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

And that's completely irrelevant to the thread. Both of the above posts.

I don't know about the newer CoD games but the 4th one had some replayability value with finding all the intels and unlocking the cheats. [editline]27th March 2011[/editline] Fifth game had cards I think

Speaking for myself, the only game I'll remember in the last 2-3 years will be Dead space 1 & 2, the first a bit more than the second.

I rather play a great 5 hour game and not a mediocre 24 hour one.

[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] God damnit! Not this god damn image! Its so god damn wrong! You guys obviously just jump on the bandwagon with this bullshit.

Crysis 2 has an ingame DLC store. Now let's just hope that there will be SP dlc... Hell, I'd rather play 15 bucks for four hours of SP fun than for four multiplayer maps of which only two are really good. But yeah, singleplayer titles are getting shorter and it's not a good thing, for sure.

[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;28843875]Because non-linear first person shooters confuse console gamers.[/QUOTE] pc superior master race herp derp

[QUOTE=Lazor;28847125]pc superior master race herp derp[/QUOTE] Exactly, for fuck's sake. The games that have that "non-linear" FPS gaming takes longer to produce than a linear one you dipshits. This thread always pops up, its bandwagon'd before and everyone just jumps on board when most have never even followed a development team.

So basically you're saying it's ok for people to make shitty short linear games because it takes less time?

[QUOTE=Swilly;28847063]God damnit! Not this god damn image! Its so god damn wrong! You guys obviously just jump on the bandwagon with this bullshit.[/QUOTE] Have you played Black Ops SP?

[QUOTE=OutOfExile2;28847230]So basically you're saying it's ok for people to make shitty short linear games because it takes less time?[/QUOTE] Please name the number of shitty TV shows and then come back to me. Videogames are mainstream now so yes, we'll get shit and have to wade through it to actually see the good games. Bitching about it won't do anything. Most of those games will die as the ones that actually changed things will stand up with the test of time. But you're also generalizing all of the good games that come out along side those shitty ones.

I miss the games that took 100+ hours to beat, and now when you want the experience to never end, it just does. I'm looking at you MGS4!

[QUOTE=doommarine23;28847047]I rather play a great 5 hour game and not a mediocre 24 hour one.[/QUOTE] Except today the trend is to make mediocre 5 hour games...

[QUOTE=SmashJonXD;28847266]Have you played Black Ops SP?[/QUOTE] No I haven't because I knew what to expect from a dead series. Just like I did with Medal of Honor's Reboot.

[QUOTE=dannass;28846186]Get the fuck out![/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;28846174]:frog:[/QUOTE] Facepunch, where your opinion is null and void.

[QUOTE=Lizzrd;28847070]Crysis 2 has an ingame DLC store. Now let's just hope that there will be SP dlc... Hell, I'd rather play 15 bucks for four hours of SP fun than for four multiplayer maps of which only two are really good. But yeah, singleplayer titles are getting shorter and it's not a good thing, for sure.[/QUOTE] I'm currently playing Assasin's creed brotherhood and holy damn is it long... I haven't even touched the multiplayer yet. The length of games really depends on the focus of the game. Call of duty franchise is mainly multiplayer, and every DLC that comes for it is multiplayer. In a COD game, the Singleplayer is the complement of the Multiplayer more than anything else. It's the same thing for most War FPS titles as of now. However, Bethesda softworks releases mainly singleplayer focused games, including Fallout 3 and NV, and the Elder scrolls. Those are pretty long games depending on how long they can keep the player focused. The campaign for each obviously are longer, since there is no real multiplayer to complement the game. If the Singleplayer is bad, then the game is fucked. The games that have been turning short as of lately are the games that are multiplayer focused. It doesn't mean in anyway that games are going to get any shorter. There's exception even in that category. With Battlefield Bad company (Both titles) that have pretty long singleplayer campaign and very fun multiplayer. Even Battlefield 3 will have singleplayer, but there's a lot of chance that the singleplayer experience will last shorter than the multiplayer one. Map design didn't get worst, but better with time. The problem is that the storyline pulls you in a very tight rope hallway style gameplay. You have to get to point A to Point B, obviously, and sometimes the game will be nice enough to give you multiple way to approach the situation. Sadly, games like Call of Duty only gives you one approach and different guns. That's what I think about the issue.

