3 ms·

Multiplayer games are also boring. I just bought Battlefield 1, because I read there was a great solo campaign. I hope it will be fun, and I've no intention to

by jylam 10y ago

Multiplayer games are also boring. I just bought Battlefield 1, because I read there was a great solo campaign. I hope it will be fun, and I've no intention to multiplay that. I'm 36, and I really did like war games before they were that much multiplayer oriented. Call of Duty and Battlefield series had great solo campaigns, jadis. Then for a decade, there was this multiplayer trend. Being obliterated by teenagers, cursing your mom, being much greater than you. That was no fun at all. When I buy a game (especially a ~70€ worth game), I expect to have fun. I guess I'm not a great gamer, I can't spend 8 hours a day playing, so I suck at multiplayer shooting games. But I LOVE solo campaigns. I can quit, then rejoin 2 hours later, I can become better, finish a hard mission, and I'm happy with myself. I can't do this on multiplayer campaigns. Those kids are way better than me, so much better than I can't get fun. Single player games are great, also. I LOVED Metal Gear Solid V, even if it was not finished. I loved it because I could play alone, replay if I failed a mission, redo it better if I wanted to. I'm not a great player, but I still want to have fun. So multplayer games are not for me, and that's a shame.

cloverich 10y ago
> I can't do this on multiplayer campaigns. Those kids are way better than me, so much better than I can't get fun This is failed design. I eventually gave up on Call of Duty because while the control and bite-sized (multiplayer) games were great, there were such fundamental flaws in skill matching and team-work that it was un-enjoyable once the novelty was gone. I compare this to Overwatch and hope games will continue in this direction. Matchmaking is much more balanced and team-work is far more important. It still has a long way to go, especially in rooting out toxic players and making it easier to spontaneously group with players you like -- but its an improvement and hopefully a trend that will continue.
josephkern 10y ago
The question becomes what did MGS:V get correct? Even in an unfinished state I have been judging every game I've played since by comparison. I think it breaks down into a few categories; 1. Excellent controls. Probably the tightest and least obtrusive controls I've used in a long time. 2. Great characters. While the story itself isn't that great (because it's unfinished), the characters really drive the plot. 3. Amazing ambiance. I really felt that I was in Afghanistan and there were Russians I was trying to avoid. I eavesdrop on their conversations, hearing them yelling orders to each other, and even see them adapting to my tactics between missions. What makes this game a great single player campaign is ... Weight. Everything has consequences because you care about the characters. Most AAA games don't have characters anyone remembers or cares about.
jsight 10y ago
You may want to try the multiplayer gaming in Battlefield 1 as well. I haven't tried the released version yet, but the beta was literally the only multiplayer FPS that I had enjoyed up until that point. Because of the objectives, it is possible to contribute even if you aren't getting tons of kills and the game as a whole felt much more balanced than CoD. Even if the other players are much better, you can still get a few kills in and help your team.
RGamma 10y ago
BTW TotalBiscuit has absolutely slammed the Battlefield 1 (there's gotta be a prize for worst video game titles) campaign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkDysHo83lw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkDysHo83lw. In short: Generic modern military shooter #123781 that completely misses the point of idiosyncrasies of the one thing that somewhat sets it apart from the rest of the bunch: The fact it is set in WW1. Look at Medal of Honor (well, it's WW2 and therefore somewhat of a Nazi popper, but what do you expect) for a decent WW shooter campaign; I actually don't recall any significant WW1 shooter at the moment... And as someone who is decently competent in competitive shooters (~2000 hours of Counter-Strike Source): Yeah, competition can be fierce even on "normal servers", but if you can keep up you'll get rewarded for it with a mixture of familiarity and challenging gameplay. And playing in "rough environments" has battle-hardened me I suppose. Dieing 10 times to superior opponents in a row barely moves me at all anymore, so if you don't get discouraged too quickly you may well find your frustration will wane with time.

by jylam 10y ago

cloverich 10y ago

> I can't do this on multiplayer campaigns. Those kids are way better than me, so much better than I can't get fun This is failed design. I eventually gave up on Call of Duty because while the control and bite-sized (multiplayer) games were great, there were such fundamental flaws in skill matching and team-work that it was un-enjoyable once the novelty was gone. I compare this to Overwatch and hope games will continue in this direction. Matchmaking is much more balanced and team-work is far more important. It still has a long way to go, especially in rooting out toxic players and making it easier to spontaneously group with players you like -- but its an improvement and hopefully a trend that will continue.

josephkern 10y ago

The question becomes what did MGS:V get correct? Even in an unfinished state I have been judging every game I've played since by comparison. I think it breaks down into a few categories; 1. Excellent controls. Probably the tightest and least obtrusive controls I've used in a long time. 2. Great characters. While the story itself isn't that great (because it's unfinished), the characters really drive the plot. 3. Amazing ambiance. I really felt that I was in Afghanistan and there were Russians I was trying to avoid. I eavesdrop on their conversations, hearing them yelling orders to each other, and even see them adapting to my tactics between missions. What makes this game a great single player campaign is ... Weight. Everything has consequences because you care about the characters. Most AAA games don't have characters anyone remembers or cares about.

jsight 10y ago

You may want to try the multiplayer gaming in Battlefield 1 as well. I haven't tried the released version yet, but the beta was literally the only multiplayer FPS that I had enjoyed up until that point. Because of the objectives, it is possible to contribute even if you aren't getting tons of kills and the game as a whole felt much more balanced than CoD. Even if the other players are much better, you can still get a few kills in and help your team.

RGamma 10y ago

BTW TotalBiscuit has absolutely slammed the Battlefield 1 (there's gotta be a prize for worst video game titles) campaign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkDysHo83lw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkDysHo83lw. In short: Generic modern military shooter #123781 that completely misses the point of idiosyncrasies of the one thing that somewhat sets it apart from the rest of the bunch: The fact it is set in WW1. Look at Medal of Honor (well, it's WW2 and therefore somewhat of a Nazi popper, but what do you expect) for a decent WW shooter campaign; I actually don't recall any significant WW1 shooter at the moment... And as someone who is decently competent in competitive shooters (~2000 hours of Counter-Strike Source): Yeah, competition can be fierce even on "normal servers", but if you can keep up you'll get rewarded for it with a mixture of familiarity and challenging gameplay. And playing in "rough environments" has battle-hardened me I suppose. Dieing 10 times to superior opponents in a row barely moves me at all anymore, so if you don't get discouraged too quickly you may well find your frustration will wane with time.