Not sure I'd put too much stock in what Cliffy B says. That dickhead has called people who enjoy a campaign "story snobs" since Gears was made, when that's the entire point of a campaign. In his mind, a campaign is a mindless shooter that doesn't require thought, which is exactly what multiplayer usually is, so no wonder he agrees campaign is dying.
Also, none of what they showed was a game "losing" its campaign. A game made for multiplayer isn't losing its single player. Just because it's a helicopter doesn't mean a car somehow lost its wheels.
I think you missed the sarcasm in their voices
From a business perspective, multiplayer is the much smarter move. eSports is on cable television now with all that sweet sweet ad money. The profit margin can be so much more rewarding plus the game has a much longer lifespan. Single player campaigns isn't going anywhere just yet, but it makes sense that companies would rather jump on the competitive online multiplayer bandwagon right now.
P.S. It's alright Caleb, we know you're athletic. We just don't believe Ultimate Frisby is a sport haha jk
I absolutely love Evolve and playing as the monster. I will admit to not playing it as much as I would like too sometimes but I feel it will forever hold a place in my heart and I will go back to it every now and then. In fact I plan to soon to test out the recent character additions. I'm sad to hear it has such low numbers but I love Turtle Rock and 2K for doing something so new like this because the concept, more than anything else, is amazing and not something I think has ever been done before.
I have no issue with multiplayer only games, the question comes down to "Is there enough content in this game to make me feel satisfied for the price I bought it at?" I'm looking forward to Overwatch, I cannot wait to get my hands on it and play it because it feels there is enough variety to keep me going for 60+hours, and there will be more content, than the last time I play tested it, when it launches. I really enjoy Heroes of the Storm because it has more than one map to play on with a variety of different team based objectives per map.
Things like Star Wars: Battlefront (EA), I wasn't interested in because there are 3 fun game types and you can experience everything in about 10+ hours time for a $60 or $120 (if you bought the season pass) game. That's not acceptable. I love Star Wars, but I won't throw money at EA just because they made a Star Wars game.
And, on a final note, there is nothing wrong with a story driven single player only game. Wolfenstein: the New Order is a fantastic example of a great FPS with no multiplayer and a well done story. The stories, lore, and characters in video games are why I play games to begin with.
Both Overwatch and Heres are also Blizzard games, and they have a good track record supporting the games they make for years even when the updates are free patches.
It's weird that in the time when the age demographic of gamers are changing multi-player is becoming the focus. Older people (older than the 15 years olds who used to dominate the demographic) have more chance of having children, and once you have a child any chance of playing multi-player goes out the window. You need to be able to stop or pause the game at any instant to go a be part of society or to look after a young child, and you can't do that online. Just seems kinda dumb to me.
How much of the buget for a GTA or Assassin's Creed do you think goes into graphics that'll be outdated in like a year?
I wouldn't mind MP only shooters if they have something to offer in the long run and if internet companies actually gave a shit about providing cheap, fast, and reliable serves to people. ____ Titanfall, awesome game but got stale after a week because you ran out of stuff to get and ran out of stuff to do. Then the internet company offers a "better deal" then you get 3mbps because they fucked up and don't bother to give a real attempt to fix it. ___ Anyway, MP only shooters are great in concept but hard to do right.
I really miss solid shooter campaigns
CoD4
Halo (1-3 / ODST / Reach)
StarWars RepublicCommando
Or something like the old WW2 shooters had with a campaigns based on historic events (without crazy fake characters ike in CoD WaW).
The campaigns for shooters was the main thing I played I only ever dabbled in multiplayer.
Normally I'd be fine with this but recent games' multiplayers are so meh. Or I've just been becoming a filthy casual over the years.
Multiplayer achievements are hard anyway.
Hell no! I only buy games for campaign!
Join the conversation! Log in to post a comment.
FURST
On a more serious note though, As long as games continue to have a good story line with the multiplayer then most players won't mind. Well, I won't mind. Destiny is a great example of not having a good story and almost failing. They fixed it fairly well with TTK but its hard to make a good come back after the intial failure of year 1 Destiny.