Ok just read and watched some reviews for this, i really didn't like the first, so i wanted to know if this was a must buy, or basically the same game. And basically its the same game but worse (in terms of single player) Multiplayer sounds fun, but it seems, they just thought **** it, we don't need to bother much with the single player.

What the point of me writing this thread, is that there is a new trend, in one or two games, but it is becoming prevalent, which is game devs, are skipping out on the single player, either by not putting in one at all (Warhawk) or creating a shoddy, mediocre, half arsed attempt, to make it look like a full game. While reviewers always say nice shit about the single player, you will hear one or two bits that say, er, they just did **** all. Such as "The AI is Shoddy" That is the first and biggest sign, shoddy AI means a terrible experience, like turning point. Then, and this is a very often occurence, "You can tell that the Multiplayer was their main objective" AKA single player sucks.

Why are devs skipping out on a crucial item? I love online and co-op multiplayer, but 75% of the time, i just want to play by my self, why is it devs think that everyone wants to spend their whole gaming life online? I know i don't, it's definitely amazing, and i love playing Warhawk, UT3, GH3, the Club, EoJ etc...all my games that i dont trade are multiplayer ones, but i really really have to be in the mood, so sometimes, i dont play online games for weeks at a time. A Game like oblivion is amazing, no multiplayer, but every single person will spend 100-200 hours on it. Why can't we have 50% of the game single player, and 50% multiplayer? not 10% single and 90% multiplayer, it just feels like the developer can't be bothered with creating a long, well scripted single player mode, that will last 15+ hours anymore. Every FPS recently has been 2-6 hours long, and it just feels like im being cheated out on a good gaming experience! For the sake of online play. I know, that i'll be flamed, as everyone here probably spends their whole time online, but like, its beginning to get annoying. I truly want more from FPS's i terms of story, CoD 4 was criminally short, as are all the Halo's, and RoFM etc etc could list on and on.

I don't know what you guys think, and would be good to hear everyones opinions. Is multiplayer a big enough deal for a developer to rob you of the best Single Player you could possibly get?

The short answer, and pretty much only answer: There is more money in multiplayer.

I think it should be taught about as much as the multi-player, but it´s now a proven fact that single player games(ala oblivion) don´t sell nearly as much as great multi-player games(ala COD 4) so many don´t bother like you said. But at least some developers like Insomniac still care much about single player like the eight player co-op side of Resistance 2 parallel to the single player story of Nathan Hale:thumbsup:

yes, resistance 2 seems to at least look like it will break from the mold, as there are actually 2 separate campaigns, one for single, one for multiplayer, meaning that an actual linear story based around a multiplayer function, which may prove effective in terms of multiplayer story telling. Can't wait to see.

And you are right, there is more money in multiplayer games, so why don't those multiplayer games have good single player campaigns as well in order to cater to all parts of the gaming community. While they are often amazing experience, they can either be so short, you can finish in one sitting (2-5 hours) and often leave the gamer unsatisfied.

Mass Effect. The Elder Scrolls. Portal. Half Life. What do you mean there's no good single player games? Sure, there are some titles that focus on Multiplayer...but who said that's a bad thing? Even still, there are plenty of titles that do a good job.

ahh, what i said was, its not the majority of games, but it is starting to become prevalent, in other words, its creeping up slowly, and annoyingly.

And as others have said, yeh, there is more money in the multiplayer games. Half Life? yes lovely game awesome story, finish it in a sitting, i can finish half life two in a sitting now. So basically it comes under my criteria. Already mentioned Oblivion in my post :D and Mass Effect i do not know too much about.

All i tried to point out, is that games with lots of multiplayer, seem to skip out on making an amazing single player.

Maybe most developers want to invest their main resources in multi-player so that their games will be played months after their release instead of beaten once or two times(if it has the replay value) and then just traded or forgotten in your game collection:huh:?

