours, a person can get over 100 hours of gameplay from both a singleplayer centric game (Oblivion) and a multiplayer centric game (TF2). Here's the difference: the singleplayer game requires 100 hours worth of new and varied content in a well-designed campaign. That gets translated into brand new areas, dungeons, enemies, npcs, freshly-voiced dialogue, quests, and story progression that the player needs to be constantly experiencing in order to get the content he was promised.Midgeamoo said:
You don't get that with multiplayer games. You get different maps, game modes, and possibly character classes (depending on the game), but that is it. Those 100 hours that the player experiences are only varied and differ due to the inclusion of the human element (the other players); if it wasn't for that, you'd be playing the same game over and over again.
Multiplayer games don't require the shear manpower, efficiency, and attention-to-detail as a singleplayer game requires. All that adds up in budget for the developers, so I am more than willing to pay $60 for an expertly-crafted singleplayer game. I would never pay the same for TF2. Ever. No matter how good it is. It isn't worth it.
The simple reason all games should have a good single player is what happens if it just doesn't sell well even if it has a really good multiplayer and then you have an expensive paperweight because the servers are always empty. As the OP mentioned it Bulletstorm is a good example of this a good game that sold poorly if it was multiplayer focussed it would have been very difficult to enjoy but because it had a good single player then it was worth it completely.
This...only I don't own any COD so replace that with Halo. Now that Call of Duty 4 is $20 new at this point though I'm planning on fixing that. I played the second but I just rented that one.ToonLink said:
Not to say shooters are or have been my favorite genre but, when I play them I'll play on my own 9 times out of 10 (especially now that my Xbox live is back to silver status)
Of course a game has to stand up on single player though. It doesn't have to focus on single player, it just has to be able to do well. Borderlands wasn't terrible playing alone when I had it, same with Left 4 Dead. Even though most will say "you're not playing it right" when you play those alone, I have and they were just fine.
I do, but then I buy different shooters, that are not COD.
Nothing is more entertaining than being pitted alone against a horde of stupid baddies and creating a bloody carnage.
You don't get that kind of crazy fun in multiplayer, because competitive MP has to be a small, symmetrical conflict.
I also play tactical/stealth shooters sometimes and those simply wouldn't work in multiplayer.
Nothing is more entertaining than being pitted alone against a horde of stupid baddies and creating a bloody carnage.
You don't get that kind of crazy fun in multiplayer, because competitive MP has to be a small, symmetrical conflict.
I also play tactical/stealth shooters sometimes and those simply wouldn't work in multiplayer.
^ This.orangeban said:
I can't even understand the rationale behind defending a game's right to include something and not be criticized on it. That alone makes your whole side silly. Especially since it's only your proclamation that the developers focus is that in the first place, unless you individualize games with dev quotes.
Also, me thinks he got under your skin with the scathing gears review lol. Comical stuff on how thin-skinned people are when it's obvious that he goes to the extreme and they are his opinions. He lambasts JPRGs constantly, and I love them, and think he's funny when he picks on 'em. I know it's based on his obvious biases/preferences. I don't start QQ threads about how mean ol' Yahtzee picked on my genre.
I don't know why I read this and could only see:veloper said:
"I don't always play shooters, but when I do, it's not COD. Stay thirsty my friends" lol
If the story is interesting, then the single player is important, because I don't like playing with strangers (except things like Team Fortress) and me and my friends not always play the same things, or on the same systems unfortunately.
I'd rather play multiplayer with bots than with strangers. At least then I can pretend that I'm playing a single player game and I can create a story for myself as I play.
Games should try and find a balance of all elements.
Single player isn't a bonus, and neither is multiplayer. Call of Duty: Black ops described it best on the back of the box; 3 games in one (3 being single player campaign, Multiplayer deathmatch and Nazi Zombies (arguably) cop-op)
Single player isn't a bonus, and neither is multiplayer. Call of Duty: Black ops described it best on the back of the box; 3 games in one (3 being single player campaign, Multiplayer deathmatch and Nazi Zombies (arguably) cop-op)
I'm going to assume the reason that people are hating on Gears of War 3 is because the advertising focusses on it's single player. I haven't played any of the Gears games but as a potential customer I couldn't give a crap about it's multiplayer because it's advertised to me as a singleplayer game, and I expect it to be as such.Midgeamoo said:
The Call of Duty singleplayer is getting weaker and weaker with a greater focus on the multiplayer and it's a damn shame because the single player used to be awesome! Then again, maybe it's just the writing is getting crappier. It feels like they're not putting the effort in any more for the singleplayer.
BF3 has a campaign, but it is a multiplayer game first and foremost, like it's predecessors. Previous BF games, barring Bad Company, had little in the way of story, just a succession of AI battles, because it was a multiplayer game and didn't try and be a singleplayer one.
And who determines what the focus of a game is? Plenty of people buy CoD games for the single player and don't touch the multiplayer, so for them the focus is the single player. Who are you to tell them that they're wrong. On that note, some of those people might despise the single player, and it seems like a cop-out excuse to say 'well, the focus is on the multiplayer, what did you expect?'
Also, what if you played a game with a single player focus that included multiplayer, but the multi-player was lacklustre? Wouldn't you like to complain about that multiplayer? Really, people have the right to complain about anything that's included in a game, and you have no right to tell them they're wrong.
I agree with other people who have suggested that single and muliplayer are sold separately, as that way everyone is happy.
Also, what if you played a game with a single player focus that included multiplayer, but the multi-player was lacklustre? Wouldn't you like to complain about that multiplayer? Really, people have the right to complain about anything that's included in a game, and you have no right to tell them they're wrong.
I agree with other people who have suggested that single and muliplayer are sold separately, as that way everyone is happy.
Single player is a challenge. Multi-player is just a test.
I always prefer single player because you try to beat the challenge set by programmers who, in theory, really know their stuff. Multi-player is just a test of skill. Multi-player can be so inconsistent. One day dominating a bunch of new players, the next being thrashed by a team of experienced players.
The only games I've ever enjoyed a muliplayer experience with strangers are Left 4 Dead 1 & 2 and Team Fortress 2, and that's only because of the co-operative style of play those games encourage. With friends I like Doom 2 and Command & Conquer. But online, it's just not worth the aggravation. I play games to unwind, not get wound up and cheaters, haters and sore losers.
I always prefer single player because you try to beat the challenge set by programmers who, in theory, really know their stuff. Multi-player is just a test of skill. Multi-player can be so inconsistent. One day dominating a bunch of new players, the next being thrashed by a team of experienced players.
The only games I've ever enjoyed a muliplayer experience with strangers are Left 4 Dead 1 & 2 and Team Fortress 2, and that's only because of the co-operative style of play those games encourage. With friends I like Doom 2 and Command & Conquer. But online, it's just not worth the aggravation. I play games to unwind, not get wound up and cheaters, haters and sore losers.
I only buy games for single player. I have only ever bought ONE (count that: one) game for its multi-player and that was counter-strike.
I couldn't give a rat's ass if a single player shooter has good multiplayer. if it has a campaign, then it should be judged based on the quality of said campaign.
If I want multiplayer Ill buy a multiplayer-centric game (such as TF or L4D). Simple as that
I couldn't give a rat's ass if a single player shooter has good multiplayer. if it has a campaign, then it should be judged based on the quality of said campaign.
If I want multiplayer Ill buy a multiplayer-centric game (such as TF or L4D). Simple as that