[QUOTE=Feuvert;28847340]I'm currently playing Assasin's creed brotherhood and holy damn is it long... I haven't even touched the multiplayer yet. The length of games really depends on the focus of the game. Call of duty franchise is mainly multiplayer, and every DLC that comes for it is multiplayer. In a COD game, the Singleplayer is the complement of the Multiplayer more than anything else. It's the same thing for most War FPS titles as of now. However, Bethesda softworks releases mainly singleplayer focused games, including Fallout 3 and NV, and the Elder scrolls. Those are pretty long games depending on how long they can keep the player focused. The campaign for each obviously are longer, since there is no real multiplayer to complement the game. If the Singleplayer is bad, then the game is fucked. The games that have been turning short as of lately are the games that are multiplayer focused. It doesn't mean in anyway that games are going to get any shorter. There's exception even in that category. With Battlefield Bad company (Both titles) that have pretty long singleplayer campaign and very fun multiplayer. Even Battlefield 3 will have singleplayer, but there's a lot of chance that the singleplayer experience will last shorter than the multiplayer one. Map design didn't get worst, but better with time. The problem is that the storyline pulls you in a very tight rope hallway style gameplay. You have to get to point A to Point B, obviously, and sometimes the game will be nice enough to give you multiple way to approach the situation. Sadly, games like Call of Duty only gives you one approach and different guns. That's what I think about the issue.[/QUOTE] Even in the older games you were going from point A to point B because you run around on the "Collect the key card in arbitary spot."

[QUOTE=Swilly;28847378]Even in the older games you were going from point A to point B because you run around on the "Collect the key card in arbitary spot."[/QUOTE] Yes but those games gave you a sense of freedom with side and backtracking games nowadays are walk straight and turn left/right every now and then.

[QUOTE=Lazor;28847125]pc superior master race herp derp[/QUOTE] Put more words in my mouth for me, why don't you. Please read this post: [QUOTE=ZestyLemons;28843875]Because non-linear first person shooters confuse console gamers.[/QUOTE] Bold where I say the PC is better for me, k?

[QUOTE=Erebus.;28847329]Facepunch, where your opinion is null and void.[/QUOTE] I am sharing my opinion on people who talk shit about the greatest game ever made.

[QUOTE=SmashJonXD;28847523]Yes but those games gave you a sense of freedom with side and backtracking games nowadays are walk straight and turn left/right every now and then.[/QUOTE] I sure didn't get a sense of freedom when i walking over a bridge, then backtracking to go down another linear path, just to back track, AGAIN to jump through a window I couldn't shot earlier.

[QUOTE=imadaman;28843729]No, it'll be a hole in the space/time continuum that will result in you finishing the game 3 days before you acquire it.[/QUOTE] The post mentions the space/time continuum, that post was made three hours ago, I watched Back to the Future on TV three hours ago. Did you watch it as well?

[QUOTE=Swilly;28847378]Even in the older games you were going from point A to point B because you run around on the "Collect the key card in arbitary spot."[/QUOTE] "Map design didn't get worst, but better with time. The problem is that the storyline pulls you in a very tight rope hallway style gameplay. You have to get to point A to Point B, obviously, and sometimes the game will be nice enough to give you multiple way to approach the situation. Sadly, games like Call of Duty only gives you one approach and different guns." Older games however hardly had any storyline to go with it. If you look at FPSes back in the time of Doom, the map was open and you needed to fetch the keys, but the game by itself didn't need any storyline. It was just "Fuck shit up and kill everything" and that worked. It can't work like that anymore. A solid singleplayer means a solid storyline because the newer game allows such depth. Half-life 2 action sequences are pretty fast paced, and the cutscenes happens in your eyes. What I'm saying is that games nowdays need a strong storyline because the player demands it. The strength of the storyline is left at anyone's guess, but the gameplay is tied to it. Games like Call of Duty works with an hallway and with storyline on each end.

