Is it Possible For There To Be an FPS Game with No Online?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for bigboss1203
bigboss1203

1885

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#1 bigboss1203
Member since 2009 • 1885 Posts

It seems like now every single first person shooter game needs to have online in order to really sell copies or become really popular. Everyone rages about Modern Warfare 2 online without even paying attention to the story, same thing is starting to happen with Halo, which has an amazing story. No dont get me wrong I love online FPS games, there fun and add alot of competition, but im just wondering If its possible for there to be an FPS with no online that can sell copies. Hell, i wouldnt be suprised if Half Life 2: Episode 3 has an online mode of some sort. What do you think?

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
jun_aka_pekto

25255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 jun_aka_pekto
Member since 2010 • 25255 Posts

I never played Doom 3, Half Life 2, or Crysis/Warhead online. Same goes for Bioshock. The only online game I play is Battlefield 2 (2005) and that's family/by invitation only. At least with family and friends only, the behavior is halfway civilized.

Avatar image for Vundi
Vundi

12755

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#3 Vundi
Member since 2003 • 12755 Posts

Of course it can be done but I doubt it will be at this point. It's just a sign of the times. Plenty of great first-person shooters were made before online multiplayer really hit big (on consoles anyways) but offline multiplayer has been a part of shooters almost since the begining. Now that consoles have embraced online play and gamers have in turn embraced the opion to play online and look at it as a major purchase point and reason to keep playing the game, it's going to be a part of probably every shooter from here on out. That's not to say people dont play the campaign or enjoy the story they tell but as far as actual play time, that mode is such a small part of the game. Most shooters have anywhere between 5 to 15 hours of story mode but people can play multiplayer for months or even years. You could make the argument that people could play a great story for months and that may be so but if given an option people aren't going to play the same predictable campaign over and over again when they could be playing a multiplayer mode that is always different and always challenging. It's a great way to get a lot more out of a game.

Avatar image for Treflis
Treflis

13757

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Treflis
Member since 2004 • 13757 Posts
Of course, but nowadays the general gamer wants multiplayer on everything for some reason. I've even seen people complaining that Mass Effect and Heavy Rain even should have had multiplayer.
Avatar image for JannettyTRocker
JannettyTRocker

1160

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 JannettyTRocker
Member since 2006 • 1160 Posts

IMO, I think somebody should design a sand-box FPS. For example, you could take a city like New York, have an alien invasion or another country attacking, and you'd be a Navy Seal running around the city in different vehicles, completing missions, and clearing out the enemy. I know this sounds very basic, but it's just an idea I've had for a while. Rather than making every single FPS so linear as they do now, I think it's time to open it up to the sand-box style.

Avatar image for XaosII
XaosII

16705

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 XaosII
Member since 2003 • 16705 Posts

Cant think of a better example than Bioshock 1.

All the STALKER games have multiplayer, but everyone really just buys it for the single player.

Avatar image for jks22112
jks22112

2395

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 28

User Lists: 0

#8 jks22112
Member since 2005 • 2395 Posts

Cant think of a better example than Bioshock 1.

All the STALKER games have multiplayer, but everyone really just buys it for the single player.

XaosII

Yeah, but then they really ruined it with Bioshock 2. Online multiplayer that really doesn't look that good. Should have kept it at 1 game..imo, but I'm getting off topic.

There isn't much of a point to adding online to many of these shooting games as while people might like the single player mode, it seems most will just play that game online for a week, or less, then move right back to COD, or Halo, or Killzone, or you know, just the really great online shooters.

Avatar image for DecadesOfGaming
DecadesOfGaming

3100

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 38

User Lists: 0

#9 DecadesOfGaming
Member since 2007 • 3100 Posts

I doubt Valve would include online gameplay for the final episode of 'Half Life'.. But stranger things have happened

Avatar image for Aslyum_Beast
Aslyum_Beast

975

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Aslyum_Beast
Member since 2008 • 975 Posts

Half-life, Stalker, and Mirror's Edge (i know it didn't sell much, but i loved) were all FPSes i bought for Single player. Tell you the truth, i bought MW2 for the Singleplayer after buying COD4 for the multiplayer and finishing the story. believe it or not, everyone didn't look at the popular FPSes for their Online, just some of them got hooked on that also.

Avatar image for gial240
gial240

2019

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#11 gial240
Member since 2004 • 2019 Posts

Fallout 3?

