Why I rarely buy games- Lack of single player value.

Unfortunatly some of us do not have access to an internet connection capable of playing games online. We are asked to pay 40,50 or even an astounding 60 DOLLARS for a game that will entertain us (hopefully) for six or seven hours. There is no option to purchase only the single player content so we don't buy at all. I usually wait until a game is in the bargin bin which isn't as bad as it sounds. Usually when a game is first released it has to be patched numerous times before it runs correctly. By the time it hits the bargin bin it is usually almost good.

.... by the time it makes it to the bargain bin, it still needs to get patched ( it's the same game ). Unless you get it through a decent download service.

.... by the time it makes it to the bargain bin, it still needs to get patched ( it's the same game ). Unless you get it through a decent download service.

no1alboogie

lol

.... by the time it makes it to the bargain bin, it still needs to get patched ( it's the same game ). Unless you get it through a decent download service.

no1alboogie

Yes it does & by that time the patch is AVAILABLE for download. Most new games have to be patched and you have to wait for them.

You haven't played COD: Modern Warfare 2. It is definitely worth the money in single player or multiplayer. They poured their hearts into the making of this one.

Do what I do, only buy games when they are on sale for $1-$20. That way if you get tired of it, its no big deal because youve got your moneys worth.

Unfortunatly some of us do not have access to an internet connection capable of playing games online.

Wartrace

Unfortunately, you may find that in future you will be playing fewer and fewer games as the large publishing houses continue to push for online activation and tying gamers into their own networks.

We are asked to pay 40,50 or even an astounding 60 DOLLARS for a game that will entertain us (hopefully) for six or seven hours.

Wartrace

Speak for yourself. I pay in POUNDS STERLING. :P

There is no option to purchase only the single player content so we don't buy at all. I usually wait until a game is in the bargin bin which isn't as bad as it sounds. Usually when a game is first released it has to be patched numerous times before it runs correctly. By the time it hits the bargin bin it is usually almost good.

Wartrace

I buy plenty of games for their single player campaigns, regardless of whether multiplayer is part of the package. But yes, waiting for some games to fall in price is a good idea if you are on a tight budget, or if you personally place less value on a game (for whatever reason).

Get a better internet connection. biggest_loser

Why didn't I think of that?

In rural areas there are no "better" connections. Oh, & before you suggest I move to an urban cesspool or suburban **** not on my list of things I want to do. I love rural living more than I would like to play multi-player computer games. It's a shame game companies expect you to pay for something you aren't going to use.

This topic just made me not want to get MW2 or Borderlands......

You haven't played COD: Modern Warfare 2. It is definitely worth the money in single player or multiplayer. They poured their hearts into the making of this one.

Malphal

Modern Warfare 2 contains about as much "heart" as your average Hollywood movie.

Bargain bins, used games and flea markets/yard sales are your friends. I regularly get older single player games from these places for only a couple of € per game, it's amazing value - even if I don't like the game it was so cheap that I won't feel ripped off.

I have a great internet connection (20 Mbps, no download caps) but I very rarely play multiplayer games. I guess I just prefer the single player experience and local co-op over online multiplayer.

They poured their hearts into the making of this one.

Malphal

That's a good policy. I always wait for games to be in that kind price range too (20 euros or less). For some peole gaming is about playing the most recent titles on the wave of hype, but is that really worth it? Piling up games that need to be attended to is spoiling the fun, IMO.

I am currently playing Oblivion. It was cheap, all expansions included, I got the patches right away, there's plenty of mods available, and most important, I don't feel the urge of beating if quickly cause there's another great game that's going to hit the shelves soon.

I also find this is a good way to avoid impulse shopping: I have been playing only the titles I am really interested in, lately, and have been putting plenty of time in them.

You haven't played COD: Modern Warfare 2. It is definitely worth the money in single player or multiplayer. They poured their hearts into the making of this one.

Malphal

do yourself a favour... close this window and buy a copy of Dragon Age.illmatic87

What I miss is the old days. Look at what ID did with quake. They came out with the game and then had like four cheaperadd ons with new single player content. Now the game companies roll out an entirely new game instead of add-ons but it is effectively a continuation of their previous games. There was no reason for the COD series to be four or five full price separate games. It should have been a series of cheaper add-ons to the original. It sounds as if the new modern warfare is basically a new set of single player missions that will take the average player six or seven hours to complete- all for an amazingly low price of 60 dollars.

