Lack of Single Player in Modern Games!

There use to be a time when I would look at the back of a box, and if it read more than "1", it was an instant seller for me. It didn't just mean it had a multiplayer mode. It meant that, IN ADDITION TO single player mode, I could ALSO enjoy this game with a friend.

WTF has happened in today's gaming industry!? :confused: Star Wars Battlefront!? Titanfall!? Street Fighter V!!!???

Nowadays, I look at the back of a box, and if it reads anything resembling a "2" or larger, I'm instantly cautious not to enter a bullshit scam of a shitty minimalistic, if not an utter lack of, single player campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuickSciFi

There use to be a time when I would look at the back of a box, and if it read more than "1", it was an instant seller for me. It didn't just mean it had a multiplayer mode. It meant that, IN ADDITION TO single player mode, I could ALSO enjoy this game with a friend.

WTF has happened in today's gaming industry!? :confused: Star Wars Battlefront!? Titanfall!? Street Fighter V!!!???

Nowadays, I look at the back of a box, and if it reads anything resembling a "2" or larger, I'm instantly cautious not to enter a bullshit scam of a shitty minimalistic, if not an utter lack of, single player campaign.

---

Because at one point it was a selling point.
Now it is THE selling point.

I would have loved to play Titanfall... if it was a single player game that I could choose to go online with if I wanted (like mechassault on the oXbox).

But I think I'm in the minority now. So many people get games and don't even touch the single player. It's all about multi, and nothing but multi.

There's a few rich single player games out there... but if the game is anything even remotely like an FPS, it's quickly being drug into the "it" thing of multiplayer being the primary, if not only, focus.

It's also MUCH easier to sell micro transactions to multiplayer competitive games than single player games. I'm sure that is no small amount of the reason why companies are more than happy to provide them.

Welcome to 1996... I think that's when multiplayer-only or multiplayer-focused games started coming out en masse. I remember playing X-Wing vs Tie Fighter on the Zone. Then there were games like Starsiege: Tribes and Unreal Tournament. And of course Ultima: Online and Counter-Strike (although that was first a mod before being released commercially). Those were good times... Ladder matches, team practice, Roger Wilco, etc.

It's a sad fact that all games are becoming candy crush. Insofar as they are totally throwaway with no end in sight, point, or story. There's no physical copy much of the time, robbing you of value to boot.

It's fine for candy crush, but lamentable for FPS games and other console staples which are just becoming facets of the greedy industry that hooks players, and then basically sells you the same game next year (or season) that you have to get because no one's playing the old game online or the server is now gone.

It's a big con, which is why I'll never go further on than the Wii. 'Modern' gamers (people who only think the newest stuff is worth a damn) don't seem too fussed about this.

This probably has something to do with it:
http://www.pcgamer.com/cliff-bleszin...of-the-budget/

It makes sense to focus more on multiplayer if that means you can reduce the budget that way (especially considering how expensive AAA games are to develop).

Today, you guys learned why I don't like GTA V. The worst offender of this. So many people go straight into Online, and never touch the half-assed-but-still-existent story mode.

If I find out that a game is single-player only, I feel significantly more motivated to try it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azonicrider

Today, you guys learned why I don't like GTA V. The worst offender of this. So many people go straight into Online, and never touch the half-assed-but-still-existent story mode.

If I find out that a game is single-player only, I feel significantly more motivated to try it.

---

I only ever play it singleplayer. I don't even know why people care about the multiplayer. The story was okay, but not as good as San Andreas, Vice City, or GTA IV. I mostly just screw around in single player.

In general, I prefer single player games to multiplayer.

To me multiplayer is just gravy. Nice if it's there, but I can leave without it. Single player IS the game. And yes, to me the lack of mutliplayer in a shooter means that it's probably worth my time.

To me the lack of a story mode/single player campaign in a game definitely feels like content deficiency.

And there's also a case to be made that single player campaigns can have the added benefit of injecting more personality into games. I miss that when it's not there.

TBH though, the halfhearted efforts also tend to annoy. I'm talking of single player campaigns that feel tacked on. Do it right, or don't do it.

By the end of the seventh generation of video game consoles I got a feeling of, get the latest and greatest, look for the next title, dispose of last years model, rinse and repeat more so than ever. It's the average consumer that drove the industry to this point and the cost to develop the games with more and more detail with the use of high definition graphics and 7.1 surround sound but I think fundamentally the artificial intelligence is the same as the previous generation, so most like the idea of competing with a real jack a... I mean human over the new and improved internet, that is if you had a cable modem. It wasn't enough that the games looked and sounded better for the average consumer looking for more of a sense of accomplishment.

