Ben-DutkaAs most of you know by now, the Battlefield 4 campaign clocks in at only about 4 hours.
As it turns out, according to CinemaBlend citing a tipster, the Call of Duty: Ghosts campaign is about the same length. No big surprise.
I've asked this before and I'll ask it again: Why? Why do the developers even bother? Why waste time and resources on something that is quite obviously unnecessary? Most people who buy these games never even bother with the campaign, anyway, and others only play it to get it out of the way. 99.9% of all the time spent with such titles is spent playing the online multiplayer; it's the only reason anybody is standing in a midnight launch line.
I honestly think the designers are just putting in a story mode to appease the old-school hardcore gamers out there, even if that group is tiny compared to the multiplayer fans. Eventually, though, that niche narrative-loving group will get so small, that teams like Infinity Ward, Treyarch and DICE simply won't bother with a campaign any longer. If it won't help to sell more copies – and let's face it, it probably doesn't help at all – why include it? I still say the publishers in question could make a ton of money by creating two annual products; one an epic 10-12 hour single-player adventure, which I believe both old-school hardcore and multiplayer shooter fans will play, and the other a full-on multiplayer-only experience.
I mean, this is just getting to be a joke. The campaigns usually have super high production values and they're never bad ; they're just not really worth much, anymore. So few care. And I can't see continuing to invest such a huge chunk of time and money into something the vast majority of consumers don't even bother with.
Related Game(s): Call of Duty: Ghosts
To be honest I didn't even play the last Call of Duty's single player campaign. I also didn't play that much of the multiplayer either. I'd be ok if they just did away with the campaign, since its really just about multiplayer.
The Black Ops 2 campaign was fairly fun.
It's there nowadays for people to get trophies and achievement points and to stir controversy. Doesn't have much use outside of those reasons.
Love how the CoD commercials treat war and blowing stuff up as inconsequential. I'd love to see those people who play it sign up for the armed forces and see what it really is like to play with only one life.
It's probably more accurate to say that it's a long tutorial. It familiarizes those who haven't played the series before with the mechanics of the game and gets long-time players up to speed on any changes. Ben's right though; it really doesn't have much reason to exist.
Edit: I hadn't read down far enough to see Gordo's comment but I'm in agreement with him.
Last edited by Kryten1029a on 11/4/2013 10:49:29 PM
After the sorry excuse for a campaign in Rainbow Six Vegas 2, I determined that unless the shooter is solely single-player, a story shouldn't be present. Like MAG. Alas, it could be argued that Halo and Killzone are exceptions, but I really wonder…
Played about an hour if that of BLOPS 2 campaign. I wouldn't pay money for COD / BF separate campaign – these are multiplayer games.
Likewise I wouldn't pay a cent for Uncharted or Gears of War multiplayer – games associated with campaign excellence.
Their campaigns were uninteresting and confusing at times…
Maybe they do it out of tradition? Games have always had some sort of single player campaign, it's rather weird to think about one that doesn't (aside from MMOs of course). Even so, I agree that these games need a single player campaign about as much as Spec Ops needed multiplayer.
It seems like these games are sort of like the Old Country Buffet of sorts, cheap heaps of this and a little bit of that here and there. Quantity over quality. Spreading out over MP, Co-op, SP, and zombie modes. I disagree with the premise that these campaigns are actually pretty good, just because the technical quality is good doesn't make them good. They are checklists of the same thing over and over going nowhere.
It's actually pretty sad, I remember enjoying CoD3.
I agree with this. Actually if you pay attention to the CoD series they just mix the same stuff around, and actually cut corners with each iteration while putting most of the money into the PR and Advertizing.
Its because of the corporate structure, they basically have to put less into the money because shareholders require more with each new game, because each previous game sold so well.
I noticed a lot of areas where they cut corners in Blops 2, from the SP across to the MP.
The campaigns in these games are "good" but they aren't great they just do what they require and that is making the player feel bad ass, surrounding people with explosions, and asking very little of the gamer as far as input is required. The stories of the last 4 call of duty games have been mediocre at best.
"Surrounding people with explosions"
That is a very important point, if you play through a campaign section and just ignore the explosions and gunfire that have nothing to do with you and focus on the actual gameplay you are supposed to be pulling off, it's so unimpressive you'll be scared that people are fooled by such simple things.
wait. are you talking about CoD or PS+?
=p
I wish they'd add some explosions to PS+
Also I can call exactly when something is going to break and put me in an "intense" on rails experience. Where all the soldiers scream OH S!%@…sigh its so predictable at this point, and boring and uninspired.
Call of Duty: Ghosts 1080p 60fps on the Playstation 4
Battlefield 4 is how much?
and if it's not 1080p and 60fps give me Reason.
Killzone Shadow Fall 10+ hours Launch game i'm buying for the Playstation 4 at 1080p 60fps.
Last edited by Kiryu on 11/4/2013 12:23:29 AM
KZ is 30fps in SP though I think.
