[video=youtube;7BKw4eNFGqc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BKw4eNFGqc[/video]
I pretty much agree with him 100%. Games like Titanfall and R6 Siege were stronger without single player campaigns but for some reason people keep demanding them when they're not there and calling for the removal of them when they are there.
I think the real problem with R6 Siege/Battlefront/and most AAA online-only games is the fact that the games have a price tag of $60.
And that's without all the DLC and the expensive season passes.
[QUOTE=Cl0cK;49625837]I think the real problem with R6 Siege/Battlefront/and most AAA online-only games is the fact that the games have a price tag of $60.
And that's without all the DLC and the expensive season passes.[/QUOTE]
Battlefront is shit though so we can remove that from the equation. As far as value goes I really don't know, it's a subjective thing that's different on a player by player basis, I'm cool paying £30 (on GMG) for R6: Siege but some people aren't and that's cool. But arguing for it to have a single player campaign is just dumb, it wouldn't add anything to the value of the game, so it would still be too much for the people not willing to pay AAA prices.
how would you know that R6 siege would be better without a single player campaign when all the previous ones had one yet they were well received? it doesn't feel like a 60 dollar game with an alright MP and some coop tacked on. same thing with battlefront. and titanfall died real quick because of the repetitive MP.
Titanfall has a campaign. Making it playable solo or with bots isn't asking for much.
Adding single player content to a game doesn't always mean making a story mode either. The CoD games have up to 17 bots you can play with on every multiplayer game mode and you can change the difficulty. Then there's extinction mode in Ghosts and zombies in all the Treyarch games. MW2 had the Spec Ops stuff and MW3 and Ghosts had survival modes that worked on the mp maps.
Rainbow 6 Siege also has Terrorist Hunt that can be played solo. Why not bother adding AI you can command when EVERY OTHER Rainbow 6 had that as a core feature? Rainbow 6: 3's "campaign" was on the same maps as the multiplayer too so the devs didn't waste time on making separate maps and whatnot.
Then there are the Star Wars Battlefront games that were indistinguishable in gameplay when it came to doing campaign or instant action against bots.
All of these games are good and have plenty of single player things to do if the campaign modes were taken out.
[QUOTE=Naught;49625852]how would you know that R6 siege would be better without a single player campaign when all the previous ones had one yet they were well received? it doesn't feel like a 60 dollar game with an alright MP and some coop tacked on. same thing with battlefront. and titanfall died real quick because of the repetitive MP.[/QUOTE]
Because the game was designed from the ground up as a multiplayer shooter, a cheap, tacked on and poorly designed single player campaign wouldn't help. Sure if they did it well then kudos. But in multiplayer focused games stories are usually bad, and in single player focused games multiplayer tends to be bad. Especially when you apply that AAA attitude to it, like Far Cry 3 or Uncharted's multiplayer or any recent CoD game that isn't made by Treyarch's (and even their's have been a bit shit recently) single player.
Titanfall and Siege are good games, they just didn't have enough content. I'm hoping a sequel with more maps and weapons for both happens because it would really solve my issues with the games.
Battlefront though, I just can't call it a good game. The core gameplay just isn't fun, it's some of the least satisfying shooting I've experienced in a game in recent memory. On top of all that there's not a lot of content, there are only a few weapons and most of the good ones you get very early on. If EA wants to make a sequel for it they'll have to change a lot about the game if they want me to purchase.
Unpopular Opinion time: Battlefront is one of my favorite games from last year.
Not nearly at the level of MGSV or TW3, but since I tend not to play MP games it scratches a nice itch and I really like how everything feels.
I also agree wholly with SuperBunnyHop. Bring back bots.
the thing with these MP-based games is probably not that they dont have a single player, actually. its that they devote all their time into an MP-only experience, but it doesn't feel like it at all. There is really not that much content in R6, Battlefront, or titanfall. battlefront on PC is already dying, and titanfall was pretty dead just about right after it came out, because theres no mods allowed, and really not any more MP content than any game that has a campaign as well.