This is only a problem for specific genres really, like FPS and fighting (looking at you bare-bones Street Fighter V though you're supposed to be getting fixed). At least every once in a while you get games that focus on their single player like Wolfenstein: New Order.

Honestly though I'd rather a game fully focus on its multiplayer than include a really crappy single player as an afterthought. If you're not going to put really focus into the single player part then don't bother making a terrible one that will just drag the whole thing down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EclecticGroove

I would have loved to play Titanfall... if it was a single player game that I could choose to go online with if I wanted (like mechassault on the oXbox).

---

You're not the only one which is why Titanfall 2 is apparently coming with a single player campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azonicrider

Today, you guys learned why I don't like GTA V. The worst offender of this. So many people go straight into Online, and never touch the half-assed-but-still-existent story mode.

---

I said it before and I'll say it again, I really liked the GTA V story mode. It's probably one of my favorites in the series even. I've never even played it online.

Titanfall 2 will supposedly have a single player campaign this time. I hope so, because I haven't touched Titanfall on PC in over 6 months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crom

Welcome to 1996... I think that's when multiplayer-only or multiplayer-focused games started coming out en masse. I remember playing X-Wing vs Tie Fighter on the Zone. Then there were games like Starsiege: Tribes and Unreal Tournament. And of course Ultima: Online and Counter-Strike (although that was first a mod before being released commercially). Those were good times... Ladder matches, team practice, Roger Wilco, etc.

---

Unreal Tournament had a single player, an entire campaign and a 'practice' mode against bots.

Counter-Strike Source & GO also have bot mode with no single player campaign because just play Rainbow Six Vegas if that's what you want.

Seconded on everyone that said GTAV Single Player was great, it has 3 characters, a ton of missions and and actual story progression. Half-assed, honestly?

I only bought GTA V bc of its single player mode.

Type "GTA V" in Youtube, you'll have to go through at least 10 pages before you see any videos of single player. Combined with the fact that the game is 2.5 years old, and has never had single player DLC. http://www.inquisitr.com/2829021/gra...even-take-two/

I don't know if its because of online, but its amazing Wolfenstein: The New Order still has better graphics than the latest Call Of Duty.

I just hope the new Doom has a solid single player campaign; becasuse I'm really stoked about it.

It doesn't have to be this way companies could spend just as much with a multiplayer only game but it seems like they only do it to cut corners, Some games would be better off without a campaign if you ask me like Battlefield, the multi player is the main draw of the game but the single player is just a half arsed COD copy.

Any video game is better off with single player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuickSciFi

I only bought GTA V bc of its single player mode.

---

GTA V's SP is great. It's true that the devs have put more focus into the multiplayer mode this time around, but the SP hasn't suffered because of it. Sure it's been neglected of late, but it's still a fantastic story mode in it's own right. You don't need to touch Online to enjoy the game.

I play games to unwind. I just like to be alone and shut myself out from the world. I am very social and outgoing, but for me games are an escape from people, not a way to connect with them. Single player all the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doomguy

It doesn't have to be this way companies could spend just as much with a multiplayer only game but it seems like they only do it to cut corners, Some games would be better off without a campaign if you ask me like Battlefield, the multi player is the main draw of the game but the single player is just a half arsed COD copy.

---

This.

There is a place in the world for multiplayer only games, just not ones that cost $60. £10 for Multiplayer only CS:GO? Yes please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doomguy

Some games would be better off without a campaign if you ask me like Battlefield, the multi player is the main draw of the game but the single player is just a half arsed COD copy.

---

Remember back in the day when developers actually got off their asses and multiplayer-centric games actually had AI opponents? Like how Super Street Fighter II Turbo and Quake III didn't turn into doorstops when no human competition was around?

Back around 2000 or so when I got rid of my Atari 2600 collection I laughed at the large pile of games I had that were completely and totally useless unless I had a human opponent to play with. How dated... such an antiquated idea that this software was equivalent to a board game and was useless without a pal to play with. Little did I know that 15 years later that the new Star Wars Battlefront game would steal Pong's AI routine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azonicrider

Type "GTA V" in Youtube, you'll have to go through at least 10 pages before you see any videos of single player.

