When I heard that the new Far Cry wouldn't feature any multiplayer , I just had to applaud.
And it's not because I don't care for multiplayer experiences; rather, it's because this is one series that, quite frankly, doesn't need it.
I know that most people think any shooter is better with multiplayer options, and I know a few people who had plenty of fun playing co-op in the last few Far Cry iterations. I liked some of those co-op missions myself. But these games have always thrived on the single-player experience; they've offered insane villains, exotic and immersive locales, and promoted the concept of individual freedom. It's an open-world, narrative-driven shooter that, in my opinion, doesn't get a significant boost from any multiplayer offering.
And if you look at the new Far Cry Primal , the game is obviously being created and structured with the single-player campaign in mind. It actually reminds me a little of what Guerrilla is doing with Horizon: Zero Dawn , though that's obviously a third-person game. When you put the emphasis on the solo experience, with a strong story and character(s) at its core, that's what attracts people to the game. Bottom line is, whenever I tell someone that the new Far Cry doesn't have multiplayer, the response is typically the same: "Didn't really need it, anyway. 'shrug'"
And in this particular case, you really don't need it. Hell, I miss in-depth FPS experiences like RAGE and the more shooters embrace multiplayer, the more we're getting away from such structures. And again, it's not like you're ripping out the soul of the franchise. It's hardly the same as removing multiplayer from something like Call of Duty or Battlefield , which would be ludicrous. Those IPs would probably be better without the single-player quests, as far as many are concerned.
Related Game(s): Far Cry Primal