I do love a good shooter. I'm gonna play Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 , and I'm a big fan of the last two Killzone titles.
And while Guerrilla's games have fantastic single-player campaigns and I'm hoping that won't change for the fourth entry, I wish developers would just come out and admit that the multiplayer boom is all they care about.
I don't blame them a bit; it's all they care about because it's all the majority of gamers care about. When it comes to shooters, if it doesn't excel in the multiplayer category, it may as well not exist. If it doesn't deliver on the single-player front, who cares? Even if it's the greatest campaign ever, it'll only come in at 7 hours max, and the multiplayer is endless.
And now the big news from DICE is this from Battlefield 3 multiplayer designer Lars Gustavsson-
"In multiplayer, we do an additional pass for animation. In singleplayer, you don’t mind if a guard up on a balcony does a Hollywood death – stumbling around a bit before falling over. In multiplayer it needs to be a one-to-one correlation between action and result."
Okay, so the animations in multiplayer will be better? Or at the very least, more realistic? And then we hear about how MW3 will somehow have a "multiplayer feel" to the campaign, although we don't have exact details just yet. Look, nobody buys these games for the campaign anymore; a few might actually play that campaign, but they'll quickly move past it for the multiplayer action. We all know it, and the developers know it.
One of these days, I keep hoping they'll release multiplayer-only shooters and separate titles with no multiplayer. You know, games that feature 20-hour bad-ass campaigns that great studios could produce if they could dedicate all their resources to single-player. And the multiplayer fans would benefit as well, with 100% of all resources going towards that one endeavor. But that probably won't happen. And in the meantime, I'd just like one game maker to admit what we already know.
Related Game(s): Battlefield 3