This very question has led to some heated debates among my friends. Why do you buy video games: for the campaign or the multiplayer?
For me, video gaming is all about the the campaign, the story line, and the characters. A game could have the greatest multiplayer to ever exist, but I will still consider it a failure if the campaign was bad.
So what do you say, campaign or multiplayer?
Loading ...
multiplayer…no doubt just look at COD
campaign is better for old games and rpgs, but even the rpgs are movin to MMORPG’s
If I buy or play a game, the first thing I do is finish the Campaign, then I enjoy the Multiplayer.
Depends on the game, COD and GoW were a lot more fun on the multiplayer side for sure.
But some games like Dead Space 2 have woopass campaign and lose a lot of it’s steam in the multiplayer.
I’d say more often than not I do play single player or more campaign-oriented games though, so campaign gets my vote. Co-op is always fun though as well (Dead Rising 2).
I am a meleeing, camping, tea bagging, teamkilling douche whenever I get the chance though in Multiplayer, so I’m not gonna completely knock it either
but still — campaign for the slight edge.
Depends on the type of game, if its a shooter then Campaign as it helps people understand exactly what is happening which could explain different factions in however multiplayer is a big thing and is a pretty good selling point only a few games I would but plainly for the multiplayer such as a driving game.
Campaign is what should be carrying the game.
The game itself should carry it, not the interaction of other users.
Multiplayer often causes jaded players in shooters in most cases.
gotta go with campaign. multiplayer is fun, but only with friends in a localized area(lan of some sort). who wants to take a chance at an unenjoyable experience with strangers that might mess up your game anyways? at least if it’s your friend in the same room you can throw something at his dumbass for getting you killed or something, lol.
If a game can’t stand up on its multiplayer alone, then thats forgivable. If a game can’t stand up on its single-player alone, then its a failure as a game.
It really differs from game to game.
For example, people hardly bought CoD for campaign. On the other hand, if you were to play a GTA game, the single player would get alot more attention then multiplayer.
I got the Orange Box just for Portal. But I stood for Team Fortress 2.
But as people say, it depends on the game. And my games are usually platformers or Fighting games.
For me, it’s more about the campaign. Multiplayer for some games is fun, but it quickly begins to bore me. The campaign (if done at least averagely) will keep me connected with the game till the end.
“If a game can’t stand up on its multiplayer alone, then thats forgivable. If a game can’t stand up on its single-player alone, then its a failure as a game.”
THIS!!!
Like others who have already posted, it depends on the game. For me, Fable 2 & 3 were great games for the campaign. Throw in the multiplayer element, and it was terrible.
But, flip it over to Halo or Starcraft, and those game campaigns are weal compared to the multiplayer experience.
Yes, I know you get idiots who betray your team or if in StarCraft, you might get paired up with some noob that only knows how to cannon rush (looks back from mirror).
But here is why multiplayer will always be superior in my opinion.
When you play the campaign, the AI is programmed to respond a certain way to your actions. While you can throttle up the difficulty to make the game more challenging, all that typically means is that the game will throw more enemies at you and might take cover better.
If you’re playing Halo against other people, you never know what people are going to do in any given situation. I can’t tell you how many times I learned a new trick because someone beat me online. No AI will ever be able to top that.
I’ve only become a better player at Starcraft because the times I get stomped, I can see what someone did to counter my strategy. That’s why we humans are better than any machine could ever hope to be.
co-op campaign >>>> multiplayer anyday
I suck at multiplayer.
Oh well.
It depends on the game, like many have already stated up here. For me, the campaign is responsible for bringing some of the greatest moments both visually and impact-wise. In multiplayer I feel as if you’re just doing the same thing over and over and although it is incredibly fun, I don’t think it gives the same impact to the player. I’m not denying that multiplayer is amazingly fun and can probably make me play for hours on end while some stories take longer to digest.
I’m in campaign mostly for the story, the art direction, the music, and the orchestrated combination of all these that can either make or break a franchise.
On a side note, it’s nice to see admin participating on a thread again
Well for me I suppose it will always be the campaign (but when you get a game specifically made for multiplayer the campaign is almost never even worth touching).
I suppose I just enjoy going through a great story more than the wanton fragging of noobs. (Which I still enjoy
(well.. atleast before Bungie edited out my favorite sniping spot on Hemorrhage I did…))
If a game doesn’t have a good story behind it and characters I enjoy, chances are I’m not intrested at all.
