Yeah, I know. Some people think it should be against the law to ship a shooter without a multiplayer element.

If you talk to some of the younger gamers out there, you'd be surprised at how pissed some individuals get when multiplayer isn't included. This goes double when you're talking about a FPS.

However, after having spent a significant amount of time with the recently released Wolfenstein: The New Order (review coming tomorrow), I've come to the conclusion that in fact, you don't need multiplayer for a FPS to be good. In fact, I distinctly recall a time when a lot of great shooters existed, and they were labeled as "great" because of their campaigns. Remember titles like Medal of Honor: Frontline and Red Faction ? I do.

And The New Order reminds me of such experiences. Many have accused the multiplayer explosion of cutting into the length of single-player adventures; after all, developers only have so much time, money and manpower. If they didn't have to deal with building a complex, robust multiplayer component, just imagine how amazing the campaign could be! That's a common cry among single-player fans. Well, while I haven't finished yet, I've heard that this new Wolfenstein is around 15 hours long; some estimates have been as high 18. That's significant, don't you think? That's longer than any other linear game in recent memory.

So, is there some truth to the notion that multiplayer has gimped the potential of campaigns, especially in the shooter category? Well, of course. Numbers are numbers. But at the same time, I'm not going to say Wolfenstein is some amazing, innovative gem. It's not innovative at all but you know, that's part of its charm. It's just the kind of game that reminds us that every once in a while, we don't need multiplayer, and we don't need a game to be revolutionary. That's still okay, isn't it?

Related Game(s): Wolfenstein: The New Order

Subscribe
Notify of
16 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
8 years ago

With Wolfenstein I just want it to be madcap fun, that last one wasn't so much but this one looks like it will be. Duke Nukem needs to come back and do that too.

I'm glad it's long because these games ain't cheap. I really am craving an FPS on PS4 so not getting New Order right away has been hard. I kind of feel bad for Kevin Spacey and his new CoD entry, not many people are actually going to play it.

matt99
matt99
8 years ago

New Order is definitely worth picking up at some point. It's great fun with an incredibly well written and engaging storyline.

souljah92
souljah92
8 years ago

If multiplayer isn't needed for them in this day and age, i guess getting a shit load of sales isn't that important either.

Underdog15
Underdog15
8 years ago

Would you say the biggest draw for Assassin's Creed is the multiplayer?

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
8 years ago

I wonder if that's all that true, people tend to only use the multiplayer one certain games. No matter how good it was would MP on Wolfy ever really pull anyone off CoD and Titanfall where people are building their experience?

souljah92
souljah92
8 years ago

Should have specified, multiplayer in a FPS.

Underdog15
Underdog15
8 years ago

Yeah, I think people typically look for their multiplayer experience in only a few games at a time. I'm not sure there's room or desire for Wolf to be a multiplayer heavy hitter. The list of great FPS's out there that simply have far too minimal of a draw for their multiplayer is much larger than the list of FPS' with successful mp.

I guess my point is:

TLDR: MP is a main draw for -some- fps'. But it is the detriment to many others.

Beamboom
Beamboom
8 years ago

Nonsense. Multiplayer FPS and single player FPS are two different beasts.

I have nothing against multiplayer gaming, but FPS can be, and are, *so* much more than that.

I'd say it's the other way around: Those generic multiplayer modes tacked on many single player games a while ago (Far Cry 2 springs to mind) were completely meaningless.
It seems that trend is turning now though, with single player games being just that. And I welcome that.
Play a game for what it is, and enjoy it. That goes for both multiplayer and singleplayer games.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
8 years ago

Come on guys, he has a point.

Call of Duty didn't get to be the biggest name in the history of gaming because of the single-player. Most shooter fans these days really don't want to buy a shooter without a multiplayer element; that's very true.

So an FPS without multiplayer will undoubtedly have lesser sales potential.

Corvo
Corvo
8 years ago

Would have bought it if it had some form of Coop. A single player FPS feels a bit too strange to me.

Geobaldi
Geobaldi
8 years ago

I've really enjoyed the game and don't feel like it needs multiplayer in any way. Guess I'm one of the weird ones that doesn't need multiplayer to be included in every single game that's released nowadays. Even if this did have multiplayer, I still would never use that option anyway.

JohnnyKey
JohnnyKey
8 years ago

I was totally expecting this game to be a flop but after seeing some of the positive reviews it was getting I decided to give it a go. It really is a great game and is not at all held back by the lack of multiplayer. The story line is also surprisingly very good. Its still wacky mad fun as would be expected from Wolfenstein, just a little bit more substance I suppose. Good game is good.

Solid Fantasy
Solid Fantasy
8 years ago

Agreed. I had little hope for this when I first heard about it being in development. Now the game is proving be downright decent. I hope it carries over into sales for the sake of the singleplayer cause.

Lawless SXE
Lawless SXE
8 years ago

I've been very down on this new Wolfenstein pretty much since I first heard about it, even though its lack of multiplayer speaks to me. It just never piqued my interest until very recently when a friend informed me that it has non-regenerative health and no limit to the number of weapons you can carry, two of my favourite features of the Resistance series. And that, in concert with the generally positive buzz surrounding the story of the game, has made me take notice of it. So, although I'm not vibing with the fast-paced shooter gameplay of it, I'd be perfectly willing to give it a shot if I can get it cheaply when I have an open spot on my gaming schedule.

As for the article, I don't see why Wolfenstein has to prove that FPS games don't need multiplayer. Any game that is strong enough in its campaign doesn't need multiplayer, and I don't see why any genre should be an exception to that. From what I gather, it is a perfectly solid shooter in its construction with a lengthy campaign that just happens to not have multiplayer. (Kinda the antithesis to Titanfall in some ways ;P) I guess I just don't really understand why a great FPS campaign isn't regarded as a standard, regardless of whether there is a multiplayer suite or not.

Temjin001
Temjin001
8 years ago

it's nice that it has that "old feels good again" vibe. it goes to show that balance of sub-genre offerings makes a big impact on the perception of entertainment value.

Underdog15
Underdog15
8 years ago

I don't understand this phantom "need" people think FPS' have for multiplayer content. It's true for Halo, CoD, etc., but most FPS' multiplayer flops… the evidence of all FPS' collectively does not support that theory, yet people believe it to be true.

What a strange thing.