https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BKw4eNFGqc
Printable View
Same thing with online only. But at least some will have a robust single player campaign like Diablo III.
Multiplayer-only games (and unfortunately that means exclusively online multiplayer nowadays) are basically rentals. Nothing more, nothing less. That's why I never buy games that rely on online servers to install and/or play. I like to actually own the games I buy, knowing that years later I can still enjoy them without having to worry if company X or Y still exists and hasn't shut down the authentication or matchmaking servers.
In regards to the video "Online Only? Avoid Wholly!" I like single player or "campaign" and will always. Playing multiplayer online is enjoyable if you have good group/clan to play (and I have had a lot fun going wolf in Battlefield BC, BC2 and than 3 :love:I got deep into 3 but never did get the hang of flying the jets) with but not everyone can play at the same time of day or someone wants to play something else I didn't or the group wants too. But this, exclusively only online multiplayer is one of the reasons why PlayStation 4 is a no go for me.
TBH. A game like Diablo III has no business being online-only. It is a far cry from the open world feel that the originals gave you. It's best feature is its single player campaign. Why it is online only is beyond me.
You should subscribe to playstation Plus anyway. You'll find some games are great in multiplayer.Quote:
Originally Posted by ComradeOj
I thought your name was MethUser, when I first saw it. :lol:
Finally, a statement I can agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metalwario64
One of the things I've always admired about the Halo games since the beginning is the "multiplayer" single player campaign mode that allows you to play through the entire games with a friend.
Sadly now a thing of the past :?
Thats just the initial purchase of the game, no different than if you bought the game to play Online. Single player has no micro-transactions where they make additional money.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSciFi
This article says they could be making $250 million off GTA Online micro-transactions per year: http://www.mobipicker.com/gta-v-sing...e-is-none-yet/
Thats a such a good MMO experience. You don't need to work to earn GTA money, you can just cash in with your credit card to get yourself to the top.
Same, my absolute BEST Halo memories are from the campaign co-op modes.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSciFi
I honestly don't think I've ever had as much fun in a game than I did with the first 3 Halo games co-op. The competitive multi was ok, but I've just never really been into it enough to enjoy it so much.
I've even had some fun with Halo 4 co-op multi on live, but I like options. Hopefully they will add split screen multi to 5, or this was a one time thing and the following games will have it.
DLC stinks. One of my least favorite features about DLC is when they blatantly place fighting characters you must pay for on the roster. It used to be an awesome feature when this meant you could "unlock" the characters by being awesome at the game. Nowadays, "unlock" means "you pay more". I hate it because I refuse to pay anything extra other than the value of the game itself and, yet, don't want to be shown every time I start-up a fighting game nowadays that my game is not complete. :?Quote:
Originally Posted by azonicrider
Such fond memories indeed. Even back in the day, I could have sworn Co-Op gameplay was going to be what most people wanted in terms of multiplayer. Boy was I mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by EclecticGroove
I think what some people forget is that the very first video-games (Pong and Space War!, for example) were competitive multiplayer games, and that multiplayer games were largely the focus of the early period of gaming history. Space Invaders has to be the first game I can think of (outside of electronic amusement machines like what you saw in carnivals) that only had controls for one player, but its very existence in an arcade denoted its social element. Single-player games get all the press, but what always moved the biggest numbers were multiplayer games (see: sports games, for example). If anything, the market has continued to show this trend decade after decade.
I prefer single-player games, but there has been no stoppage of single-player games since they first really started getting their legs in the mid-80s. You may decry a seeming lack of high-budget single-player games, but such titles seem to be trotted out every E3 to the adulation of the press and fans. I suspect if half of these titles were actually good, instead of mediocre trash, people would complain less and be less rosy-eyed when it came to video-games. I think it's a problem of quality and not quantity.
Of course, I do decry attempts to move away from local multiplayer. Removing that aspect of console games defeats one of the many points of consoles (which is why I agree with Sean Malstrom when he says the Wii was far and away the best console of last gen, because it was above all a social console).
There were plenty of other single player arcade games before Space Invaders. Atari had Night driver in the mid 70s.
"that I can think of"; but you missed the larger point later in the sentence:
Quote:
but its very existence in an arcade denoted its social element.