My problem is that System LAN has disappeared entirely , I Would probably buy these campaign-free games if I knew they had a playable future after the servers died.
if we were to look at the current generation , halo 5 as you mentioned(tho has a single player campaign), Rainbow 6 siege, splatoon,SW battlefront,TitanFall. These games completely lack LAN on console and PC according to Co-Optimus.com, these games are completely worthless to me because as soon as server support ends, they do. As for nintendo, theyre no different and backwards as MarioKart DoubleDash and ds iterations had systemLAN, but MK8 doesn't, but the upcoming Pokken Tournament DOES?
I suspect actually private user-run servers were canned as a move against piracy. You can't play pirated online game if you can't connect to official server that checks your license! Publishers also interested in old games dying. They have to sell you new ones after all.
***** failing@commenting i agree with the possibility of people playing pirated copies and such , but the current model of Zero control for the consumer/ the publisher decides when i can stop enjoying said game is gunna hurt the real bottom line( the company image) in the long run. I mean ,to me , it would be the same as movie companies having the ability to have dvds stop being able to be played because they want you to go buy the bluray version after so many years or book publishers intentionally printing books with time fading ink.
+LlosaTheKing people acctually remember battleforge even after years and recently ea has allowed a reverse engenering of the server. the whole old community is there, everyone i played with at least. dead for 2 years and they all found the battleforge reborn project (5k members, game not even playable yet. that's propably more than what bafo had before it closed). if you played the old battleforge, check out bfreborn.com. and yes i also feel like the complaint about online only games is not just the lack of campaign. the real issue is that those games WILL die and you can never play them again.
I think it's more a problem of triple A games being inflexible in their pricing. it's not that you NEED single player AND multiplayer to charge $60. It's just that there are many games which have in the past and also currently offer both for that price or less. while battlefront was a visually stunning experience it was ultimately shallow and when you consider the special editions, season passes and promise of future dlc, it just felt like a cash grab. the fact that it offered less than the previous game also worked against it
+NommingOnAnAlien I agree 100% with you. I feel bad of paying full price on an MP only game like R6, but then felt bad paying the same price on the new Yoshi game, which is SP only ... I guess its just a feeling of not getting the best for the money you're spending.
00TWB00 Yeah and I think choice is part of it too! Since there are a lot more games out there, we are coming to the point where companies need to be trying to entice us and I mean really entice us. Since games age quite well, the longer we go on, the more likely it is that something has been done in the past and possibly better. So giving us shitty campaigns or overcharging us despite a lack of content, is just bad practice
+NommingOnAnAlien This is something I see come up fairly often; I'm paying the same price I payed 10 years ago, for a game that has less content. But you really aren't paying the same price. With inflation the price of games is actually decreasing, and game development for AAA games is not cheap. They've got teams sometimes into the hundreds that all need to be payed for 3 to 8 years depending. That's a lot of fucking people and a lot of fucking money. And it would cost even more for them to add a campaign. But I think players/buyers have shown that they would rather less content at less price than to pay for inflation and keep constant amount of content.
+NommingOnAnAlien $60 is a necessity for a AAA game that distributes physical media to be sold primarily in order to make a meaningful profit. Companies have been talking for awhile now about how costly distributing physical media is for them. That's why there's been so much talk about companies moving away from physical media and why that's bad for gamers.
As someone who hates the majority of games with online multiplayer, I found that I agree wholeheartedly with this video. Games that I really used to like to play always had bots, and after a few bad online sessions, I could always go against some bots and pretend I wasn't absolute shit at the game. Since those have gone, I've left most FPS games behind, as the single player campaigns started to become ridiculous set pieces and crate filled hallways, but everyone was playing multiplayer. And part of me really would support more competitive FPS games if they didn't try to include a campaign. Marketed completely as essentially a video sport, the companies making these games can keep doing what they do best with balancing gameplay and I, as a consumer, would stop feeling so pandered to.
I don't buy multiplayer only games because I don't like playing games against other people. It doesn't mean those games are bad, it just means they aren't for me. In Star Wars Battlefront 2 the instant action mode just never got boring to me, but a couple of hours of the new Battlefront and I was super bored.
I don't care for "online only" because if the servers shut down (which they have always done) There's no more game. It's why I'm laughing about Destiny 1. Destiny 2 is here and in a year or so if you want to play Destiny 1... too bad.
Preach it brother. I know exactly what you mean. With IA, you can choose where, when and who in any order you want. With the new stuff you're just stuck with what you're given.
I'm fine with a multiplayer-only game releasing with no single player, but when the title is from a franchise *known* for good single player campaign/modes, then all I can really focus on at that point is the removal of features.
+Nison545 But that would be restricting existing franchises and titles to only do what they've done before. With that mindset we wouldn't see mariokart stem from the mario franchise as an extreme example. Think of siege not as a sequel to the R6 single player tactical games of old, but rather a sidestep of new possibilities.
+Jimmy-Jean Kenyon Well, maybe they should make a new franchise then or market it as a spin off title and not a sequel so that consumers will have a much better idea of what to expect.
+Nison545 I mean its still the Rainbow 6 formula, only multiplayer. And they are very upfront about it being a multiplayer game, and have been for a while.
+Jimmy-Jean Kenyon Removing content a series is known for and going in a different direction are two completely separate things. You could view this as going in another direction. I view it as a sad loss to a once great tactical singleplayer series. (I know there were multiplayer modes) Id rather they called Siege something else completely, cause it isnt Rainbow 6.
+Yoshinator It's less than a 100. Honestly, I scratch my head every time anybody laments that a game they enjoy gets a low score. To me, what is important, is that *I* enjoyed the game. I couldn't care less that some journo doesn't share my opinion.
+Yoshinator it's not the score in itself, but the reason for deduction of points which results in a lower aggregate score, now a 78 may not seem too bad, but in the world of games many, many customers don't even look at something that doesn't score an average of 8+
+AfroJarl well that's just the problem with X out of X style of reviews. It just ultimately doesn't mean anything it should just be left up to the viewer of the review to see if they want to the game or not.
+Yoshinator It's the reasons for the 78 that he has issue with. Not having a campaign in a game that was made without a campaign in mind is hardly a fault of the game, but the person who wanted a campaign and played a multiplayer game team based shooter instead. It's like being critical of Witcher 3 because it's not Kingdom Hearts and docking some points off the final mark because of that.
+Yoshinator In the tilted scoring of game reviewing that is basically saying don't bother. And those scores effect share holding and bonuses depending on the deals in place. Remember when new vegas was one point on the score from a massive pay out deal? People in the industry take that seriously since that is the only tangible thing besides copies sold they can show shareholders.
Hell, I STILL play UT2004. It's just a great game. And the bots do make it extremely playable offline. I think that must be all a multiplayer game needs to stay relevant offline. Good bots. And developing a campaign full of scripted events has to cost more than developing decent bot AI. So just make that AI instead.
+Dave Starr Replayability is key here. The issue with a multiplayer-focused game which lacks both bot AND single player elements is that once popularity declines, the game then becomes dead weight in your digital library. Barring some sort of large organised LAN event, you will never have the opportunity to play such a title again in future, as intended. The more pertinent question is when did we start judging games primarily as a money vs time investment? Getting your 'moneys worth' has always been a concern, but not to the obsessive extent we see today where it actually shapes game development itself.
+Dave Starr And don't forget community made maps and mods! I've never played a better Multiplayer shooter than UT2004 with Ballistic Weapons mod and the right settings.
+Dave Starr Agree! I personally consider the never dying interest in zombie modes even in multiplayer games is precisely because people want nonlinear gameplay regardless of skill or other players' presence.
I'm with Jim Sterling on this. If they want to remove a obligatory single-player to focus on their multiplayer, which they plan to make into their crowning jewel, then fine. But the extra effort saved should be used to make something to make up for the lack of a single-player. At the moment, the removal of single-player seems just like an excuse to cut content and still ask the same price.
Flynn Taggart saints row has good and fun co op but it doesn't really have meaningful co op, they might as well be a spectator for the story. The co op is definitely fun but it would be nice to see a campaign that put co op into the equation of the story
Timesplitters, 2 and 3 at least, had these Challenge and Arcade modes where you fought against bots and it greatly extended the life of the game's single player, which was great because the campaign was rather limited. In the Arcade mode you'd fight bots in standard game modes, with the odds gradually stacked against you, aiming for a score or a time. In Challenge mode, the game got weird, like killing zombies with bricks or playing clay monkey shooting. In both you aimed for medals- bronze, silver, gold and platinum. It was great! People might have been a little happier with Battlefront with additions like these ones. Too bad Free Radical went under.
+Feather Wait Goddamn I have wanted a new TimeSplitters game for so long...why did you remind me. Also, that's a very good example to consider for this topic.
fucking this. I stopped playing MMOs altogether because I know at a certain point they will die and they will, like Incendere below said, be like burning the actual money you spent on them.
In the one in a billion chance you have of reading this please make a video on the outdated notion that every game from Triple A companies must be $60. Short games, multiplayer only games, and games that try to experiment might be better off if the price tag was less demanding and set unrealistic standards.
Video game prices are better than ever right now. In the 90s those cartridges were $50-80. If you adjust that for inflation, they would be more than $100 today, and some of those games weren't very substantial.
+Renegade Master Surprisingly, Ubisoft appears to be the AAA publisher that is by far the best with that. Grow Home is 8 bucks, Child of Light and Valiant Hearts are 15 bucks and both Rayman Origins and Legends launched at 30 bucks. All of those titles were not only _published_ by Ubisoft, but also _developed_ by Ubisoft studios.
+Gray Fox Or we could look at the whole picture instead of crying "BUT INFLATION!" against the wall. Because video games back then were also made by significantly smaller teams, over more or less the same period of time. It also comes as no surprise that the marketing money/development budget-ratio was drastically different back then. Three times you might guess how much of that "development" money for GTA V for example (one of the most expensive games ever made) actually went into buying prime-time spots on TV for advertising. That's why I really didn't like this video, and there are only a few videos of George I do not like. Just like you, he simply focussed on a single point (which is something he rarely does), and hammered at it, over and over and over again. Rainbow 6 Siege didn't just receive bad reviews because it was multiplayer only, Battlefront didn't just receive bad reviews because it was multiplayer only. Those things came on top of the whole combined mess that made the players angry. It's like punching you in the face, insulting you, *and* shitting on your doorstep. One of those could have been accepted, but the combination makes a rather dissatisfying experience. Especially when there are much better versions of what either of those games offer, for less money, with less advertising and admittedly less shiny, blinkey engines...
I actually prefer playing with bots rather than online. You don't need an internet connection, waiting for a lobby to fill, dealing with 9 year olds crap. WIth bots, you choose how many of the you want, what gamemode you want, and most importantly the difficulty. No longer you will be insta-killed 2 seconds after spawning. The only downside is that bots may not be as "smart" as real people, but some games have really good bots like Quake 3 arena.
I didn't have internet as a kid and I used to think I was weird as fuck doing this, but I wasn't alone apparently. (Like Star Wars Battlefront 2 Galactic Conquest with my brother) PREACH indeed.
The only problem with bots is that they will always act well like bots, with bots you always know what you are going to get and that can make a stale experience (at least for me) but with players you put a bunch of random people together with varying levels of skill and play styles that I argue you can learn a lot more from than fighting bots. But I do see the appeal of bots though as they can be adjusted to any scenario the game allows.
It's bad that when you still have to have an internet connection to play with non-human players. Like Overwatch for example even if you custom games the game still requires internet to play with and against bots.
Even though Valve has made many other controversial decisions, their multiplayer games still feature AI, server browsers and full custom mod support. At least one company is still doing it.
Its very simple. If you are making an online only game, thats fine. Whats NOT fine is charging $60 for an experience that will be worthless when the servers shut down 6 months after launch, as happens with 90% of multiplayer only games. Put even more simply: Stop charging $60 for multiplayer only games.
+matrix3509 But you are talking just about consoles there. PC multiplayer games don't die because the devs/publishers or console online system decide to shut the servers down. Just take a look at how many Counter Strike, Unreal Tournament and Quake servers are up on PC, for free, for years. Full price was a bargain in those games...
+Orange Zone Your really only proving my point. All those games are the exceptions that only serve to prove the rule. For every Counter Strike, there's 9 Titanfalls. Essentially, this episode is George being butthurt that his super best time supergame got middling reviews, then he feels the need to defend the entire concept of multiplayer only games for 12 and a half minutes because he feels, and is ashamed by, the emasculation most gamers feel when they're told their super best game is actually just okay. Its pretty transparent and a little sad considering the usual level of quality I expect from George.
+matrix3509 Yeah, don't buy any multiplayer game that doesn't offer dedicated servers. This also means don't buy consoles and don't buy games on console. When you buy a console, you've already agreed to be at the mercy of manufacturers and publishers who can pull the plug on the whole system any time they like.
+matrix3509 6 months isn't a realistic time frame to shut down servers in. A more accurate time frame would be years, especially considering if it's multiplayer only.
The problem is that people have become waaay too focused on criticizing games as products. How many hours can I get out of it? How many game modes are there? Is there singleplayer? What about replay value? These are all things that should certainly be an element of criticizing a game, but recently they've become almost the sole concern. Actually good gameplay or story quality is a secondary concern to the amount of content a game offers. And that's just... That's just something I don't understand at all. You know what game I've replayed probably more than any other game ever? Max Payne. An 8-10 hour linear shooter with no dialogue choices, multiple endings, no multiplayer, no other game modes besides the story. Hell I probably play it ever 6 months or so, none of that shit matters to me. The shooting is so solid, so dynamic, and so endlessly enjoyable that it always makes me want to keep coming back. Solid design trumps anything else. Who cares if it's got 30 game modes if the gameplay isn't good in the first place. These game critics are seriously insane in my eyes. How is it that Rainbow Six Siege, one of the most innovative, interesting and solidly designed games I've played in years gets a 78? When something like Fallout 4 ends up with an 87? I've played Fallout 4 for 30 hours and I've played Rainbow Six Siege for over 130 and counting, and I'm not even a multiplayer guy. Content is not more important than design.
+Kolbe Howard Yeah, there is an interesting conversation to be had about people who really get nitpicky about framerate and resolutions over interesting ideas
BARMN89 Well I'm not going to play a game if it's not running at least at 60 fps. That's a different thing. I was more talking about the amount of content rather than game functionality. I'm one of those people who can't enjoy a game if it's running at sub-60 fps and who doesn't even think 60 is optimal anymore. 144 hz spoiled me.
+BARMN89 There's an interesting conversation to be had about people who look down on those who care about framerate even though they clearly don't understand what framerate is and why it's incredibly important, and thus are the ones who should actually be looked down upon. Interesting ideas aren't worth anything if they're used in a game that runs like absolute shit. You can have the best idea in the world, but if your game constantly drops to 10 FPS, I'm not playing that bullshit because it's unplayable.
I just prefer single player because i am anti social and i have bad broadband, and being called noob because i do not play the game for 23 hours a day every day makes me very annoyed. Also i just find a decent story mode more satisfying. And for me personally i just get bored with the grind in multiplayer then i would with a single player game.
While I feel similarly, that's not really the point. The point of the video is that a game shouldn't be criticized for not having a single-player campaign, not that single-player campaigns are inherently bad or should never be included in multiplayer games. In fact, this kinda supports the presented argument. Take, for instance, Battlefield 3's horrible tacked-on single-player campaign. Despite this, the game was well received and praised for the multiplayer, where the developers put all their real creative energy. If you aren't going to play the multiplayer mode, which is where the majority of the development time, effort, polish, care, quality, etc. is put, then why would you want to buy it? The high review score for the multiplayer would lead you to buy a game for a bad single player campaign that you wouldn't enjoy because the developers didn't care about; they just put it in because they had to.
