surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
I feel as though I want to play devils advocate here for a moment. When I read this, I get the sense that you may misplace the game's value. I'm not a MW fan, I haven't played one since COD4, and even that went unfinished, but I think most of the fans of that series would argue that the game is largely about the multiplayer, and that the conventions of the single-player campaign are, even if marginal, largely unimportant to the bulk of the value of the game.
It seems to me that the real value of the game is the huge install base and the related thickness of multiplayer game opportunity that install base allows for. It makes for competitive opportunity, which I think weighs much more heavily in the minds of the players of the game than the effectiveness of the storytelling and gameplay mechanics of s single player campaign that often goes unplayed.
It seems to me that the real value of the game is the huge install base and the related thickness of multiplayer game opportunity that install base allows for. It makes for competitive opportunity, which I think weighs much more heavily in the minds of the players of the game than the effectiveness of the storytelling and gameplay mechanics of s single player campaign that often goes unplayed.
And for the (large) number of us who don't give a rat's rear end about multiplayer, it's a 3-hour-long interactive cutscene that costs $60.
6 hours is the average length of Portal. (At least if you don't rush through it/get stuck on some puzzles)
What was Portal sold for? $20.
Put another way, Half-Life 2 was twice to thrice the length, at least 1.5x the quality-per-second of gameplay, immersion, and fun (although your mileage may vary), and 0.8x the cost of Black Ops. As a singleplayer game, therefore, it is about 5x as good (straight multipliers) as Black Ops. And people wonder why it is regarded as superior...?
What was Portal sold for? $20.
Put another way, Half-Life 2 was twice to thrice the length, at least 1.5x the quality-per-second of gameplay, immersion, and fun (although your mileage may vary), and 0.8x the cost of Black Ops. As a singleplayer game, therefore, it is about 5x as good (straight multipliers) as Black Ops. And people wonder why it is regarded as superior...?
If you're going to buy a game designed for it's multiplayer experience and judge it based on it's single player experience, you're going to be unhappy with what you bought. It's that simple. It's like buying starcraft for the story, it's just not the point. Activision may try to milk everyone by releasing a crappy story to go with the multiplayer each year, but that doesn't mean you should pay for it.
No less, you're preaching to the choir here. I don't want to speak for everyone here, but I can't really think of many people with huge hard-ons for MW. Most of what I hear is criticism, maybe the MW fans are silent largely, but that's not the impression I get.
No less, you're preaching to the choir here. I don't want to speak for everyone here, but I can't really think of many people with huge hard-ons for MW. Most of what I hear is criticism, maybe the MW fans are silent largely, but that's not the impression I get.
@omicron
Which Portal are you talking about? The first one, which sold at about that price was like a one-hour game. The second one was about six, but it was $50 when it released.
Which Portal are you talking about? The first one, which sold at about that price was like a one-hour game. The second one was about six, but it was $50 when it released.
If you bought any Call of Duty game new and paid $60.00 for the single player campaign experience, then you're playing it wrong.
I too tended to buy the Modern Warfare games for the single player experience but generally just wait until they go down in price. Compared to games like Heavenly Sword or Portal - the length of the game is just fine.
The meat of the COD games is in fact the multiplayer which offers hundreds of hours of online play. Games like Crysis or Stalker may be prettier and may have a more open concept for the single player, but in large part this is because the multiplayer portion of those games is secondary. With the Call of Duty series, the single player portion is secondary. Call of Duty sells well because it's a solid multiplayer game. Everything works. Unlike BF3, Homefront, MAG or any multitude of games that have released in a broken state needing fixing (which sometimes never happens) - Call of Duty is simply jump in and play online. There are tons of different modes and the rank/unlock system has a lot of depth to proved hundreds and hundreds of hours of gameplay.
If your preference is for single player shooter games, then wait until a COD game drops to the $20 or $30 price point and buy it then. Problem solved.
To be honest, most people will buy a game like COD on release and play the online first... then go back and maybe do the campaign later. They'll wait and buy a game like Crysis when it goes on sale a year after release, because they're buying it for the single player game, and the online multiplayer population doesn't even have to exist to still enjoy the game.
There is room for a lot of variety in the FPS genre, but the reality is that people will buy a multiplayer game new because they want to rank up quickly and immediately get into the online play. More open FPS games like Borderlands or Far Cry 2 people can wait for a price drop because online rank is as important. If you're seeing a push toward corridor shooters that are short in length - it's likely because developers are hoping people are buying the game for the multiplayer so that they can enjoy the pre-order and release day sales that games like COD have... rather than lose out to used game sales.
I too tended to buy the Modern Warfare games for the single player experience but generally just wait until they go down in price. Compared to games like Heavenly Sword or Portal - the length of the game is just fine.
The meat of the COD games is in fact the multiplayer which offers hundreds of hours of online play. Games like Crysis or Stalker may be prettier and may have a more open concept for the single player, but in large part this is because the multiplayer portion of those games is secondary. With the Call of Duty series, the single player portion is secondary. Call of Duty sells well because it's a solid multiplayer game. Everything works. Unlike BF3, Homefront, MAG or any multitude of games that have released in a broken state needing fixing (which sometimes never happens) - Call of Duty is simply jump in and play online. There are tons of different modes and the rank/unlock system has a lot of depth to proved hundreds and hundreds of hours of gameplay.
If your preference is for single player shooter games, then wait until a COD game drops to the $20 or $30 price point and buy it then. Problem solved.
To be honest, most people will buy a game like COD on release and play the online first... then go back and maybe do the campaign later. They'll wait and buy a game like Crysis when it goes on sale a year after release, because they're buying it for the single player game, and the online multiplayer population doesn't even have to exist to still enjoy the game.
There is room for a lot of variety in the FPS genre, but the reality is that people will buy a multiplayer game new because they want to rank up quickly and immediately get into the online play. More open FPS games like Borderlands or Far Cry 2 people can wait for a price drop because online rank is as important. If you're seeing a push toward corridor shooters that are short in length - it's likely because developers are hoping people are buying the game for the multiplayer so that they can enjoy the pre-order and release day sales that games like COD have... rather than lose out to used game sales.