K:SF 30-60 variable framerate get your facts straight
BF4 is about 900p, if the widespread sources are correct. The reason is likely that it runs a far more advanced engine than the CoD engine and there wasn't enough time for DICE to fully optimise it. KZ:SF, last I read was running at about 45-50 fps in the campaign, while it was locked 60 in MP.
"I Think"
Its got to the point that the single player game is really just there as a tutorial for the multiplayer. Also something to play when the Internet is down!
Shame really (though I'm not the target demographic anymore).
Tutorials are so pointless with most games these days it's just a waste of time. They play about the same, there's no need for me to visit your shooting range.
my brother usually buys Call of Duty every year… and the only reason since MW2 put me putting a COD disk in was for the single player… i find them one of the better Military shooters out there in the storyline department.. loved the WAW and MW1! campaigns.. but i just feel like the developer only throws them in to charge more money for the game… for example Socom was only $50 AUS but if that happened to have a campaign it would of been around the $80-90 mark
LOL, whatever, not as if these campaigns are even worth playing. BF3 to MOH to Black Ops 2 and Modern Warfare 2 all had incredibly boring campaigns.
And it's about time reviewers start to notice how shallow and empty they are too.
Yup, but I'm willing to bet most will give Ghosts a 9/10 as they always do.
Last edited by Jawknee on 11/4/2013 2:39:22 AM
That's because these are multiplayer games, and should be reviewed as such.
Anything else would be like rating Uncharted low just because the multiplayer modes in those games are not stellar.
If its a multiplayer game beam then they should cut out the SP, and sell it as a 20 dollar MP only title. There are far deeper MP only shooters on steam that are under 20 bucks, and no way is the MP in CoD worth 60 let alone the 120 it costs to get ALL the MP content.
Its really a huge joke.
(Beam…)
I'm not sure who the target audience is when it comes to the SP of these games – I definately didn't buy any of them for their SP. But my dad loves to play them, and he's absolutely not a gamer. I convinced him to play TLOU, and he's only got to Pittsburg. It's been 3 MONTHS, lol. I've helped him through most of it too…
I guess because COD campaigns are so easy, is the reason non-gamers like to play them. Most of it you don't need to even do what the game is asking, just move forward. It makes no sense in the scene you're playing.
They are really bad in terms of game design too. I was watching my dad play Black Ops 2, and there's this one point where you need to get to an injured guy, who's is standing right in the open. Meanwhile, you're getting shot up from everywhere and nowhere at the same time if you peep out of cover. WTF?
Get to him slowly and carefully, you'll die. Again and again. However, if you rush to where you're supposed to go, this very exact PIXEL of the screen, all while getting shot 1,000 times, the game continues. It completely defied common sense. If I'm near death by getting shot at just before getting to this injured guy, why am I just fine when I get to him? Facepalm moment.
Last edited by Ludicrous_Liam on 11/4/2013 9:54:12 AM
Yes they shifted at some point to becoming multiplayer games, but they aren't even very good multiplayer games either (full of unfixed bugs as they are) but anyway none of that means they should get a pass on the SP.
@Xenris: And why should they do that, if that means cutting their profits by 50%?
There are *hordes* of gamers out there who disagree with you on your claim of there being loads of better shooters. And that's all that matters for this franchise.
@Ludicrous: I would think quite a few COD gamers appreciate there being a campaign, if for nothing else than just the feeling of getting a lot for your money. But these games *are* competitive multiplayer games, that's the main dish.
@World: I think we both should be a bit careful with passing judgement on COD as none of us are in the target audience. You hate anything multiplayer as far as I understand, and I'm just too old for those kind of games anymore.
A *lot* of those who really enjoy multiplayer FPS rate COD high. It may or may not be their #1, but I am pretty sure it's found on most lists.
Last edited by Beamboom on 11/4/2013 2:35:15 PM
Beam those hordes of gamers are the lowest common denominator, they…dare I say don't count. The hordes that flock to this are the hordes that keep mcdonalds in business, I mean mcdonalds sells more each year than pretty much any other restaurant…does that mean its quality food? Heck no, it just caters to a demographic…a very very large one.
Anyone who plays shooters competitively knows the MP is a joke and is terribly designed. Anyone who knows anything about SP games knows that the same can be said about their SP campaigns. The problem is the lowest common denominator doesn't know or care about these technical details.
Now I am judging CoD because I played shooters in the competitive scene on the PC for years, and as far as FPS go there are a lot of things wrong with it even just from a balance standpoint that makes the game very hard to balance around. The perks the map design, the streaks etc.
MW1 was designed well, and could be played competitively, also it had dedicated servers on PC. But MW2 and on, the bugs and technical issues with the multiplayer, you know the hit boxes, the lag compensation, the interp issues, etc those all just got worse.
I can say without a doubt, my clan I played DoD source with, CS with, and my friends who grew up playing Quake 3, UT, and tribes 1 and 2 with ALL think CoD is trash as far as a viable competitive shooter.
Sure its "fun" because the aim assist does half the work, the hit boxes are huge, and the game is very forgiving. But this doesn't make for a technical sound MP shooter.
The story of how I came to pass gas into a jar was more enticing than the last call of duty campaign.
