| starcraft said: I'm not a massive fan of online multiplayer. I love a massive, immersive single player experience. The best single player shooter this generation has easily been Bioshock. This is for the simple reason that it popularized some awesome stuff that System Shock had done, and was designed to be a deep, fun, immersive single player experience. Now out of Gears and Cod4, I'd say any given moment of CoD4's campaign was marginally better than any corresponding moment in Gears campaign. But Gears's campaign was better overall for the simple reason it lasted longer than 5 hours. Quality is more important that quantity, but when quality is close, I'd rather have more of it than less. Gears campaign wasn't long enough (8-12 hours) but at least it was approaching acceptable (12 is fine, but on co-op I'd finish it in 9 which isn't fine). But Activision now has the impression that putting out a shooter thats advertised as having a campaign which turns out to be 5 hours long is ok. But thats ridiculous, its not ok at all. Its all well and good to expand multiplayer options, but it shouldn't be at the expense of single-player. |
Don't expect a long campagin from COD5; is treyarch, so you might as well go bust out your highschool history book and find out the Spolierz to the campagin. Multiplayer games sell > single player games (with a few exceptions) so shifting resources sounds like a good idea from a buisness perspective.
