Movies Games and Tech writes: The Wolfenstein series is certainly something very special indeed and when it was brought back into modern times with ‘The New Order’ and ‘The Old Blood’ it absolutely woke up an other wise stagnant First Person Shooter genre with a firm kick up the backside. That said, from a story point of view I really could not see where the series could go next in terms of story with the shocking ending to The New Order which saw our main hero and all round “haha Doomguy needs armour” hero William ‘B.J.’ Blazkowicz sacrifice himself to save his team and put an end to the evil Deathshead. But of course this is Wolfenstein so anything is possible for Terror Billy!
If you have been looking to upgrade your PC accessories or simply need a new game about saving the world, this is the sale for you! We've found some explosive deals that you simply can't pass up!
This weekend's PC deals from Amazon feature some of the best First Person Shooters to hit your computer in the last few years, with Overwatch, Wolfenstein, Fallout 4 and many more offering fantastic savings.
Black Ops 4 had no campaign. Battlefield 5's was very slight. Is the age of the shooter with both a campaign and multiplayer waning?
Not necessarily. If it takes away from the quality of the MP then leave that shit out. Same principle applies to MP in SP games.
the quality of the MP for both BF5 and CoD BO4 remained the same or got worse. Or are you going to act like removing a component somehow makes another instantly better?
There is not much to be done for MP shooters. The formula is constantly redone. It takes very little effort to reskin weapons and abilities/perks, and add new maps. It can be done within a few months. But, they lengthen the release schedule to prevent saturating the market. Especially, in CoD's case.
You are twisting the SP games narrative. And yes, FPS still need Single players mode.
@Septic
Then they should change the price. A multiplayer only game should be like $30 bucks. $60 bucks is ridiculous for a multiplayer game
@narutofox
Well then SP games should also only be $30, paying 60 for a SP only game is even more ridiculous.
@gangsta_red
I rather pay $60 for a great single player game than a multiplayer game that requires internet, Microtransactions, lootboxes, and a paid subscription to play it. So basically you're paying more than $60 anyway for a multiplayer only game. Now that's ridiculous. A good example is EA
@naruto
SP games also have DLC and microtransactions.
No one is forcing gamers to pay for those extras, so I disagree that you're paying more than $60 for a MP game.
"Or are you going to act like removing a component somehow makes another instantly better?"
Allowing devs to spend more time on one game mode doesn't allow them a better chance to ensure quality?
Right in that case, all SP games should have MP...right?
Red
I would emphatically say multiplayer is easy to develop with little risk. You make it once and then reskin it every year. Single player requires you to build a new game every time.
@mkis0074h
"I would emphatically say multiplayer is easy to develop with little risk"
Tell that to the developers of Evolve or the guys who made Titanfall 2, how about Lawbreakers or Drawn to Death? I'm sure they would disagree with the little risk statement especially since a couple of those studios even shut down because their MP game failed.
There's a risk in every IP new or old when released to the public. Pretty sure the risk is the same for MP especially when trying to chase juggernauts like Fortnite or CoD.
Not sure why you are getting so many disagrees. you clearly state a what if scenario. if it in fact takes away from the MP, I agree it could be an issue, but is is there any documented evidence either MP or SP suffering as a result of focus on the other?
I could see something like GTA suffering because of GTA online, but that would be difficult to prove.
What we are seeing is free to play seeping into our games and causing some disruption. Similar to Arcade games designed to efficiently suck your quarters back in the day, vs console games now that are much more substantial...at least until free to play.
I think Call of Duty has room for both a campaign story and what they did with this new multiplayer only game. I do think they shouldn't have called it Black Ops 4 though. I know they wanted to associate it but if they're going to make a multiplayer only game I think a better name then a numbered title would have been more appropriate.
Exactly, they just wanted to capitalize on the BO name thats all.
You know what, I'll be damned for saying this but I've enjoyed all COD campaigns, hell it was the only part I cared about on these games.
Activision can.afford to make both SP and MP games, dont let shils tell you any different.
@ Septic
"Allowing devs to spend more time on one game mode doesn't allow them a better chance to ensure quality?"