+popeye2mil Well obviously they didn't because it has none. Those people that cared about offline play are lost sales. I personally like to play shooter campaigns in all my FPSs because they allow you to experience scenarios and mechanics that would be unbalanced or otherwise unsuitable for online play. Indeed, some of the best games I've ever played have been singleplayer only.
KeyboardWrecker That's every multiplayer game ever when speaking realistically. And before that happens, the playerbase will either possibly die off if they stop producing content or they announce the sequel.
+GammaWALLE Bah, we need to build a wall to keep bots out. Sure they seem nice at first, and then they're using their terrifying steel claws to tear you open and drink your precious fluids!
I was extremely impressed by the bots in Rocket League. There's been a million AI's for FPS games and many of them are dumb as hell. Often racing games don't have the brightest nor fair AI either. But Rocket League on the highest difficulty has some quite impressive behaviour.
+Dennis Fluttershy The complexity of AI would be tenfold for something like siege compared to a more traditional FPS. I've had experiences where I've heard a player on the other side of a wall and preemptively shot through it which is something that would be very hard to get an AI to do like a player would. Also just dealing with the destruction in the game, and the hundreds of small little changes that happen.
George, it's simple, and you said it best, there HAS to be somekind of multiplayer die-off insurance. 60 dollars can be a lot, that's Witcher 3's 100 hours of genuine content I can replay 30 years down the line. I don't depend on the trend, and let's face it, multiplayer only games survive only through trends. Titanfall was not a bad game, but it died, I can't realistically play that now. Whereas I can still play Call of Duty 2, 4, 5 etc. Not saying I *want* shitty campaigns, but it's better than nothing, it's the bread and butter, I should have a way to enjoy what I paid for without strict need of someone else. I NEED an insurance against the innevitable mutliplayer die-off, 1 out of a million enjoys the success of CounterStrike, I'm not willing to bet 60 dollars on yet another trend expected to live long and probably won't. Without AT LEAST bots , you might as well forget any possibility you'll be playing this 5 years down the line.
Problem is that all these games have no campaigns, plus then they become yearly releases that split the community up, leaving multiple games that have barely enough players to be considered active. Then in the wake of lack of popularity, either yet another sequel comes out or the game's support is shut down. You want to know why we want campaigns? It takes the monotony out of the multiplayer. There's a reason hardly anyone is playing Evolve, Titanfall, or Battlefront EA right now.
+crzymn246 People dont play Evolve, Titanfall or Battlefront bc the multiplayer has no depth and gets old fast, and a 7-8 hour campaign does not fix "monotonous" gameplay. Plenty of multiplayer only games have insane depth and unlimited replayability that a campaign cant offer, I would rather a dev team focus all of their time and assets on a balanced, fun and in depth multiplayer that i can play endlessly instead of a half assed campaign. If I want to play single player there are many great games out right now that i could play instead.
I love long campaigns. I don't really care for multiplayer unless it looks like a multiplayer type game, in other words I'll buy a multiplayer heavy/only game if that's what I want out of that particular game or campaign heavy/only game if that's what I want out of that title. Most times (more than 75% of the time) I'm looking for a single player ordeal one where I can take MY time, follow MY decisions, suffer the consequences of MY actions, not to mention that cash is short these days and I can only spend so much and that pretty much means the longest game there that I know has a bitchin story. Give me games like FF7, if Killzone Mercenaries (yes I have a Vita) was longer that would've been an almost perfect game, as is it's still a game that shows what the Vita can do right. Give me games where I hold the balance in my hand, as selfish as it sounds I want the game to focus on me and not the dozen other people in it at the time. My point is that Multiplayer is good to but as mentioned when devs try to do both single player campaign and heavy multiplayer elements it usually falls short. It's fine to have both but focus on one side of it like 80%-20% or even exclusive... but, they (devs, studios execs) know if they do that they will alienate a certain portion of consumers. Why make (just making up numbers for the sake of argument) 200,000 people extremely happy with a multiplayer only title when you can make a single campaign and multiplayer game that comes out shity because they were trying to do both but sell twice as many? Even if everybody who bought it agrees that it falls short on both aspects, the studio only cares about the bottom line and the bottom line is always cash.
Well, from what I've seen, Battlefront IS a meh-mediocre expensive cash grab with meh DLC that's uninteresting, and it's by EA, a sh*tty publisher... That's got to be part of it.
I'll agree with another user on here and say without any 'campaign' I can't jump on and replay this game 6 years down the road. The servers will most likely be gone. It's almost as if you're just renting Siege. When they're done supporting it. You're dong owning it. I know there's a lot of different ways to look at things but I'd much rather grab a game like Witcher 3 or MGSV for a full price tag than a game that I know I won't be able to play in the future. I still have a copy of Black Flag in shrink wrap. I don't have to rush to open it because it's a single player game. It's mine to play it when I see fit.
If the campaign was good, maybe several people. Halo 1 and 2 and I think 3 came out 10 years ago, and I still replay those campaigns at least once a year.
That’s one of the things that comes with multiplayer though. You aren’t going to get much more value out of a shitty single player campaign anyway. Let them use that time to polish mechanics.
@@Matthew.Morcos That's also the problem. The don't use the time saved to polish the game. They will release it unfinished then charge extra for DLC that should have been in the game to begin with.
+Crono454 I'd say that Team fortress 2 as it launched was on its own not a good purchase, but it was sold as part of the Orange Box, which was in my opinion a great purchase. Effectively three nice experiences wrapped into one decently priced purchase.
+Weaverdrone tell that to the people that bought it on its own before it was f2p and played the shit out of it was never a 60 dollar buy tho. Counter Strike GO launched with like 5 of 6 maps. there's nothing wrong with having little content if all the content is amazing. more of a mediocre game doesn't make it good.
I understand people wanting singleplayer for their shooters. While, the multiplayer focused ones are nice. It does have the problem of server longevity. What happens when those servers are gone? I certainly avoid most games that rely heavily on giving businesses the power of controlling the replaybility with a flip of a switch. The best balance would have to be something along the lines of halo's first three games. They had a good campaign along with local and online multiplayer. I also think another issue with these multiplayer fps is that they don't exactly have the depth that would even be worth considering. Siege being the exception. Sadly I'd rather not have to think about how many evolves or titan falls we'll have prior to the amount of siege like games we would get. I just cannot get myself to believe in the companies that have shown us that they're more than willing to burn themselves to the ground before making a good product. And their sweat shop practices ruins most uniqueness that we would get if we were to even go the route of server reliant games.
+Big Boss (Naked Snake) If we are talking about PC games, there is always some servers online, at least for the good multiplayer games, even if they have a small, loyal playerbase. And you can always just host a server yourself, if you like, and call some friends to join.
Orange Zone Well yeah. But it was more in regards to the business practices that have been going on. They make shallow games and use multiplayer as a means of forcing people to buy their yearly releases.
Big Boss Yes, I agree on that. Its like just by having multiplayer, people think the package is worth more of its money, when its not necessarily the case.
***** Of course but there's a limit to how one can push the price. 15 dollars monthly for nearly no content to show for is a scam (looking at you, WoW).
+Dennis Fluttershy The account system between PSN and Xbox Live is identical. Its literally the same system. Both link to offline accounts. Both connect game saves and purchased games by accounts that are offline based. I don't see what the difference is.
Aza-Industries I enjoy the good 'ol days where most games had bots. Take Duke Nukem 64, for instance. Co-op campaign, 4-player deathmatch which had bots of its own. Also, Conker's Bad Fur Day had bots and some fun game modes.
Yeah, for me, I don't much care about the lack of campaign. For me, it's the lack of longevity. A decade from now will I be able to pop in Battlefront 2015 and play against some bots? No. Will I be able to setup my own custom matches either on LAN or against bots? No. Is there a server browser right now, so that I can search out for the custom game that I'm interested in playing? No. It's just "Queue up for matchmaking, do something that you might not have been interested in, then leave". I want a game that I can safely invest in, something that will be available for quite a while. Something that I can keep on my digital shelf, and be secure in the knowledge that its lifespan isn't ticking down by the moment. I can go back and play Halo's campaign whenever I want and have a blast, because multiplayer isn't the only available option. But in about a year, will anyone be able to say that about Titanfall on PC? Nope.
+A Olson I believe you're trying to mock my position, but that's a legitimate question that devs have to ask themselves. Why would customers want to buy our product when there are cheaper or free alternatives? What would customers be willing to pay for our product or service? The devs of Rainbow Six: Siege asked themselves those same questions and ended up deciding their game was too expensive. Within half a year they dropped the price, and they've had regular sales that drop it even lower. I think it's pretty clear that the market demanded a cheaper game because it was saturated with cheaper alternatives, and the company had no choice but to comply.
I feel like this argument would hold up more water if Bunnyhop looked at the principle of the matter and not using examples of previous games. UT2k4 and Quake 3 were good value at the time. You just bought a single game that had bots, and let you play online. Not only that they both had SDKs that let you create your own custom content for it. It was almost more akin to a platform where every week there was new content made by other players. Modern big budget multiplayer FPS games do not have this same kind of value. Almost always what you're paying 60$ for is a game that's incomplete. That requires you to shell out more money down the line with overpriced DLC and map packs to avoid it getting stale. There's way more competition now than there was in 2001. We live in an era where free to play multiplayer shooters typically have more content than 60$ big budget multiplayer shooters ever will. There's also the fact that most multiplayer shooters tend to die off really fast when they don't have sprawling mod communities. Does anyone still play Titanfall? Or Evolve? The reason why consumers want a campaign is they want value for their 60$. If a multiplayer shooter doesn't give them that value they'd rather buy a sandbox game because they know they'll get what they paid for and it'll last them a long time.
+DeadYorick I think its more down to what games ppl enjoy the most.For example BF hardline actually included an interesting singleplayer campaign in my opinion and a somewhat refreshing take on MP but many ppl rather call it a DLC for BF4 and i get that.Corporate VG reviews are invalid for many reasons most reviews are bought from the big companies.
+DeadYorick Mate i still can play a game of Quake 3 and have fun unlike games like Titanfall,Evolve and Rainbow six in a few months :)That whole video is a whine about his favorit game not having 10 out of 10.
Harper Sanchez Well i am 28 and have seen good games and most modern games... well i won't even bother downloading them for free from piratebay.For my FPS i go to the good old clasics like doom and some good but truly underated games like Singularity,Bulletstorm and Fear.
I rarely see my point of view expressed in these discussions, so I wonder how many other people out there think like me. I do not enjoy multiplayer at all in any form. I don't have the time or desire to become skilled enough at any one games mechanics to enjoy playing the people who do, not to mention how toxic online interactions can be on their own. Multiplayer more often than not just becomes an additional source of stress when all I want to do is unwind. So, I just ignore multi player only games. I hold no ill will against them. They just weren't made for me. When I bring them up I'm just raising my hand as a lost sale more than anything. If they had put the effort into a decent single player campaign I may have bought it. Maybe there are others that would have as well? Perhaps if enough of us exist and say something they'll make one for us... I only really become sour when something with huge potential that I know I would have loved neglects me and my single player compatriots. The new Battlefront is such an example. It is so breathtakingly gorgeous. So many reviewers have talked about how it immediately made them feel they were in a Star Wars movie. What potential that had to have an amazing story driven and lengthy campaign for people like me! However, at the end of a day, I shed a tear for what could have been, maybe moan about it a bit online, but I won't hold it against the game. It wasn't made for me.
Rainbow Six Siege is a great example for your argument, but you didn't challenge yourself by bringing up examples like the recent Star Wars Battlefront, a very expensive multiplayer-only title that offers little to nothing innovative.
He brushed it aside inplicitly with "it is awful multiplayer doesn't mean the same thing as lacking a single player". Then he used an example of what he feels a good multiplayer only game is to highlight what he thinks the actual problem is rather than a lack of frankensteined single player. Bringing in a terrible multiplayer game will confuse the point because there is so much more wrong with those games than just a lack of single player. There's a lack of depth and content and awful dlc practices and balancing issues and and and.
I'm not arguing for a tacked-on singleplayer portion, but that game in particular does certainly not have $60-$70 value. AAA games that do single player-only or multiplayer-only need to really be fleshed out to warrant the price tag they put on their games.*****
I really, really don't think bots are why people are complaining. I didn't care about them then and I sure don't care about them now. I think the issue has far more to do with the games themselves being essentially barebones. It's easier to swallow that a game only has a handful of maps, game modes, and ways to make your character look unique without resorting to a credit card if it's either priced cheaper (like CS: GO or pretty much any other multiplayer-only game that isn't freemium released in the past five years) or it has a single player campaign. But games like Rainbow Six: Siege really, really want to double dip. They've got a full price game with not a lot of content that ALSO wants microtransaction money AND a slice of the competitive gaming scene where I can almost guarantee you if it really takes off as an e-sport Ubisoft probably won't be treating the players particularly well. When we already know that multiplayer-only games can thrive at far lower price points without any sort of microtransactions, it feels like we're being gouged. I don't think it's unfair to ask that if a game wants to release at $60, it needs to show that the budget wasn't entirely blown on extra polygons and feed us with lots of meaningful content.
Personally, if I wanna play a multiplayer-based shooter, I'd expect it to at least have a single player "training mode." As in, play the regular online maps with bots to get used to the game mechanics and the environments. I guess Quake 3 is the reason I have these kind of standards.
I'm so fine with having multiplayer or single player only games. It allows the developers to focus on one aspect of the game and not have to tack on something wasting time and resources on something that isn't that great. Battlefield originally all was multiplayer. I was happy just buying it because I loved the multiplayer experience. I completely agree with Super Bunnyhop 100%
10:30 "Fans of the well-crafted, single-player campaigns of previous Rainbow Six games will find nothing of value in Siege" I think Game Informer make a valid point here.
My problem isn't the lack of a "campaign" mode, but more the pricing. The AAA industry seems completely unwilling to charge anything but AAA prices for MP only games. I would probably have picked up Siege if launched for $30, same for Battlefront. If they're going to start cutting single player content to save themselves money, then they should extend those savings to the player and lower the price of the game. As it stands, AAAs want to put less work into the game and charge the same price for it. That's my problem with the whole situation. And I think you're a little too concerned about pointless review scores.
When people complain about not having a campaign, I think sometimes they're really saying that there just doesn't seem to be much content for a $60 game. I saw everything there was to see in about the first 2 hours on the game. I wanted to try the game, but not be forced to sponsor Ubisoft's attempt to force another e-sport on the world.
I dunno man, I'm pretty sure people aren't pissed because these games lack bots. Honestly I've never, EVER heard anyone talk about playing with bots with any form of enthusiasm. I really don't believe that playing with bots is that popular. People are pissed because they want more content. Over the years we've all gotten used to getting the standard Singleplayer campaign and the multiplayer component in our game, It's what we've come to expect. So naturally people would feel robbed when they see stuff like "multiplayer-only" for the same exact price. And it appears that most people don't even care about the quality of each component of the game. As long as there's a shit ton of content, the shit-throwing dies down. I don't really know where I stand on this "issue". I liked Titanfall.
