no one cares about FPS campaigns anymore

it almost seems completely irrelevant now.

people will praise an FPS game for its multiplayer and completely ignore how weak the campaign is (like in the case of black ops or ODST)

people will bash, pan, and nitpck an FPS game for its multiplayer (or lack thereof) and comepletely ignore the amazing singleplayer campaign (like bulletstorm, killzone 2, resistance 2, MW2). crysis 2 and KZ3 seem to be the latest victims of attacks based on this mentality.

so does the campaign just not matter anymore? is multiplayer the only reason why FPS games exist?

I only buy shootersif they have greatsingle player. Coincidently, I don't buy many shooters. =/

it almost seems completely irrelevant now.

people will praise an FPS game for its multiplayer and completely ignore how weak the campaign is (like in the case of black ops or ODST)

people will bash, pan, and nitpck an FPS game for its multiplayer (or lack thereof) and comepletely ignore the amazing singleplayer campaign (like bulletstorm, killzone 2, resistance 2, MW2). crysis 2 and KZ3 seem to be the latest victims of attacks based on this mentality.

so does the campaign just not matter anymore? is multiplayer the only reason why FPS games exist?

arbitor365

Which is because people buy fps games for the multiplayer components, not for a gripping, narrative driven campaign.

I do play fps's, but never for the offline singleplayer features.

I buy most if not all my games for single player.

The only FPS that has managed to keep me playing multiplayer is CS:S, never gets boring :P

i guess so, personally i never understood why, after i'm done with the single player i rarely touch a game again. sometimes very rarely i go play online, but to me it feels like repeating the same missions over and over again. i think killzone 2 is the only fps i put more then 10 hours on the multiplayer.

I care about both.

A game with a good single player campaign and a good multiplayer to extend its life is a win win.

I think it seriously depends on the IP and what happened to it. Bioshock is an example, where people really didn't care for a multiplayer mode.

Then you must not had met me because I care about campaigns in FPSs, it's normally what I play 1st.

The certainly pay attention to an FPS campaign if it looks like they put some effort into it.

TF2 came out in what...2007? Still has the most moving FPS campaign of all time as well as great multiplayer. I don't get how people can praise COD SP and act like TF2 campaign doesn't even exist.Ace6301

STALKER was almost entirely focused around its single player. The original BioShock.

Fallout, Mass Effect.

Although every single one of these has elements of other genres.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]TF2 came out in what...2007? Still has the most moving FPS campaign of all time as well as great multiplayer. I don't get how people can praise COD SP and act like TF2 campaign doesn't even exist.barney_calhoun_

I care, Portal seems pretty good and i'm still waiting the next Half Life, bot to mention, i enjoyed Golden Eye campaign a lot.

Amazing campaign? Resistance 2? Killzone 2? Modern Warfare 2?

Explain please?

STALKER was almost entirely focused around its single player. The original BioShock.

Fallout, Mass Effect.

Although every single one of these has elements of other genres.

-TheSecondSign-

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

STALKER was almost entirely focused around its single player. The original BioShock.

Fallout, Mass Effect.

Although every single one of these has elements of other genres.

mitu123

Oh yeah. As you were, there.

it almost seems completely irrelevant now.

people will praise an FPS game for its multiplayer and completely ignore how weak the campaign is (like in the case of black ops or ODST)

people will bash, pan, and nitpck an FPS game for its multiplayer (or lack thereof) and comepletely ignore the amazing singleplayer campaign (like bulletstorm, killzone 2, resistance 2, MW2). crysis 2 and KZ3 seem to be the latest victims of attacks based on this mentality.

so does the campaign just not matter anymore? is multiplayer the only reason why FPS games exist?

arbitor365

Stop generalizing, man. Crysis 2 and KZ3 were attacked for whole different reasons, in the first place.

Why didn't you make a poll. I bet my LIFE on that the poll will be in favor of "I do care about single player in FPS". People always care about single player in FPSs. In any game.

It's just that we care about a SP that's worth our attention. Not about trash..

I play the single player campaigns, and care a lot about them.

ironic since kz3 campaign is absolutely garbage and sucks

It's not that we don't care, it's just that we've all come to realize 95% of them suck.

That's because single-player campaigns in modern FPSes tend to suck.

I do. :|

Rage and Resistance seems tooDiviniuz

Online multiplayer can go die for all I care. All I care about is single player, and I've played many worthwhile single player FPSs over the past year. It's just the big budget shooters that seem to be following the online shooting gallery trend.

It's pretty much the only thing I care about in an FPS, which is why I rather play STALKER or Crysis over Call of Duty.

Wait. Did the TC just say that Modern Warfare 2 had an amazing campaign? :|

It really depends on what game I am buying.... some I will only play the SP, and not care for the MP at all. When it comes to COD I care about the MP more, but will still give the SP a chanse to impress me.

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]Rage and Resistance seems tookillzonexbox

Why would I? They are usually boring. I will only buy an FPS if they have good multiplayer, I don,t want to shell out$60 for a mediocre eight to six hour campaign. The only single player FPSs im looking forward to is Deus Ex (I know its has RPG elements in it but It still plays as an FPS) and RAGE.

[QUOTE="arbitor365"]

it almost seems completely irrelevant now.

people will praise an FPS game for its multiplayer and completely ignore how weak the campaign is (like in the case of black ops or ODST)

people will bash, pan, and nitpck an FPS game for its multiplayer (or lack thereof) and comepletely ignore the amazing singleplayer campaign (like bulletstorm, killzone 2, resistance 2, MW2). crysis 2 and KZ3 seem to be the latest victims of attacks based on this mentality.

so does the campaign just not matter anymore? is multiplayer the only reason why FPS games exist?

Lucianu

Stop generalizing, man. Crysis 2 and KZ3 were attacked for whole different reasons, in the first place.

Why didn't you make a poll. I bet my LIFE on that the poll will be in favor of "I do care about single player in FPS". People always care about single player in FPSs. In any game.

It's just that we care about a SP that's worth our attention. Not about trash..

The only fps I didn't care about the single player was BFBC2 , the multiplayer is soooo FUN that it's impossible to play it when the option of pure awesomeness is just a click away.

edit: btw I enjoyed the campaign of every game tc listed MAINLY kz3's , and I say mainly because it's been target of bashing.

Single player campaign >>>> multiplayer. It's like that with every game I play. BedBugMan

Pretty much this for me.

I care more about the Single Player myself, but a lot of these games are releasing with just pathetic campaigns in terms of length. The average length of a FPS last gen was 8 hrs and now games are sometimes just breaking 4 hrs, it sucks.

I do.

There goes this thread!

I sure as hell do. I would much rather have a nice story based game with a killer atmosphere than a purely multiplayer driven FPS that has a tacked on, half-baked 4 hour campaign, which seems to be the norm more and more today. The Call of Duty formula, if you will. Don't get me wrong, I love multiplayer as well, but I will always prefer a great campaign.

i mostly play fps for the single player, some good ones are half life series, bioshock, even killzone 2 was solid, ive only ever really got into a few online shooters, those being Halo 3, Reach, COD 4 and Team fortress 2