COD MW2 definetly does not have lack of singleplayer value, infact it think it has porpably the best sp value among fps games.dakan45

COD MW2 definetly does not have lack of singleplayer value, infact it think it has porpably the best sp value among fps games.dakan45

with short length and a price tag of $60?? i don't understand you.lordlors

Id rather spent 60 bucks on something i 100% like than invest on a game i most definetly not going to like. Also length does not mean anything, The point is to be awesome as long as it lasts and not get borring. I played cod4 so many times due to its qualitty, so far in mw2 i think i am gonna do the same after i finish it.

[QUOTE="dakan45"]COD MW2 definetly does not have lack of singleplayer value, infact it think it has porpably the best sp value among fps games.MrWednesday14

Like what stalker clear sky with its borring story and super weak weapons? :D Let alone the bugs and lack of polish. Who said i wanted something special? I wanted something cod4 and i got it. Why to invest in a diffirent game with lower quality and more features....and not go for something i 100% gonna like and the only thing it does, is what i actually want about the game and i like so much.

Like what stalker clear sky with its borring story and super weak weapons? :D Let alone the bugs and lack of polish. Who said i wanted something special? I wanted something cod4 and i got it. Why to invest in a diffirent game with lower quality and more features....and not go for something i 100% gonna like and the only thing it does, is what i actually want about the game and i like so much.

dakan45

Never said anything about STALKER.

I too was hoping for something similar to CoD4's campaign and while this game did a good job CoD4 was clearly superior IMHO.

Regardless, sixty dollars is too much for 7 hours of game, even if said game was perfect (which MW2 was not). Therefore, bad value.

[QUOTE="dakan45"]

Like what stalker clear sky with its borring story and super weak weapons? :D Let alone the bugs and lack of polish. Who said i wanted something special? I wanted something cod4 and i got it. Why to invest in a diffirent game with lower quality and more features....and not go for something i 100% gonna like and the only thing it does, is what i actually want about the game and i like so much.

MrWednesday14

Never said anything about STALKER.

I too was hoping for something similar to CoD4's campaign and while this game did a good job CoD4 was superior IMHO.

Regardless, sixty dollars is too much for 7 hours of game, even if said game was perfect (which MW2 was not).

[QUOTE="MrWednesday14"]

[QUOTE="dakan45"]

Like what stalker clear sky with its borring story and super weak weapons? :D Let alone the bugs and lack of polish. Who said i wanted something special? I wanted something cod4 and i got it. Why to invest in a diffirent game with lower quality and more features....and not go for something i 100% gonna like and the only thing it does, is what i actually want about the game and i like so much.

dakan45

Never said anything about STALKER.

I too was hoping for something similar to CoD4's campaign and while this game did a good job CoD4 was superior IMHO.

Regardless, sixty dollars is too much for 7 hours of game, even if said game was perfect (which MW2 was not).

Well the game is more of a killfest, than story focused like the previous...dakan45

If you don't play online and just single player you will have alot of fun with RPG like fallout 3 and Oblivion becasue those games last 100+ hours. All RTS have great single player and for FPS you should get ones that were made before 2006 because usually they will last you 10-12 hours.

[QUOTE="dakan45"]Well the game is more of a killfest, than story focused like the previous...MrWednesday14

[QUOTE="MrWednesday14"][QUOTE="dakan45"]Well the game is more of a killfest, than story focused like the previous...dakan45

Bargain bins, used games and flea markets/yard sales are your friends. I regularly get older single player games from these places for only a couple of € per game, it's amazing value - even if I don't like the game it was so cheap that I won't feel ripped off.

I have a great internet connection (20 Mbps, no download caps) but I very rarely play multiplayer games. I guess I just prefer the single player experience and local co-op over online multiplayer.

HenriH-42

I have a pretty good connection, and I love playing on line. I play Crysis online, but I totally suck at it. I'm still getting used to the online play, but last I played, I got one kill, and I don't know how many deaths. lol

Well, I guess game length varies by player, because at the time I thought Medal Of Honor: Allied Assault was quite short compared to many games I'd played previously. But then, I've been playing FPS games since they were invented with Wolfenstein 3D. I completed the MoH:AA SP campaign in about 8 hours, and started and finished it on the same day with a break inbetween. A very enjoyable game (except, perhaps, for the aimbot sniper level), but for me it was over too quickly, and it just seemed to cut off at the end, because I was expecting another level or two to round it off.