“That’s why we humans are better than any machine could ever hope to be.”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Keep your voice down! Skynet might hear you! :O
*Looks around frantically for an escape route*
THE BEST GAMES MAKE YOU COME FOR THE CAMPAIGN, BUT STAY FOR THE MULTIPLAYER.
sry about the caps (my dog was leaning on the shift key
)
Mass Effect 2, Eldar Scrolls: Oblivion, Fallout: New Vegas.
Three of the best games made in the last decade. No Multiplayer to be seen, and none forthcoming.
I will concede that some games these days almost require a multiplayer (Sports games, racing games, beat-em ups, FPS’s always tend to do better with that without), but the best games will keep you playing regardless of your internet connection, or social group.
Depends on the game. I general, I’d take the campaign. Half-Life 2, Metroid; both some of my favourite games, solely for their single player portion.
I frequent the single player much more than I do co-op or online play. If the campaign sucks I usually don’t even look at multiplayer, unless it gets rave reviews.
I’d say that a game has to have a strong campaign. The only time it would be excusable to forgo a campaign is when the game is a dedicated multiplayer game like Team Fortress, Battlefield 2, or an MMORPG.
If a game does have a campaign and a multiplayer option it better have a damn good campaign. Multiplayer, while occasionally fun, is more often than not extremely limited to a small arena and a few typical and predictable modes (deathmatch, CTF, king of the hill, ect)
Understand that I love to play a game for the story. I don’t understand games like TF2, and Battlefield 2 got boring for me after a while because it was always the same thing. MMORPGs I refuse to play because I have a thing against pay2play.
Depends on the game. Enough said.
Depends, of course. Neither campaign nor multiplayer is superior just because they are, it all depends on how well-executed it is. It varies wildly. Generally, though, fighting games, FPS’s and driving games work best with multi, while hack n’ slash, RPG ‘s and most third-person action games do better with their campaigns. Strategy titles tend to vary, most being a tad better online.
Really, though, I love both, and I love games that do both right. Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood is a good, recent example of a game that pulls both off superbly, in my opinion.
Campaign definetly. Although the multiplayer is usually what keeps me playing after the campaign is over.
Eh, multiplayer’s overrated in my books so I’m going for campagin mostly because the majority of the games I play are single player.
Co-op campagign is always a blast though.
Campaigns all the way. I don’t get games because of Multiplayer. I get games for the single player storyline. Nothing more nothing less. MP is just a little treat to me.
OH I forgot to state that I hate finishing Campaigns in a single night. I want longer Campaigns. In the good old days it would take someone a day or two to finish a Campaign. But now since they now half ass it on the Campaigns because of the myth that most people play games just for MP we get short Campaigns. Hell they don’t even give you a reason to replay the Campaign. (like unlocking new weapons for SP or have cheats in SP anymore) I remember playing Killzone 1 longer than I did with all Halo games combined because in Killzone 1 you could play as four different people and if you play as one character the level will change and/or new paths and task will be given to you because you were playing a certain character. But these days they half ass the Campaigns which game most games day lack replay value and if you get a game that is MP you will not be able to play it years from now because people move on to the newest game. (When I say years from now I mean 10 to 15 years from now). If a game is nothing but MP it will fade away from memory and forgotten, however if a game has a great Campaign it can be remember much longer than any cookie cutter MP based title.
All in all Campaigns increase the life and the replay value of a game long after the crowd move to the next big thing.
Campaign:
Almost entire RPG market – 9
Important factor of any game and will hinder sales if it’s bad – 6
the focus of almost all games – 7
engaging stories and jaw-dropping set-pieces allow games to show off graphics – 8
Action/adventure games like the God of War series, portal, and heavy rain- 9
The only reason why video games can be considered art – 10
Multiplayer:
MMO’s – 7
FPS games are more known for MP than campaign – 7
give games more staying power – 8
creation games like Minecraft – 5
fun and addictive – 7
show off a game’s gameplay mechanics – 7
Primary factor to the gaming industry’s rapid success – 10
Campaign: Overall score: 49/60
Multiplayer: Overall score: 41/60
Campaign is the winner for being the basis of quality in games. If a game has a bad multiplayer, you can rent it for campaign, if a game has bad single player, you’re likely to just play another game.
“That’s why we humans are better than any machine could ever hope to be.”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Keep your voice down! Skynet might hear you! :O
*Looks around frantically for an escape route*
Forget skynet, god help you if the Necrons heard that…. like me…..”twisted:
Stupid pointy fingers.