Well this concerns mostly, if not entirely, FPS games so I think it's just funner to shoot your friend in the head than an AI. Also the majority of people who play a lot of FPS probably just want to shoot something rather than do missions to further the storyline. I mean I didn't even care for the single player of COD4 and I am an RPG addict. It's just that some games shine better in multiplayer. RPG games will always have a robust single player so I'm not worried.

games are really getting short,I remember games that took me 15 to 30 hours or more to clear,now it takes you less than ten hours to clear a game.

The only time I excuse this is EXCELENT MP. I mean never turn off my 360 good. Single player is important. But so is MP. I have friends who do not play MP. So yeah. Like I said. Only excusable in Extremely AMAZING ZOMG MP.

for me, even the best multiplayer in the world, where i can play 8 hours straight (Warhawk :D) i still have to be in the right mood, and thats not that often, im not really the online type, but i love FPS's so having a short single player is annoying for me, as im not always in the mood to go do the same map for 2 hours, change map etc etc

I came to this realization months ago when Shadowrun was released. I mean who the hell is going to pay $60 for a game that is only multiplayer! Multiplayer only games have survived and thrived on PC but only because you can pick up Counterstrike for $10 for example. I can get Shadowrun used for $20 at Gamestop, but will I, hell no.

Another thing I've noticed is racing games that only allow multiplayer over Xbox live. I would really like to sit down with my friends and family and play Burnout Revenge, but I can't, because the douche bags that be decided you should only be able to race real people across xbox live! Sometimes I would like to see the look of frustration on my friends face when I beat his a** at a game!

Call me nostalgic but whatever happened to the good old days? I still remember when my friends and I would gather around the TV and play Nintendo for hours cheering each other on when we almost or did beat a game. Contra anyone?

Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start

So you're noticing more games that are weighted towards multiplayer? But has this trend in fact reduced the number of good singleplayer games or are there just more games overall?

I think value has to do with it. Uncharted and Bioshock are two great single player games but to make them they had to focus solely on the single player meaning no multiplayer. Because of this many people have a hard time justify spending $60 for these type of games.

Now that games are $60 people want to spend $60 on one game that will last for a long time. I know for me the only single player games I buy are rpgs because they last a long time.

IMO a 6-8 hour decent story component and an online component that will last for months or maybe even years is a complete package worthy of a $60 price tag.

I think value has to do with it. Uncharted and Bioshock are two great single player games but to make them they had to focus solely on the single player meaning no multiplayer. Because of this many people have a hard time justify spending $60 for these type of games.

Now that games are $60 people want to spend $60 on one game that will last for a long time. I know for me the only single player games I buy are rpgs because they last a long time.

IMO a 6-8 hour decent story component and an online component that will last for months or maybe even years is a complete package worthy of a $60 price tag.

meh. for someone like me who will gladly buy a new movie for anywhere from 20-30, $60 for a 80-10 hour game isn't that bad.

This annoys me too, to be honest. I generally refuse to get a game based on multiplayer elements. If they are good, it's a bonus, but it's almost never a selling point because most MP parts lose the elements I want... the atmosphere, the story, and general ability to pull me into it.

Dont get me wrong, it's fun... but it's almost never why I get a game, and even more rarely the sole reason for me to pick one up. If games go nothing but MP, I would actually concider just not getting any anymore.

Rental Companies.

Simply put. In places like Gamefly and Blockbuster, you can rent a game like Bioshock, and get the entire experience in a week, never actually buying a copy. That same copy will then satisfy other gamers. Were you to rent a multiplayer game, there is a good chance that if you like it - you'll buy it.

Why would someone spend $60 for a game they'll complete in a week, when they could spend $6 and have the same experience? But multiplayer games like Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, and Rainbow Six Vegas: 2 are meant to be played on a constant basis for months. No rental is going to give you that full experience, other than Gamefly - but if you love the game, you may just buy it anyway.

Single Player games aren't dying, not by a long shot. But they need to offer alot more to counter the success of multiplayer games.

Now, that isn't to say that Game Renting companies are the only factor against Single Player, or that people only rent Single Player games - there are exceptions to every rule. I just know that I rented almost every single player game in 2007, beat it, then returned it - and I know many others that did the same.