Avatar image for NLahren
NLahren

1927

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 56

User Lists: 0

#12 NLahren
Member since 2009 • 1927 Posts
nobody would buy a fps without multiplayer, since modern fps games are short and most of them have cheap storyline
Avatar image for JustPlainLucas
JustPlainLucas

80441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 226

User Lists: 0

#13 JustPlainLucas
Member since 2002 • 80441 Posts

Cant think of a better example than Bioshock 1.

All the STALKER games have multiplayer, but everyone really just buys it for the single player.

XaosII
Yeah, that was the first game to come to mind. Shame they had to waste time implementing an online mode.

Half-life, Stalker, and Mirror's Edge (i know it didn't sell much, but i loved) were all FPSes i bought for Single player. Tell you the truth, i bought MW2 for the Singleplayer after buying COD4 for the multiplayer and finishing the story. believe it or not, everyone didn't look at the popular FPSes for their Online, just some of them got hooked on that also.

Aslyum_Beast
I don't consider Mirror's Edge to be an FPS, because I never fired a shot in that game. :P
Avatar image for ZZoMBiE13
ZZoMBiE13

22935

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#14 ZZoMBiE13
Member since 2002 • 22935 Posts

I kept hoping that Halo woud break off it's multiplayer into a second series all by itself. Being someone who has read the books based on Halo and who enjoys the story that they provide, I was very let down when Halo2 came out and was basically 90% Multiplayer, 10% Singleplayer. The first game struck a pretty perfect balance between the two so it was sad to see Halo2 take the franchise in that direction.

Of course it paid off in spades and Halo's multiplayer is, for many, synonymous with online console gaming. But for me, I wish there were two teams. Story teams who would tell Halo stories and a separate multiplayer game for the people who mostly like that sort of thing. "Halo Tournament" and "Halo: Proper storytime" in other words.

But alas, it wasn't meant to be. Not to slight the story elements in H3 or ODST which were good of course.

Avatar image for JustPlainLucas
JustPlainLucas

80441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 226

User Lists: 0

#15 JustPlainLucas
Member since 2002 • 80441 Posts

I kept hoping that Halo woud break off it's multiplayer into a second series all by itself. Being someone who has read the books based on Halo and who enjoys the story that they provide, I was very let down when Halo2 came out and was basically 90% Multiplayer, 10% Singleplayer. The first game struck a pretty perfect balance between the two so it was sad to see Halo2 take the franchise in that direction.

Of course it paid off in spades and Halo's multiplayer is, for many, synonymous with online console gaming. But for me, I wish there were two teams. Story teams who would tell Halo stories and a separate multiplayer game for the people who mostly like that sort of thing. "Halo Tournament" and "Halo: Proper storytime" in other words.

But alas, it wasn't meant to be. Not to slight the story elements in H3 or ODST which were good of course.

ZZoMBiE13
Yeah, Halo would be so much better with a more substantial single player campaign. Personally, a multiplayer component should never be relied upon to extend the life of the game. The game should feel complete on an off-line aspect first.
Avatar image for ZZoMBiE13
ZZoMBiE13

22935

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#16 ZZoMBiE13
Member since 2002 • 22935 Posts

[QUOTE="ZZoMBiE13"]

I kept hoping that Halo woud break off it's multiplayer into a second series all by itself. Being someone who has read the books based on Halo and who enjoys the story that they provide, I was very let down when Halo2 came out and was basically 90% Multiplayer, 10% Singleplayer. The first game struck a pretty perfect balance between the two so it was sad to see Halo2 take the franchise in that direction.

Of course it paid off in spades and Halo's multiplayer is, for many, synonymous with online console gaming. But for me, I wish there were two teams. Story teams who would tell Halo stories and a separate multiplayer game for the people who mostly like that sort of thing. "Halo Tournament" and "Halo: Proper storytime" in other words.

But alas, it wasn't meant to be. Not to slight the story elements in H3 or ODST which were good of course.

JustPlainLucas

Yeah, Halo would be so much better with a more substantial single player campaign. Personally, a multiplayer component should never be relied upon to extend the life of the game. The game should feel complete on an off-line aspect first.