Do I think all multiplayer-focused games should have a cinematic campaign? No.
Do I think all of these games should have bots? Yes.
In my opinion that should be a standard feature. There are still plenty of people who lack the constant, steady internet needed to play these games. The Battlefront example he used of a single-player mode just adding story and context to some bot-matches is enough for me.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;49625876]Because the game was designed from the ground up as a multiplayer shooter, a cheap, tacked on and poorly designed single player campaign wouldn't help. Sure if they did it well then kudos. But in multiplayer focused games stories are usually bad, and in single player focused games multiplayer tends to be bad. Especially when you apply that AAA attitude to it, like Far Cry 3 or Uncharted's multiplayer or any recent CoD game that isn't made by Treyarch's (and even their's have been a bit shit recently) single player.[/QUOTE]
Just add bots, lmao.
Shoot, anyone know what the song that starts playing at 1:43 is? That's the second time I've heard that in a video commentary over the course of the past few months and it's incredibly familiar but I can't recall what it's from!
[QUOTE=froztshock;49625952]Shoot, anyone know what the song that starts playing at 1:43 is? That's the second time I've heard that in a video commentary over the course of the past few months and it's incredibly familiar but I can't recall what it's from![/QUOTE]
It's what TB uses for the Content Patch I think, can't say I know what song it is though.
The character cut scenes really make me wish Siege had a campaign though. There's a laundry list of characters chalk full of potential for exploration that will never really be elaborated upon.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;49625957]It's what TB uses for the Content Patch I think, can't say I know what song it is though.[/QUOTE]
That's cool, I actually just remembered. Foregone Destruction from UT99 IIRC, the song that played on the Facing Worlds map.
I'm noticing this trend lately where everyone's starting to argue what a game has to have before they feel satisfied paying for it for $60. Like here, where it's suddenly unacceptable these days to put out a multiplayer only game. I was kind of surprised when I started hearing this complaint because, like...this isn't a new thing? At all? For years we've had shooters that relied on their multiplayer component entirely or at the very least nearly entirely. A lot of games had campaigns that might as well not have even been there because nobody gave a shit about them and nobody played them. I never heard this outcry about no single player for games like Team Fortress 2. But now everyone's down on a game being multiplayer only.
There are some valid criticisms you can raise, namely what happens when the servers become too costly, what if nobody's playing, so on, but those are problems that are fixable, and really, have always been a trade off of the genre. They're nothing new either. No, I hear most often that it just isn't worth it without a campaign mode. And...I don't really get it. I can't think of a single multiplayer focused shooter that had an interesting campaign since Halo 3, except I guess CoD 4. A lot of the time, the 'campaign' has been you vs bots with a few lines of context to each battle and some different objectives, like Battlefront 2. These aren't compelling stories or anything, it's just you vs bots. Then the multiplayer games that did have full fledged campaigns like Call of Duty are just ass, and again, nobody gave a shit. Advanced Warfare had a story and it just came out like 2 years ago and it was dog shit. Battlefield Hardline had one and it was dog puke. Why do we care about these stupid fucking campaigns except to scratch them off our subjective checklists for what a game needs to be before we must feel satisfied? Shouldn't you just y'know, play the game, and if you like it then you feel satisfied?
Ultimately a lot of it comes down to this value per dollar argument I'm hearing all the time now too. Is a multiplayer game worth $60? Well, that's not really important because that's completely up to you, and cheaper ones exist. If you don't think so, well, don't play full price multiplayer games. You can find plenty of cheaper ones.
