5-hour singleplayer games are the future, right guys? Right! - Games

You've all played the wonderful games that are leading the way into the wonderful future of video gaming. Games such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Call of Duty: Black Ops and HOMEFRONT. These are all brilliantly designed pieces of engineering, designed to make you feel like you are watching a movie, but performing the actions of the suck-up supporting actors who always follow the protagonist around, but ultimately doing nothing to alter the plot. See, the loving protagonist even opens the door for you, as your puny strength couldn't do it itself! It's not like you won't get your money's worth though, because $60 is a great price to pay for a game with such excellent replay ability. You'll never get tired of the games scripted sequences and gripping 'US IS DOMINATE' storylines! The fabulously written dialogue such as "KILL THEM ALL" and the excellently written storylines such as "THE RUSSIANS ARE GOING TO KILL US ALL, DEFEND MCBURGERTOWN" will truly make every penny you spend buying the latest film-game worthwhile. Then after that, you are truly ready for the probably extremely bland and generic multiplayer experience, and need never return to the now obsolete single player experience ever again! Doesn't that sound absolutely fabulous guys? Right, guys? :sigh: In all seriousness, games should be able to stand on their own two feet with just their single player, and the multiplayer should be an added bonus. Sort it out, developers.

I agree, I can exactly name a modern game that doesn't have multiplayer. (except just cause 2.

That's why I stick to sandbox games, RPG's or sandbox RPG's. Picture also relevant: [img]http://img1.uploadscreenshot.com/images/orig/3/8513420297-orig.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Amaurus;28840599]I agree, I can exactly name a modern game that doesn't have multiplayer. (except just cause 2.[/QUOTE] Mirror's Edge was really good even if there was no multiplayer Shame we won't see a sequel

People who buy those games don't care about story they just want online l33t 360 noscopes because hard scoping is for fags

[QUOTE=Amaurus;28840599]I agree, I can exactly name a modern game that doesn't have multiplayer. (except just cause 2.[/QUOTE] Just Cause 2 was good until the campaign ended. Then it sucked.

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;28840626]Mirror's Edge was really good even if there was no multiplayer Shame we won't see a sequel[/QUOTE] It's back in dev now last I heard

[QUOTE=proch;28840609]That's why I stick to sandbox games, RPG's or sandbox RPG's. Picture also relevant: [img_thumb]http://img1.uploadscreenshot.com/images/orig/3/8513420297-orig.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Yeah unfortunately I have to get two separate games if I want a good multiplayer game and a fun singleplayer experience

[QUOTE=jlj1;28840636]People who buy those games don't care about story they just want online l33t 360 noscopes because hard scoping is for fags[/QUOTE] I bought Homefront - I thought the story and campaign was going to be genuinely interesting. I'm lucky I'm enjoying the multiplayer, because although there was an interesting premise, the game never really advanced beyond that premise, and it just felt like the campaign was a training ground for the multiplayer.

By the way, OP, where did you learn to read out of everyones mind?

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;28840626]Mirror's Edge was really good even if there was no multiplayer Shame we won't see a sequel[/QUOTE] We can dream can't we? [url]http://www.computerandvideogames.com/291633/news/ea-mirrors-edge-2-must-grow-franchise-audience/[/url]

I did a replay through Half-Life 2 not long ago, and even for knowing the game like the back of my hand and playing it on Normal difficulty it still took me a solid 11 and a 1/2 hours to complete. Not to mention there never being a single cutscene except for the intro, my point being it never takes the first person out of first person shooter.

[QUOTE=proch;28840678]By the way, OP, where did you learn to read out of everyones mind?[/QUOTE] A small hut in Alaska, where they used vinegar to induce a state of relaxation before telling us to drink deeply from the cup of knowledge and capture the thought of every individual man, and man itself.

Sadly, yes, even the so called "longer than average" Crysis 2 was short, Bulletstorm was short, every game is short. Can't wait for Skyrim. Completely agree with OP. Has to do with consolization and casualization of games too. [editline]27th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=proch;28840678]By the way, OP, where did you learn to read out of everyones mind?[/QUOTE] Making a thread that puts down what everyone thinks is a great idea and should be encouraged by everyone. Irony won't change that. We all know this, of course, but being able to rant about it here makes for a small relief.

This is just a new trend in games, it will die out eventually.

I still haven't finished Majora's Mask.

[QUOTE=dookster;28840820]I still haven't finished Majora's Mask.[/QUOTE] I pulled out my N64 a year ago just to do that. Felt good man.

[QUOTE=Lucinice;28840797]This is just a new trend in games, it will die out eventually.[/QUOTE] Probably not, actually. It's cheaper to make shorter games, and so long as no one cares, why make the effort?

"Excuse me sir, but I've had my arms replaced with guns. Could you open this door for me?"

oh look, another one of these threads

[QUOTE=proch;28840609]That's why I stick to sandbox games, RPG's or sandbox RPG's. Picture also relevant: [img_thumb]http://img1.uploadscreenshot.com/images/orig/3/8513420297-orig.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] I honestly dont understand how anyone could possibly like the 1993 level design.

Well, I thought everyone knew that games that are single-player only tend to be longer.

[QUOTE=Melnek;28841181]I honestly dont understand how anyone could possibly like the 1993 level design.[/QUOTE] I honestly don't see why you dislike it.

[QUOTE=Lucinice;28840797]This is just a new trend in games, it will die out eventually.[/QUOTE] Not for a while thought, the simplistic design is easier to make and takes less time, that is why Activision can pump out a new CoD almost every year

Funny how cheap games like Torchlight provide ten times the gameplay as 60 dollar "blockbuster" games

[QUOTE=Melnek;28841181]I honestly dont understand how anyone could possibly like the 1993 level design.[/QUOTE] It's more fun to get off your ass and go look for weapons, health, ammo, keys and secret rooms instead of having it all hand fed to you. Along with that you would have to go to one end of the map and press a button to open a door on the other end of the map and so on and so forth. Instead of just one linear path with the occasional side room. In the end there's just far more exploration and content in the game.

Remember the first mass effect? Sure the gameplay wasn't good at all, but the story was great, that's a lot better than good shooting and shit story. The second game had the mix of both, and even then some. Games should be more like that.

Sometimes, note: sometimes, the short singleplayer can be a good thing, if it's pure action and not a "cutscene-killrussians-cutscene-explosions".

Mass Effect 2, Just Cause 2, GTA IV - these are great long lasting games.

Atleast 2015 company tried the sandbox idea in Medal of Honor: Airbonre. A shame that they moved from safe WW2 setting in which they excelled to generic "terrorist hunt" setting in the modern world.