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

Subscribe
Notify of
84 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
schillah
schillah
9 years ago

lol yea

especially MW3 coming out…they're showing story mode vids now but….everyone is waiting for the killstreaks and perks info.

Xombito
Xombito
9 years ago

Well there kind of doing that already aren't the? MAG is multiplater only and I don't think I heard of anything regarding multiplayer for Bioshock Infinite. Then there the new Deus Ex.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
9 years ago

While both of those are from a first-person viewpoint, they don't really qualify as "shooters."

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

So far MAG is an anomaly in the market.

mindmurderer69
mindmurderer69
9 years ago

for an "anomaly" i thought it was a pretty good start. Sure it didnt have the perks of C.O.D but that and the SGT PL and OIC leaders aspect gave it the most original/RL feel of any FPS out there right now. im sure if they polished up the graphics it wouldve done better on the market as a whole. they also could expand to cross between MAG and something like battlefield or warhawk to where you could operate equipment found on a normal battle (tanks planes ships) and actual rank and files like in mag do away with perks (takes away from a real life perspective) it would be the ultimate true to life experience make it on-line only and a different title for offline there would be people that would definitely pick it up

Xombito
Xombito
9 years ago

Oh yeah, I forgot about Warhawk.

maxpontiac
maxpontiac
9 years ago

I would still be playing MAG today if they would have had more maps for Sabotage.

That game was to good.

big6
big6
9 years ago

MAG is and was an amazing game! I played it religiously until I hit the barrier at level 70.

To this day, when I play other shooters, I compare it to MAG.

bigrailer19
bigrailer19
9 years ago

MAG was brilliant. I love that game. I'd be home playing it right now if I knew someone who was playing. I get lost in all those players by myself. It's nice to have a comrade with you when diving into the mass of hundreds of players.


Last edited by bigrailer19 on 7/11/2011 11:44:34 AM

Neo_Aeon666
Neo_Aeon666
9 years ago

I am sorry Ben but I disagree. They qualify as shooters. You have a gun, you point, you shoot. That is the core of the game. Now around that you have some nice RPG elements but that only makes it a good original shooter that is unlike the others. To me even Mass Effect 2 is a 3rd person shooter with a good story and nice customization. In the end it is still about your skill to crouch shoot and get headshots.

Going by what you are saying, only boring, repetitive war games come in the *Shooter* category.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
9 years ago

You can believe what you want. Putting Bioshock in the "shooter" category is absurd.

Neo_Aeon666
Neo_Aeon666
9 years ago

Well I am not saying it is ONLY a shooter. But at the core it is one no? When people ask me about good shooters I talk about Bioshock as one of them. Then I tell them it also has some RPG elements and a much deeper story line. But heck, you see in first person and most of your weapons are guns. And if your aim is crap you won't get far. To me a shooter is a game where you use mostly guns and need accuracy to hit a target. You seem to only have extremes in your categorization O_O I would like to know just what is a shooter by your standards and why a game can't be a shooter at the same time as being somewhat of an RPG.

At the moment if I go by your say and someone asks me about a good shooter I couldn't mention Bioshock. And when someone asks about a good RPG I couldn't either since it is by no means close to turn by turn and the strategizing (not sure that word is legit lol) is minimal compared to fully fledged RPGs. So I'd have to have a *Bastard* section where I keep those games that incorporate many elements XD


Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 7/12/2011 9:18:10 AM

NoSmokingBandit
NoSmokingBandit
9 years ago

Modern FPS make me miss games like Red Faction. I still have my copy somewhere around here, i'll have to dig it out. I spent more time in Red Faction than i did in some RPGs.
Modern shooters are short, unoriginal, and boring in comparison. I feel like there are very few things that are better now than they were 10 years ago.

jimmyhandsome
jimmyhandsome
9 years ago

I don't think they'd ever admit that in fear of alienating some of their fans who actually like the campaigns. Although I think you're right about FPS that have bad multiplayer compared to single player. Killzone 3 had a good single player but it was sooooo short. I kept going back for multiplayer. And like wise Socom 4's campaign was crap, but I've poured in tons of hours online.

I don't mind developers making both a robust single player and multiplayer modes. I mean, look at Uncharted 3. The campaign will be great based off of the past two iterations, and the beta is already a beast. If its done right I want most developers to put time in both modes.