I was wondering why people hated homefront, I think i came to my own conclusion that people don't like the fact there isn't 500 bullets constantly for you to hold. Playing on hardcore even with reserving ammo i am aways at the brink of almost being out of ammo and sometimes have to switch to an enemy's gun. Honestly that makes me feel more rebel like and the fact we are constantly outnumbered and can die easy. People who review the game want the god mode of call of duty with infinite bullets.

It's a completely different experience per game for me. Action games I usually only play multiplayer just because I enjoy that aspect more than singleplayer, but with RPGs I'm looking for at least 10 hours singleplayer if I do only bare minimum.

Doom: More of 30 levels full of secrets, traps, greats and funny maps, full of enemies Call of Duty I: Excellent game, long and sometimes hard. Call of Duty Modern Warfare II: "Just go to kill everyone, don't worry, if you get a shoot in your head, look for cover and you will regenerate and the pain will be disappear" See the difference?, The world is getting worst every second.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28841232]Funny how cheap games like Torchlight provide ten times the gameplay as 60 dollar "blockbuster" games[/QUOTE] People spend staggering amounts of time on games like COD, and let's face it, the SP is really fun, and the MP is fun too if you like that kinda stuff.

[QUOTE=E.C.S;28848305]Doom: More of 30 levels full of secrets, traps, greats and funny maps, full of enemies Call of Duty I: Excellent game, long and sometimes hard. Call of Duty Modern Warfare II: "Just go to kill everyone, don't worry, if you get a shoot in your head, look for cover and you will regenerate and the pain will be disappear" See the difference?, The world is getting worst every second.[/QUOTE] Overdramatizing much? Call of duty went from a Single-player experience (with multiplayer supplement) (I wouldn't know, I didn't play the first one.) to a massive (Not MMO but you get what I mean) Multiplayer based game. Everybody plays Call of duty for the multiplayer. The singleplayer is short and usually just a complement. There's a lot of new FPS games that are fun to play. You can't really link Doom to newest FPS games anyway. We're also getting Battlefield 3 and Portal 2 in a few, which are FPSes in their own rights.

how about all of you realize none of you know what the fuck you are talking about ever ever ever for people who apparently hate call of duty [B]you spend every fucking thread talking about it[/B]

The elitism between fps games and rpgs etc etc is really bugging me and the consoles vs PC discussions are also retarded. The fact is, yeah i've been a fan of cod since cod 1. I've been a fan of halo since halo combat evolved and i really like the stories in them which so many of you hate. I like shit like protect Mcburgertown with dramatic music and the cutscenes which try to be epic. And the most annoying thing are all the elitist out there who think they are better because they play a game which requires more thinking than just quick reactions. Well hear this! I've played most of the popular rpg games such as fallout, dragon age, mass effect, diablo yadda yadda. I enjoy kicking it on the PC with simulators like Silent hunter and IL 2 Sturmovik. At the same time i don't nag about how PC is better because imo, consoles are better for other games such as NHL, Fifa, Rockstar and driving games. That's how i see it. So the main question is, why the fuck are you people whining about how Blops ain't what cod 1 was when both games are just as linear as the other. You people rant about how the communitys are getting more dumb with each new FPS that is released? Or why do you whine on how new RTS say age of empires are not nearly the same thing as the old classic? It is. Apart from graphics it's the same fucking game. If you don't like a game, then don't fucking play it. If you enjoy a game which other people think is too mainstream, don't give a fuck. If you feel like doom or duke nukem had much better variation, then play it, enjoy it and hope something new that fits your taste will be released. When will people learn? :sigh: