Maybe Shooters Just Need To Give Up On Campaigns Entirely

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?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Jalva1186d ago (Edited 1186d ago )

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.

Rimeskeem1186d ago

Do you ever have positive things to say?

KarmaV121186d ago

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.

RealFry1186d ago (Edited 1186d ago )

"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.

HaveSumNuts1186d ago (Edited 1186d ago )

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.

badz1491186d ago

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!

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1186d ago
TheSaint1186d ago

'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.

GTgamer1186d ago

So he came to have of idiots soooooooooo doesn't that make him a idiot -_- god help us.

Thatguy-3101186d ago

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.

kraenk121186d ago (Edited 1186d ago )

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.

SniperControl1186d ago


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.

OB1Biker1186d ago

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)

Magicite1186d ago

''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.

LonDonE1186d ago

Dude you are entitled to your opinion but I swear more and more today's gamers amaze me.
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.

jb2271185d ago

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.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1185d ago
Maybay1186d ago (Edited 1186d ago )

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.

-Foxtrot1186d ago

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

Rimeskeem1186d ago

TLOU had an amazing mp and amazing sp but that's Naughty Dog for you

StrayaKNT1186d ago

I wouldn't call tlou mp amazing it was below average. The story telling and sp was great though.

jimsl1ce1186d ago

Just thinking about TLOU MP gives me the warm & fuzzies

guyman1186d ago


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.

uth111186d ago

Game developers are known to work incredibly long hours. I would never call them lazy.

1186d ago
Germany71186d ago

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.

Show all comments (65)
The story is too old to be commented.