The root of the problem seems to be this arbitrary money argument, and people are becoming increasingly hostile to the idea of paying $60 for a game, and as I understand it, and that's a belief that just doesn't work for AAA games these days. Singleplayer or multiplayer, these games cost a shit ton to make. Budgets are fucking massive these days because they need to pump each game full of the greatest graphics ever made and big name actors and VAs just to impress people anymore. And then people play it and they're like "MNEH MAYBE FOR $30" but $30 [I]doesn't fucking cut it, man.[/I] $60 doesn't even cut it so much anymore, that's why everything is flooded with DLC and shit now. Is it annoying to have to pay $60 and then be harassed to spend money on DLC and microtransactions? Yes, but that's the price you pay when every fucking game has to look as good as Witcher 3. I'm not trying to blame the consumer because both the industry and the consumer have every right to be annoyed because they both have equally valid perspectives, but the fact remains, if you want big budget games with god rays from the dick and 8 million maps and guns, you gotta pay for that budget, and $30 doesn't pay for it. I think we're in a position now where it's getting harder and harder to balance steadily increasing demands on budget and technology while making the same type of product.
So either consumers and the industry need to stop obsessing over framerates and whether or not Fallout 4 looks as good as Witcher 3 and whether they know the big name voice actors or they need to get used to $60 for increasingly less content but shinier graphics on it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
11:05 Jesus that might be the worst skybox I've ever seen.
One thought is why is a deep, well realized and well designed multiplayer less valuable than a deep, well realized and well designed singleplayer? I mean if we're arguing time per pound, dollar, or euro, or whatever spent then surely multiplayer games are more valuable? I don't believe that, I don't believe you can really quantify the value of a game but it does feel silly to be arguing that singleplayer only games (with or without a tacked on multiplayer that is dead within a month of release) are somehow inherently more valuable than multiplayer only games (with or without a tacked on singleplayer that is dull, uninspired, and poorly written and designed).
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;49626040]I'm noticing this trend lately where everyone's starting to argue what a game has to have before they feel satisfied paying for it for $60. Like here, where it's suddenly unacceptable these days to put out a multiplayer only game. I was kind of surprised when I started hearing this complaint because, like...this isn't a new thing? At all? For years we've had shooters that relied on their multiplayer component entirely or at the very least nearly entirely. A lot of games had campaigns that might as well not have even been there because nobody gave a shit about them and nobody played them. I never heard this outcry about no single player for games like Team Fortress 2. But now everyone's down on a game being multiplayer only.
There are some valid criticisms you can raise, namely what happens when the servers become too costly, what if nobody's playing, so on, but those are problems that are fixable, and really, have always been a trade off of the genre. They're nothing new either. No, I hear most often that it just isn't worth it without a campaign mode. And...I don't really get it. I can't think of a single multiplayer focused shooter that had an interesting campaign since Halo 3, except I guess CoD 4. A lot of the time, the 'campaign' has been you vs bots with a few lines of context to each battle and some different objectives, like Battlefront 2. These aren't compelling stories or anything, it's just you vs bots. Then the multiplayer games that did have full fledged campaigns like Call of Duty are just ass, and again, nobody gave a shit. Advanced Warfare had a story and it just came out like 2 years ago and it was dog shit. Battlefield Hardline had one and it was dog puke. Why do we care about these stupid fucking campaigns except to scratch them off our subjective checklists for what a game needs to be before we must feel satisfied? Shouldn't you just y'know, play the game, and if you like it then you feel satisfied?
Ultimately a lot of it comes down to this value per dollar argument I'm hearing all the time now too. Is a multiplayer game worth $60? Well, that's not really important because that's completely up to you, and cheaper ones exist. If you don't think so, well, don't play full price multiplayer games. You can find plenty of cheaper ones.
