If nobody even cares about campaigns in the multiplayer-dominated genre, what's the point of putting millions into such a feature? Why even bother?
I agree, unfortunately the same cannot be said for most people on here, they wouldn't know what to do without their five hour shooting gallery campaigns. There's plenty of single player only games out there, but when the odd multiplayer only game comes along people lose their sh*t, they feel so entitled that they think every game should be made to suit their preferences or it's a piece of garbage that shouldn't exist, I've been on quite a lot of sites in my time but I have never been on one that is home to as many closed-minded biased individuals as this one, hell the only reason I found this place is because of all the people on various other gaming sites that often refer to it as a haven for idiots.
Do you ever have positive things to say?
I actually kinda agree with him (the first part of his comment). Shooters that often focus on multiplayer battles only need to just expand the multiplayer and drop the campaign. I imagine they could add a crap ton more to COD multiplayer rather than making a 4 hour campaign that will be forgotten the next day. Games that set out for a great single player experience are the ones that can shine and appeal to those who enjoy an in depth story. Anyone who buys Call of Duty or Battlefield most likely isn't buying it for the campaign.
"Anyone who buys Call of Duty or Battlefield most likely isn't buying it for the campaign." It used to be the case, atleast for COD that people bought WW2 themed COD's exclusively for the campaign( the campaign of the WW2 COD's often won awards on their own merit) and the multiplayer was a nice bonus or secondary reason. Advanced Warfare made a decent effort to make an interesting campaign, more so then any other recent COD to memory next to COD 4. The developers working on this franchise can technically afford to do both, but they want to milk the casuals who came in after the COD4 craze that propelled the multiplayer focus on COD. And the demographic who used to buy the WW2 COD's is long gone or morphed into a annual multiplayer only player now. Sad in a way that people forget that story/campaign used to be a strong suit of the franchise.
We get day one dlc because some gamers actually defend day one dlc saying devs need to eat, like $60 isn't enough. We get broken games at release because some gamers are okay with it being patched later, if the game doesn't work day one don't be like "can't wait for the patch" people should be pissed paying $60 for a games that might not work properly. We get never end yearly sequels in game franchises which make no effort in innovating gameplay since the previous installment because gamers go out and buy the next COD or Assassins Creed. Now we're reaching a point where gamers are defending devs who don't want to put effort into making a single player campaign. A lot of people don't have standards today that why the standard of games today has dropped. Minimal content, day one dlc, graphical downgrades, broken games, micro transactions and never ending yearly sequels from franchises who could care less about making the game fresh instead reskining it. These are problems which are huge today which weren't in the earlier 2000's do you know why? Gamers had standards back then.
NO! Sorry can't agree with this. Admittedly, there are a number of crappy campaigns for shooters out there and some are just plain lazy and tacked on but at least they made an effort on it to try to please those who love to play SP first and not jumped directly into MP. I am one of them. but there are many great ones too which makes the game itself even more awesome and I hope many devs will continue putting a decent efforts towards their SP campaign or even coop. Dropping campaign altogether while still charging full price as an MP only game screams cash grab and laziness is written all over it! MP used to be an added feature for games and I hope it stays that way. Call me old school or whatever but just because some of you out there are die hard fans of DICE and StarWars, doesn't mean tgey can't do no wrong in their decisions!
'I have never been on one that is home to as many closed-minded biased individuals as this one, hell the only reason I found this place is because of all the people on various other gaming sites that often refer to it as a haven for idiots.' This whole section is filled with hypocrisy.
So he came to have of idiots soooooooooo doesn't that make him a idiot -_- god help us.
I really wished we had a game that was story driven like the likes of The Last of Us or Uncharted. I'm surprised with so many war games none have nailed an amazing campaign.
This! I never even touch multiplayer. I hate it most of the times. I am deeply disappointed Battlefront 3 won't have a SP campaign. I really enjoyed Wolfenstein The New Order and I am eagerly waiting for another great SP shooter story...Guess we'll have to wait for Half Life 3.
@kraenk12 Yep, same here, i hardly ever touch MP anymore, i would much rather have a satisfying SP experience along the lines of The Order or SWKOTOR.
True but they are mainly single player games to tell a story and have MP as an extra... as for MP games its about the same thing the other way round. IMO Single player games dont necessarily need a MP experience and MP games dont necessarily need a campaign (but I think need a single player mode which BFront has)
''Maybe Shooters Just Need To Give Up On Campaigns Entirely'' - In that case I will give up on shooters entirely. I dont like FPS games, mostly due to first-person view and repetitive gameplay, but solid campaign is what makes me play them. Just my opinion.
Dude you are entitled to your opinion but I swear more and more today's gamers amaze me. @HaveSumNuts You nailed it mate, bubble up for you! couldn't have said it better myself! My god WTF happened to us gamers? people are dam sheep.
Tell me where all of these single player "only" games are? I see games that have been notoriously single player experiences (Arkham Origins, Tomb Raider) have resources wasted on mp on virtually every single release, and I don't see people really "crying" about that. I'm all for everyone having access to the kind of games they enjoy, and I think there should be a discussion between devs & publishers on this topic, but ever since the introduction of online mp I'm seeing games having shorter & shorter campaigns in favor of tacked on mp. The last bastion of single player only games, the open world genre, literally couldn't support a mp structure out of tech limitations for years but now they've caught up & even those games are being gimped on in certain situations in order to make room for mp development. Open world games aren't even typically all that great for storytelling, these days I'd be shocked if there were a half dozen to a dozen true sp only titles being released in the AAA sector, whereas it seems like every month or two we see another online only title being released or announced.
I always complete the campaign first, before I venture onto the online portion of gameplay. ''If nobody even cares about campaigns in the multiplayer-dominated genre, what's the point of putting millions into such a feature? Why even bother?'' Then why not have gaming platforms that require the user to always be online? Bottom line is; gamers are currently paying for online multiplayer (only on PS4 and Xbox 1), so whatever becomes the norm, it'll be the people spending the most who'll allow it.
No because you are giving developers an excuse to do less work and not try as hard. NaughtyDog can make an alright online and a great single player so I don't see why others can't
TLOU had an amazing mp and amazing sp but that's Naughty Dog for you
I wouldn't call tlou mp amazing it was below average. The story telling and sp was great though.
Just thinking about TLOU MP gives me the warm & fuzzies
@Aussiegamer Yea YOU would call it below average, because it's not the X1 am i right?. I can see through your constant trolling. TLOU multiplayer is brilliant, that is the consensus. Jeez your comments are pathetic.
Game developers are known to work incredibly long hours. I would never call them lazy.
My question is why do people get so pissed when a GREAT single player game throws in a crappy multiplayer, but think every single game has to have a campaign, even if it's crap?
No, a lot of series deliver a full package of content, with single-player and multiplayer, just because DICE can't do it that everyone should follow the same path.
I'm going to get a ton of disagrees for this but who cares. Honestly, just look at what happened to Titanfall. A good game that has become nearly a ghost town in most of the game modes. It had nothing to do with the quality of the game. But everything to do with the lack of a campaign. If it had a campaign (not that silly campaign within the mulitiplayer idea), the game would probably be more populated. Because if nothing else, the campaign serves as a trainer of the game. For many people online gaming can be intimidating. So taking away the ONLY thing that could have prepped the players before hand (single player) potentially kills your game in the long run. Some games might get away with it for a while based off of things like franchise popularity, but it's risky.
Well said... Titanfall never got my attention. I don't play multiplayer, I see zero point in playing the same thing over and over. So this game was never aimed at me personally. I like singleplayer campaigns with engaging stories, memorable characters, and innovative gameplay. Had Titanfall included a decent campaign, I would've bought it, as the jetpack/giant robot gameplay looks like so much fun. I might have found that I was pretty good at it (like most games, haha) and tried out the multiplayer. Its just a fact of life that attention spans are getting shorter and theres always a new better game around the corner. A multiplayer only game is never gonna last more than a year.
I bought TF last year on PC, i gotta admit, i have not touched it in 6 months or so.
"multiplayer only games never last more then a year." What do you mean by last? Do you mean like still in its prime where lots are still playing it? Either way its wrong. Warhawk on ps3 is 8 years old and still going. Garden warfare is over a year old and still pretty good even after no major content after 7 months in its life cycle. Naughty Dog only put 8 months of work into last of us online factions and i've put more hours into its then all the uncharted singleplayerc combined.(even Abyss) And i have all Uncharted platinums btw. Multiplayer has the potential to get more playtime then singleplayer with less work involved in making it compared to singleplayer. RPGs can even that out but obviously it depends on the individual gamer aswell.
I never played Titanfall but I think it doesnt have any single player mode. A friend of mine on xbox never bought it because of no campaign. Wouldnt a single player mission mode like in Battlefront be actually what you said and not necessarily a story campaign?
Haha, Zero disagrees...
I am not willing to pay 60$ for a mp game only. I don't want devs to think it's ok to create half a game and sell it at a full game price.