+Bucket You'd be surprised how many people actually enjoy playing with bots, whether they state it as such or not. Like George mentioned in the video, no one mentions Battlefront and Battlefront II's campaign as playing with bots, even though that's exactly what it is. But most people enjoyed the campaigns in those games. Hell, UT's campaign was the same deal. I still call it a campaign, because the goal is to win all of the matches, to get all the trophies and shit. "I've never, EVER heard anyone talk about playing with bots with any form of enthusiasm." Welp, you're about to hear someone talk about playing with bots (holy shit, I typed 'boys' there) with enthusiasm. I've never played UT, Quake III, C&C Renegade, Battlefield 1942 or Vietnam, Star Wars Jedi Knight II, or Jedi Academy, or any game that has bots in it, online and I probably never will. I play with bots. I LOVE games that have halfway decent bots. Hell, the first two Battlefront games had pretty terrible bots, even, and I found those fun. And even outside of whether or not something is fun, bots are great for online longevity of a game. Painkiller was a game that had a pro gaming scene back in the day, but it didn't last for very long at all. It didn't die because the multiplayer was bad - in fact, Painkiller's MP was kickass, but you can't expect to cultivate a longstanding online community when there's nothing for them to learn from to begin with. New people who joined PK's MP matches just got wrecked in an instant by people who had been there from the start and knew the game inside and out. It was a competition between those directly on the skill floor, and those on the top of the rather high skill ceiling, and there was no way that could ever change. So bots are important for such games, and for more than just having fun killing AI.
+Bucket Bots are the reason I played games like UT for 5+ years. I played online when that was the only option (usually meaning the creators of a particular mod hadn't added bot support yet.) The lack of "campaigns" for good multiplayer centric (opposed to multiplayer *exclusive*) titles like that doesn't matter since there's a absolute wealth of offline-accessible content, nothing is cordoned off arbitrarily.
***** Nonono, YOU found Quake 3 fun because you could hop on and railgun your friends as a skeleton that could jump 15 feet in the air. That's not why *I* find it fun, so do me a favor and don't tell me what is and isn't fun for me. Thanks. With that said, it's clear your idea of a campaign is that it needs to be System Shock 2 or something, as opposed to just a loosely connected string of bot matches. A campaign can be whatever fits the game's concept. Battlefield 3 and 4's campaigns are shit because the game's focus - the multiplayer - has an ENTIRELY different thing going on. The campaign and the multiplayer had no real shared themes or mechanics. Let's not forgoet Spec Ops: The Line, which had multiplayer that had the same problem. The game's focus - the single-player - was a decontruction of the modern military shooter's campaigns, and the multiplayer just tried to be a typical modern military shooter multiplayer mode, going against the entire point of the game. Quake III and UT's campaigns might not be very in-depth, but they remain perfectly true to the core concepts of the game, and THAT is what makes them fun to people, as well as people like myself (who don't like people) being able to have the multiplayer experience without all the bullshit. Tada.
+Bucket I really enjoyed playing with bots, back when they existed! In games like UT2004 or CS you can create pretty interesting scenarios by setting up bots in different ways (different number of fighters, difficulty level, which weapons they can use, modifiers...), fighting them co-operatively with a friend, that sort of thing. And while you're doing that you're practicing skills you can take to the multiplayer gameplay, so you won't be completely worthless when you start out. Bot matches gave me a level of control that modern Left 4 Dead style co-op games don't have. Not to mention those are usually 4-player, and I really can't get four friends together at the same time to play the same game, and strangers are barely tolerable when I'm fighting *against* them...
I'd ask you to watch Jim Sterling's video "The Multiplayer-Only Problem", where he likes the concept, but explains frustration with multiplayer only games still having a lack of content as if they still had singleplayer modes at a $60, leaving customers feeling cheated.
+Lars Singh *$60 price point, and that some newer multiplayer only games have the same or even less content than the original games with both single and multiplayer modes, and more of a push for DLC/microtransactions/season passes just to get the standard amount of content you would expect at that price.
One thing to consider is that often these multiplayer-only games come at the cost of a game where you'd typically expect to see a campaign and multiplayer component. I didn't *want* a campaign in Battlefront 3 in the sense that I wanted a narrative-based mission list - but I certainly *felt* like I was paying enough to warrant one. £40+ for a multiplayer only game as sparse as Battlefront 3 stings, and makes you want for, or at least expect, much more.
Thank you so much for weighing in on this. These are my thoughts exactly. Multiplayer only games have been around for a long time. Bots were an important feature that seem to have just vanished. And great singleplayer games have had tacked on multiplayer just like how great multiplayer games now have tacked on singleplayer. I'm not upset that these recent games have made this move. I'm glad that they recognize what they wanted to be and became that wholly. I do wish SW Battlefront was closer to Battlefield in terms of gameplay and quality, but I don't miss its excuse for a singleplayer game. I think a big part of people's concern is, as you said, the longevity of a title. Once the players move on or the servers go down, the game is dead. UT99 is still a viable game to buy and enjoy even today because it has great AI for bot matches and multiplayer. And great music choice. Unreal is a classic.
What you seem to be missing is the people like me. People who said "This is a multiplayer only game? Then I'm not gonna buy it!" to Rainbow Six Siege not because a multiplayer only fps is a no-no. But because we really fucking wanted a singleplayer Rainbow Six experience. I see little to no value in multiplayer games since they are in 9 out of 10 cases not for me.
mightyNosewings no, you are misunderstanding what me and a lot of people wanted from Rainbow Six Siege. They wanted a proper single player game in the same way say Deus Ex Human Revolution was a single player game. Bot matches is not close to that. I mean a story, proper missions made for singleplayer and not just multiplayer maps with bots.
PcKaffe But that's patently _not_ the kind of game Rainbow Six Siege, I mean, that's like buying Dark Souls and being disappointed that it was too hard, or that it wasn't an arcade shooter. Hell, it's like complaining that TF2 or CS:Go don't have campaigns. They're not that kind of game!
mightyNosewings I know, but my point is that it should have been. Since all the previous Rainbow Six and most of the related Tom Clancy games had great campaigns.
Certain multiplayer only games just begs for a single player because of the unique world they crafted. Overwatch and Titan Falls both created an interesting world with interesting lore and concepts that are wasted if not explored. Rainbow Six Siege came from a heavily story driven franchise. That is why people are disappointed when it turns out to be purely multiplayer. However, there is an irony to this because Siege feels more like an old fashion Rainbow Six game in a sense because of how easily you can die with one wrong move or a bad game plan. Siege's multiplayer only gameplay managed to recreate the slow paced planning and the quick reaction time in execution needed of the classic.
+Turtoi Radu To you maybe, but I've more than gotten my money's worth out of Siege, with about 100 hours put in so far, and with free dlc on the way, I'll probably get 100 more.
Swiggins Don't employ relativism bullshit, it ain't working here. The games lacks maps, a map editor and the support for community made mods. That is unacceptable, to lack such basic features. And let me guess, I can't even host my own server, right? Yeah, totally a $60 experience. There are free to play shooters with more, well, anything.
+Turtoi Radu The lack of content is more than compensated ith its depth. Sure, there aren't a lot of maps, but every game plays so differently that it doesn't matter.
+Turtoi Radu Then please tell me what kind of game offers RB6 style of gameplay?? Saying "there are F2p shooters with moore,well,anything." doesn't help anyone.
You really dropped the ball on this one george. People arent asking for singleplayer in multiplayer focused games, they are asking for assurance that the game wont completely die when support ends
I respect your opinion, but I don't see how this is good. At all. I for one can't stand the whole multiplayer/online experience and developers creating online only games is mereley the beginning. If we start off with statements like "yeah alright just online play" It's probable we may never see a "normal" videogame in the future. I think people putting campaigns on their FPS games is a way to please bith parties. If they see how cost eficient it is to create nothing but online multiplayer experiences, then why bother with actually creating a scripted videogame anymore? I usually agree with you George but I think you're failing to grasp the seriousness of this issue. Developers getting lazier for the sake of MORE FUCKIN MONEY.
But he pointed out several examples of games that were pretty much multiplayer-only from over a decade ago, where the only single-player consisted of bot matches. Nobody derides Quake III Arena for eschewing the single-player modes of Quake and Quake II. And honestly I can think of places where games had campaigns that were so bad that their absence would not be missed (Battlefield 3, for example).
+William Writepony True, however I never really Liked Quake III or bot fight video games. I understand that it's not only bad because I MYSELF don't like it, but considering the way the industry is today (like Konami killing its major franchises for more profitable pachinko machines) I can't see how online only video games can do anything but set us, non online multiplayer gamers, back. It will soon turn into a trend and that's scary. Now when it comes to Battlefield you're right. I remember playing the campaign and being like: "MAN, WHY do people LOVE Battlefield so much if this shit is just AWFUL"? Then my kid brother told me how it's all about online play.
+Criticas QLS it seems that you dont understand how not only the industry works but the world works itself. you're behaving like the demand on single player only games will vanish because some people have a multiplayer only experience in their minds and dont want to do the campaign/MP thing. why bother spending resources on a scripted piece of shit that stinks and is pretentious to no end when you can make a solid MP experience that will give hundreds upon hundreds of hours to its players? or why bother doing a subpar MP instead of pouring all of your efforts into an immersive single player? you seem to think that being a jack of all trades and master of none is the best thing ever but no its not and its certainly not what we all want from every developer. if developers think that they need to ditch one of the two to make the maximize the potential of the other then so be it and you as a gamer should be happy about it cause you will be getting the best that can be made of one of them. and stop behaving like jack of all trade games will disappear just cause. and the excuse about developers wanting more money, look here mate, not every publisher or developer are an EA of some sort and even if they are we can easily tell and call them out on it.
For me its a combination of factors, Price, Bots, Campaign, Content etc. and while not so much of a big deal to me one major problem I see is competition. Unlike those days of UT and Quake there is now such a large amount of competition, any FPS released on pc will have to fight against counterstrike and team fortress for example. These games will need to be worth the value proposition and in comparison to those two games its often not worth spending the $60 for a game with less content and a smaller playerbase. and on top of that you have games like battlefront which are charging a further $50 for additional content that will be required to play with the community. Personally all I would want from these games campaigns would be what battlefront 2 did, bot matches with a small story to tie them together, no need for grand expensive campaigns in multiplayer focused games but there should be a way for people to play offline in titles that are full priced in my opinion. As you said rainbow 6 siege is the standout but people have been burned by games like evolve and titanfall in the past so they are very hesitant to spend that much money on a game which might be dead a couple months from now. #Bringbackthebots
aka, why Bunnyhop is butt-hurt that his new fav game is so low on metacriric. But in all seriousness, you got me to rethink about no campaign video games, and all around great video. Though I think one way people would complain (and I'm not using complain in a derogatory manner) is possibly a price drop to $50 for online-only/focused games? Eh? I don't know.
So do singleplayer only games also get a price drop? I think you missed the blurb about how tacked on these ginleplayer modes on online games, and vice versa, typically are.
Well yeah... The way i understand "online only" means no campaign and no offline matches with bots. I didn't consider quake3 or battlefield 1942 'online only'. In fact i played them almost exclusively offline with bots. I think the reason why people get annoyed with games that are truly only online, is that once online population moves on/disappear all your progress, gear, (potentially paid for) cosmetic items, and the game itself in general are no longer accessible. And it is all based on unreliable determining factor of 'playerbase longevity' (or sometimes how cheap developers/publishers are with upkeeping their servers). Which only seems to be leading to the fear of missing out. Fancy trying out (excellent) hunt: showdown? Well, better do it now, because it might be dead in a year, or 2, or 3. Escape from Tarkov looks interesting? Better get that new gaming pc now, because that game might be gone or have a skeleton of it's population in a year's time. So you might need to get ready to play exclusively with sweaty try-hards (andcheaters because devs gave up keeping them away) and people from around the globe, because there isn't enough people from your region to populate a lobby. Trying to play "old" CoD games like advanced warfare online, is a great example of that, and i dare anyone to try to find a match in one of the dlc modes or maps for BF3 or 4. I can still play quake3 or bf1942. I can no longer play hybrid, lawbreakers or planetside:arena.
Metal Gear Online 3 was a massive flop to what MGO2 was for me. To the point where I think the old community is designing a spiritual successor to MGO2.
+Marko Rabasovic Same was MGO2 to MGO. MGO2 tooked a whole until it was fun to play and MGO3 just started for most players. Im still waiting for DLC and stuff and until now i like what they are doing with MGO3 and MGSV. They are still balancing MGO3 and adding stuff to MGSV and i hope they will start adding new game modes and new maps.
Having never played either, what was the main difference? I was going to start my PS+ subscription for Street Fighter V, and I was also planning to get into MGO3 before I read this comment
+Erk1234567 MGO 3 still needs a lot of balancing but I would say give it a shot anyway the MGO2 community was a very tight knit group, I remember trying to get into it and finding it very difficult. even starting up MGO2 required you to have a konami ID with an extra password you needed to remember.
Erk1234567 It's mainly the fact that they added classes to the game. Which now has restricted certain weapons and skills to a specific class. MGO2 did not have classes but rather 4 slots for skills to choose from. Each skill leveled up respectedly based on how much you used that said skill. For example "Runner+" allowed your character to naturually move faster, you would level this skill by the amount of steps taken during ranked matches. Most skills hit a max level of 3, and some skills would take up more than one slot based on its level. Other things they took away in MGO3 were things like lobby system, naming your own rooms, and customizing specifications and map load out for said room etc etc They also took out text chat as well during matches.
+Marko Rabasovic the problem with MGO3 is the sprinting if you could disable it would make the game much more enjoyable plus the maps are boring and some game modes are lacking.
the real problem with online only games is that they will not stand the test of time. Once those servers are shut off (and they will be shut off) that game is gone for good. that's one less game in the world, and that's a damn shame. even if the offline element in a game is trivial when it comes out, it certainly won't be down the line when there are no more people to play with but you want to look back at that game and experience it again.
Bots, IMO, ARE a huge things which I miss. That, and, maybe more than that, local multiplyer. A shooter with no local multiplayer on bot matches is automatically a bit lacking. A shooter with no bots is even more lacking though, of course. Oh, and Star Wars Battlefront 2? I honestly loved that campaign. And ya, it WAS just a bot match with some extra mission objectives, window dressing and story. I still play it sometimes nowadays, and it is awesome.
I 100% agree on the whole bot thing. I was (well, still am) a huge fan of bots. It might seem kind of strange, but I have a little bit of anxiety when playing multiplayer games so when I just want to wind down for a bit of fun and not have to worry about people, I used to just wreck bots on whatever game I was playing at the time. It's truly a feature that is greatly missed, and hopefully, somehow, they'll make the comeback they deserve. Thanks for the great video! I love your stuff; they're some of the most well versed and thought out video game videos on youtube.
I am thankful for this channel, it is the only gaming channel I tend to watch these days. No over abundance of silly lets plays, pontification, no looking down upon viewers and good quality journalism. It is the kind of channel I have been waiting for so long.
My problem is that multiplayer games die eventually, so at some point all the money you spent will become a waste, so it feels weird to pay 60$ for a game that will become useless at some point, I'm not asking for full campaigns, although a good one is always welcome, but give me plenty of maps, game modes and options to get a fun experience with bots, and charge me less than 30$
Bruh cs:cz wasn't the worst by a long shot. It's just an improved version of cs1.6 with more singleplayer content. cs nexus zombies is probably the worst one.