---

Then type "GTA 5 single player" instead. It's not that hard. Multi-player is the big draw which keeps a game relevant long after its story has played out. A dozen or so hours of a campaign is generally dwarfed by those who eagerly pour hundreds to thousands of hours into playing on-line. Multi-player is also where a lot of the silliness happens, so it's no surprise that most of the videos showcase that aspect of the game.

First person viewpoint and a lack of single player experiences are driving me away from most AAA games. Of course, there really aren't as many AAA games out there as there used to be. Remember Sega pumping out 20-30 games a year? Other third parties doing maybe half that? Now we get, what? One new title every few years from the major studios, and even EA/Ubisoft/Activision can't put out much more than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sik

This probably has something to do with it:
http://www.pcgamer.com/cliff-bleszin...of-the-budget/

It makes sense to focus more on multiplayer if that means you can reduce the budget that way (especially considering how expensive AAA games are to develop).

---

This is absolutely it. The budget requirements to meet demand are just too damn high. You hedge your bets and provide the game which is going to make you the most money. Right now, that's on-line multi-player, games you can hope to push as a "service" rather than a purchase. As more development in general moves to that "software as a service" model, it's not surprising to see games follow suit. I'd argue the current Kickstarter and "early access" trend is a part of that as well, but that's getting off-topic.

Dammit, Sega. The market is so ready for a new console PSO. You'd make a killing on custom outfit DLC, new world packs, and whatnot. Ug. Idiots.

I guess I'm OK with multiplayer when it's games I want, and even then PSO had a semblance of a single player mode. We still get single player via the independent studios and some AAA stuff, so I don't think we need to sound an alarm just yet. I do think it's time is coming though, at least from the major studios.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Then type "GTA 5 single player" instead. It's not that hard. Multi-player is the big draw which keeps a game relevant long after its story has played out. A dozen or so hours of a campaign is generally dwarfed by those who eagerly pour hundreds to thousands of hours into playing on-line. Multi-player is also where a lot of the silliness happens, so it's no surprise that most of the videos showcase that aspect of the game.

---

Yea but if you type "Red Dead Redemption", you'll mostly see single player videos, without even using single player keywords.

Rockstar use to have its heart in single player, thats not the case anymore.

Or maybe it's because one game barely has any multiplayer modes and the other has a giant world to play in.

You guys sure do like to overreact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ_z-_4fF4Y

Yeah, I played it once, it's alright.

GTAV online is far better though.

GTA: Online is huge, addicting, and full of content.

But thats why you can't deny single player took a hit.

Online rakes in thousands of dollars every week, where as single player doesn't make a penny for Rockstar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gogogadget

...
You guys sure do like to overreact.

---

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/13/1320...1d2f60cde4.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azonicrider

GTA: Online is huge, addicting, and full of content.

But thats why you can't deny single player took a hit.

Online rakes in thousands of dollars every week, where as single player doesn't make a penny for Rockstar.

---

Single player made them exactly $3.24 billion... And counting. Make that 324 billion pennies.

This is one of many problems I have with the current video game industry, and whenever I point it out, I'm handed the "nostalgia goggles" argument. This certainly wasn't a problem even just 10 years ago. I guess it's been a thing in PC games for a long time, but I've never cared much for PC gaming anyway. I guess it's more forgivable on computers anyhow.

Another thing on a similar subject that I can't stand in modern console games is the increasing lack of splitscreen multiplayer! It's pretty inexcusable on consoles when you have multiple controllers right there. I'd rather play with someone in the same room or visit their house or such, rather than lazily playing on the internet so that I "don't have to get out".

I guess the definition of a video game has just changed from what it was when I was younger, and I really have no interest in current consoles or PC games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BKw4eNFGqc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ComradeOj

I only ever play it singleplayer. I don't even know why people care about the multiplayer. The story was okay, but not as good as San Andreas, Vice City, or GTA IV. I mostly just screw around in single player.

In general, I prefer single player games to multiplayer.

---

You should subscribe to playstation Plus anyway. You'll find some games are great in multiplayer.

I thought your name was MethUser, when I first saw it. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metalwario64

Another thing on a similar subject that I can't stand in modern console games is the increasing lack of splitscreen multiplayer!

---

Finally, a statement I can agree with.

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 :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuickSciFi

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/13/1320...1d2f60cde4.jpg



Single player made them exactly $3.24 billion... And counting. Make that 324 billion pennies.

---

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.

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.