This is absolutely true. The prime examples of such being the games I named in my above post. Quake Wars and the Battlefield series have no single player modes at all (save the option to play with bots, which I do not count) in the PC versions. For 360 and PS3, however, both games are tacking on what will most likely be an extremely lame single player campaign... basically as an afterthought. Team Fortress 2 of course has no single player, but to sweeten the deal Valve dropped Half-Life 2 and both of its expansions as well as Portal onto the disc. Very commendable of Valve, as I'm sure many people would've spent $60 on only Portal and TF2 with noreservations at all. Console gamers still feel the need to have a single player experience when they're paying $60 for a game. I understand this completely, as consoles are still viewed mostly as single player platforms... though Microsoft has certainly done wonders to change that stigma. Soon enough console gamers will be happy to pay full price for an online-only title. Its only been in the past couple of years that PC gamers have adapted to this trend, and when it comes to online gaming, PCs still set the standard, like it or not. This will probably change with the next couple of generations of consoles, now that online console gaming is really coming into its own... especially since the console gamer basevastly outnumbers PC gamers. All in all, an exciting time to be a gamer.First, let me state that I am a HUGE Halo fan. That said, as a Halo fan I was very disappointed with the campaign mode of the game. It was far too short and the plot left much to be desired. I think that most gripes about the game stem from that fact. It concerns me that the obvious obsession with making games attractive to on-line gamershas resulted in the developers putting less effort into the solo campaigns, especially when many gamersmay buy a game to mainly (in my case with Halo3, only) play the solo missions. Thoughts?
Mondrath
Log in to comment