Alienange
Alienange
9 years ago

You want a gamemaker to admit to… who, exactly? The press? Something tells me they've admitted it to themselves, and their fans certainly aren't so dense as to think mp is less important than a long-winded campaign. Not sure why they'd have to come out and officially "say something" to anyone.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
9 years ago

They need to admit they're focusing more on multiplayer and that way, maybe people who like campaigns won't always rave about how disappointed they are at the length of a shooter story.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

I think we just can't get past this "The campaign will not suffer in any way" nonsense untilt hey admit, "yeah this game is aimed at multiplayer fun"

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
9 years ago

Exactly.

Nas Is Like
Nas Is Like
9 years ago

It's all about the multiplayer today. That's where the real fun is in FPS games, especially since there are some tough competitors out there and playing the campaign tends to get repetitive/boring quickly, as it's the same thing over and over again. At least you can keep it fresh with multiplayer.

Fabi
Fabi
9 years ago

I don't agree at all.

But don't have the time right now to type every reason why.

FM23
FM23
9 years ago

Yeah even though FPS's aren't my thing…I like the online features sometimes because most campaigns aren't really that satisfying. Bioshock and Half life are the exception as well as KZ "2". But everything after this is just rinse and repeat military mumbo jumbo…even KZ3's sci-fi setting couldn't save it. But the MP was fresh, if not irritating but more satisfying than the campaign in my opinion. Keep MP because it's a very good diversion from stereotypical campaigns…I still need to try Crysis 2…might add a new great FPS to my lot if it turns out good.

Beamboom
Beamboom
9 years ago

I understand what you mean Nas, regarding the repetitiveness. I agree. Once it's played it more or less is played.

Just to cross reference this to the story last week about Ubisoft welcoming the next gen cause of design limits in the AI designs: This is exactly why. Once the designers *can* create advanced AIs as opposed to having to heavily rely on scripts to do the major moves (that's what makes it so repetitive) campaigns can technically become able to have much higher *replay value*, cause that's the core of what we discuss here. It's the replay value of mp vs sp that is the problem. it simply is much more fun to play the same map over and over and over against human players. It's *not* in sp.

So, from this perspective I am actually an optimist for the future single player experiences. It just have to wait for the *next* generation.

(And each time I do these arguments I sense that I get one step closer to wanting a new gen after all. It may not be such a bloody bad idea when I think about it!)

@FM23: I really look forward to hear what you think of Crysis2 when you've played it. I actually considered starting a new playthrough last week – and I've not felt like that for anything but RPGs in many, many years!


Last edited by Beamboom on 7/11/2011 3:57:19 AM

Neo_Aeon666
Neo_Aeon666
9 years ago

I get your point of having fun in the multiplayer but a game with good SP is not repetitive and boring and HAS good replay value.

Just like it was said a little earlier plus some more. (we didn't specify first person or third person) Look at Bioshock, DeusX, HalfLife, FEAR, Gears of War, Mass Effect 2, Fallout, Vanquish, Red Faction, Uncharted and so many more.

They are all shooters with their own personal twist that make them original. They have a great campaign with awesome replay value and it took me a while before being totally done with them.

Also about the real life AI crap. If I want to play Real Life enemies I will go online. There is a fun part in finding the weakness of every enemy type or the flaw in their position that you have to use to get past a certain point. These things are thought off by the DEVS and it is the way you have to go to pass the stage. Then there is harder difficulties to change the situation and make it even harder so you do have replay value. Like there is always a trick to defeat a boss. If it were like you are saying then the Boss would learn from his mistakes and guess what he has like 100 times your HP and knows what buttons you are pushing on your remote the moment you touch it XD This type of AI will only be good in boring war games where the story is always the same… Kill that terrorist or diffuse a bomb. Guess now it would be a bit more fun to have some AI saving the utter boringness of the story. But in all the games I mentioned above, real life AI wouldn't be a plus.


Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 7/11/2011 5:41:41 PM

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

What scares me is that so many of the people who buy these games never even play the campaigns. It's a sad state for gaming.

FM23
FM23
9 years ago

Not a sad state for gaming, just the individuals who love single player campaigns more than anything. The gaming community is expanding because of MP action, good or bad. I love single player gaming, but there are alot of gamers who like MP action…shouldn't they get catered too as well, but then again…sometimes it's at the expense of single player oriented gamers…hhhmmmmm!?!

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

I think it's a sad state for gaming because it send the message that gamers don't care about a quality narrative, which isn't true.

chedison
chedison
9 years ago

Not every game solely focuses on multiplayer. And I don't buy every game to tell me a story. Sometimes I just want to get online and play with some friends. Thats why I enjoy games like Battlefield. Not every game has to cater to every audience.

