This is a Bad Time to be an FPS Fan [IGN Article] Is Mulitplayer Killing The Industry?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - This is a Bad Time to be an FPS Fan [IGN Article] Is Mulitplayer Killing The Industry?

Tagged games:

I've been saying this for years, but Modern Warfare 3 really did me in. Campaign: 3.5 hours, almost no substance whatsoever. Michael bay game in every way.

Honestly? my favorite FPS games this year were Resistance 3 and Bulletstorm, because both had great campaigns (neither of which I spent more than an hour on when it came to multiplayer.) Also, just so everyone knows, Bulletstorm had a surprisingly deep story, but most didn't care because it was buried under a sea of Dick and Fart jokes. If you're willing to give it another shot, do so, and remember that in spite of its immensely immature shell, it's a story about maturity. Remember that.

I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 3 this generation: 
Bloodborne, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III

Around the Network

COD is ruining the industry, aswell as its copy cat clones.

It's like the platforming games of the 90's. The market is close to being saturated. Next gen will probably see the rising of a new fad.


well this gen already had the rythm game boom followed by the FPS explosion.

I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 3 this generation: 
Bloodborne, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III

I think the Dance games  have emerged to take the spot of the old Music/Rhythm Games genre. 

On Topic:

There is an issue with how funding from publishers have only backed certain ideas about FPS but COD and Battlefield have been around since before this gen.  It must be companies that are trying to carve out some marketshare and think they must adopt COD elements in order to standout or be successful.  Killzone 2 transition to Killzone 3 comes to mind.  Heck, look at Uncharted 2 to Uncharted 3's multiplayer.  


As for single player,  microtransactions have been stated as the future.  and it's much more cost effective to give you 5 maps for 15 bucks than to bring out a extra two-three hours of single player experience.  So, of course, companies are going to try to break into the multiplayer market. 

But, I believe that overall, the OP is corrrect. 

Check us out at the Vindication Gamer Network on Youtube. 

Around the Network

Here is a prime example at why Ign, like most mainstream gaming journalists, fail at actual journalism. They never bother to ask WHY single player is being ignored! All they can do is go "wahhh noone pays attention to the glorious single player campaigns anymore, it's all that damn multiplayer's fault!!!1 And you damn gamers!!!1"

Multiplayer is the REASON games like COD, and many others for that matter, are even relevent. Think about it, do you buy MW2 for the campaign?? Of course not! Online multi is the only thing keeping games afloat right now, so if anything it is keeping the industry alive! It certainly isn't "killing it."

I find it practically a chore to get myself through the campaign of Gears of War or COD, but hell, the multi in those games, I can go on for hours and hours. Yet I know some games like Minecraft, Fallout 3, GTA4, etc, I can't get enough of the single player. So why is it that certain games are like this?

The problem with single player campaigns these days (particularly FPS for some reason), besides the fact that they are generally too short, is that they are far too linear. They exist merely as a means for the developer to show off their graphics and story telling skills, even though they are usually pretty bland anyway. It cuts corners in gameplay scope and mechanics in favor of asthetics and horsepower clogging up all the room. The reason people respond much better to the multiplayer aspects is because it allows for much more freedom, which is what most gamers want anyway. After all, isn't that the point of games? Ultimate control and freedom?

Edit: I take it back about ign in this case, as they do seem to acknowledge a lot of the points I'm arguing. I just assumed the title "Is multiplayer killing the industry?" was also the title of the ign article. I actually give them props for daring to take on the mammoth that is MW and others like it. But again, I don't even think it is so much about the predictable AI as they claim, it's much more about the linearity and cutscenes.

Article has some valid points, in terms of the campaign...multiplayer is as robust as ever.
However, pretty much every FPS game I've played this year that has been hyped by the media/community had a mediocre or crap campaigns.

Its almost like the industry is ran by these casual gamers who review FPS games based on how pretty they are or how easy they play. Like Crysis 2 should have never gotten anything over an 8 by anyone who knows how to review and play FPS games...that game has completely broken AI and garbage set pieces, no matter how good it looks. It just isn't fun to have gunfights when AI runs straight at you...

There are still good FPS campaigns out there, they just don't get the hype for some reason.
Resistance 3 is very good to my surprise (hated first 2). Halo games are all top notch. FEAR 3 had a great campaign. RAGE was very good from what I've played so far (15% maybe).

All those games focus on gunplay and engaging users with gameplay over providing a linear cinematic experience and zomg graphix.

Battlefield has never been about the single player. I understand that FPS campaigns have been fairly boring and stupid in recent years, but you must realize that multiplayer is an even more important factor in those games than single player.

If Battlefield 3 is supposed to be a sign of a bad or stale industry, I can do nothing but laugh off that notion. It uses a brand new engine, is much more expansive, and really changes up gameplay from previous installments.

"Is multiplayer killing the industry?"

Hell no, just look at the sales numbers... now, "Is multiplayer killing single-player?"

Probably! And I don't really care. :P

From the article:

"For most shooter fans schooled in the classics, the campaign modes in the likes of Half-Life, GoldenEye, Unreal, Quake II and Duke Nukem 3D were something to savour."

Yup, that they did. But you know what kept gamers constantly coming back to these games, along with games like Halo, Timesplitters, and Rainbow Six?


GoldenEye didn't sell a boat load of copies on the N64 because of how well the campaign followed the story of the movie it was based on... nor did Halo make millions of gamers hold parties and gatherings for its cinematic campaign experience. Half-Life was rightfully revered for its innovative storytelling and gameplay in the campaign, but it was an unauthorized multiplayer mod that kept millions of gamers around the world coming back to it. Same story for Doom, Quake, and all the other shooters of years past worth their salt.

COD has essentially become the "Madden" of first person shooters... basically the same game every year with minor tweaks and upgrades, but people keep buying it because it's pretty much exactly what they want whether they admit it or not. Some versions might not be as good as others, but it still sells like hotcakes.

On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

Unfortunately, gamers are voting with their wallets. Their wallets are saying they want more generic run of the mill America! Fuck Yeah! military FPS games with heavy emphasis on multi-player over single player. I don't see this ending anytime soon.

I don't think it's a fad in America either. I think Americans have found the genre that suits them much like the Japanese have found jRPGs since the 80s. Japanese culture has heavy emphasis on manga reading (with involving storylines and characters) on trains and what not. American culture has heavy emphasis on guns, military, and war.

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."  --Hermann Goering, leading Nazi party member, at the Nuremberg War Crime Trials 


Conservatives:  Pushing for a small enough government to be a guest in your living room, or even better - your uterus.