…
“creation games like Minecraft – 5″
www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/539.274279-Round-6-1-BioWare-vs-16-Mojang-AB
“If a game has a bad multiplayer, you can rent it for campaign, if a game has bad single player, you’re likely to just play another game.”
For some, maybe. In my country there’s next to no available game rentals, and if a game is worth playing i want to buy anyway. That, and a bad singleplayer component does not neccesarly hinder a game. Online FPS’s are my fallback games, the ones i play between new purchases, and some have no real campaign to speak of. To use the old CoD example, the campaigns aren’t bad but not really good either, and they’re very short. Still, the online component is big and fleshed out, and there’s always a lot of people playing every game mode, so you can play what you want any time. Human opponents usually ensure a challenge, and unless you don’t like the base formula you can get a ton of hours from it. As a matter of fact, I haven’t even bothered finishing all the singleplayer content, but I’ve still got plenty hours online.
Depends on the type of game. Bioshock 2 tried to go down the multiplayer route, but from what I’ve heard that flopped. It seems either a game excels at making one hell of a campaign experience and bad multiplayer, or a sick multiplayer option and a terrible campaign.
One example is Halo: superb multiplayer, but arguably one of the worst campaigns I’ve seen in a long time. Halo 1′s campaign is better than the campaigns of the games ahead of it (in my opinion), and that game was made in 2001.
“For some, maybe. In my country there’s next to no available game rentals, and if a game is worth playing i want to buy anyway. That, and a bad singleplayer component does not neccesarly hinder a game. Online FPS’s are my fallback games, the ones i play between new purchases, and some have no real campaign to speak of. To use the old CoD example, the campaigns aren’t bad but not really good either, and they’re very short. Still, the online component is big and fleshed out, and there’s always a lot of people playing every game mode, so you can play what you want any time. Human opponents usually ensure a challenge, and unless you don’t like the base formula you can get a ton of hours from it. As a matter of fact, I haven’t even bothered finishing all the singleplayer content, but I’ve still got plenty hours online.”
Well for some like you, maybe, but for some like me, I race to play single player first. Perhaps that statement was a little biased, but this is difficult to argue 100% objectively.
” www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/539.274279-Round-6-1-BioWare-vs-16-Mojang-AB ”
Well maybe I don’t like Minecraft, maybe the forum that you linked fails to realize that a studio that has produced several games that are of the highest quality as compared to a studio that made one game is a stupid judgement to make (like people comparing Shamalayn to Hitchcock when the Sixth Sense came out) because one party hasn’t been around long enough so they both haven’t had the opportunity to make better or worse games. Most importantly of all, if Minecraft got a 10 (which it in no way deserves), Campaign still wins.
Gman……..wtf? Go die in a hole, halo has one of the greatest campaigns ever.
Look I love Multiplayer. I broke my ps3 by leaving it on for SOO long that it overheated (15 months nonstop, 4 month hiatus, 5 months nonstop, break) why? playing Call of Duty. Multiplayer is a great feature and I love it dearly but I want a game with a good campaign first, because it provides an experience whereas most multiplayer is just a grindfest (kill this, kill that, no plot, no cutscenes, just you killing). It’s good sometimes mindless fun but the campaign is the heart of a game.
“Gman……..wtf? Go die in a hole, halo has one of the greatest campaigns ever. ”
bitch, please. Go play Mass Effect 2 and see a REAL campaign.
I did, ME and halos campaigns are at the top of my list so stfu
Gman……..wtf? Go die in a hole, halo has one of the greatest campaigns ever.
——
I’m already dead in a hole.
“I did, ME and halos campaigns are at the top of my list so stfu”
I see no similarity in terms of quality. Halo’s campaign is okay, but you are blowing it out of proportion.
….oh…… Im sorry to hear that gman……hows my great aunt doing?
She’s fine. I’m in the same hole with G-man. I just finished a chat with Lenin. He’s a nice guy.
The only games I can consider myself to be at least on the beginner level (the others I feel I am a complete stranger), is Warcraft 3, specifically DoTA. The other one is Battle Realms.
I love Starcraft, but if any of you guys play against me, consider yourself victorious in ten minutes.
I have never played Halo or God of War, the only reason I ever knew of Master Chief is because of Factpile.
You should be ashamed of what you said to G-man, Fire grot tim.
He made fun of my fav game…..tho i did go a little too far…….im sorry gman * offers cookie *
you guys are so gay
As are you, little troll.
@ Chuck
How on earth is talking Campaigns and Multiplayers gay?
He who says others is gay is gay himself.
“As are you, little troll.”
