MOBAFire's second Mini Guide Contest of Season 14 is here! Create or update guides for the 30 featured champions and compete for up to $200 in prizes! 🏆
Guess you don't play many games then Luther.
Halo 1
Gears 1-2 (potentially 3)
Call of Duty 2/MW 1/2/(Probably 3)
World of Warcraft Vanilla-Cataclysm. (That might be a stretch depending on your definition of single player I suppose.)
Just to name a few games that have not only had rewarding single player campaigns but multiplayer as well. Or to me they do.
And as for their "length" that just depends on the difficulty as well as your opinion on how long is too long/just right for a game. FPS/3PS need to be atleast 10 hours on their easiest setting to get my moneis worth. RPGs 20 hours plus following the main story line. The games I all mentioned (on my play throughs) accomplish that.
Halo 1
Gears 1-2 (potentially 3)
Call of Duty 2/MW 1/2/(Probably 3)
World of Warcraft Vanilla-Cataclysm. (That might be a stretch depending on your definition of single player I suppose.)
Just to name a few games that have not only had rewarding single player campaigns but multiplayer as well. Or to me they do.
And as for their "length" that just depends on the difficulty as well as your opinion on how long is too long/just right for a game. FPS/3PS need to be atleast 10 hours on their easiest setting to get my moneis worth. RPGs 20 hours plus following the main story line. The games I all mentioned (on my play throughs) accomplish that.
Halo 1 didn't have multiplayer on the xbox version, only local.
I'll pretend you didn't mention Call of Duty because jesus christ, the CoD campaigns might have a few epic moments, but they take me literally one day to finish. That's not good enough. I can tell you for certain that MW1 and 2 did not have campaigns longer than 10 hours. MW2 I believe was stated as seven hours. I distinctly remember finishing MW2 in a single night after school on at least one playthrough (either normal or hardened difficulty, I forget).
I haven't played Gears of War yet. World of Warcraft I got to level 60 on a paladin and level 20-ish on a priest and mage. The server I was on was really empty though (despite being listed as normal population), so there was no one to group up with and I never made any friends. I realized around the time I was grinding alone for the fiftieth time in the fiery area and the plaguelands that I wasn't enjoying it at all.
I guess if we're talking about MMOs you could count Guild Wars though, the storyline campaigns in Guild Wars were fairly solid and you could choose to play them alone if you wanted (made them a lot more difficult though, at least until hero NPCs were added). It's a shame GW got boring after a while and it seems to be more or less dead now. Until GW2 comes out, anyway.
I'll pretend you didn't mention Call of Duty because jesus christ, the CoD campaigns might have a few epic moments, but they take me literally one day to finish. That's not good enough. I can tell you for certain that MW1 and 2 did not have campaigns longer than 10 hours. MW2 I believe was stated as seven hours. I distinctly remember finishing MW2 in a single night after school on at least one playthrough (either normal or hardened difficulty, I forget).
I haven't played Gears of War yet. World of Warcraft I got to level 60 on a paladin and level 20-ish on a priest and mage. The server I was on was really empty though (despite being listed as normal population), so there was no one to group up with and I never made any friends. I realized around the time I was grinding alone for the fiftieth time in the fiery area and the plaguelands that I wasn't enjoying it at all.
I guess if we're talking about MMOs you could count Guild Wars though, the storyline campaigns in Guild Wars were fairly solid and you could choose to play them alone if you wanted (made them a lot more difficult though, at least until hero NPCs were added). It's a shame GW got boring after a while and it seems to be more or less dead now. Until GW2 comes out, anyway.
To each their own I suppose ^_^
And local play IS multiplayer. Multiple+players=multiplayer :P
Gears is pretty fun, lets you get into the action.
CoD franchise (Infinity Ward not Treyarch) has produced solid single player campaigns. Or I think they have. And I never play on anything lower than Veteran for CoD. Anything else isn't nearly as rewarding. (Though I stated 10 hours on easy as a benchmark XD)
WoW is different things to different people. The actual "multiplayer" experience didn't start until I hit 80.
And local play IS multiplayer. Multiple+players=multiplayer :P
Gears is pretty fun, lets you get into the action.
CoD franchise (Infinity Ward not Treyarch) has produced solid single player campaigns. Or I think they have. And I never play on anything lower than Veteran for CoD. Anything else isn't nearly as rewarding. (Though I stated 10 hours on easy as a benchmark XD)
WoW is different things to different people. The actual "multiplayer" experience didn't start until I hit 80.
Multiplayer these days refers to online play, the word splitscreen is generally used for local now. Although when Halo was released it probably was still called multiplayer, I remember calling it that back in the days before consoles could go online.
I agree the CoD campaigns are fairly solid, but only while they last. It doesn't excuse 6-7 hour campaigns with a reskin of CoD4's multiplayer mode. Yeah that's right, every CoD since 4 has just been a reskin. I'm calling you out Activision.
Also, £15 for a couple of extra maps that aren't even that good? **** you Activision.
I agree the CoD campaigns are fairly solid, but only while they last. It doesn't excuse 6-7 hour campaigns with a reskin of CoD4's multiplayer mode. Yeah that's right, every CoD since 4 has just been a reskin. I'm calling you out Activision.
Also, £15 for a couple of extra maps that aren't even that good? **** you Activision.
caucheka wrote:
i never played uncharted 2 online, but it was both solid in single and multiplayer.
same with assassin's creed i heard.
Alright you got me there, Uncharted 2 did have damn good single and multiplayer.
Don't know about AC since I stopped buying them after 2 (not sure why actually, I guess I just didn't have the money at the time and then forgot), though I have heard the same about Brotherhood.
If it ain't broke don't fix it. Why reformulate the whole game when you can simply improve upon it? And I know what split screen and "multiplayer" are and that they are different. But literally referring to multiple people playing at once is still multiplayer regardless if it's online or split screen.
And yes activision needs to GTFO...Stick to Tony Hawk ya wankers. (But they even seemed to **** that up @_@))
And yes activision needs to GTFO...Stick to Tony Hawk ya wankers. (But they even seemed to **** that up @_@))
JEFFY40HANDS wrote:
If it ain't broke don't fix it. Why reformulate the whole game when you can simply improve upon it? )
For a company releasing a title every year for £50, releasing essentially the same game with different maps (then selling the old game's maps back to you for £15 each..) and SLIGHTLY better graphics every year isn't good enough.
I don't count the guns are being changes, because frankly they aren't different at all. Essentially it feels like I'm paying the price of a full game for new maps, slightly better graphics and slight changes to perks. The campaigns aren't really worth anything since I'll finish them in a day and probably never touch them again. Extra modes like spec ops and zombies I guess help out (although the Black Ops zombie mode was terrible compared to the original IMO).
A good sequel innovates while still sticking to the basic formula that made the original great. Then again I've bought every CoD since 4, so I really should have learnt my lesson by now.
You need to log in before commenting.
Why settle for one or the other? Plenty of games offer both. I'm sure GW3 will still be rewarding in single and multiplayer. I know I'll enjoy it, and then I'll enjoy the multiplayer. Simple as that.
I call ********, I don't think I've ever played a game with a great, long single player AND a great multiplayer.
I'm actually fine with that though, an RPG with a multiplayer would probably suck and an FPS with an amazing, long single player would be...weird (and probably cost a lot to make).