This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

What are your thoughts when it comes to multiplayer only FPS'?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. What are your thoughts when it comes to multiplayer only FPS'?

User Info: Terantatek

Terantatek
1 month ago#21
Orestes417 posted...
The "Always gotta have single player" attitude is pure console brain damage.
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/Xgsy6X
i7 7700k @ 4.6ghz | Asus ROG Strix 1080TI OC | Ripjaws 16GB 3000mhz | Noctua NH-D15 | Asus Swift PG278QR

User Info: Orestes417

Orestes417
1 month ago#22
Kerr Avon posted...
Orestes417 posted...
The "Always gotta have single player" attitude is pure console brain damage.


The "I can't think for myself, so I'll just blame it on consoles and hope I look cool" got very old a while back. Maybe you should refrain from posting if you can't think of anything valid or original?


No, seriously, it's a f***ing attitude that started on consoles right around the time internet MP became possible on them. That's not even an arguable fact. PC never had a problem with MP only games existing. Worst case was some whining when the previously SP first Quake transitioned with Q3A.
Yeah I got faith, but sometimes fear it just weighs too much,
I don't want to feel, cold winds blowing through me like an empty touch.

User Info: kobalobasileus

kobalobasileus
1 month ago#23
Online-only = Bad (e.g., Battleborn, Vermintide)

PvP-only = The Worst (e.g., Overwatch)

I want FPSes with strong solo campaigns and optional campaign coop. (e.g., BioShock for solo, Borderlands or Shadow Warrior 2 for coop)

User Info: 32x2z

32x2z
1 month ago#24
Orestes417 posted...
32x2z posted...
Multi-player only games are server based. Server based games do not have replay value once the servers go down or in other words are trash games.


Yeah, because hundreds, possibly thousands of hours of multiplayer for one of the good ones is so much worse in terms of replay than a tacked on single player you'll spend 10 hours in and never touch again because by golly you know that you could touch it again if you ever wanted to be bored out of your mind.


Why not both? Only a fool spends money on a product that relies solely on it's online servers. The saving grace of the yearly call of duty titles is the piss poor story that has some continuity. Plenty of MMO games I cannot play again because servers are down, a prime example of "online only games" being a bad buy long term. I've spent 8+ months of ingame time in WoW and when the servers go down (eventually) so does the investment. You can say "hundreds, possibly thousands of hours of multiplayer" but that doesn't mean sh!t in the long term when I want to pickup the game in a couple years and turns out I can't even play it.

This reminds me of when people thought downloading Sega Genesis games was better then buying them.
OK so your saying it tried to use a blocked port, got blocked, and switched to an unblocked port while waiting for the user to respond? - Why I love Gfaqs.

User Info: Orestes417

Orestes417
1 month ago#25
See there's your problem. You consider your time played an investment. It's not nor will it ever be.
Yeah I got faith, but sometimes fear it just weighs too much,
I don't want to feel, cold winds blowing through me like an empty touch.

User Info: 32x2z

32x2z
1 month ago#26
Orestes417 posted...
See there's your problem. You consider your time played an investment. It's not nor will it ever be.


The problem is you don't understand the premise which in this case is time. Again I'll ask, why not both? Server games do not game replay value due to the servers going down. This will always be bad in the long term every time for obvious reasons.
OK so your saying it tried to use a blocked port, got blocked, and switched to an unblocked port while waiting for the user to respond? - Why I love Gfaqs.

User Info: Orestes417

Orestes417
1 month ago#27
Why not both? Because demanding one be obligatory for inclusion with the other leads to tacked on modes and a weaker product because of it. You get to waste bandwidth and hard drive space on something most of the playerbase doesn't even give a s*** about because a minority can't see the value proposition of a focused standalone product.

Let's be honest here. If having a throwaway single player is a massive concern for you on a game that's obviously MP first you're not that interested in the game to begin with and should probably save your money.
Yeah I got faith, but sometimes fear it just weighs too much,
I don't want to feel, cold winds blowing through me like an empty touch.

User Info: Dragon Nexus

Dragon Nexus
1 month ago#28
MELENTIA posted...
I remember that BF3 video(I believe it was BF3) showing troops making it up to the top of the building, and firing a rocket across the street. That was amazing. But after that it fell completely flat. It was more or less a tech demo mission.


Fun fact, the original show-off video for that had them basically level the building.

The final game that blow up a sniper in the window and I think maybe a letter or two on the building falls off.
"Everything popular is wrong." - Oscar Wilde

User Info: Tyranius2

Tyranius2
1 month ago#29
Should be either exclusively MP or exclusively SP otherwise one is gonna cut into the budget of the other. No, none of this "properly managed". If they have 100k to make a game, they shouldn't assign 50k to each, they should use the full 100k to make what the game is supposed to be.
Bolsonaro 2018
Fizz Buzz for life

User Info: 32x2z

32x2z
1 month ago#30
Orestes417 posted...
Why not both? Because demanding one be obligatory for inclusion with the other leads to tacked on modes and a weaker product because of it. You get to waste bandwidth and hard drive space on something most of the playerbase doesn't even give a s*** about because a minority can't see the value proposition of a focused standalone product.


So you're stating that by asking for a single player mode and an online mode, the game will lack in one of those two areas or be inherently weaker then in the case if only one was focused on? Can you explain half life 2 for me? What about Halo 2 which has online for windows right now yet debuted over a decade ago. Gears of war 4? GTAV? The list goes on and on. They're modern examples of games that do online and offline well and games that don't do it well. Lazy developers aren't a reason to not have an offline mode, we've been seeing this argument since DLC became a thing.

I'm not arguing bandwidth or HDD space, only a peasant would be concerned with those variables, I am apart of the PC master race @Orestes417, if I wanted to worry about HDD space/bandwidth I'd get a console like a pleb!
OK so your saying it tried to use a blocked port, got blocked, and switched to an unblocked port while waiting for the user to respond? - Why I love Gfaqs.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. What are your thoughts when it comes to multiplayer only FPS'?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived