Do you buy Mulitplayer Focused Games just to play the Single-Player Campaign?

[mark1982]

-------------------


Do some of you buy Call of Duty, Battlefield, or similar online games just to play the Single-Player Campaign?

I'm guilty of this... Sometimes when I feel like playing a First-Person Shooter I will get a multiplayer focused game to just play the campaign, I did this recently with COD WWII. I do enjoy the campaigns but they are rather short, I understand that the main point of these games is to be multiplayer focused, but I don't play multiplayer centric games anymore so I just stick with the Single Player experience.

Is anybody else like this? I ask this question here on VGCollect because I noticed here that many people don't like multiplayer focused games. We all like our games to last and be prolonged as the years go by without having any of the servers shutting down. I do hope EA and Activision realize this that after the servers go down the Single Player campaign must be able to be played offline.

It's a bit worrying because not too long ago I was playing For Honor and I couldn't even play the campaign because the server was down for maintenance... Perfectly understandable if I was trying to access the multiplayer, but this was the single-player campaign. I find this completely unnecessary to lock the single player game behind an online component. Initially when For Honor was released it didn't require online to play the campaign, this was implemented at a later stage so I believe it is reversible when they decide to shut down the server.

I don't buy purely online games though, there has to be a single player campaign tied to it. Black Ops 4 doesn't even have a single-player campaign so that's a no go. Plus I only get these games when they are on sale, no point paying full price for a 5-6 hour experience imo.

Is anybody else like this? Or is a complete waste of money buying these games?

[kamikazekeeg]

Most games are worth the money if you are buying cheap.  I got Metal Gear Survive and beat it singleplayer only, but I got it for 10 bucks too, so while it's not a particularly good game, it didn't bother me much since I got it so cheap.  Nothing wrong with getting a multiplayer shooter just for the singleplayer, as long as you got it for cheap or that you feel you got enough worth out of it.  I only bought Black Ops 4 because I wanted to play Blackout and nothing else.  Heck, I'd recommend getting Titanfall 2 just so you could play the singleplayer, because it's great, but its also likely very cheap right now.

[oldgamerz]

To answer the OP's question yes indeed. In fact I never played a single console game online in my life before. I have most Call Of Duty games as well as Battlefield games, and I only use them for single play purposes. I even had fun with Unreal Tournament for the PlayStation 2 all by myself with just me and the Computer dukeing it out

[chrismb]

I don't like playing online tbh, so yes all the time.

[shfan]

I buy Call of Duty games for the single-player, but I'm only interested in the ones based in WW2, I'm also at the point where I'll only pick them up for a few quid - I'm missing CoD WW2 for the PS4, for instance, but I'm not paying more than a fiver for it and would rather trade rather than pay cash. CoD 2/3 on the 360 reignited my interest in FPS games, which had long been fizzled out, so they'll always hold a place in my heart.

[pzeke]

Sure - if the game is interesting and does offer a single-player campaign, I have no problems picking it up and playing it. Actually, I thought Battlefield 1 and Star Wars: Battlefront II were multiplayer only, so they weren't even near my radar as far as PS4 games I'd like to get, but will now for certain.

[kamikazekeeg]

Sure - if the game is interesting and does offer a single-player campaign, I have no problems picking it up and playing it. Actually, I thought Battlefield 1 and Star Wars: Battlefront II were multiplayer only, so they weren't even near my radar as far as PS4 games I'd like to get, but will now for certain.

Yeah BF1 and BF5 have what amount to short "stories" of the war, following 3 or 4 characters.  They are okay for the most part, but nothing impressive.  I actually need to get through Battlefront 2's story, finally can now that I recently upgrade my PC to handle it properly, but it's set around the end of Return of the Jedi and connects to the current era.  Only played two or three missions, but it seems alright.

[pzeke]

I see. How long is the game overall?

[kamikazekeeg]

I see. How long is the game overall?

For Battlefront 2? I don't know, but howlongtobeat.com says 6 hours on average and that's kinda what BF1 and BF5 are at too.  Or really most of these multiplayer/singleplayer shooters tend to be around that too I believe.

[oldgamerz]

I buy Call of Duty games for the single-player, but I'm only interested in the ones based in WW2, I'm also at the point where I'll only pick them up for a few quid - I'm missing CoD WW2 for the PS4, for instance, but I'm not paying more than a fiver for it and would rather trade rather than pay cash. CoD 2/3 on the 360 reignited my interest in FPS games, which had long been fizzled out, so they'll always hold a place in my heart.

Have you played "Call of Duty: World at War – (Final Fronts)" for the PS2 @shfan? Final Fronts version it is a PlayStation 2 exclusive, and is has a different campaign the the normal "Call Of Duty: World At War. I watched part of the story of the 7th generation one and saw it was a lot different then the 6th generation PS2 exclusive

To wrap things up "Call of Duty: World at War – (Final Fronts)"  part of the single player campaign takes place in the Japanese Islands while you play as the Americans fighting the Japanese instead of only fighting the Germans

[ignition365]

Sure, when they're bottom dollar.  I finally bought most of the CoD and Battlefield games just so I can play through the story mode at some point, those games got dirt cheap lately.

[mark1982]

Sure - if the game is interesting and does offer a single-player campaign, I have no problems picking it up and playing it. Actually, I thought Battlefield 1 and Star Wars: Battlefront II were multiplayer only, so they weren't even near my radar as far as PS4 games I'd like to get, but will now for certain.

Yep, they both have Single-Player campaigns. As kamikazekeeg mentioned Battlefield 1 has short stories with different characters for the campaign which was quite interesting. As for Star Wars, I believe the first Battlefront game doesn't have a Single-Player campaign, but the second one implemented a Single-Player story. I bought it for cheap solely for the campaign, not gonna play any of the multiplayer.

I see. How long is the game overall?

For Battlefield 1 I took roughly about 7-8 hrs to beat, not too bad, I remember playing the tank mission and thinking the graphics were pretty stellar. Haven't played Star Wars Battlefront 2 yet, but I heard it's rather short. So definitely not worth full price if just gonna play for the story imo.

[mark1982]

Sure, when they're bottom dollar.  I finally bought most of the CoD and Battlefield games just so I can play through the story mode at some point, those games got dirt cheap lately.

Yep, definitely agree with this. Now is a good time to get them since they're all on sale.

[pzeke]

I must say, 6-8 hours sound really good. I will definitely be getting the two as soon as I get me a PS4...for as cheaply as possible, of course. I think I'll add Titanfall 2 to the list, as well.

[bikingjahuty]

No, mostly because military FPS games don't appeal to me, and the few multiplayer focused games with tacked on single player that don't fit this sub genre just don't have enough for me to want to buy them, even for cheap. At one point I thought about buying Star Wars Battlefront 2 for it's story, but upon hearing about the campaign and how crappy it was, and also shortly after TLJ killing Disney's canon for me, you couldn't pay me to play it now.