The root of the problem seems to be this arbitrary money argument, and people are becoming increasingly hostile to the idea of paying $60 for a game, and as I understand it, and that's a belief that just doesn't work for AAA games these days. Singleplayer or multiplayer, these games cost a shit ton to make. Budgets are fucking massive these days because they need to pump each game full of the greatest graphics ever made and big name actors and VAs just to impress people anymore. And then people play it and they're like "MNEH MAYBE FOR $30" but $30 [I]doesn't fucking cut it, man.[/I] $60 doesn't even cut it so much anymore, that's why everything is flooded with DLC and shit now. Is it annoying to have to pay $60 and then be harassed to spend money on DLC and microtransactions? Yes, but that's the price you pay when every fucking game has to look as good as Witcher 3. I'm not trying to blame the consumer because both the industry and the consumer have every right to be annoyed because they both have equally valid perspectives, but the fact remains, if you want big budget games with god rays from the dick and 8 million maps and guns, you gotta pay for that budget, and $30 doesn't pay for it. I think we're in a position now where it's getting harder and harder to balance steadily increasing demands on budget and technology while making the same type of product.
So either consumers and the industry need to stop obsessing over framerates and whether or not Fallout 4 looks as good as Witcher 3 and whether they know the big name voice actors or they need to get used to $60 for increasingly less content but shinier graphics on it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that we seem to be getting less and less despite the price-point staying largely the same.
Six years ago, 59.99$ got me Halo: Reach, a game absolutely jam-packed with tons of content that was able to keep me enraptured for months. You had an excellent single-player campaign you could coop through, firefight, forge world, custom games, and of course the excellent multiplayer.
Now-a-days 59.99$ gets me something like Siege, a game that while solid, is incredibly basic content wise, I get a few maps, a few game-modes (most of which are very similar), and some half-assed single-player content that lasts a grand total of like 2-3 hours at most.
Hell lets compare halos,
Today, Halo 5 has far less content than Reach, it only JUST got forge patched in, and it still doesn't have any of the classic game-modes like infection or griffball, not to mention it's campaign was hilariously short.
[QUOTE=ntzu;49626135]The problem is that we seem to be getting less and less despite the price-point staying largely the same.
Six years ago, 59.99$ got me Halo: Reach, a game absolutely jam-packed with tons of content that was able to keep me enraptured for months. You had an excellent single-player campaign you could coop through, firefight, forge world, and of course the excellent multiplayer.
Now-a-days 59.99$ gets me something like Siege, a game that while solid, is incredibly basic content wise, I get a few maps, a few game-modes (most of which are very similar), and some half-assed single-player content that lasts a grand total of like 2-3 hours at most.[/QUOTE]
I guess that's represents how quantity reflects on quality though, I mean Siege is merely an ok game in my books, whereas (and this is a pretty unpopular opinion afaik) Halo: Reach is a goddamn masterpiece.
Yeah I think the crux of this problem is the semantic discrepancy he notices halfway through the video: People look at the content and price tag, and something doesn't line up. By default most people will think back and remember that games with this content and price tag used to come with campaigns, so that's what they complain about.
They don't see it from the angle of producing a title cutting the campaign to bring you a multiplayer mode that's either cheaper (cutting the campaign budget and thus development cost) or better (reallocating the budget that would usually go into a campaign), especially when they're getting nickle and dimed on top of things with microtransactions and season passes and the prospect of All-In-One packages 1-2 years down the line... if the servers aren't dead by then, which in itself diminishes reliable value, especially if the game doesn't ship with bots/community-powered servers/LAN mode.
So all in all that leads to a pretty unreliable deal for the consumer, so they'd like to grab onto something solid, even if won't blow them out of the water. Traditionally, that's what campaigns in multiplayer-focused games were for, as the beginning of the video notes.
I mean if Siege had an incredible singleplayer with amazing co-op and all that it'd be an even better game in my mind, but if it had a tacked on shitty one, no thanks.
[QUOTE=ntzu;49626135]The problem is that we seem to be getting less and less despite the price-point staying largely the same.
Six years ago, 59.99$ got me Halo: Reach, a game absolutely jam-packed with tons of content that was able to keep me enraptured for months. You had an excellent single-player campaign you could coop through, firefight, forge world, custom games, and of course the excellent multiplayer.
Now-a-days 59.99$ gets me something like Siege, a game that while solid, is incredibly basic content wise, I get a few maps, a few game-modes (most of which are very similar), and some half-assed single-player content that lasts a grand total of like 2-3 hours at most.