Beamboom
Beamboom
9 years ago

Maybe it's a sad state of the single player campaigns? That many of them simply are not good enough for gamers to really care?

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

My point exactly Ched, so why do they bother trying to cater to single player fans at all? Just separate MP into its own game.

aaronisbla
aaronisbla
9 years ago

Ben, i think they mean that the animations won't be over the top in multiplayer, meaning when you kill someone, its shows them dying in multiple ways but nothing over top like how they may be in single player

Example would be during the tank gameplay they showed, one of ur teammates tanks were destroyed and it shows ur actual teammates jumping out of the tank, set on fire, slowly collapsing from the pain before dying. i dont think this will make it in multiplayer

Havoc
Havoc
9 years ago

It is what it is. Sucks to be in the minority of public opinion I guess. Time to adapt or live in disappointment.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
9 years ago

What an ingenious solution.

Lawless SXE
Lawless SXE
9 years ago

But I want to have my cake and eat it too…

Beamboom
Beamboom
9 years ago

Don't listen to the stormtroopers. Fight the power!

StevieRV
StevieRV
9 years ago

i dont buy cod for the campaigns, every modern warfare i buy is purely for muliplayer, modern warfare always comes out alongside uncharted so ive played uncharted single player and modern warfare multiplayer, both in 07, 09 and now 11 ill do it all again, cant wait for 2013 either

SnipeySnake
SnipeySnake
9 years ago

I actually liked the single player in battlefield….but if it comes to any cod game, i just try it out for a couple minutes and just put it away, cant stand how boring they are.

thj_1980
thj_1980
9 years ago

well, I guess depends on which FPS developer you mean. But, developers like bethesda don't have multiplayer. to bad they don't care about making a better ps3 versions of their games. I think maybe maybe fallout 3 wasn't ported maybe all 3 were developed side by side together.

kevinater321
kevinater321
9 years ago

Is it too much to ask for both? Guess we will see when Uncharted 3 comes out.

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
9 years ago

U3 isn't a FPS.

kevinater321
kevinater321
9 years ago

Doesn't mean it can't have a great single player and multiplayer. I think that this article should include all genres because it doesn't necessarily have to be a fps that has a heavy focus on multiplayer and a…not so focused single player experience.

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
9 years ago

I'd say this is true for most developers but certainly not Valve. Their SP experience rivals anyone IMO.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
9 years ago

The L4D games have sh**-ass single-player campaigns, my friend. ūüėČ

coverton341
coverton341
9 years ago

Ben, while I agree with you on your L4D point, I agree with LV here. Valve might have two games in their catalogue that have sub-par single player, but the rest of their games are top-notch in the single player realm.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
9 years ago

They also haven't really made games that strive to do both at a supremely high level. Portal, for instance, is single-player-based.

If they make a Half-Life 3, it'll be interesting to see what happens…don't think they don't know how important multiplayer is right now.

Kiryu
Kiryu
9 years ago

Have any of u guys played Singularity?
That was some Epic Single Player for an FPS.

Lawless SXE
Lawless SXE
9 years ago

Don't say that around here… Don't you know it's an Activision game ūüėõ

chedison
chedison
9 years ago

That's the first game I thought of when I read this article :). Also Metro 2033 came to mind.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
9 years ago

Singularity was great (read my review) but I'm afraid it's a dying breed. You may notice it didn't exactly burn up the sales charts, and I can absolutely guarantee you that Activision's take on the matter is this-

"If it had had fantastic multiplayer, it would've sold better."

Seasnake
Seasnake
9 years ago

That is the problem with FSPs today, it is all about multi-player on-line. That sucks because most of us have crap ping rates and get annihilated by the boys with super fast connections. I prefer something I can play on my own or how about games where you can co-operate with a number of freinds with similar speed connections to achieve a common goal? Not that I will give a monkey's shortly when my broadband goes from sub 2 meg to 25 plus ;0D

Lawless SXE
Lawless SXE
9 years ago

I got really worried when I read a headline on, I think it was CVG, saying that DICE said that they wouldn't be sacrificing MP for SP…
Then reading the article, it was more implied that they would be trying to balance it so that everyone could enjoy it with robust MP, SP and co-op modes. Anyway, I don't necessarily agree with this headline, but I do agree with the sentiment that a game focussed exclusively on each portion of the gameplay would be better for the games in general.

Also, that quote in the article… I think that that applies to making the campaign more Hollywood-style, which isn't really a good thing, but I'm taking an innocent until proven guilty outlook on this one. Here's hoping that the campaign will be worthwhile. :/