Nice use of Unreal Tournament music there. Back when I was 11 or 12 I played that game offline for dozens of hours, and while I certainly didn't get thrills as intense as those that played it online, that was an absolutely perfect introduction to arena shooters. It's still the reference of its genre as far as I'm concerned and I still come back to it every once in a while to kick some bot ass. Don't even get me started on all the joy a single player could get out of Perfect Dark's multiplayer. Man I miss bots.
7:29 Anyone remember the "Dark" bots in Perfect Dark? They were almost unbeatable under normal circumstances. They would b-line to the best weapons, then b-line to a shield, then b-line to *you*. They would almost instantly shoot you in the head with 100% accuracy.
No no no! I understand why certain games don't need campaigns, but when you are using a franchise such as Rainbow Six not having a campaign is the worst thing you could do. Rainbow Six's story and strategic focus on singleplayer is what it was known for. Ubisoft taking Tom Clancy's franchise to make it into an e-sports monster. Battlefield, Unreal Tournament, tribes, etc. were known for their multiplayer and I loved them for what they did. I disliked the BF3 campaign, and wished it never was a thing, but that would mean that BF3 would need bots. I enjoyed what games were KNOWN for, not for what they became.
@@aolson1111 That's why I used Unreal Tournament and not Unreal. They continued to make both in tandem of eachother. I didn''t buy an Unreal game for its multiplayer as I didn't buy an Unreal Tournament game for its singleplayer. They aren't making 2 separate games for the series. They just made 1 game that is how they want this franchise to go and it sucks. Zero tangible story, bastardization of the original story, and a dumb as shit esports model that has next to no hold on what was Rainbow Six.
You know what this commentary is missing? Any mention of split screen MP. You miss bots? I miss being able to play with my friends in the same room. And I'm tired of hearing about graphical fidelity as an excuse. Every four player game since Goldeneye has had to dance around the hardware limitations. And on PC there's no excuse either. More and more people are using their PC as their living room console. I play four player Serious Sam, Rocket League, Bro Force, all the time on the time with controllers and it's a blast! The fact that SB went on this long ass rant without mentioning it even once, just shows how far outside the active player consciousness split screen (or LAN) is and how successful most developers have been sneaking that feature off the table, looking around to see if anyone noticed, then permenantly keeping it off forever.
I feel like you've editorialised the title of this video, which is fair enough, yet in doing so you kinda miss the major complaints about online only games. Ross from Accursed farms is probably the clearest voice on this topic. Longevity of the game becomes a problem, as does the very possibility of actually owning the product/service your money is supposed to buy. You purchase a game, yet rely on the seller's good will to continue playing it. In online only games that rely on proprietary servers that the seller can just turn off, players are entering into a kind of contract that leaves them at the mercy of the seller. The analogue in other products/services contracting would be if a car dealership decided to turn off the engine in a car they already sold you, all because they figured it was more cost effective for them that way. The end result is that games built from the ground up to be online only are dying, and their sellers are not willing to put up with the cost of living up their part of the contract.
The problem many people have is that they feel ripped off. MP-only games don't have more content than SP+MP ones. In case of the latest culprit - Battlefront - it actually has less content than is normally accepted. It feels like developers are doing less work for same pay, which is why a lot of people are pissed.
I played every single Call of Duty game just for singleplayer campaign. My hype for multiplayer in that started with MW1 and ended with MW2. Anyway, forced campaing wouldnt make Siege better; good, interesting and polished campaing would make Siege alot better.
There is a enormous difference between a good extra mode and a needed extra mode. I mean, things like classic mode or baseball from Super Smash Bros are fun but totally unnecessary, and the lack or existence of it shouldn´t affect the score that games deserve.
+RIP In Peace Seamus I'm not saying they aren't amazing. I'm saying they won't last. Dota 2 is the exception, not the rule. So many games that are online only become either unplayable or boring, due to so few players, once a few months pass, and everyone moves on. Look at any MMO that isn't WoW, any shooter that isn't Call of Honor-Field, or Gears of Halo, (im aware those arent online only, but online is the heart of the community, so I think you get my point) or hell, any fighting game that isn't the most recent one. Even if they still have players, it's usually the hardcores who drive new players away, killing it's future audience. If it's only online, that's all that's gonna happen to it. Although I'd love to Throwdown in TF2...
MadmanRobi It's not a matter of exception or rule it is a matter of Good or bad. Bad games won't last for obvious reasons. But on PC most Great games still have at least 1 or 2 full active servers to join with an avid community.
those 250+ person battles were freaking great... i miss that game... especially now that my internet is better... At least Planetside 2 is a thing now for mass warfare games
Another reason for the bad reviews of Tom Clancy 's Rainbow Six Seige is the irony. Think about it? A game inspired by the stories of a famous author doesn't have a story. Really, really, are you serious?
+Michael Prymula How the fuck is the title relevant to the quality of the game at all? Are you seriously implying the TITLE should impact the score? Fucking moron. Oh, and Rainbow Six does have a story, just no story mode.
You hit the nail on the head, I have never even played Battlefront 1 or 2 online and yet I still hold it in such high regard because of the existence of bots.
I agree with most of what you said, but I don't understand why you care so much about that metacritic score. Ratings are pretty meaningless. For example: Dark Souls 2 has generally higher scores than Dark Souls 1 on there lol
+CaitSeith It's not the number that's the telling part, though, for me at least. Its the difference between the user score and critic score. You can get a good idea of what kind of game you're getting into just from comparing both numbers, like if a game is "artsy" and as a result none of the critics want to come off as "uncultured", giving it 9/10 across the board, yet everyone else thinks that it is complete garbage. That or they were all bought out. Either way, best be careful.
+IReiteThat Dark Souls 2 also has inarguable better balanced combat. - A much better mixture of telling you lore with letting you figure it out on your own. - Much better lore on top of that anyway. - Better characters. - More characters. - More weapon variety. - Extremely good multi-player with much much less leaping back-stabs. - Better mechanics in terms of things like hollowing. - And a much much more enjoyable NG+ then the original. - And is a significantly longer game. - And has a much better frame-rate and graphics. Just because it lacks good visual monster design, is a little more cheap and lacks maze-like levels and a super memorable final boss doesn't make it a worse game.
I don't have a problem with a game that is multiplayer only. But GOD DAMN, price them accordingly. New SW Battlefron is the prime example of shitty multiplayer game that is bare bones and still has the audacity to ask for 60 euros for an initial release and 50 euros for a season pass. Then you check prices of CS:GO - 11 euros, Insurgency - 15 euros, which, besides graphics not being impressive, has more to offer for players and for way lower price. And let's be real, games like these will exist long after the Titanfall, call of dutys, battlefronts, etc. because at least they have LAN capabilities, which has become a taboo around game companies like EA, Ubisoft...
I've never been into multiplayer. I enjoy a good 10+ hour long with a well written or at least entertaining narrative. Games like MGSV where I have multiple ways of dealing with a situation or Pokemon where I can explore a vast world and command forces of magical creatures to battle others to decide who's the best. I'm also a console gamer so if I ever did get into multiplayer I'd have to pay a fifty dollar subscription to use Playstation Plus if I wanted to Metal Gear Online or the Uncharted multiplayer. But I don't see that happening.
"Asking for a campaign in a multiplayer fps is a misguided statement." No, it's not. Customers have a right to complain since they're the ones buying the product. If servers go offline, YOU CAN'T PLAY THE GAME. If the vast majority of people stop playing or the game reaches the end of its life cycle, YOU CAN'T PLAY THE GAME. Also, all previous Rainbow Six games have had a single player campaign. To say that customers are making "misguided statements" over missing features that have been present in past games is ludicrous and poorly thought out.
If you want to make a multiplayer only game, fine. Do it. But don't charge premium price for it. You also imply that companies should just ignore single player campaign in mp-focused games because they suck anyways, but I argue that they should strive to make BETTER campaigns rather than abandon the idea entirely.
10:20 ... ah, I get it. This 13-minute essay is supposed to convince us that your current favourite game is way better than Metacritic indicates; that its obvious weakness is actually a strength. But need you promote one of the game's flaws as something the entire industry should adopt? Shame. Rather than spend long hours penning an argument in favour of omitting campaign-play from games, just get to the point: you love R6 and so should we. But developers are capable of more than you're allowing credit for, and consumers deserve more as well.
7:35 Oh shit it's the Shigeru Miyamoto bot! (My brother set him as the dark sim, which is the highest difficulty of bot, rumour has it that it actually teleports.)
Until you explained that bots used to fill the role of dead servers by simulating players, your video sounded like another guy with a microphone complaining about how other people don't like what you like. Good point, I agree, but I didn't understand what your thesis statement was until nearly the end of the video.
I'm so happy to hear your opinion on this. I have been wondering the same thing about Bots. I loved playing Unreal Tournament! In fact my internet was so shitty at the time that basically all I did was play with bots and I absolutely had a blast!
I usually find your videos interesting, but... This seems like a complaining about complainers video, along with what appears to be an ad for Ubisoft/R6 Siege. Not very well done. There was just some sense of you trying to go against what a lot of gamers want because you have some affection for Siege.
yeah, and you're pretty much wrong on this episode. again. the issue is value, not the actual content. we all know the population dies off rapidly for all of these games, we all know the communities tend to suck, we all know the publishers are anti-consumer and frequently just shut down game servers when they aren't making any money. So why buy a game, or give it a good review, when you often run into a situation where you want to go back and play a map or use a gun you really liked a few years ago and relive a memory and you stick the game in the drive and it tells you to take a flying fuck off a building and die? You want to know what I can still do with Halo 1 and 2, along with Battlefield 1942 (since you mentioned them), play the game. Load up dosbox/emulator/xbox and awaaaaaay I gooooooo!
Kill Zone 1 was one of my favourite PS2 games, mainly for the bots (I personally thought the story was kinda cool too.) I remember spending hours playing the same map trying to maintain generators or attacking the Hellgast generators. Really happy you brought up Unreal Tournament, I feel like they could have kept that series going. I remember setting up LAN parties for after school fundraisers, where we had to install the game onto each computer every time we hosted it. Huge hassle, but worth every minute. It was because of those experiences I first got into shooters, prior to that I was all about story driven campaigns. (At home, I had 28k internet at best of times, up until I was 19.) I never had the chance to get into multiplayers unless it was a local connection (I tried getting into CS, but due to lack of decent internet I was never really sold on things like that or Team Fortress) ...Damn, now I miss L4D on my 360. Oh, and Golden Eye for 64. Might be time to break out an emulator.
I do agree with you, that campaigns aren't a necessary feature, especially in games where the multi-player is the focal point. But saying that a game should be rated higher despite the flaws it has just because you assume that everyone cares about it not having a story mode more than the flaws in the multiplayer isn't necessarily right. One of the steam reviews you showed had a whole list of complaints about a game but you only focused on the mention of it having no campaign. If the game is good otherwise, most people won't complain about it having no campain. Such as Battlefield 1942, or Unreal Tournament.
![[Vinesauce] Joel - Super Ghostbusters ( Full Album )](/img/n.gif)
My problem is that System LAN has disappeared entirely , I Would probably buy these campaign-free games if I knew they had a playable future after the servers died.
if we were to look at the current generation , halo 5 as you mentioned(tho has a single player campaign), Rainbow 6 siege, splatoon,SW battlefront,TitanFall. These games completely lack LAN on console and PC according to Co-Optimus.com, these games are completely worthless to me because as soon as server support ends, they do. As for nintendo, theyre no different and backwards as MarioKart DoubleDash and ds iterations had systemLAN, but MK8 doesn't, but the upcoming Pokken Tournament DOES?
I suspect actually private user-run servers were canned as a move against piracy. You can't play pirated online game if you can't connect to official server that checks your license! Publishers also interested in old games dying. They have to sell you new ones after all.
***** Ive never heard of the guy or the channel/show, if you can find the episode , id definitely like to give it a watch.
***** failing@commenting i agree with the possibility of people playing pirated copies and such , but the current model of Zero control for the consumer/ the publisher decides when i can stop enjoying said game is gunna hurt the real bottom line( the company image) in the long run. I mean ,to me , it would be the same as movie companies having the ability to have dvds stop being able to be played because they want you to go buy the bluray version after so many years or book publishers intentionally printing books with time fading ink.
+LlosaTheKing people acctually remember battleforge even after years and recently ea has allowed a reverse engenering of the server. the whole old community is there, everyone i played with at least. dead for 2 years and they all found the battleforge reborn project (5k members, game not even playable yet. that's propably more than what bafo had before it closed). if you played the old battleforge, check out bfreborn.com.
and yes i also feel like the complaint about online only games is not just the lack of campaign. the real issue is that those games WILL die and you can never play them again.
Knew almost exactly where this would end up as soon as the UT99 music started playing, hehe. Nice foreshadowing and very much agreed here.
You too, huh?
Same
I think it's more a problem of triple A games being inflexible in their pricing. it's not that you NEED single player AND multiplayer to charge $60. It's just that there are many games which have in the past and also currently offer both for that price or less. while battlefront was a visually stunning experience it was ultimately shallow and when you consider the special editions, season passes and promise of future dlc, it just felt like a cash grab. the fact that it offered less than the previous game also worked against it
*generally inflexible in pricing. There are outliers but the majority of AAA games come out at full price with special editions to boot
+NommingOnAnAlien I agree 100% with you. I feel bad of paying full price on an MP only game like R6, but then felt bad paying the same price on the new Yoshi game, which is SP only ... I guess its just a feeling of not getting the best for the money you're spending.
00TWB00
Yeah and I think choice is part of it too! Since there are a lot more games out there, we are coming to the point where companies need to be trying to entice us and I mean really entice us. Since games age quite well, the longer we go on, the more likely it is that something has been done in the past and possibly better. So giving us shitty campaigns or overcharging us despite a lack of content, is just bad practice
+NommingOnAnAlien This is something I see come up fairly often; I'm paying the same price I payed 10 years ago, for a game that has less content. But you really aren't paying the same price. With inflation the price of games is actually decreasing, and game development for AAA games is not cheap. They've got teams sometimes into the hundreds that all need to be payed for 3 to 8 years depending. That's a lot of fucking people and a lot of fucking money. And it would cost even more for them to add a campaign. But I think players/buyers have shown that they would rather less content at less price than to pay for inflation and keep constant amount of content.
+NommingOnAnAlien $60 is a necessity for a AAA game that distributes physical media to be sold primarily in order to make a meaningful profit. Companies have been talking for awhile now about how costly distributing physical media is for them. That's why there's been so much talk about companies moving away from physical media and why that's bad for gamers.
As someone who hates the majority of games with online multiplayer, I found that I agree wholeheartedly with this video.
Games that I really used to like to play always had bots, and after a few bad online sessions, I could always go against some bots and pretend I wasn't absolute shit at the game. Since those have gone, I've left most FPS games behind, as the single player campaigns started to become ridiculous set pieces and crate filled hallways, but everyone was playing multiplayer.
And part of me really would support more competitive FPS games if they didn't try to include a campaign. Marketed completely as essentially a video sport, the companies making these games can keep doing what they do best with balancing gameplay and I, as a consumer, would stop feeling so pandered to.
I don't buy multiplayer only games because I don't like playing games against other people. It doesn't mean those games are bad, it just means they aren't for me.
In Star Wars Battlefront 2 the instant action mode just never got boring to me, but a couple of hours of the new Battlefront and I was super bored.
Browncoat Allywang To be fair, everybody got instantly bored of new battlefront.
I don't care for "online only" because if the servers shut down (which they have always done) There's no more game.