Do you see why I am so aggressive to these guys?
Not sure I’d be calling people gay ‘super duper chuck’ because, your name is… super duper…. chuck-ish..
Type your message here…
Even in an MMO I’m looking for the backstory, the characterization, etc. If there’s nothign but grind without at least a decent story I say fuck it. One of the reasons I can actually keep playing STO. It’s actually quite a bit like going through a new series of Star Trek but in many cases with a shit load more action. Less characterization than I’d want but that’s what you expect from an MMO.
My stand is completely for campaign. Without that you have a fancy chatroom; that is all. The multiplayer is purely peripheral.
post 47 was referring to Tim and burgers and who ever felt offended by it
“post 47 was referring to Tim and burgers and who ever felt offended by it”
I love how you keep caling me burgers, like it will somehow offend me know. I got past that, um, lets see, a week after the name came up. Now its just a waste of data and processing power.
And it seems that you have officially established yourself as a troll. Good for you. Maybe one day, in the next fifty years, we can teach you how to properly read and write. Thats still a maybe.
And why, exactly, am I gay? Please, tell me. I need some more laughs.
Play Mass Effect 1 or 2 then you’ll know.
“And it seems that you have officially established yourself as a troll.”
This just in, Michael is a Slowpoke trainer!
Yeah…
@Burgers
I don’t call you Burgers to offend you, Its your nickname you should be thankful
on topic
I don’t really care for multiplayer all I want is co-op campaign I mostly play games like halo and gears of war and COD for online multiplayer(note I never even touched black ops campaign mode I just play it for the online multiplayer) but overall I prefer halo and gears of war
“This just in, Michael is a Slowpoke trainer!
Yeah…”
Was that an attempt to make a joke? If so, that was very poor.
“This just in, Michael is a Slowpoke trainer!”
Just wait until that Slowpoke becomes a Slowking.
@Diana then i’ve played some games campaigns through a disturbing amount of times…
“Just wait until that Slowpoke becomes a Slowking.”
Just wait until that Slowking morphes into a doomsday monolith and wtfpwns you.
“Was that an attempt to make a joke? If so, that was very poor.”
Was that an attempt to downplay my highlarious-osity? If so, know your meme.
“Was that an attempt to downplay my highlarious-osity? If so, know your meme.”
Another fail. You’re not doing too well. Maybe you should know your meme.
media.photobucket.com/image/Fail/dr3dpir8/FF%2520Pics/epic-fail.jpg
You’re not really doing much to me.
“Another fail. You’re not doing too well. Maybe you should know your meme.”
This is obviously going right over your head….
“You’re not really doing much to me.”
Was that ever my intention? Please don’t start crying now.
“Was that ever my intention? Please don’t start crying now.”
All the tears I had were shed (in sadness, pain, and agony)when I saw this
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqi0DwNLJdM
I have none left to give. Sorry, but neither you, super troll, or anyone else will get a tear out of me. Unless one of my family members die…. but then ,if I can’t cry at a moment like that, what does that say about me? (That I’m an incosiderate fucking asshole who doesnt give a damn that one of his family members just died. Which I’m not. In fact, that would probably send me into a depression with no way out. I love my family very much. A death would be like a stab in the heart.)
“This is obviously going right over your head….”
Wait, you’re shooting me? Why would you do that?
On the nominal topic at hand, if a game has a good/great campaign, the game will do well, with or without a multiplayer in any form. If a game has an awesome multiplayer it will also generally do well. Decent campaign and decent multiplayer – yeah, it’ll do fine. A game with a crap multiplayer had better have a campaign that makes up for it if it wants to do well.
Terrible campaign … it’s not going to do well unless the game is/was primarily intended for multiplayer.
It all comes down to genre for me. If it’s a First Person shooter, then chances are I bought the game for the multiplayer, if it has a great campaign, excellent, but my main focus is on playing against other people to test out my skills. I really don’t have a preference over either one.
Eh, I’m an RPG, RTS and 4X gamer, so most definitely Campaign/Single Player for me. Half the games I play don’t even have a multiplayer option. Hell, the only game I actually regularly play online is Warcraft 3, and even that I’ve wound down significantly. I’m generally totally dismissive of a game’s multiplayer (with only an *extremely* few exceptions), although the fact that I usually dislike people in general probably contributes to that, at least when they’re a squeaky-voiced prepubescent kid screeching into their mic.
To be fair, I usually enjoy myself on the sparse occasions I venture into the blasted, harpy-infested hellscape that in online multiplayer, but that’s more of a bonus; It’s not the reason I bought the game, it’s not the reason I first played the game, and it’s not the reason I continue to play the game.