Hell lets compare halos,
Today, Halo 5 has far less content than Reach, it only JUST got forge patched in, and it still doesn't have any of the classic game-modes like infection or griffball, not to mention it's campaign was hilariously short.[/QUOTE]
the push for shinier graphics killed content since each little piece has to have far more work put into it, taking away time that could have been spent making content that, while graphically inferior or inconsequential, would add to the overall content levels. its why games from 2005 have more content than games from today despite having smaller budgets and the same pricetag.
[editline]28th January 2016[/editline]
for some games it is cool that you can see the blood vessels under people's skin but it is markedly less impressive when you only have one character because of it
[QUOTE=ntzu;49626135]The problem is that we seem to be getting less and less despite the price-point staying largely the same.
Six years ago, 59.99$ got me Halo: Reach, a game absolutely jam-packed with tons of content that was able to keep me enraptured for months. You had an excellent single-player campaign you could coop through, firefight, forge world, custom games, and of course the excellent multiplayer.
Now-a-days 59.99$ gets me something like Siege, a game that while solid, is incredibly basic content wise, I get a few maps, a few game-modes (most of which are very similar), and some half-assed single-player content that lasts a grand total of like 2-3 hours at most.
Hell lets compare halos,
Today, Halo 5 has far less content than Reach, it only JUST got forge patched in, and it still doesn't have any of the classic game-modes like infection or griffball, not to mention it's campaign was hilariously short.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I was looking in to that and it apparently flips around in this case. Halo Reach is listed on Wikipedia's list of most expensive games ever made costing about $60 million dollars to create (in 2016 money)
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop[/url]
But in general I think the issue is more money on graphics = less money on other shit = less shit but shinier shit, which isn't good. Plus, a lot of Triple A games are starting to really buckle down in to a 'play it as safe as possible' mode. Not that they weren't there before, but I'm noticing a lot more games like Dying Light and Mad Max that do next to nothing new or interesting and mostly play as a grab bag blending of mechanics from previous successful games. Which is a real big fucking shame, because I'm not down to pay for the same games over and over that try to go for the most streamlined, dumbed down mass appeal they can possibly manage. I like games that do things different or unique, even if they fail.
Unfortunately because people aren't so great at pulling together in to a single body to make a decision, we're just going to have to ride it out until something changes or someone manages to make something that changes everything, or it just blows up in our faces. Like a game crash. Maybe we should have a game crash. Maybe the answer is we need to burn it all, burN IT ALL DOWN
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;49626220]Actually, I was looking in to that and it apparently flips around in this case. Halo Reach is listed on Wikipedia's list of most expensive games ever made costing about $60 million dollars to create (in 2016 money)
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop[/URL]
But in general I think the issue is more money on graphics = less money on other shit = less shit but shinier shit, which isn't good. Plus, a lot of Triple A games are starting to really buckle down in to a 'play it as safe as possible' mode. Not that they weren't there before, but I'm noticing a lot more games like Dying Light and Mad Max that do next to nothing new or interesting and mostly play as a grab bag blending of mechanics from previous successful games. Which is a real big fucking shame, because I'm not down to pay for the same games over and over that try to go for the most streamlined, dumbed down mass appeal they can possibly manage. I like games that do things different or unique, even if they fail.
Unfortunately because people aren't so great at pulling together in to a single body to make a decision, we're just going to have to ride it out until something changes or someone manages to make something that changes everything, or it just blows up in our faces. Like a game crash. Maybe we should have a game crash. Maybe the answer is we need to burn it all, burN IT ALL DOWN[/QUOTE]
You have a great point but even looking at that list I feel like my point stands.
Right around that 60 million mark you have games like MGSV or Watchdogs.
MGSV being a great game with a hilariously gutted story and a disappointing multiplayer that is barely even recognizable compared to its predecessors. (sounds a lot like halo!)