It's why I'm laughing about Destiny 1. Destiny 2 is here and in a year or so if you want to play Destiny 1... too bad.
Preach it brother. I know exactly what you mean. With IA, you can choose where, when and who in any order you want. With the new stuff you're just stuck with what you're given.
@@davemarx7856 Heh, weird looking at your comment after 4 years. Destiny 1 is still playable as of March 2022.
I'm fine with a multiplayer-only game releasing with no single player, but when the title is from a franchise *known* for good single player campaign/modes, then all I can really focus on at that point is the removal of features.
+Nison545 But that would be restricting existing franchises and titles to only do what they've done before. With that mindset we wouldn't see mariokart stem from the mario franchise as an extreme example. Think of siege not as a sequel to the R6 single player tactical games of old, but rather a sidestep of new possibilities.
+Jimmy-Jean Kenyon Well, maybe they should make a new franchise then or market it as a spin off title and not a sequel so that consumers will have a much better idea of what to expect.
I don't think it was marketed as a sequel. It bore the R6 name but all media for it explicitly said it was a competitive multiplayer FPS.
+Nison545 I mean its still the Rainbow 6 formula, only multiplayer. And they are very upfront about it being a multiplayer game, and have been for a while.
+Jimmy-Jean Kenyon Removing content a series is known for and going in a different direction are two completely separate things. You could view this as going in another direction. I view it as a sad loss to a once great tactical singleplayer series. (I know there were multiplayer modes) Id rather they called Siege something else completely, cause it isnt Rainbow 6.
I don't see what's wrong with a 78
+Yoshinator
It's less than a 100.
Honestly, I scratch my head every time anybody laments that a game they enjoy gets a low score. To me, what is important, is that *I* enjoyed the game. I couldn't care less that some journo doesn't share my opinion.
+Yoshinator it's not the score in itself, but the reason for deduction of points which results in a lower aggregate score, now a 78 may not seem too bad, but in the world of games many, many customers don't even look at something that doesn't score an average of 8+
+AfroJarl well that's just the problem with X out of X style of reviews. It just ultimately doesn't mean anything it should just be left up to the viewer of the review to see if they want to the game or not.
+Yoshinator It's the reasons for the 78 that he has issue with. Not having a campaign in a game that was made without a campaign in mind is hardly a fault of the game, but the person who wanted a campaign and played a multiplayer game team based shooter instead.
It's like being critical of Witcher 3 because it's not Kingdom Hearts and docking some points off the final mark because of that.
+Yoshinator In the tilted scoring of game reviewing that is basically saying don't bother.
And those scores effect share holding and bonuses depending on the deals in place.
Remember when new vegas was one point on the score from a massive pay out deal?
People in the industry take that seriously since that is the only tangible thing besides copies sold they can show shareholders.
Hell, I STILL play UT2004. It's just a great game. And the bots do make it extremely playable offline. I think that must be all a multiplayer game needs to stay relevant offline. Good bots. And developing a campaign full of scripted events has to cost more than developing decent bot AI. So just make that AI instead.
+Dave Starr Same here !!
+Dave Starr Replayability is key here. The issue with a multiplayer-focused game which lacks both bot AND single player elements is that once popularity declines, the game then becomes dead weight in your digital library. Barring some sort of large organised LAN event, you will never have the opportunity to play such a title again in future, as intended.
The more pertinent question is when did we start judging games primarily as a money vs time investment? Getting your 'moneys worth' has always been a concern, but not to the obsessive extent we see today where it actually shapes game development itself.
+Dave Starr And don't forget community made maps and mods!
I've never played a better Multiplayer shooter than UT2004 with Ballistic Weapons mod and the right settings.
+Dave Starr Agree! I personally consider the never dying interest in zombie modes even in multiplayer games is precisely because people want nonlinear gameplay regardless of skill or other players' presence.
+Dave Starr I think the problem is that the more complex your game is the harder it is to program reasonably competent bots.
I'm with Jim Sterling on this. If they want to remove a obligatory single-player to focus on their multiplayer, which they plan to make into their crowning jewel, then fine. But the extra effort saved should be used to make something to make up for the lack of a single-player. At the moment, the removal of single-player seems just like an excuse to cut content and still ask the same price.
Engaging co-op campaigns are also hard to find these days...
Dying Light has excellent co op.
+Sebastian Chum Has co-op ever been common other than in arcade games?
I agree that the lack of it is a shame.
Have you seen our lord and saviour saints row? Lol
Flynn Taggart saints row has good and fun co op but it doesn't really have meaningful co op, they might as well be a spectator for the story. The co op is definitely fun but it would be nice to see a campaign that put co op into the equation of the story
Last gen had so many co-op games.
Timesplitters, 2 and 3 at least, had these Challenge and Arcade modes where you fought against bots and it greatly extended the life of the game's single player, which was great because the campaign was rather limited. In the Arcade mode you'd fight bots in standard game modes, with the odds gradually stacked against you, aiming for a score or a time. In Challenge mode, the game got weird, like killing zombies with bricks or playing clay monkey shooting. In both you aimed for medals- bronze, silver, gold and platinum. It was great! People might have been a little happier with Battlefront with additions like these ones. Too bad Free Radical went under.
+Feather Wait Timesplitters 3 also had a map creator. Those games gave a lot of content, and were a lot of fun.
+Feather Wait Goddamn I have wanted a new TimeSplitters game for so long...why did you remind me. Also, that's a very good example to consider for this topic.
I just realised I used variations on the word 'great' three times in this post. Eww.
+Feather Wait Free Radical are still limping along as Dambuster Studios. They're currently working on a sequel to, uh, Homefront.
+Feather Wait God the Timesplitters games were amazing
For me personally it is not "no campaign = no buy", it's "no bots = no buy" as I don't care about a story as long as I can play offline.
fucking this. I stopped playing MMOs altogether because I know at a certain point they will die and they will, like Incendere below said, be like burning the actual money you spent on them.
I'm staring to get like this too. BF2 and For honor are fun but I only play against bots
In the one in a billion chance you have of reading this please make a video on the outdated notion that every game from Triple A companies must be $60. Short games, multiplayer only games, and games that try to experiment might be better off if the price tag was less demanding and set unrealistic standards.
Video game prices are better than ever right now. In the 90s those cartridges were $50-80. If you adjust that for inflation, they would be more than $100 today, and some of those games weren't very substantial.
+Renegade Master
Surprisingly, Ubisoft appears to be the AAA publisher that is by far the best with that. Grow Home is 8 bucks, Child of Light and Valiant Hearts are 15 bucks and both Rayman Origins and Legends launched at 30 bucks. All of those titles were not only _published_ by Ubisoft, but also _developed_ by Ubisoft studios.
+Gray Fox Or we could look at the whole picture instead of crying "BUT INFLATION!" against the wall. Because video games back then were also made by significantly smaller teams, over more or less the same period of time.
It also comes as no surprise that the marketing money/development budget-ratio was drastically different back then. Three times you might guess how much of that "development" money for GTA V for example (one of the most expensive games ever made) actually went into buying prime-time spots on TV for advertising.
That's why I really didn't like this video, and there are only a few videos of George I do not like. Just like you, he simply focussed on a single point (which is something he rarely does), and hammered at it, over and over and over again. Rainbow 6 Siege didn't just receive bad reviews because it was multiplayer only, Battlefront didn't just receive bad reviews because it was multiplayer only. Those things came on top of the whole combined mess that made the players angry. It's like punching you in the face, insulting you, *and* shitting on your doorstep. One of those could have been accepted, but the combination makes a rather dissatisfying experience. Especially when there are much better versions of what either of those games offer, for less money, with less advertising and admittedly less shiny, blinkey engines...
I actually prefer playing with bots rather than online. You don't need an internet connection, waiting for a lobby to fill, dealing with 9 year olds crap. WIth bots, you choose how many of the you want, what gamemode you want, and most importantly the difficulty. No longer you will be insta-killed 2 seconds after spawning.
The only downside is that bots may not be as "smart" as real people, but some games have really good bots like Quake 3 arena.
I didn't have internet as a kid and I used to think I was weird as fuck doing this, but I wasn't alone apparently. (Like Star Wars Battlefront 2 Galactic Conquest with my brother) PREACH indeed.
The only problem with bots is that they will always act well like bots, with bots you always know what you are going to get and that can make a stale experience (at least for me) but with players you put a bunch of random people together with varying levels of skill and play styles that I argue you can learn a lot more from than fighting bots. But I do see the appeal of bots though as they can be adjusted to any scenario the game allows.
It is actually possible to create bots who can beat actual players in games. They just have to be toned down so that the player doesn't feel cheated.
It's bad that when you still have to have an internet connection to play with non-human players. Like Overwatch for example even if you custom games the game still requires internet to play with and against bots.
but I mean... defeating bits just Aint the same with defeating real player. The satisfaction is unmatched .
Even though Valve has made many other controversial decisions, their multiplayer games still feature AI, server browsers and full custom mod support. At least one company is still doing it.
Their A.I is not exactly great, but at least they HAVE it.
you realize steam greenlight got removed in february, right
Its very simple. If you are making an online only game, thats fine. Whats NOT fine is charging $60 for an experience that will be worthless when the servers shut down 6 months after launch, as happens with 90% of multiplayer only games.
Put even more simply: Stop charging $60 for multiplayer only games.
+matrix3509 But you are talking just about consoles there. PC multiplayer games don't die because the devs/publishers or console online system decide to shut the servers down.
Just take a look at how many Counter Strike, Unreal Tournament and Quake servers are up on PC, for free, for years.
Full price was a bargain in those games...
+Orange Zone Your really only proving my point. All those games are the exceptions that only serve to prove the rule. For every Counter Strike, there's 9 Titanfalls.
Essentially, this episode is George being butthurt that his super best time supergame got middling reviews, then he feels the need to defend the entire concept of multiplayer only games for 12 and a half minutes because he feels, and is ashamed by, the emasculation most gamers feel when they're told their super best game is actually just okay.
Its pretty transparent and a little sad considering the usual level of quality I expect from George.
+matrix3509 Yeah, don't buy any multiplayer game that doesn't offer dedicated servers.
This also means don't buy consoles and don't buy games on console. When you buy a console, you've already agreed to be at the mercy of manufacturers and publishers who can pull the plug on the whole system any time they like.
+matrix3509 6 months isn't a realistic time frame to shut down servers in. A more accurate time frame would be years, especially considering if it's multiplayer only.
Maybe if these MP-only games actually had the content to justify a $60 price tag then people wouldn't have such a problem with them.
If you've played more than 15 hours of any MP only game then it does have the content to justify it. Most $60 story games are shorter than that.
The problem is that people have become waaay too focused on criticizing games as products. How many hours can I get out of it? How many game modes are there? Is there singleplayer? What about replay value? These are all things that should certainly be an element of criticizing a game, but recently they've become almost the sole concern. Actually good gameplay or story quality is a secondary concern to the amount of content a game offers.
And that's just... That's just something I don't understand at all. You know what game I've replayed probably more than any other game ever? Max Payne. An 8-10 hour linear shooter with no dialogue choices, multiple endings, no multiplayer, no other game modes besides the story. Hell I probably play it ever 6 months or so, none of that shit matters to me. The shooting is so solid, so dynamic, and so endlessly enjoyable that it always makes me want to keep coming back.
Solid design trumps anything else. Who cares if it's got 30 game modes if the gameplay isn't good in the first place. These game critics are seriously insane in my eyes. How is it that Rainbow Six Siege, one of the most innovative, interesting and solidly designed games I've played in years gets a 78? When something like Fallout 4 ends up with an 87?
I've played Fallout 4 for 30 hours and I've played Rainbow Six Siege for over 130 and counting, and I'm not even a multiplayer guy. Content is not more important than design.
+Kolbe Howard Yeah, there is an interesting conversation to be had about people who really get nitpicky about framerate and resolutions over interesting ideas
BARMN89 Well I'm not going to play a game if it's not running at least at 60 fps. That's a different thing. I was more talking about the amount of content rather than game functionality.
I'm one of those people who can't enjoy a game if it's running at sub-60 fps and who doesn't even think 60 is optimal anymore. 144 hz spoiled me.
+BARMN89 There's an interesting conversation to be had about people who look down on those who care about framerate even though they clearly don't understand what framerate is and why it's incredibly important, and thus are the ones who should actually be looked down upon.
Interesting ideas aren't worth anything if they're used in a game that runs like absolute shit. You can have the best idea in the world, but if your game constantly drops to 10 FPS, I'm not playing that bullshit because it's unplayable.
***** I've always said that and people look at me with a surprised look. I don't look at games from a price to hour perspective.
+Kolbe Howard Yeah that's why undertale and portal have such high ratings.. oh wait they don't, they have great rating while being really short.
I just prefer single player because i am anti social and i have bad broadband, and being called noob because i do not play the game for 23 hours a day every day makes me very annoyed.
Also i just find a decent story mode more satisfying. And for me personally i just get bored with the grind in multiplayer then i would with a single player game.
While I feel similarly, that's not really the point. The point of the video is that a game shouldn't be criticized for not having a single-player campaign, not that single-player campaigns are inherently bad or should never be included in multiplayer games. In fact, this kinda supports the presented argument.
Take, for instance, Battlefield 3's horrible tacked-on single-player campaign. Despite this, the game was well received and praised for the multiplayer, where the developers put all their real creative energy. If you aren't going to play the multiplayer mode, which is where the majority of the development time, effort, polish, care, quality, etc. is put, then why would you want to buy it? The high review score for the multiplayer would lead you to buy a game for a bad single player campaign that you wouldn't enjoy because the developers didn't care about; they just put it in because they had to.
Even traditional multiplayer (Co-Op, Split Screen) are much better than online multiplayer!
Eastyy you could use bots,mate,there's many old games that has it,just because they are old doesn't mean they are bad
@@RayOfSunlight984 i remember unreal tournament had some pretty good bots
Rainbow 6 Seige is content light, and when the servers go away, the game disk will become a coaster.
Yet you can still play Rainbow Six 3 and it is still fun.
+popeye2mil Well obviously they didn't because it has none. Those people that cared about offline play are lost sales. I personally like to play shooter campaigns in all my FPSs because they allow you to experience scenarios and mechanics that would be unbalanced or otherwise unsuitable for online play. Indeed, some of the best games I've ever played have been singleplayer only.
Would the recently announced Year 2 for Siege change your opinion now that it has potentially more content than most shooters? (unlocks wise)
No, because it doesn't fix the problem of the game becoming worthless when the servers are pulled.
KeyboardWrecker That's every multiplayer game ever when speaking realistically. And before that happens, the playerbase will either possibly die off if they stop producing content or they announce the sequel.
#BringBackBots
#BringBackBots
I for one miss our robot overlords.
+GammaWALLE Bah, we need to build a wall to keep bots out. Sure they seem nice at first, and then they're using their terrifying steel claws to tear you open and drink your precious fluids!
joesomenumbers A wall like that might require getting a SMALL LOAN OF A MILLION DOLLARS to build.
I was extremely impressed by the bots in Rocket League. There's been a million AI's for FPS games and many of them are dumb as hell. Often racing games don't have the brightest nor fair AI either. But Rocket League on the highest difficulty has some quite impressive behaviour.
+Dennis Fluttershy The complexity of AI would be tenfold for something like siege compared to a more traditional FPS. I've had experiences where I've heard a player on the other side of a wall and preemptively shot through it which is something that would be very hard to get an AI to do like a player would. Also just dealing with the destruction in the game, and the hundreds of small little changes that happen.