@ Diana
I guess I’m weird then because I seem to always be able to put myself into the story and enjoy it all the way through countless times.
This is off topic, but i’d like to consult to you guys about this match I’m requesting.
The match s going to put Earth during the time of the Dinosaurs against Pandora without the Na’vi. Both sides, except the Na’vi, get whatever creatures they have, in this case it’s Mesozoic Era Earth and Pandora before the humans arrived, except the Na’vi.
“maybe the forum that you linked fails to realize that a studio that has produced several games that are of the highest quality as compared to a studio that made one game is a stupid judgement to make (like people comparing Shamalayn to Hitchcock when the Sixth Sense came out) {”
Maybe you don’t know that forum that well and maybe you didn’t even read the first page. Many were fully aware of that.
“Maybe you don’t know that forum that well and maybe you didn’t even read the first page. Many were fully aware of that.”
1: You got me, I only read like the first 10 comments… laziness FTW
2: If even the forum admits that the comparison is invalid, why did you link it?
Whoa, that came out of the blue, Diana…. Whos the other person in your pic?
@Michael
…that’s her. There are (or were) only 2 people on this site that ever put there actual faces on this site. One is Diana and the other is ss who no longer posts here.
And I am relatively certain she was just joking.
Now, theres a second person on the very edge of the pic. Who’s that? *I’m assuming Diana is the one in the center*
This is an odd combination, the sex symbol of the site meeting the man who claims to have no sex drive to speak of. Interesting…
WoW? cocaine? campaigns? multiplayer?
“This is an odd combination, the sex symbol of the site meeting the man who claims to have no sex drive to speak of. Interesting…”
Lol… what?
Thats why I don’t try to get any friends. You never know how long it will last. Same with love relationships.
“Lol… what?”
Diana being the sex symbol and Michael being well… a Necron.
I thought i was the sex symbol….(jk…or am i?)
“Diana being the sex symbol and Michael being well… a Necron.”
It’s true.
Haha…..is being a cron bad michael?
“You’re a pathological liar.”
I know, right?
“Haha…..is being a cron bad michael?”
Nope. It’s better than being human, let me tell ya.
BACK ON TOPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIC! Campaign for the FP.
Don’t worry Diana, this match is all about opinion anyway.
I any case, I still favor the Campaign.
Um, what were you talking about before I came here again?
Oh and Sorrow, unless somebody borrowed ss’s (weird) account, he still posts every now and then.
@ Michael
“Just wait until that Slowking morphes into a doomsday monolith and wtfpwns you.”
I’m trying to help, what gives?
My simple answer is… both. I buy games for both aspects. If one isn’t very good, then my entire experience is effected.
“I’m trying to help, what gives?”
I saw an opening and used it.
“My simple answer is… both. I buy games for both aspects. If one isn’t very good, then my entire experience is effected.”
So you only enjoy games with both solid campaign and multiplayer? They’re relatively rare, purists and semi-purists generally perform better.
it depends on the game for what is a better mode
I personally prefer campaign by far. Online multiplayer means people I don’t know, and people I don’t know usually means fail. Besides I mostly play strategy games on PC and most real strategy games don’t have multiplayer. Some RTS are okay but I hesitate to call that strategy because you can win doing the same thing every time. And getting lolwtfpwned by some 12 year old Korean sucks, I don’t have enough time to get that good at games.
“Mmm, my slightest appearance can make instantaneous changes. Forgive me if it dissuades you.”
Nah, if you read my last comment from MY perspective, I comically sang “BACK ON TOPIIIIIIIIIIIC!!!!!!!!!”. I don’t care if someone’s off topic unless it’s an intense fight.
“Mmm, my slightest appearance can make instantaneous changes. Forgive me if it dissuades you.”
It’s probably because you’re a servant of Slaanesh, and those, for some reason, are worth paying attention too…. no idea why though.
Campaign clearly wins in my opinion. Multiplayer should be fun, but single player should be the reason to buy the game (and a good reason why games shouldn’t have small, 5-hour long campaigns).
And modability, by god. It makes everything better.
“And modability, by god. It makes everything better.”
i know of one game that can have a lot of mods. Command and Conquer Generals: Zero Hour, loved that game, and its mods.
But the campaign of the original C&C Generals: Zero Hour, to put it in one word, suck.
The plot is so shallow: get in, fight the enemy here and there, win.
No idea about the campaigns on the mods though.