"Right in that case, all SP games should have MP...right?"
No really. You can have 2 teams working on the game. 1 for SP and 1 for MP.
No all SP games should have MP. That argument only works for FPS. Most SP games would not benefit from MP. Now if it was MP PvE then yes. But the thing is most MP FPS games are rehashed and repetitive. I can see paying close to $60 for a game like Elder Scrolls Online as it's massive and has a story and quests. Unlike COD where it's PVP and the same ol gameplay.
Yes Septic. I told you already. Pay attention or its back to prison for you.
do you believe the amount of effort they put into online only shooter like CoD BO4, Fortnite BR or PUBG really more than to put together Masterpieces like TW3 or UC4 or Spider-man or GoW?
Why? What would be the reason?
The same amount of dev time, engineering, marketing and everything used to make a SP only game is the same amount of time for a MP game.
Except a MP game has the added server maintenance, constant balancing, maintaining online communities, updates to maps and content and so on much more so than a SP game.
Why would they not charge full price when more work goes into MP games?
"The same amount of dev time, engineering, marketing and everything used to make a SP only game is the same amount of time for a MP game. "
Disagree!!! You are really going to tell me that multiplayer games take the same amount of time to make as Single player games...knowing full well there is a New Call of Duty every year? Or even every 2 years? Battlefield/front every year? Meanwhile a single player game like God of War or Red Dead Redemption 2 are once a generation games...
If it's an online MP game that we have never heard of then maybe. But i'm sure COD and Battlefield are reskinned. And no way in hell does a MP game require more time and money than a SP game. AAA SP games have actors and scripts and are built usually from scratch. If they remove the story and SP then it better be PvE.
@mkis
And there's an AC every year or two as well.
You also have to consider how many multiple different teams are working on CoD/Battlefield, then consider how much more money CoD/Battlefield is raking in monthly compared to a single player game so this is why they would want these games on a rotation by different teams.
That still doesn't mean that less work goes in to those games and others like Titanfall, Overwatch or Rainbow Six games that have a MP focus and do not come out yearly or such.
MP games do not take anywhere near as much time effort or money as a full singleplayer experience. What are you even talking about? You mean to tell me black ops 4 and battlefield V took as much effort as Spider-Man? God of war? Uncharted 4? Last of us? Halo 5?
You’re nuts if you believe that.
@hungryal
Where or even how are you getting this information? Exactly why wouldn't those games take as much time or effort?
These games have a different set of requirements when developing and take just as much of an effort from engineers that are also put in for SP games.
Or do people really believe that maintaining, adding and constantly monitoring games like OverWatch, CoD, Battlefield, LoL, WoW, Fortnite years after their realease is anything like a one and done deal like those SP games you mentioned?
So you saw value in BFV having a campaign?
If the devs aren't going to bother making the campaign worth playing then they should just leave it out altogether. if they're going to take it seriously and make a good experience, then I want it included. There is no set rule on this.
The point is games should have campaigns. Why alienate gamers who want a different experience with their purchase? I get no entertainment from pure MP games.
"I get no entertainment from pure MP games."
Then you're not part of the games target audience. If BFV's campaign is enough to convince you to buy a game then you've got low standards.
Titanfall 2 had a good campaign so it was worth including. However, 90% of the campaigns in BF are a pure waste of time, and if it not being included is a deal-breaker for you then I'm absolutely okay with that.
It's like saying that if Dead Space 2 didn't have multiplayer you wouldn't have bought it. DS2 doesn't need multiplayer and the resources would've been better spent on more SP content.
@SenorFartCushion
Say that when less than a quarter of the people who purchased the game complete the campaign.
Why should MP games have campaigns? The BF games didn't have campaigns to start off with?
"Why alienate gamers who want a different experience with their purchase?"
Well then all Single Player games should come with MP by your logic?
"I get no entertainment from pure MP games"
Speak for yourself. That's not the case for everyone.
No, I don't think they should have SP campaigns. If they do have them, I wish they were worthwhile and not just wasted money for something that could have been spent elsewhere.
Pretty much the exact same for SP games with MP modes.
tl;dr Pretty much what Septic has said in this thread so far.