+Dennis Fluttershy for that money that they save not doing a campain the can do a grait ai.
+Dennis Fluttershy For a racing game, the AI only needs to know how to rubber band. That's it.
Racing games in single player are so, so shit.
NightShader1 Rocket League AI is pretty good
***** ts pretty good
George, it's simple, and you said it best, there HAS to be somekind of multiplayer die-off insurance.
60 dollars can be a lot, that's Witcher 3's 100 hours of genuine content I can replay 30 years down the line.
I don't depend on the trend, and let's face it, multiplayer only games survive only through trends.
Titanfall was not a bad game, but it died, I can't realistically play that now.
Whereas I can still play Call of Duty 2, 4, 5 etc.
Not saying I *want* shitty campaigns, but it's better than nothing, it's the bread and butter, I should have a way to enjoy what I paid for without strict need of someone else. I NEED an insurance against the innevitable mutliplayer die-off, 1 out of a million enjoys the success of CounterStrike, I'm not willing to bet 60 dollars on yet another trend expected to live long and probably won't. Without AT LEAST bots , you might as well forget any possibility you'll be playing this 5 years down the line.
Problem is that all these games have no campaigns, plus then they become yearly releases that split the community up, leaving multiple games that have barely enough players to be considered active. Then in the wake of lack of popularity, either yet another sequel comes out or the game's support is shut down.
You want to know why we want campaigns? It takes the monotony out of the multiplayer. There's a reason hardly anyone is playing Evolve, Titanfall, or Battlefront EA right now.
+crzymn246 People dont play Evolve, Titanfall or Battlefront bc the multiplayer has no depth and gets old fast, and a 7-8 hour campaign does not fix "monotonous" gameplay. Plenty of multiplayer only games have insane depth and unlimited replayability that a campaign cant offer, I would rather a dev team focus all of their time and assets on a balanced, fun and in depth multiplayer that i can play endlessly instead of a half assed campaign. If I want to play single player there are many great games out right now that i could play instead.
Dazidan Titanfall 2's campaign was highly praised, i don't know why you think it sucks.
I love long campaigns. I don't really care for multiplayer unless it looks like a multiplayer type game, in other words I'll buy a multiplayer heavy/only game if that's what I want out of that particular game or campaign heavy/only game if that's what I want out of that title. Most times (more than 75% of the time) I'm looking for a single player ordeal one where I can take MY time, follow MY decisions, suffer the consequences of MY actions, not to mention that cash is short these days and I can only spend so much and that pretty much means the longest game there that I know has a bitchin story. Give me games like FF7, if Killzone Mercenaries (yes I have a Vita) was longer that would've been an almost perfect game, as is it's still a game that shows what the Vita can do right. Give me games where I hold the balance in my hand, as selfish as it sounds I want the game to focus on me and not the dozen other people in it at the time.
My point is that Multiplayer is good to but as mentioned when devs try to do both single player campaign and heavy multiplayer elements it usually falls short. It's fine to have both but focus on one side of it like 80%-20% or even exclusive... but, they (devs, studios execs) know if they do that they will alienate a certain portion of consumers. Why make (just making up numbers for the sake of argument) 200,000 people extremely happy with a multiplayer only title when you can make a single campaign and multiplayer game that comes out shity because they were trying to do both but sell twice as many? Even if everybody who bought it agrees that it falls short on both aspects, the studio only cares about the bottom line and the bottom line is always cash.
Well, from what I've seen, Battlefront IS a meh-mediocre expensive cash grab with meh DLC that's uninteresting, and it's by EA, a sh*tty publisher... That's got to be part of it.
I'll agree with another user on here and say without any 'campaign' I can't jump on and replay this game 6 years down the road. The servers will most likely be gone. It's almost as if you're just renting Siege. When they're done supporting it. You're dong owning it.
I know there's a lot of different ways to look at things but I'd much rather grab a game like Witcher 3 or MGSV for a full price tag than a game that I know I won't be able to play in the future.
I still have a copy of Black Flag in shrink wrap. I don't have to rush to open it because it's a single player game. It's mine to play it when I see fit.
Thing is though, its been over 6 years since Battlefield 3 came out, and who wants to play that campaign?
If the campaign was good, maybe several people. Halo 1 and 2 and I think 3 came out 10 years ago, and I still replay those campaigns at least once a year.
That’s one of the things that comes with multiplayer though. You aren’t going to get much more value out of a shitty single player campaign anyway. Let them use that time to polish mechanics.
@@Matthew.Morcos That's also the problem. The don't use the time saved to polish the game. They will release it unfinished then charge extra for DLC that should have been in the game to begin with.
Its depends if there is enough content released with a multiplayer only game. SW Battlefront is garbage for example.
Lack of maps is not that game's problem. Lack of good gameplay is that game's problem.
what about team fortress 2 that launched with 3 maps ?
+Zeng Vuh Rainbow Six Siege even has free dlc's
+Crono454 I'd say that Team fortress 2 as it launched was on its own not a good purchase, but it was sold as part of the Orange Box, which was in my opinion a great purchase. Effectively three nice experiences wrapped into one decently priced purchase.
+Weaverdrone tell that to the people that bought it on its own before it was f2p and played the shit out of it was never a 60 dollar buy tho.
Counter Strike GO launched with like 5 of 6 maps.
there's nothing wrong with having little content if all the content is amazing. more of a mediocre game doesn't make it good.
I understand people wanting singleplayer for their shooters. While, the multiplayer focused ones are nice. It does have the problem of server longevity. What happens when those servers are gone? I certainly avoid most games that rely heavily on giving businesses the power of controlling the replaybility with a flip of a switch. The best balance would have to be something along the lines of halo's first three games. They had a good campaign along with local and online multiplayer.
I also think another issue with these multiplayer fps is that they don't exactly have the depth that would even be worth considering. Siege being the exception. Sadly I'd rather not have to think about how many evolves or titan falls we'll have prior to the amount of siege like games we would get. I just cannot get myself to believe in the companies that have shown us that they're more than willing to burn themselves to the ground before making a good product. And their sweat shop practices ruins most uniqueness that we would get if we were to even go the route of server reliant games.
+Big Boss (Naked Snake) If we are talking about PC games, there is always some servers online, at least for the good multiplayer games, even if they have a small, loyal playerbase. And you can always just host a server yourself, if you like, and call some friends to join.
Couldn't agree more.
Orange Zone
Well yeah. But it was more in regards to the business practices that have been going on. They make shallow games and use multiplayer as a means of forcing people to buy their yearly releases.
Big Boss
Yes, I agree on that. Its like just by having multiplayer, people think the package is worth more of its money, when its not necessarily the case.
+Orange Zone battleforge.
I wonder if modern multiplayer games with dedicated servers can be kept running without microtransactions.
Dead Rat But teh cheating...
***** But XBL already lives off of subscriptions. (better than microtransactions imo if the subscription is reasonable)
***** "if the subscription is reasonable"
***** Of course but there's a limit to how one can push the price. 15 dollars monthly for nearly no content to show for is a scam (looking at you, WoW).
***** I can't say anything about XBL, but I've heard that it is quality.
+Dennis Fluttershy The account system between PSN and Xbox Live is identical. Its literally the same system. Both link to offline accounts. Both connect game saves and purchased games by accounts that are offline based.
I don't see what the difference is.
we just want bots and lan support that's it
Ditto, ut2004 with bots is one of my favorite games.
Aza-Industries I enjoy the good 'ol days where most games had bots. Take Duke Nukem 64, for instance. Co-op campaign, 4-player deathmatch which had bots of its own. Also, Conker's Bad Fur Day had bots and some fun game modes.
I have hundreads, if not thousands of bot match hours in UT2k4. Ballistic weapons forever!
Yeah, for me, I don't much care about the lack of campaign. For me, it's the lack of longevity. A decade from now will I be able to pop in Battlefront 2015 and play against some bots? No. Will I be able to setup my own custom matches either on LAN or against bots? No. Is there a server browser right now, so that I can search out for the custom game that I'm interested in playing? No. It's just "Queue up for matchmaking, do something that you might not have been interested in, then leave". I want a game that I can safely invest in, something that will be available for quite a while. Something that I can keep on my digital shelf, and be secure in the knowledge that its lifespan isn't ticking down by the moment. I can go back and play Halo's campaign whenever I want and have a blast, because multiplayer isn't the only available option. But in about a year, will anyone be able to say that about Titanfall on PC? Nope.
Also, I think RS6's biggest flaw is its price. Why pay $60 for an MP-only game when its competitors are asking for $40, $15, or even $0?
Rc3651 "Why pay any money for videogames when there are free games on Newgrounds!"
+A Olson
I believe you're trying to mock my position, but that's a legitimate question that devs have to ask themselves. Why would customers want to buy our product when there are cheaper or free alternatives? What would customers be willing to pay for our product or service?
The devs of Rainbow Six: Siege asked themselves those same questions and ended up deciding their game was too expensive. Within half a year they dropped the price, and they've had regular sales that drop it even lower. I think it's pretty clear that the market demanded a cheaper game because it was saturated with cheaper alternatives, and the company had no choice but to comply.
@@Rc3651 Wow, a game went on sale after a while, like literally every single other game! That totally means absolutely nothing!
I feel like this argument would hold up more water if Bunnyhop looked at the principle of the matter and not using examples of previous games.
UT2k4 and Quake 3 were good value at the time. You just bought a single game that had bots, and let you play online. Not only that they both had SDKs that let you create your own custom content for it. It was almost more akin to a platform where every week there was new content made by other players.
Modern big budget multiplayer FPS games do not have this same kind of value. Almost always what you're paying 60$ for is a game that's incomplete. That requires you to shell out more money down the line with overpriced DLC and map packs to avoid it getting stale.
There's way more competition now than there was in 2001. We live in an era where free to play multiplayer shooters typically have more content than 60$ big budget multiplayer shooters ever will. There's also the fact that most multiplayer shooters tend to die off really fast when they don't have sprawling mod communities. Does anyone still play Titanfall? Or Evolve? The reason why consumers want a campaign is they want value for their 60$. If a multiplayer shooter doesn't give them that value they'd rather buy a sandbox game because they know they'll get what they paid for and it'll last them a long time.
+DeadYorick I think its more down to what games ppl enjoy the most.For example BF hardline actually included an interesting singleplayer campaign in my opinion and a somewhat refreshing take on MP but many ppl rather call it a DLC for BF4 and i get that.Corporate VG reviews are invalid for many reasons most reviews are bought from the big companies.
+DeadYorick Mate i still can play a game of Quake 3 and have fun unlike games like Titanfall,Evolve and Rainbow six in a few months :)That whole video is a whine about his favorit game not having 10 out of 10.
Harper Sanchez
Well 25-34 is not young gamer.Younger gamers are 12-18
Harper Sanchez
Well i am 28 and have seen good games and most modern games... well i won't even bother downloading them for free from piratebay.For my FPS i go to the good old clasics like doom and some good but truly underated games like Singularity,Bulletstorm and Fear.
+DeadYorick Well siege will have all content as free dlc and a season pass that will give players things like chalenges
I rarely see my point of view expressed in these discussions, so I wonder how many other people out there think like me. I do not enjoy multiplayer at all in any form. I don't have the time or desire to become skilled enough at any one games mechanics to enjoy playing the people who do, not to mention how toxic online interactions can be on their own. Multiplayer more often than not just becomes an additional source of stress when all I want to do is unwind.
So, I just ignore multi player only games. I hold no ill will against them. They just weren't made for me. When I bring them up I'm just raising my hand as a lost sale more than anything. If they had put the effort into a decent single player campaign I may have bought it. Maybe there are others that would have as well? Perhaps if enough of us exist and say something they'll make one for us...
I only really become sour when something with huge potential that I know I would have loved neglects me and my single player compatriots. The new Battlefront is such an example. It is so breathtakingly gorgeous. So many reviewers have talked about how it immediately made them feel they were in a Star Wars movie. What potential that had to have an amazing story driven and lengthy campaign for people like me! However, at the end of a day, I shed a tear for what could have been, maybe moan about it a bit online, but I won't hold it against the game. It wasn't made for me.
Rainbow Six Siege is a great example for your argument, but you didn't challenge yourself by bringing up examples like the recent Star Wars Battlefront, a very expensive multiplayer-only title that offers little to nothing innovative.
But dude, it was Star Wars! Star Wars is like, awesome and stuff!
He brushed it aside inplicitly with "it is awful multiplayer doesn't mean the same thing as lacking a single player". Then he used an example of what he feels a good multiplayer only game is to highlight what he thinks the actual problem is rather than a lack of frankensteined single player. Bringing in a terrible multiplayer game will confuse the point because there is so much more wrong with those games than just a lack of single player. There's a lack of depth and content and awful dlc practices and balancing issues and and and.
Blame EA.
+Panimala ...did you watch the video to the end?
I'm not arguing for a tacked-on singleplayer portion, but that game in particular does certainly not have $60-$70 value. AAA games that do single player-only or multiplayer-only need to really be fleshed out to warrant the price tag they put on their games.*****
I approve of the Unreal Tournament music in the background, Bunnyhop. Also, yes, we DESPERATELY need more bots in our games.
I actually thought I'd seen this video. and watching it now I realized I've never heard this argument, and I agree wholeheartedly
As usual, you hit the nail on the head.
I really, really don't think bots are why people are complaining. I didn't care about them then and I sure don't care about them now. I think the issue has far more to do with the games themselves being essentially barebones. It's easier to swallow that a game only has a handful of maps, game modes, and ways to make your character look unique without resorting to a credit card if it's either priced cheaper (like CS: GO or pretty much any other multiplayer-only game that isn't freemium released in the past five years) or it has a single player campaign.
But games like Rainbow Six: Siege really, really want to double dip. They've got a full price game with not a lot of content that ALSO wants microtransaction money AND a slice of the competitive gaming scene where I can almost guarantee you if it really takes off as an e-sport Ubisoft probably won't be treating the players particularly well. When we already know that multiplayer-only games can thrive at far lower price points without any sort of microtransactions, it feels like we're being gouged. I don't think it's unfair to ask that if a game wants to release at $60, it needs to show that the budget wasn't entirely blown on extra polygons and feed us with lots of meaningful content.
Michael Prymula How far it has come :)
Personally, if I wanna play a multiplayer-based shooter, I'd expect it to at least have a single player "training mode." As in, play the regular online maps with bots to get used to the game mechanics and the environments. I guess Quake 3 is the reason I have these kind of standards.
I'm so fine with having multiplayer or single player only games. It allows the developers to focus on one aspect of the game and not have to tack on something wasting time and resources on something that isn't that great. Battlefield originally all was multiplayer. I was happy just buying it because I loved the multiplayer experience. I completely agree with Super Bunnyhop 100%
Oh no
A 78 on metacritic
10:30 "Fans of the well-crafted, single-player campaigns of previous Rainbow Six games will find nothing of value in Siege"
I think Game Informer make a valid point here.
My problem isn't the lack of a "campaign" mode, but more the pricing. The AAA industry seems completely unwilling to charge anything but AAA prices for MP only games. I would probably have picked up Siege if launched for $30, same for Battlefront.
If they're going to start cutting single player content to save themselves money, then they should extend those savings to the player and lower the price of the game. As it stands, AAAs want to put less work into the game and charge the same price for it. That's my problem with the whole situation.
And I think you're a little too concerned about pointless review scores.