That's why I never bought into MP only games as well. The problem is not enough people know how to speak with their wallets. They only care about the "instant gratification". Then to make matters worse, when that game's server eventually goes offline, you have nothing but a useless disc (or digital download) that you can't do ANYTHING with anymore. At least games with a campaign can have the advantage of still being of use even after a server goes offline
How is it half a game? When a game like Witcher 3 comes out, with a single player only, do you consider it "half a game" because it has no multiplayer?
Always play SP first and the only way I'll ever, EVER buy a game with just MP is if that game was 60fps, 1080p with the most cutting edge graphic ever seen to date that would change the industry forever.... And not on a goddamn pc Until then, don't put a mp only game at $60
The day that happens is the day I totally abandon the genre 4 good. This should never happen
err....it already happened. The original Battlefield games & CounterStrike all started as multiplayer only titles. The addition of shitty campaigns to games like this is a relatively recent thing and it is completely unnessecary.
Who said anything about Battlefield or CS? He's talking about shooters in general.
lol no. Some Killzone and Resistance had good campaigns, just make sure they're good instead of dropping them.
No campaign = no buy
I think developers should be free to make what they want to make. The are folks who think a game like Wolfenstein: The New Order isn't complete 'less it has multi-player. There are those that think Titanfall isn't complete 'cause it doesn't have a singleplay mode. If you aren't happy with whatever is being sold to you. Simply don't support it.
Um..shut up Jalva..I can't see , why we should stop hoping that they will try to do the both portion of the game equally good, cod 4 , the first halo , Killzone , Resistance all of them are good examples of things done right, they all had a brilliant multiplayer alongside a meaty equally great story portion. I don't see , why we should encourage the developers to stop caring for campaign and drop the ball completely.
Great games have awesome single player campaigns and awesome multiplayer modes!
Why not just learn how to build a story campaign? Why should the players viewpoint being first person mean a crappy story? Fallout can be an fps, farcry is, deus ex is.... they have epic stories. They just need to either deliver a story, or yes, stick with multiplayer only.
...Yea if you're a moron!
Just look at the populity of Titanfall & Evolve. Both are great multiplayer games, but their populity wine after the 1st month.
ew no. I can't imagine halo with no campaign.....but Russians can.
Most campaigns end up being a waste of money. The developer ended up pouring countless hours into designing assets that most gamers never even see... But I'll never say all shooters should ditch campaigns. I love halo MP. But there is no halo without the story.
I never even touch multiplayer. I hate it most of the times. I am deeply disappointed Battlefront 3 won't have a SP campaign. I really enjoyed Wolfenstein The New Order and I am eager for another great SP shooter story...Guess I'll have to wait for Half Life 3.
Maybe you should suck a lemon and stop acting like everyone likes the same mindless shooting galleries.
This is exactly why i support SP-only games... this mentality of forcing people to play with others ain't happening... ever.
Not every games needs to be multiplayer...just as not every game needs to have a campaign. single player FPS games work brilliantly when done right (dishonoured, half life, bioshock) while others really dont need it (battlefield, titanfall..though it would be cool to explore that backstory/universe and team fortress. All great MP games that dont need a campaign) MMOS are designed to be played online with other players.Its in the name. But you could just as easily get a good single player RPG like a skyrim or witcher. There is room for both.
No. If it has no campaign then I'm not buying it.
Am I the only one who enjoyed Wolfenstein A New Order?
This is why I love the souls series and bloodeborne , I wish more games integrated the mp and sp together as a whole , destiny and borderlands come to mind too since we're talking about shooters
Maybe on an alternate earth.
maybe they should just give up on multiplayer instead.
So we can use the term "mindless qith an excuse?"
Totally disagree. I'm fine with certain shooters not having single player (Titan Fall, Battlefront), but I buy games like Halo, Far Cry, Wolf and even COD for the single player because I sick at multiplayer.
I prefer campaign over multiplayer, and won't buy a shooter without it unless its 1/2 off
Wut? "if nobody" Talk about trying to force feed perspective. People play campaigns. Many gamers want a linear FPS experience. And some, imagine this...don't want online muliplayer. Games yo, games.
CoD4 had a great campaign.Memorable all the way through from the raid on the Arabic TV station to the sniper mission in Pipryat
The day this happens, is the day I stop playing them. I love the campaign modes more then the multiplayer one. I like playing these Michael Bay approved explodethlon games. So if they go away, the developers won't be getting my money. I rented Titanfall, but would have owned it if it had a real game mode.
Lol if this is the route developers go with shooter games i will never waste a dime on another one
I still haven't finished bc2 kill zone 2 and 3 Halo 4 Resistance 2 black ops 1 and 2 etc and it's all because of online multilayer ;)
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.