Wow. You perfectly summarized my entire point in two short sentences. I really need to be less verbose. ;)

Avatar image for JustPlainLucas
JustPlainLucas

80441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 226

User Lists: 0

#17 JustPlainLucas
Member since 2002 • 80441 Posts

Wow. You perfectly summarized my entire point in two short sentences. I really need to be less verbose. ;)

ZZoMBiE13
:lol: But yeah, can you imagine what a Halo game would be like with a 20 hour campaign? :o
Avatar image for ASK_Story
ASK_Story

11455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 ASK_Story
Member since 2006 • 11455 Posts
[QUOTE="ZZoMBiE13"]

I kept hoping that Halo woud break off it's multiplayer into a second series all by itself. Being someone who has read the books based on Halo and who enjoys the story that they provide, I was very let down when Halo2 came out and was basically 90% Multiplayer, 10% Singleplayer. The first game struck a pretty perfect balance between the two so it was sad to see Halo2 take the franchise in that direction.

Of course it paid off in spades and Halo's multiplayer is, for many, synonymous with online console gaming. But for me, I wish there were two teams. Story teams who would tell Halo stories and a separate multiplayer game for the people who mostly like that sort of thing. "Halo Tournament" and "Halo: Proper storytime" in other words.

But alas, it wasn't meant to be. Not to slight the story elements in H3 or ODST which were good of course.

JustPlainLucas
Yeah, Halo would be so much better with a more substantial single player campaign. Personally, a multiplayer component should never be relied upon to extend the life of the game. The game should feel complete on an off-line aspect first.

The developers are lazy IMO. They could easily keep multiplayer separately from the main game, maybe on a 2nd disc. For example, ODST's multiplayer content is on a 2nd disc, right? Although ODST's single player is good, but it could've been much better (and longer) instead of being a $60 expansion pack.
Avatar image for ZZoMBiE13
ZZoMBiE13

22935

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#19 ZZoMBiE13
Member since 2002 • 22935 Posts

[QUOTE="ZZoMBiE13"]

Wow. You perfectly summarized my entire point in two short sentences. I really need to be less verbose. ;)

JustPlainLucas

:lol: But yeah, can you imagine what a Halo game would be like with a 20 hour campaign? :o

If they did it well I'd love something like that. I really miss games that were all about the single player experience. A good story like one of the Eric Nylund books could easily be co-opted into a lengthy, and memorable,camaign. I hope Reach has an interesting story, but only time will tell. I still miss the Chief but Noble team has potential.

Avatar image for TacticalDesire
TacticalDesire

10713

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 TacticalDesire
Member since 2010 • 10713 Posts
I totally agree with your post about people breezing through the story of games like Modern Warfare 2, luckily I took the time to play through the story (twice actually) and while its not the best video game story ever its pretty good not to mention some very cinematic moments along the way, but I don't for see many fps games without online play for two reasons. A( it attracts huge crowds of people and buyers who will play and tell there friends about it encouraging them to buy it and play with them and B( it makes it easier to have a game with a quick 5 hour story -cough- Mw2 and for people to still get there moneys worth.
Avatar image for JustPlainLucas
JustPlainLucas

80441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 226

User Lists: 0

#21 JustPlainLucas
Member since 2002 • 80441 Posts

If they did it well I'd love something like that. I really miss games that were all about the single player experience. A good story like one of the Eric Nylund books could easily be co-opted into a lengthy, and memorable,camaign. I hope Reach has an interesting story, but only time will tell. I still miss the Chief but Noble team has potential.

ZZoMBiE13
I try not to have high expectations of games, because I get let down easily, but I have huge expectations regarding Reach. When I read the book, I thought, "Wow! They should make a Halo game just like this!", so I really hope that Bungie keeps the single player in mind to provide us with the best possible story mode they can. I'd hate to think that any of the book was sacrificed just to make room or time for multiplayer.
Avatar image for Black_Knight_00
Black_Knight_00

78

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#22 Black_Knight_00
Member since 2007 • 78 Posts
Yeah, these days online has become a requirement to sell. It seems minor developers just proceed to put together a few basic game modes just to say "there, we have online play" and not fall behind the competition. I wish the time and money spent on making an online mode no one will play were spent on improving the single player campaign. Take Call of Juarez Bound in Blood: I would have gladly swapped the versus online play for a co-op mode or a couple more story chapters.
Avatar image for masterpinky2000
masterpinky2000

1955

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 95

User Lists: 0

#23 masterpinky2000
Member since 2004 • 1955 Posts
Bioshock is a great example of a shooter that is great without online. If you're not doing online though, give us a longer campaign or the option for local co-op.