[QUOTE="no_one_specific"]

Half Life was truly amazing also. I played through the entire game in 3 days and then moved to HL2 and savored that one because I didn't want the experience of playing the game to be over too quickly like it was for me with the original.

no_one_specific

Now there I can agree. My first time through Half-Life took me over 20 hours, and it was very satisfactory, apart from the platform-jumping Xen levels which I really didn't like. Up to that point, the pacing and content of Half-Life was just right, and I've replayed the SP campaign several times over the years. During the summer I replayed the entire Half-Life series (original + Opposing Force + Blue Shift + HL2 + Episode 1 + Episode 2), and it was totally epic.

I also got the original Call of Duty close to when it came out. That blew me away. Excellent multiplayer and single player. I should state my point, and here it is: All those games are around 15-30 hours of single player content. While some, such as CoD, had some levels that weren't as fun as others, I feel it doesn't really matter when you have an awesome level coming up in a fe hours of gameplay.

no_one_specific

Again, I guess game length varies for each player, because the Call Of Duty SP took me around the 8 hour mark to complete the first time around. I've played through the SP campaign a few times, because I found the variety and pacing enjoyable, but for me the game excelled in the multiplayer, and gave me well over a thousand hours of enjoyment, along with the expansion United Offensive. If it had not been for those games, I would never have joined a clan, and never have made a custom map.

I played through Cod4, and while it's fun, I don't feel compelled to play through it like I did with the original....I played through Medal of Honor and Cod and then revisited certain missions to play them because they were so good. Cod4 feels kind of like that, but with none of the between stuff. It's a highlight reel, but purposely designed that way. If that's the way fpses are going to be from now on, that's fine with me, but I'll probably be replaying No One Lives Forever or the N64 Goldeneye instead.

no_one_specific

And there I totally agree. I played CoD 4 SP twice, and never want to play it again. The first time, it took me just over 4 hours to complete, and I felt very rushed through it. It played pretty much like a condensed version of the previous CoD's crossed with a Hollywood action flick. I mainly bought the game for the multiplayer experience, but discovered I didn't like it anywhere near as much as the original CoD or UO online, and played it intermittently for a few months just to feel I got my money's worth before packing in. I played the SP again, which was so linear it played exactly as before, and the game has sat on the shelf gathering dust ever since. I decided then that I wouldn't be getting any further games from Infinity Ward, because I could see the progression of dumbing down from CoD 2, and from what I've seen of MW2 perks and killstreaks, I was right.

If the future of the FPS genre is ever shorter and intensely linear 'cinematic' games with dumbed down multiplayer, then I probably won't be buying them any more. I'll make do with the games in my collection, and there is a lot of entertainment still to be experienced there.

You haven't played COD: Modern Warfare 2. It is definitely worth the money in single player or multiplayer. They poured their hearts into the making of this one.

Malphal

I have a great internet connection. But I still rarely play online. I prefer a solid singleplayer experience over online anyday. I find that most online games always feel the same; people do the same tricks and have the same bad behavior. And with no story or direction, the goal is mainly to just kill everything that moves, so that never sounds fun to me. Occasionally I will go online if the play is exceptional. I like L4D for example, because it's gameplay actually requires teamwork and people (in general) don't act like idiots. But still overall, I prefer to play alone so I can explore as much as I want to without everyone else wanting to kill everything as quickly as possible like going homicidal was going out of fashion.

So yes, it disappoints me how the industry is shifting to be primarily online play. I think they have misread the market. They discovered that the majority does like playing online. But they wrongly think that those same people don't also like a good singleplayer game. I wish they would realize that most gamers like both.

If the future of the FPS genre is ever shorter and intensely linear 'cinematic' games with dumbed down multiplayer, then I probably won't be buying them any more. I'll make do with the games in my collection, and there is a lot of entertainment still to be experienced there.

RobertBowen

Consumers sure have taken a beating in recent years.

Remember the good old days with 20+ hours of single-player content? A free level editor? Free multi-player? Free mods?

Consumers sure have taken a beating in recent years.

Remember the good old days with 20+ hours of single-player content? A free level editor? Free multi-player? Free mods?

vertex68

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Get a better internet connection. Wartrace

Why didn't I think of that?

In rural areas there are no "better" connections. Oh, & before you suggest I move to an urban cesspool or suburban **** not on my list of things I want to do. I love rural living more than I would like to play multi-player computer games. It's a shame game companies expect you to pay for something you aren't going to use.

[QUOTE="Wartrace"]

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Get a better internet connection. Butter

Why didn't I think of that?

In rural areas there are no "better" connections. Oh, & before you suggest I move to an urban cesspool or suburban **** not on my list of things I want to do. I love rural living more than I would like to play multi-player computer games. It's a shame game companies expect you to pay for something you aren't going to use.

When did the Broadband become a necessity?