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: Tyranius2

Tyranius2
7 months ago#31
It could be argued that these games could have been even better. And you're talking about games from developers who have a huge amount of dough and can easily throw money at a project.
Bolsonaro 2018
Fizz Buzz for life

User Info: Orestes417

Orestes417
7 months ago#32
GTAV would be a better game without the online cash grab in the eyes of many. I can't think of many people who'd have even noticed if Half Life Deathmatch hadn't existed either and even then it was a separate product so basically it's an anti-example. Halo and Gears are both console series, they can't afford to not have a SP experience on disc. Even moreso back when Halo 2 was relevant.
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: arleas

arleas
7 months ago#33
Online only FPS games are great as long as the game is hot and everyone is wanting to play it. It becomes less great when the fanbase turns to s***, and deteriorates further when people start to move on to the "new and hip" thing leaving a handful of poor people (who can't afford to be trendy) and cheaters to populate the servers.

TF2 for the first several years of its life was online only...and when the servers were down or my internet was down, or whatever caused me to not be able to play online, the game was useless. All practicing had to be done in-game unless you could run your own server and then all the enemies you spawned just stood there.

There should be a small campaign that you can play offline that acts as a tutorial or a practice level (or else you just get yelled at for being bad until you get good). A single player campaign would be neat but it depends on who's making the game. Valve could do great single player if they wanted, but other companies are probably better at making multiplayer and in those cases tacking on a crap story with crap missions just means it's something you'll skip anyway.
http://steamsignature.com/profile/english/76561197969913402.png http://i.imgur.com/VHKOxqN.png
https://i.imgur.com/Po5TbWg.jpg

User Info: FL81

FL81
7 months ago#34
Singleplayer is always nice to have, but multiplayer should always be the top priority for an FPS game.
https://i.imgtc.com/C6jP02v.jpg https://i.imgtc.com/UAGNJFv.gif
https://i.imgtc.com/cBTnWgf.png https://i.imgtc.com/wdjM3F8.png

User Info: SilentHawk29

SilentHawk29
7 months ago#35
I feel that it's fine to be multi-player only as long as there are the option for bots. That way if servers are down, your internet goes out, or there's a low number of players, you can still practice or play with mods or whatnot. The first two FPS games I can think of that were made specifically for multi-player, Q3A and UT, both had bots. They also both still have active communities.

Orestes417 posted...
See there's your problem. You consider your time played an investment. It's not nor will it ever be.

Time put into a hobby is always an investment. You're investing your hours for a result, be that skill in the game, enjoyment, or whatnot.
Steam - SilentHawk29 || Z170-A, G1 GTX 1080, i5 6600K, 16GB 3000MHz DDR4
My car (on fire): http://i.imgur.com/ZoeZJ1b.jpg

User Info: GundamMonX

GundamMonX
7 months ago#36
Orestes417 posted...
Again potentially thousands of hours aren't worth your money but a single player experience you may replay but very probably won't is? Your values are a little skewed there. The fact is that all games are primarily about the "now".

Depends on how well those "thousands of hours" are spent. Is it inherently a better "value" to buy a season of the Kardashians on DVD rather than a 2-hour movie you enjoy, because you get more time with the former than the latter? Time spent with something isn't solely indicative of its perceived value. Some people rankle at the thought of spending thousands of hours interacting with other human beings when they're trying to enjoy their downtime. Not everybody plays videogames to interact with other people--some play videogames to get away from having to deal with people.

The claim that videogames are primarily about the "now" are why publishing companies want to move towards games as a service that you continuously pay for, rather than a product you own. If you want to buy a product where you're taking a gamble that it will even be playable for "thousands of hours", it's your money to do what you want.

But if you don't think offline/singleplayer is of any value, that's a viewpoint that is possessed by you--it doesn't speak for everybody else out there, and people don't have skewed values for not agreeing with your opinion when it comes to what they consider worthwhile entertainment.
"If Keanu Reeves didn't look so non-Asian, he would never have made it into Hollywood."--LuminescentRule

User Info: Orestes417

Orestes417
7 months ago#37
GundamMonX posted...
But if you don't think offline/singleplayer is of any value


Didn't say that. I said it shouldn't be an obligatory inclusion in MP-centric games to appease people who don't seem to realize they aren't the target audience. You don't like MP... good for you man. Should be a super easy decision not to bother with the game at all. There's tons of others out there.
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
7 months ago#38
32x2z posted...
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?


No, he's saying adding one or the other as a box checking exercise rarely is worth the effort.

Like, for example, Bioshock 2. People wanted multiplayer...they got it. And it was dead in a month.
The Tomb Raider reboot also got a pointless multiplayer tacked on that no-one cared about.

Battlefield and CoD come out with single players they could probably drop and no-one would care much.
"Everything popular is wrong." - Oscar Wilde

User Info: Tyranius2

Tyranius2
7 months ago#39
Dragon Nexus posted...
CoD come out with single players they could probably drop and no-one would care much.


Not sure about the recent CoDs but MW2 has one of the best SP campaigns I've played and MW1 is sweet as well. Just an exception to the rule though.
Bolsonaro 2018
Fizz Buzz for life

User Info: CrazyGuy1628

CrazyGuy1628
7 months ago#40
The only games ive been playing lately are fortnite and escape from tarkov.....
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAIPEOzgjcVPnGCbT68Oi8A
  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.

Update Topic Flair

You are not allowed to update this topic's flair.

  • Topic Archived