Let me begin first, modern day competitive online games are rubbish. I like online gaming on PC and consoles, but competitive games are stupid.
One thing I can't stand this generation is something Halo 2 caused. The multiplayer SECTION of the game being popularised as 'the game'. This is something I can't stand, this has continued into games such as the Call of Duty series and especially when the blockbuster story or campaign gets ignored for essentially what has been exactly the same game for the past 4 years or so.
This is a typical conversation concerning this situation I hate;
Me: "Have you played the new Call of Duty?"
Friend: "Yeah! It's awesome!"
Me: "That's great! So what set pieces does the game have this time?"
Friend: "I've not played the campaign yet, but I'm halfway heading towards Prestige."
Or the seminal;
Me "How's the new Call of Duty?"
Friend "Agh, the bullet detection is rubbish, the sound of the guns aren't very good and the maps are flawed"
Me "Oh right, so I guess that means that the campaign has rubbish level design then? Not as good as the old one?"
Friend "I wouldn't know, I've been busy playing the multiplayer, I only played half an hour of the campaign."
And this is something that comes up regularly. Just HOW many people in the world are actually thinking that the multiplayer is the game and then actively complain about the game being rubbish after playing ALL FOUR of the maps available in each mode and just see the game flopping just because the ATTACHED multiplayer that hardly changes, UT2003 and UT2K4 had more changes in a year than either CoD or Halo.
Then add to that insult of the level designers, story writers, animation directors. The campaign isn't played for about a week until they're bored of the MP and IN COMPARISON because of all the trigger happy shooting online for that week and mastering the shooting mechanics obsessively, the game's AI seems 'too easy'.
A lot of reviews these days for these kind of first person shooters, just review the multiplayer section and ignore the campaign as if it was some kind of last minute addition, when ACTUALLY, the campaign was what the game was intended to be marketed AS. The reason the developers built an engine, the reason the motion capture was so closely adapted for animation, the reason that the team hired a top class Hollywood composer to do the soundtrack, all gets ignored until later, when the player is bored and rushes through it like having ADHD just to get either Achievements or Trophies. What a sad world we live in and the game development community is encouraging this, because it makes money and everyone follows, getting the line between 'additional selling point' and 'high budget game' mixed up.
Oh well, I'm going to play the rather good bonus section of the game of MW2 which had a few tweaks that could of been in a patch in the last game and should be named "Call of Duty Modern Warfare Arena Tournament 2" until I get a copy of Black Ops in the future.
A number of leaks have popped up that reference Pokemon Black and White remakes in some way. Are they all coincidences or real in 2024?
The Final Fantasy VII Rebirth combat director has expressed that he wants the final part in the trilogy to offer players "even more freedom".
I love the game so far but please don’t make the final part a mini game fest
Everytime I get to a new part in Rebirth it’s “mini game time”
As long as it comes out on PS5 to have the entire series on one platform, do whatever you want
The combat is my favorite thing about Rebirth. Would be really cool if they can improve it even more.
I hope after FF7 Square will either give a new FF game the remake treatment. Or give some of their older titles a remake treatment like Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, even Xenogears.
Wccf tech writes: "Kingdom Come Deliverance 2's scope was impacted by the Xbox Series S hardware limitations, as developers could only make a game that was 25% bigger than its predecessor."
More info from the author of the article, I think: https://www.reddit.com/r/ki...
Quote:
"1) I was told this info from the producer of the game Martin Klíma.
2) He specifically said the game will have only one mode.
3) And this mode is 4K 30 on PS5/XSX and 1440p 30 on XSS.
4) He said that the game is already running north of the 30 FPS cap so the performance should be stable on launch, much better than KCD1.
5) The limitation was XSS because of the 10GB memory. He said that's why they wanted to make the game 25% larger.
6) Speculation on my part: the output resolution is probably upscaled and the reason why there won't be a 60 FPS mode is because it'll most likely be very CPU heavy, like Dragon's Dogma 2 for example."