I actually expected more with Gaghan being unafraid to write a semi-epic, but I suppose time constraints and a focus on the MP require it to be only so long. A shame really.
cant really blame them though, i mean who buys CoD for the campaign.
no, scratch that, who actually bothers to play the campaign?
let alone finish it.
2%?
1?
.2?
not saying i wouldent like to see these campaigns be longer, but its kinda hard to fault someone for not doing something that would be a waste of time and resources.
its like complaining that a stripped out lightweight supercar versions dont have the standard luxuries their standard counterparts do.
thats kinda the point.
I'd rather ask "why not". It's just an additional little goodie, a "nice to have", an offline tutorial, a side track to the main purpose of the game.
Much like multiplayer modes added to single player games. A "nice addition" for those who like to try it out.
Last edited by Beamboom on 11/4/2013 4:36:58 AM
Call of duty has always mostly been about the online multiplayer hardly any hardcore COD fans play the single player campaign
On one hand I see why they make them so short, because only a small fraction of CoD owners are actually playing the campaign anyway.
However the reason they don't make this a multiplayer only game is because then they would be expected to not charge 60 bucks for it. Which they can't afford to do because of the profits they have to make on this franchise.
I don't even think they could afford to make a MP only option because 99% of the players would get that.
What CoD is to me, is really an overpriced poorly designed multiplayer game, and it boggles my mind at how it does so well year after year.
There are far better shooters on Steam for under 20 bucks, and heck you can buy the MP only portion of KZ3 now and that is way better than CoD.
Oh well maybe with ghosts we will finally see this franchise start to fall to make room for some more creative ideas next gen.
The influence this franchise has had on the WHOLE industry is disgusting, and I hope that next gen isn't a repeat of this gen.
Right, it isn't even a GOOD MP game, I guess it's just that it's for everyone like in the TV commercials. But again, that shouldn't mean it keeps getting a pass. Everyone is afraid to be the first to call it out for being mediocre.
Have you guys ever played the multiplayer!?
—
It's basically getting shot in the back with no rhyme or reason, rinse and repeat. I think the only way to master it (so YOU can start shooting people in the back) is to learn all the spawn points and all the good hiding places, what the overpowered weapons are etc. All the hallmarks of a badly designed game…
What you thought I was going to say it was good? lol
I used to play em at a friends house because that's all he had, but even he stopped buying them after Black Ops I.
The weirdest part is nobody seems to notice that the graphics are horrible.
Liam I totally forgot in some of the other threads here to bring up the spawn system as a terribly designed and broken part of the MP, but indeed it is terrible and they CONSTANTLY say how they fixed it in the new versions.
I agree world it shouldn't get a pass, and I really wish someone would hammer it for being mediocre.
It blows my mind that not ONE journalist from a popular game site has done this yet. I mean it NEVER gets below 8, unless its a spin off iphone game or whatever. In fact I think the main games in the franchise have all gotten 8.5 and up.
I just dont get it man.
Also world that sunday article you wrote I linked you a video for a steam greenlight game. It looks pretty sweet, turn based jrpg inspired game. Check it out 🙂
To be honest, I stopped playing the CoD when the multiplayer component became the focus. I mean, it was smart on their part when they noticed more and more were focussing on that so it was a smart business decision. Right now it all comes down to money.
For some who think the single player campaign is to justify the cost of $60 … mmmm its possible that the devs think that gamers mentality is that limited. I am not insultin gamers but I think the devs THINK gamers are really that … stupid.
Honestly, I think the fans of mulitplayer games and more specifically CoD would still buy the game at $60 if it was only a multiplayer. If there is some doubt then really all they would have to do is add a few more weapons or armor or whatever.
Point is, you pay the price for the game or genre you love.
True though, if it was multiplayer does not have a lot of expansive maps gamers might feel cheated, but that may force them to create… dare I say, open world multiplayer maps.
Maybe Bungie is on to something with Destiny. Just a thought.
Keep playing!
In DICE's defense a 4hr campaign is about 4hrs longer then Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, and Battlefield 2142 combined. They fully design the game as a multiplayer PC game first.
Because if they didn't i wouldn't buy. I like to play couch coop even if it's short. Plus it's usually shallow yes but it blows you away with special effects and cinematic action. Lot's of fun.
Also I use the campaing to practice the new controls and get used to the game. I think questionning the inclusion of a fun short sp campaing is what is weird. I also think while yes, most buy it for the online part, a lot of people enjoy the sp action.
I'd say Killzone Shadow Fall is the best upcoming FPS game for PS4.. With a 10 hour campaign and a great multiplayer, it easily beats the hell out of COD Ghosts and BF4.. I wish I could buy a ps4 this coming nov 15.. sheesh..
Why is there an xbox promotion for call of duty on a playstation based website?
Well I have heard some reveiwers say it has taken them 10 hours to complete.
The length of a campaign will always vary between people. I mean look at those speed players who finish entire games in an hour.
The Black Ops 2 SP took me about 7 hours I think. I like to try and enjoy the experience, some people just want to finish it.