Is it really necessary?

With Titan fall coming out I've noticed a lot of complaints about the lack of a single player component in the game. To me I'm actually starting to wander if single player is at all relevant in these games anymore. I know to a small minority it is and
I'm not saying that they shouldn't get anything out of these games but, to me single player campaigns seem like a redundant thing, tacked on as an after thought because game companies feel it needed. Looking back at the history of battlefield, the first few
iterations on the pc never had a single player at all. It wasn't until bad company that they put one in. Now I know a lot of people who haven't even played the single player campaign and have no intention of doing so. And it's the same with cod. To me the
time spent doing the single player could have been better spent making sure that the multiplayer had no problems, which all know that most do. So what are your thoughts? Should these games continue to put in a mostly forgettable campaign that most people won't
even play through once, or put all of their effort into the real reason 99% of us buy these games. The great multiplayer experience?

:)

 

it is really?

Apparently you get more credits if you don't quit games, but I've never noticed any differences. Where did you see that they gift you credits?

 

it is really?

No. Bungie no longer has anything to do with the Halo universe.

 

It's hard for me to say personally, as I do enjoy the campaigns they provide, but usually only for 1 play-through. Once I've finished it, I practically never go back (although in some rare cases, I've attempted to get some missed achievements).

I was thinking what if the developers separated their franchise into 2 entirely separate games - 1 for single-player and the other for multiplayer? Using 2 separate development teams, they can make better quality versions of each, satisfy everyone, and make
more money in the process from those of us who want to play both. Whether this idea would work or not, I don't actually know since nobody's really tried it yet (probably not), but it's just my 2 cents, so take it as you will...

Still, mad props go out to the developers at Respawn Entertainment for making such a gutsy move by choosing multiplayer only - let's hope that the decision won't kill them in the process (probably not based off of initial reactions), because in life, there
is no respawn.

 

i agree i think multiplayer focused games should just focus on multiplayer while single player games should just focus on single player instead of releasing mediocre multiplayer

 

I love single player, I love multiplayer..... some games have both, some games don't.

-

Pretty much all I have to say on the matter.

 

I am probably one of the small minority these days who enjoy playing single player campaigns on the games that are mainly geared towards multiplayer. It's all all bout getting achievements I love unlocking them. Having said that if a game is online only
I have no problem with without because I know what I'm getting before I buy the game. The same for single player only campaigns.

 

Story mode in any genre of game is something essential. This is a tradition that comes from the early days of the games, many people do not give up this and those who prefer more the multiplayer are not affected with existence of story mode. But the absence
of story mode directly affects who doesn't like multiplayer.

 

There is room for all types....some games will be campaign only (The Order), some multi only, some both. I don't see any problem with all of the above. The marketplace and consumer will choose winners or losers with their purchases. I think the devs would
be wise to find the best way to create and present their "project" and concentrate on making that the best product to put onto the marketplace. They shouldn't feel forced to "shoehorn" anything into the game beyond their vision (though I bet they will get
pressure from the suits in corporate if they are owned by one of the AAA studios).

 

Depends on the game. Games like Halo and Cod, I wouldn't mind if it was only Multiplayer. Games like Dishonored, Elder Scrolls, and Last of Us I'm only interested in the Single Player.

 

Since my foray into gaming began 3 decades ago I have been wanting a game that has the ability to have a co-op campaign, be it online or in the same room. Borderlands 2 fulfilled this want. I am hoping Titanfall achieves this as well.

 

Some of my best gaming experiences are all night "co-op campaign" with HALO. Best times ever!!!

 

Would you happily buy the next years copy of basically the same multiplayer ? How many years would devs support a MP only game ? Adding a single player campaign ensures they can churn out the same MP year on year without too much effort or fuss.

 

See the thing is, especially with battle field, is that it was originally an online only game. They should have stuck to that. Don't get me wrong. I love a good story as much as the next guy. Red dead redemption is a classic example of a great story in a
game. But certain games I really wish they would just be multiplayer. I suppose because it's been so long since a fps has come out with a compelling story in my opinion.

 

PC gaming is a different kettle of fish to console gaming as far as MP goes , users on PC can add mods and manipulate maps with a certain degree of freedom , where as on console it's all boundaries and no freedom.

For devs and publishers to generate revenue on a scale they're happy with they want to be knocking out a game on a yearly basis , MP only is gonna restrict that revenue somewhat as a fair few gamers are not gonna be happy paying top dollar for a new game
which is basically DLC for last years MP only game . Adding the SP campaign means they can pull this off with minimum fuss.