Doesn't seem like they're adding a 40fps mode on PS5/Series X for launch even if they can handle it.
Remember when xbots were adamant that the series s won’t hold back the gen?
Microsoft just needs to let go of the mandatory parity. Who cares if your grandma doesn’t understand that a game cannot be played on the S. It’s not like it she can buy you a physical game for it anyway. Before buying the game put up a notice that it only works on series X. If you’re buying for a friend-allow for a refund.
Bam. Everyone is happy. Most series s owners are for casuals that want Game Pass anyway and most likely don’t purchase most games.
If the developers want it to run on S, let them figure it out.
“During the event, the Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 producer also revealed that on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X, the game will run at 4K resolution and 30 frames per second“
Another “creative decision” right? 🤦♂️
I agree with what you're saying, but you can't deny that games like CoD and Battlefield: Bad Company are games that focus on the multiplayer modes and so the campaign modes suffer at least a bit. I understand though that you're not really complaining about that but people's attitudes to this situation.
But I disagree with your second-last paragraph, I mean look at the adverts for Black Ops, how many of those are focused on the single-player? Look at the back and front of the BFBC2 box, how much of those focus on the single player? The games that are almost only played in the multiplayer section are usually marketed in that way because they know that most multiplayer-focused games have more longevity than singleplayer-focused games and because multiplayer seems to attract more attention than single-player does. All depends on the genre though when you think about it, I'd say if you asked anyone about Assassins Creed: Brotherhood at least 8 out of 10 would tell you about the story first and foremost before even considering the multiplayer.
I agree with everything you guys have said. MP is fine but why is it put as the main focus? It's like selling you half a game. Games like LFD have 3 hour campaigns which i personally think is ludicrous.If you are so focused on MP alone then make a MP game and sell it for less.I mean if UC2 can make a robust SP and MP without sacrificing anything why can't everyone else do the same? It's like a huge middle finger to your gamers. "You don't like MP and want to play SP only? Then screw you!"
games that are so heavily focused on multiplayer do seem to have a tacked on single player experience. i have friends who have bought modern warfare, mw2, and black ops yet have not played even 1 hour of the campaign for any of those games. i enjoy multiplayer just as much as the next person but for me a single player experience is was draws me into a game. if youre just going to tack on a 5 hour single player then whats the point. what i would like to see is games such as bad company or cod become online only and come out at a starting price of 39.99. yet i feel the same about single player games as well. some games dont need a multiplayer such as bioshock 2 or up and coming dead space 2. there no need to tack them on. after playing the dead space beta the multiplayer was actually a lot better then i thought but still i think most everyone could live with out. basically in an overall sense you tend to see great single player games with a tacked on multiplayer and great multiplayer game with tacked on single player so maybe we should be at the point where developers sell them separately at discounted prices. i would be some what open to that idea.
Personally, I go into every game with Single-player first and may play a couple of hours of multiplayer, then I'll go back to SP forever. If I want to play online, I'll throw on Combat Arms or Cross Fire (*cough* approve the reviews and my blog *cough*)and play that for several hours until I get bored. But I don't go into CoD for multiplayer, admittedly. I'm all SP after a bit and every game I've ever played has that same reaction unless it's an MMO. This is why I love BioShock 1. Didn't give a damn about multiplayer and created what is, IMHO, the best single-player experience to ever grace gaming.
L4D is excused though. That's pretty much an MMO and SP is practice.
I tend to play through the Single Player of a game first and then I'll try out the multiplayer. Although that said I've never been huge on multiplayer in games up until Halo Reach came along and even then I made sure to play through the campaign and check out the story before going fully into the multiplayer mode.
There is definitely more of an emphasis on competitive mutliplayer in games though and its been going that way for a few years now. I guess its a way of saying to potential buyers that they can just hop on for about half an hour for some mindless action. It's a big shame because some of the storylines in games are brilliantly crafted and amazing to watch play out. Unfortunately people just don't want to dedicate their time to it as much.