Watchdogs was just a blunder in its entirety.
Then you have games like Destiny with a budget ballooning to 140 million dollars with Bungie at the helm, and yet somehow even they ended up producing a cash grabby gutted experience that feels more like an exercise in patience and how long you can be nickel and dimed for content that should have been there since release.
My issue with the $60 pricetag these days is not necessarily that multiplayer-only games are $60, it's that a few years ago $60 would get you a lot more for the price.
I have a lot of respect for Call of Duty. I know a lot of people will probably laugh and stop reading my post at this point, but they've been able to consistently deliver singleplayer and multiplayer experiences in one combined package for $60. (Quality varying, of course, but the point still stands.)
I did buy Siege. But I then refunded Siege because honestly, it is just not worth $60. We live in the golden age of video gaming, and $60 elsewhere can buy you so much more. It was fun, but I couldn't justify the price for the comparatively low amount of content and features. And I think that's really the argument people are trying to make when they complain that these newer multiplayer-only titles are charging the same price as their campaigned counterparts - why would you pay the same for what is arguably less?
Something this guy fails to realize is that it's possible for a game to have a great multiplayer and a great singleplayer. The issue with that is, it's not doable on a year and a half development cycle that publishers like EA or Activision are forcing developers into. You either get a good campaign with a tacked on multiplayer, or a good multiplayer with a tacked on campaign, or in battlefronts case, you get a $60 pile of shit that wants you to pay another $60 for some extra turds.
I bought siege, I liked it, but it wasn't worth the $60 I paid for it so I refunded it. You get a handful of maps without a lot of variables in them and a lot of predictability. Theres just not $60 worth of gameplay there.
Imo, Siege is totally worth the 60.
Free dlc, reasonable fun albiet tacked on co op mode, very interesting and challenging multiplayer component, and actually kind of does have a campaign (the situations are surprisingly fun)
[QUOTE=cdr248;49626407]Imo, Siege is totally worth the 60.
Free dlc, reasonable fun albiet tacked on co op mode, very interesting and challenging multiplayer component, and actually kind of does have a campaign (the situations are surprisingly fun)[/QUOTE]
Maybe to you, but in an age where games are always on sale, and key sites are able to drop games several months away from release down to prices like $35, it feels like to me that no matter how amazing the gameplay is, what you get just doesn't add up to the price tag.
I would say Siege is a $39.99 game maximum, and this is coming from someone who bought it. (though not at full price)
I mean 'free' dlc is nice but all that really comes down to is a few free character models with a new ability every few months that you have to grind for.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49626476]2 new characters every few months that can fundamentally change how matches go, it would be like adding a new class into tf2 or new characters into overwatch
realistically, anyone who buys games for full price these days isn't very bright, you can find basically any ubisoft game for $35 on grey market sites or even gmg before release, and most other $60 games can be found for >48 on gmg with a coupon applied[/QUOTE]
They're just dressing it up as 'wow free DLC!!' when in reality its basically just content updates that are required to keep the game alive, if they didn't then Siege would be dead within a year, unless they somehow cultivate an e-sports scene which I HIGHLY doubt they can. It also gives them an excuse to shill out with the ever-present season pass even if its merely for early-access to that content and some shitty skins and boosters.
I'd personally love to see new maps, new game-modes that mix the gameplay up and change things around, and perhaps an expansion on the really meh terrorist hunt mode, but alas im not expecting much.
I have to agree though on paying full price, if I can secure a preorder for dark souls III only paying around $38, why the hell would I pay $60 for something like Siege, lol.
If I remember right, the new Battlefront [b]did[/b] have bots. Except it was cornered off into a singleplayer / local or online co-op with one other player section where you couldn't play all the maps/modes and it didn't count towards progression whatsoever alongside a stupid survival mode no one really cares about. And because no one found that acceptable and thus barely if ever really cover it, I don't even know if the bots were half-competent or all completely retarded running target practice.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