When people complain about not having a campaign, I think sometimes they're really saying that there just doesn't seem to be much content for a $60 game. I saw everything there was to see in about the first 2 hours on the game. I wanted to try the game, but not be forced to sponsor Ubisoft's attempt to force another e-sport on the world.
That Perfect Dark gameplays really bring me nostalgia. Such a great game
I gave a like because of so much footage of Perfect Dark, my favorite N64 game.
I'd take bots over a shitty campaign every time.
I dunno man, I'm pretty sure people aren't pissed because these games lack bots. Honestly I've never, EVER heard anyone talk about playing with bots with any form of enthusiasm. I really don't believe that playing with bots is that popular.
People are pissed because they want more content. Over the years we've all gotten used to getting the standard Singleplayer campaign and the multiplayer component in our game, It's what we've come to expect. So naturally people would feel robbed when they see stuff like "multiplayer-only" for the same exact price.
And it appears that most people don't even care about the quality of each component of the game. As long as there's a shit ton of content, the shit-throwing dies down.
I don't really know where I stand on this "issue". I liked Titanfall.
+Bucket You'd be surprised how many people actually enjoy playing with bots, whether they state it as such or not. Like George mentioned in the video, no one mentions Battlefront and Battlefront II's campaign as playing with bots, even though that's exactly what it is. But most people enjoyed the campaigns in those games. Hell, UT's campaign was the same deal. I still call it a campaign, because the goal is to win all of the matches, to get all the trophies and shit.
"I've never, EVER heard anyone talk about playing with bots with any form of enthusiasm." Welp, you're about to hear someone talk about playing with bots (holy shit, I typed 'boys' there) with enthusiasm. I've never played UT, Quake III, C&C Renegade, Battlefield 1942 or Vietnam, Star Wars Jedi Knight II, or Jedi Academy, or any game that has bots in it, online and I probably never will. I play with bots. I LOVE games that have halfway decent bots. Hell, the first two Battlefront games had pretty terrible bots, even, and I found those fun.
And even outside of whether or not something is fun, bots are great for online longevity of a game. Painkiller was a game that had a pro gaming scene back in the day, but it didn't last for very long at all. It didn't die because the multiplayer was bad - in fact, Painkiller's MP was kickass, but you can't expect to cultivate a longstanding online community when there's nothing for them to learn from to begin with. New people who joined PK's MP matches just got wrecked in an instant by people who had been there from the start and knew the game inside and out. It was a competition between those directly on the skill floor, and those on the top of the rather high skill ceiling, and there was no way that could ever change. So bots are important for such games, and for more than just having fun killing AI.
+Bucket
Bots are the reason I played games like UT for 5+ years. I played online when that was the only option (usually meaning the creators of a particular mod hadn't added bot support yet.)
The lack of "campaigns" for good multiplayer centric (opposed to multiplayer *exclusive*) titles like that doesn't matter since there's a absolute wealth of offline-accessible content, nothing is cordoned off arbitrarily.
***** Nonono, YOU found Quake 3 fun because you could hop on and railgun your friends as a skeleton that could jump 15 feet in the air. That's not why *I* find it fun, so do me a favor and don't tell me what is and isn't fun for me. Thanks.
With that said, it's clear your idea of a campaign is that it needs to be System Shock 2 or something, as opposed to just a loosely connected string of bot matches. A campaign can be whatever fits the game's concept. Battlefield 3 and 4's campaigns are shit because the game's focus - the multiplayer - has an ENTIRELY different thing going on. The campaign and the multiplayer had no real shared themes or mechanics. Let's not forgoet Spec Ops: The Line, which had multiplayer that had the same problem. The game's focus - the single-player - was a decontruction of the modern military shooter's campaigns, and the multiplayer just tried to be a typical modern military shooter multiplayer mode, going against the entire point of the game. Quake III and UT's campaigns might not be very in-depth, but they remain perfectly true to the core concepts of the game, and THAT is what makes them fun to people, as well as people like myself (who don't like people) being able to have the multiplayer experience without all the bullshit. Tada.
+Bucket I really enjoyed playing with bots, back when they existed! In games like UT2004 or CS you can create pretty interesting scenarios by setting up bots in different ways (different number of fighters, difficulty level, which weapons they can use, modifiers...), fighting them co-operatively with a friend, that sort of thing. And while you're doing that you're practicing skills you can take to the multiplayer gameplay, so you won't be completely worthless when you start out.
Bot matches gave me a level of control that modern Left 4 Dead style co-op games don't have. Not to mention those are usually 4-player, and I really can't get four friends together at the same time to play the same game, and strangers are barely tolerable when I'm fighting *against* them...
***** Okay, then there you go. It's a good thing no game that uses bots in its campaign has such a plot then, eh?
I'd ask you to watch Jim Sterling's video "The Multiplayer-Only Problem", where he likes the concept, but explains frustration with multiplayer only games still having a lack of content as if they still had singleplayer modes at a $60, leaving customers feeling cheated.
+Lars Singh *$60 price point, and that some newer multiplayer only games have the same or even less content than the original games with both single and multiplayer modes, and more of a push for DLC/microtransactions/season passes just to get the standard amount of content you would expect at that price.
they watch each other's shows. They've also discussed the difference of opinions regarding multiplayer games when George was a guest in Podquisition.
StrikeWarlock Oh thanks, I don't ususally listen to his podcasts. Should be interesting.
One thing to consider is that often these multiplayer-only games come at the cost of a game where you'd typically expect to see a campaign and multiplayer component. I didn't *want* a campaign in Battlefront 3 in the sense that I wanted a narrative-based mission list - but I certainly *felt* like I was paying enough to warrant one. £40+ for a multiplayer only game as sparse as Battlefront 3 stings, and makes you want for, or at least expect, much more.
Thank you so much for weighing in on this. These are my thoughts exactly. Multiplayer only games have been around for a long time. Bots were an important feature that seem to have just vanished. And great singleplayer games have had tacked on multiplayer just like how great multiplayer games now have tacked on singleplayer. I'm not upset that these recent games have made this move. I'm glad that they recognize what they wanted to be and became that wholly. I do wish SW Battlefront was closer to Battlefield in terms of gameplay and quality, but I don't miss its excuse for a singleplayer game.
I think a big part of people's concern is, as you said, the longevity of a title. Once the players move on or the servers go down, the game is dead. UT99 is still a viable game to buy and enjoy even today because it has great AI for bot matches and multiplayer.
And great music choice. Unreal is a classic.
What you seem to be missing is the people like me. People who said "This is a multiplayer only game? Then I'm not gonna buy it!" to Rainbow Six Siege not because a multiplayer only fps is a no-no. But because we really fucking wanted a singleplayer Rainbow Six experience. I see little to no value in multiplayer games since they are in 9 out of 10 cases not for me.
+PcKaffe He didn't miss people like you. The answer he gave was bot matches.
mightyNosewings no, you are misunderstanding what me and a lot of people wanted from Rainbow Six Siege. They wanted a proper single player game in the same way say Deus Ex Human Revolution was a single player game. Bot matches is not close to that. I mean a story, proper missions made for singleplayer and not just multiplayer maps with bots.
mightyNosewings But obviously not with Deus Ex like gameplay...
PcKaffe
But that's patently _not_ the kind of game Rainbow Six Siege, I mean, that's like buying Dark Souls and being disappointed that it was too hard, or that it wasn't an arcade shooter.
Hell, it's like complaining that TF2 or CS:Go don't have campaigns. They're not that kind of game!
mightyNosewings I know, but my point is that it should have been. Since all the previous Rainbow Six and most of the related Tom Clancy games had great campaigns.
Certain multiplayer only games just begs for a single player because of the unique world they crafted. Overwatch and Titan Falls both created an interesting world with interesting lore and concepts that are wasted if not explored.
Rainbow Six Siege came from a heavily story driven franchise. That is why people are disappointed when it turns out to be purely multiplayer. However, there is an irony to this because Siege feels more like an old fashion Rainbow Six game in a sense because of how easily you can die with one wrong move or a bad game plan. Siege's multiplayer only gameplay managed to recreate the slow paced planning and the quick reaction time in execution needed of the classic.
CS:GO
But that game was also $20 (?) at release.
Rainbow Six Siege is not worth $60, it lacks the necessary content.
+Turtoi Radu To you maybe, but I've more than gotten my money's worth out of Siege, with about 100 hours put in so far, and with free dlc on the way, I'll probably get 100 more.
Swiggins Don't employ relativism bullshit, it ain't working here. The games lacks maps, a map editor and the support for community made mods. That is unacceptable, to lack such basic features. And let me guess, I can't even host my own server, right?
Yeah, totally a $60 experience. There are free to play shooters with more, well, anything.
+Turtoi Radu The lack of content is more than compensated ith its depth. Sure, there aren't a lot of maps, but every game plays so differently that it doesn't matter.
chcuc That's every single tactical or semi-tactical shooter out there.
+Turtoi Radu Then please tell me what kind of game offers RB6 style of gameplay??
Saying "there are F2p shooters with moore,well,anything." doesn't help anyone.
I usually don't comment on a Super Bunny Hop vid. Your videos are so thorough and thought-provoking there's literally nothing to add usually. :)
You really dropped the ball on this one george. People arent asking for singleplayer in multiplayer focused games, they are asking for assurance that the game wont completely die when support ends
I respect your opinion, but I don't see how this is good. At all. I for one can't stand the whole multiplayer/online experience and developers creating online only games is mereley the beginning. If we start off with statements like "yeah alright just online play" It's probable we may never see a "normal" videogame in the future. I think people putting campaigns on their FPS games is a way to please bith parties. If they see how cost eficient it is to create nothing but online multiplayer experiences, then why bother with actually creating a scripted videogame anymore? I usually agree with you George but I think you're failing to grasp the seriousness of this issue. Developers getting lazier for the sake of MORE FUCKIN MONEY.
But he pointed out several examples of games that were pretty much multiplayer-only from over a decade ago, where the only single-player consisted of bot matches. Nobody derides Quake III Arena for eschewing the single-player modes of Quake and Quake II.
And honestly I can think of places where games had campaigns that were so bad that their absence would not be missed (Battlefield 3, for example).
+William Writepony True, however I never really Liked Quake III or bot fight video games. I understand that it's not only bad because I MYSELF don't like it, but considering the way the industry is today (like Konami killing its major franchises for more profitable pachinko machines) I can't see how online only video games can do anything but set us, non online multiplayer gamers, back. It will soon turn into a trend and that's scary.
Now when it comes to Battlefield you're right. I remember playing the campaign and being like: "MAN, WHY do people LOVE Battlefield so much if this shit is just AWFUL"? Then my kid brother told me how it's all about online play.
+Criticas QLS I agree, George is shilling out for Amazon.
People will NEVER stop making single player games. Its a really exaggerated fear to think online will wipe single player out entirely
+Criticas QLS it seems that you dont understand how not only the industry works but the world works itself. you're behaving like the demand on single player only games will vanish because some people have a multiplayer only experience in their minds and dont want to do the campaign/MP thing. why bother spending resources on a scripted piece of shit that stinks and is pretentious to no end when you can make a solid MP experience that will give hundreds upon hundreds of hours to its players? or why bother doing a subpar MP instead of pouring all of your efforts into an immersive single player? you seem to think that being a jack of all trades and master of none is the best thing ever but no its not and its certainly not what we all want from every developer. if developers think that they need to ditch one of the two to make the maximize the potential of the other then so be it and you as a gamer should be happy about it cause you will be getting the best that can be made of one of them. and stop behaving like jack of all trade games will disappear just cause. and the excuse about developers wanting more money, look here mate, not every publisher or developer are an EA of some sort and even if they are we can easily tell and call them out on it.
For me its a combination of factors, Price, Bots, Campaign, Content etc.
and while not so much of a big deal to me one major problem I see is competition. Unlike those days of UT and Quake there is now such a large amount of competition, any FPS released on pc will have to fight against counterstrike and team fortress for example.
These games will need to be worth the value proposition and in comparison to those two games its often not worth spending the $60 for a game with less content and a smaller playerbase. and on top of that you have games like battlefront which are charging a further $50 for additional content that will be required to play with the community.
Personally all I would want from these games campaigns would be what battlefront 2 did, bot matches with a small story to tie them together, no need for grand expensive campaigns in multiplayer focused games but there should be a way for people to play offline in titles that are full priced in my opinion.
As you said rainbow 6 siege is the standout but people have been burned by games like evolve and titanfall in the past so they are very hesitant to spend that much money on a game which might be dead a couple months from now.
#Bringbackthebots
aka, why Bunnyhop is butt-hurt that his new fav game is so low on metacriric.
But in all seriousness, you got me to rethink about no campaign video games, and all around great video. Though I think one way people would complain (and I'm not using complain in a derogatory manner) is possibly a price drop to $50 for online-only/focused games? Eh? I don't know.
Guypersonmanthing3 I would say $30-$35 for online only.
So do singleplayer only games also get a price drop? I think you missed the blurb about how tacked on these ginleplayer modes on online games, and vice versa, typically are.
bots in perfect dark were incredible. even now it is hard to name games that give that much.
Well yeah... The way i understand "online only" means no campaign and no offline matches with bots.
I didn't consider quake3 or battlefield 1942 'online only'. In fact i played them almost exclusively offline with bots.
I think the reason why people get annoyed with games that are truly only online, is that once online population moves on/disappear all your progress, gear, (potentially paid for) cosmetic items, and the game itself in general are no longer accessible.
And it is all based on unreliable determining factor of 'playerbase longevity' (or sometimes how cheap developers/publishers are with upkeeping their servers). Which only seems to be leading to the fear of missing out. Fancy trying out (excellent) hunt: showdown? Well, better do it now, because it might be dead in a year, or 2, or 3. Escape from Tarkov looks interesting? Better get that new gaming pc now, because that game might be gone or have a skeleton of it's population in a year's time. So you might need to get ready to play exclusively with sweaty try-hards (andcheaters because devs gave up keeping them away) and people from around the globe, because there isn't enough people from your region to populate a lobby.
Trying to play "old" CoD games like advanced warfare online, is a great example of that, and i dare anyone to try to find a match in one of the dlc modes or maps for BF3 or 4.
I can still play quake3 or bf1942.
I can no longer play hybrid, lawbreakers or planetside:arena.
Metal Gear Online 3 was a massive flop to what MGO2 was for me. To the point where I think the old community is designing a spiritual successor to MGO2.
+Marko Rabasovic Same was MGO2 to MGO. MGO2 tooked a whole until it was fun to play and MGO3 just started for most players. Im still waiting for DLC and stuff and until now i like what they are doing with MGO3 and MGSV. They are still balancing MGO3 and adding stuff to MGSV and i hope they will start adding new game modes and new maps.
Having never played either, what was the main difference? I was going to start my PS+ subscription for Street Fighter V, and I was also planning to get into MGO3 before I read this comment
+Erk1234567 MGO 3 still needs a lot of balancing but I would say give it a shot anyway the MGO2 community was a very tight knit group, I remember trying to get into it and finding it very difficult. even starting up MGO2 required you to have a konami ID with an extra password you needed to remember.
Erk1234567 It's mainly the fact that they added classes to the game. Which now has restricted certain weapons and skills to a specific class. MGO2 did not have classes but rather 4 slots for skills to choose from. Each skill leveled up respectedly based on how much you used that said skill. For example "Runner+" allowed your character to naturually move faster, you would level this skill by the amount of steps taken during ranked matches. Most skills hit a max level of 3, and some skills would take up more than one slot based on its level.
Other things they took away in MGO3 were things like lobby system, naming your own rooms, and customizing specifications and map load out for said room etc etc They also took out text chat as well during matches.
+Marko Rabasovic the problem with MGO3 is the sprinting if you could disable it would make the game much more enjoyable plus the maps are boring and some game modes are lacking.
the real problem with online only games is that they will not stand the test of time. Once those servers are shut off (and they will be shut off) that game is gone for good. that's one less game in the world, and that's a damn shame. even if the offline element in a game is trivial when it comes out, it certainly won't be down the line when there are no more people to play with but you want to look back at that game and experience it again.
Bots, IMO, ARE a huge things which I miss. That, and, maybe more than that, local multiplyer. A shooter with no local multiplayer on bot matches is automatically a bit lacking. A shooter with no bots is even more lacking though, of course.
Oh, and Star Wars Battlefront 2? I honestly loved that campaign. And ya, it WAS just a bot match with some extra mission objectives, window dressing and story. I still play it sometimes nowadays, and it is awesome.
I 100% agree on the whole bot thing. I was (well, still am) a huge fan of bots. It might seem kind of strange, but I have a little bit of anxiety when playing multiplayer games so when I just want to wind down for a bit of fun and not have to worry about people, I used to just wreck bots on whatever game I was playing at the time. It's truly a feature that is greatly missed, and hopefully, somehow, they'll make the comeback they deserve. Thanks for the great video! I love your stuff; they're some of the most well versed and thought out video game videos on youtube.
I am thankful for this channel, it is the only gaming channel I tend to watch these days. No over abundance of silly lets plays, pontification, no looking down upon viewers and good quality journalism. It is the kind of channel I have been waiting for so long.
Calling Uncharted Multiplayer tacky is a bit ignorant. People actually really love the MP for Uncharted, it's quite good.
My problem is that multiplayer games die eventually, so at some point all the money you spent will become a waste, so it feels weird to pay 60$ for a game that will become useless at some point, I'm not asking for full campaigns, although a good one is always welcome, but give me plenty of maps, game modes and options to get a fun experience with bots, and charge me less than 30$
The worst Counter-Strike game ironically is the one with the campaign mode tacked on.
I still think CS:CZ and Deleted Scenes are the best cs games.
Bruh cs:cz wasn't the worst by a long shot. It's just an improved version of cs1.6 with more singleplayer content.
cs nexus zombies is probably the worst one.
Nice use of Unreal Tournament music there.
Back when I was 11 or 12 I played that game offline for dozens of hours, and while I certainly didn't get thrills as intense as those that played it online, that was an absolutely perfect introduction to arena shooters. It's still the reference of its genre as far as I'm concerned and I still come back to it every once in a while to kick some bot ass.
Don't even get me started on all the joy a single player could get out of Perfect Dark's multiplayer.
Man I miss bots.
7:29
Anyone remember the "Dark" bots in Perfect Dark? They were almost unbeatable under normal circumstances. They would b-line to the best weapons, then b-line to a shield, then b-line to *you*. They would almost instantly shoot you in the head with 100% accuracy.
No no no! I understand why certain games don't need campaigns, but when you are using a franchise such as Rainbow Six not having a campaign is the worst thing you could do. Rainbow Six's story and strategic focus on singleplayer is what it was known for. Ubisoft taking Tom Clancy's franchise to make it into an e-sports monster. Battlefield, Unreal Tournament, tribes, etc. were known for their multiplayer and I loved them for what they did. I disliked the BF3 campaign, and wished it never was a thing, but that would mean that BF3 would need bots. I enjoyed what games were KNOWN for, not for what they became.
Unreal Tournament was a sequel to Unreal, which was a purely singleplayer game. Just shows the hypocrisy of these kinds of arguments.
@@aolson1111 That's why I used Unreal Tournament and not Unreal. They continued to make both in tandem of eachother. I didn''t buy an Unreal game for its multiplayer as I didn't buy an Unreal Tournament game for its singleplayer. They aren't making 2 separate games for the series. They just made 1 game that is how they want this franchise to go and it sucks. Zero tangible story, bastardization of the original story, and a dumb as shit esports model that has next to no hold on what was Rainbow Six.
You know what this commentary is missing? Any mention of split screen MP. You miss bots? I miss being able to play with my friends in the same room.
And I'm tired of hearing about graphical fidelity as an excuse. Every four player game since Goldeneye has had to dance around the hardware limitations. And on PC there's no excuse either. More and more people are using their PC as their living room console. I play four player Serious Sam, Rocket League, Bro Force, all the time on the time with controllers and it's a blast!
The fact that SB went on this long ass rant without mentioning it even once, just shows how far outside the active player consciousness split screen (or LAN) is and how successful most developers have been sneaking that feature off the table, looking around to see if anyone noticed, then permenantly keeping it off forever.
I feel like you've editorialised the title of this video, which is fair enough, yet in doing so you kinda miss the major complaints about online only games. Ross from Accursed farms is probably the clearest voice on this topic. Longevity of the game becomes a problem, as does the very possibility of actually owning the product/service your money is supposed to buy. You purchase a game, yet rely on the seller's good will to continue playing it. In online only games that rely on proprietary servers that the seller can just turn off, players are entering into a kind of contract that leaves them at the mercy of the seller. The analogue in other products/services contracting would be if a car dealership decided to turn off the engine in a car they already sold you, all because they figured it was more cost effective for them that way. The end result is that games built from the ground up to be online only are dying, and their sellers are not willing to put up with the cost of living up their part of the contract.
That's why we need bots. This was addressed in the video but you commented it anyways.
I am still to this day playing Star Wars: Battlefront with bots on my PS2.
The problem many people have is that they feel ripped off. MP-only games don't have more content than SP+MP ones. In case of the latest culprit - Battlefront - it actually has less content than is normally accepted. It feels like developers are doing less work for same pay, which is why a lot of people are pissed.
I played every single Call of Duty game just for singleplayer campaign. My hype for multiplayer in that started with MW1 and ended with MW2. Anyway, forced campaing wouldnt make Siege better; good, interesting and polished campaing would make Siege alot better.
I like how you edited you're comment at least once but didn't bother to fix the spelling mistake 👌
There is a enormous difference between a good extra mode and a needed extra mode. I mean, things like classic mode or baseball from Super Smash Bros are fun but totally unnecessary, and the lack or existence of it shouldn´t affect the score that games deserve.
Anyone remember M.A.G? No? That's why online only sucks...
+MadmanRobi Online only is fine, CSGO , Dota 2 , battlefield 2 ...etc. Are all amazing.
+RIP In Peace Seamus I'm not saying they aren't amazing. I'm saying they won't last. Dota 2 is the exception, not the rule. So many games that are online only become either unplayable or boring, due to so few players, once a few months pass, and everyone moves on. Look at any MMO that isn't WoW, any shooter that isn't Call of Honor-Field, or Gears of Halo, (im aware those arent online only, but online is the heart of the community, so I think you get my point) or hell, any fighting game that isn't the most recent one. Even if they still have players, it's usually the hardcores who drive new players away, killing it's future audience. If it's only online, that's all that's gonna happen to it.
Although I'd love to Throwdown in TF2...
MadmanRobi It's not a matter of exception or rule it is a matter of Good or bad. Bad games won't last for obvious reasons. But on PC most Great games still have at least 1 or 2 full active servers to join with an avid community.
those 250+ person battles were freaking great... i miss that game... especially now that my internet is better...
At least Planetside 2 is a thing now for mass warfare games
Anyone remember Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake's revenge? That's why campaign only games suck.
Another reason for the bad reviews of Tom Clancy 's Rainbow Six Seige is the irony. Think about it? A game inspired by the stories of a famous author doesn't have a story. Really, really, are you serious?
+Riley Krug never even thought of that, Ubisoft is really just milking his name for all its worth aren't they.
+chief erik "Tom Clancy's" The Division isn't even a shooter anymore. It's an MMO.
+chief erik yep
+Michael Prymula How the fuck is the title relevant to the quality of the game at all?
Are you seriously implying the TITLE should impact the score? Fucking moron.
Oh, and Rainbow Six does have a story, just no story mode.
+Riley Krug You mean games inspired by stories written by ghost writers that pretended to be Tom Clancy? I think that suits it perfectly.
You hit the nail on the head, I have never even played Battlefront 1 or 2 online and yet I still hold it in such high regard because of the existence of bots.
Ah, the UT2004 music makes me so nostalgic of the good old days...
I agree with most of what you said, but I don't understand why you care so much about that metacritic score. Ratings are pretty meaningless. For example: Dark Souls 2 has generally higher scores than Dark Souls 1 on there lol
Believe it or not, those who consider ratings meaningless are the minority. Most mainstream buyers use ratings as part of their choice process.
+CaitSeith It's not the number that's the telling part, though, for me at least. Its the difference between the user score and critic score. You can get a good idea of what kind of game you're getting into just from comparing both numbers, like if a game is "artsy" and as a result none of the critics want to come off as "uncultured", giving it 9/10 across the board, yet everyone else thinks that it is complete garbage.
That or they were all bought out. Either way, best be careful.
+IReiteThat Dark Souls 2 also has inarguable better balanced combat.
- A much better mixture of telling you lore with letting you figure it out on your own.
- Much better lore on top of that anyway.
- Better characters.
- More characters.
- More weapon variety.
- Extremely good multi-player with much much less leaping back-stabs.
- Better mechanics in terms of things like hollowing.
- And a much much more enjoyable NG+ then the original.
- And is a significantly longer game.
- And has a much better frame-rate and graphics.
Just because it lacks good visual monster design, is a little more cheap and lacks maze-like levels and a super memorable final boss doesn't make it a worse game.
*****
Meh, the mod fixes that. The experience of Blighttown is far better in PC than in XBox 360 (no framerate dropping to single digits)
*****
Yeah, but Blighttown in the XB360 is almost unbearable.
I don't have a problem with a game that is multiplayer only. But GOD DAMN, price them accordingly. New SW Battlefron is the prime example of shitty multiplayer game that is bare bones and still has the audacity to ask for 60 euros for an initial release and 50 euros for a season pass. Then you check prices of CS:GO - 11 euros, Insurgency - 15 euros, which, besides graphics not being impressive, has more to offer for players and for way lower price. And let's be real, games like these will exist long after the Titanfall, call of dutys, battlefronts, etc. because at least they have LAN capabilities, which has become a taboo around game companies like EA, Ubisoft...
But no one is changing their opinion... they just don't want campaign to leave, because sometimes you need to play alone to feel good.
I've never been into multiplayer. I enjoy a good 10+ hour long with a well written or at least entertaining narrative. Games like MGSV where I have multiple ways of dealing with a situation or Pokemon where I can explore a vast world and command forces of magical creatures to battle others to decide who's the best. I'm also a console gamer so if I ever did get into multiplayer I'd have to pay a fifty dollar subscription to use Playstation Plus if I wanted to Metal Gear Online or the Uncharted multiplayer. But I don't see that happening.
Bots are definitely the one single reason why 2005's bf 2 is still held in higher regard than 2017's
"Asking for a campaign in a multiplayer fps is a misguided statement."
No, it's not. Customers have a right to complain since they're the ones buying the product. If servers go offline, YOU CAN'T PLAY THE GAME. If the vast majority of people stop playing or the game reaches the end of its life cycle, YOU CAN'T PLAY THE GAME. Also, all previous Rainbow Six games have had a single player campaign. To say that customers are making "misguided statements" over missing features that have been present in past games is ludicrous and poorly thought out.
If you want to make a multiplayer only game, fine. Do it. But don't charge premium price for it. You also imply that companies should just ignore single player campaign in mp-focused games because they suck anyways, but I argue that they should strive to make BETTER campaigns rather than abandon the idea entirely.
bring back bots!
10:20 ... ah, I get it. This 13-minute essay is supposed to convince us that your current favourite game is way better than Metacritic indicates; that its obvious weakness is actually a strength. But need you promote one of the game's flaws as something the entire industry should adopt? Shame. Rather than spend long hours penning an argument in favour of omitting campaign-play from games, just get to the point: you love R6 and so should we. But developers are capable of more than you're allowing credit for, and consumers deserve more as well.
I play FPS games so rarely that I didn't know that most recent ones didn't have matches against bots... I am becoming a cavewoman :'D
7:35 Oh shit it's the Shigeru Miyamoto bot!
(My brother set him as the dark sim, which is the highest difficulty of bot, rumour has it that it actually teleports.)
I'm more fan of the "Never spend more than 20 dollars on a PC game" policy.
steam sales :3
Would you prefer to spend 60 bucks on a console game :P
Until you explained that bots used to fill the role of dead servers by simulating players, your video sounded like another guy with a microphone complaining about how other people don't like what you like.
Good point, I agree, but I didn't understand what your thesis statement was until nearly the end of the video.
No, he's complaining that your argument is stupid and inconsistent.
Well George.... maybe... you liked Rainbow Six Siege and other people not so much.
I'm so happy to hear your opinion on this. I have been wondering the same thing about Bots. I loved playing Unreal Tournament! In fact my internet was so shitty at the time that basically all I did was play with bots and I absolutely had a blast!
I subbed your channel because you share my opinion about games since 2009, and I share your passion of MGS3.
I usually find your videos interesting, but...
This seems like a complaining about complainers video, along with what appears to be an ad for Ubisoft/R6 Siege. Not very well done. There was just some sense of you trying to go against what a lot of gamers want because you have some affection for Siege.
yeah, and you're pretty much wrong on this episode. again. the issue is value, not the actual content. we all know the population dies off rapidly for all of these games, we all know the communities tend to suck, we all know the publishers are anti-consumer and frequently just shut down game servers when they aren't making any money. So why buy a game, or give it a good review, when you often run into a situation where you want to go back and play a map or use a gun you really liked a few years ago and relive a memory and you stick the game in the drive and it tells you to take a flying fuck off a building and die? You want to know what I can still do with Halo 1 and 2, along with Battlefield 1942 (since you mentioned them), play the game. Load up dosbox/emulator/xbox and awaaaaaay I gooooooo!
*****
Take a moment. Read my comment again. take particular note of the second sentence, and the words after it.
+OrbitalRescueSage Yeah, I think the solution is to stop buying games without dedicated server support.
Kill Zone 1 was one of my favourite PS2 games, mainly for the bots (I personally thought the story was kinda cool too.) I remember spending hours playing the same map trying to maintain generators or attacking the Hellgast generators.
Really happy you brought up Unreal Tournament, I feel like they could have kept that series going. I remember setting up LAN parties for after school fundraisers, where we had to install the game onto each computer every time we hosted it. Huge hassle, but worth every minute.
It was because of those experiences I first got into shooters, prior to that I was all about story driven campaigns. (At home, I had 28k internet at best of times, up until I was 19.) I never had the chance to get into multiplayers unless it was a local connection (I tried getting into CS, but due to lack of decent internet I was never really sold on things like that or Team Fortress)
...Damn, now I miss L4D on my 360. Oh, and Golden Eye for 64. Might be time to break out an emulator.
Glad someone with real exposure talked about this. This shit has been bugging me for years.
I do agree with you, that campaigns aren't a necessary feature, especially in games where the multi-player is the focal point. But saying that a game should be rated higher despite the flaws it has just because you assume that everyone cares about it not having a story mode more than the flaws in the multiplayer isn't necessarily right. One of the steam reviews you showed had a whole list of complaints about a game but you only focused on the mention of it having no campaign. If the game is good otherwise, most people won't complain about it having no campain. Such as Battlefield 1942, or Unreal Tournament.