Log in or sign up to comment
25 Comments
Posted by TechnoHermit

I recently completed the single player portion of Might & Magic: Clash of Heroes for PlayStation 3. It took just a shade under 45 hours, over the course of several weeks, to complete the story and earn all of the single player trophies. I haven't even played online yet. This game sells for $14.99 and I would have gladly paid more. It has incredible value for the length as well as quality of content.

About 4 months ago I borrowed Modern Warfare 2 from my brother, so I decided I would finally play it and give it back to him. As of this writing, I am 4 hours into it and I know I'm at least three quarters of the way through. When finished I will have most of the trophies. I am enjoying it very much, but this game is just way too short for the cost. It sold for $59.99 when it released. I did not buy it, but I kind of feel bad for those that did if they expected a reasonably long single player campaign for their money.

I guess sales sale figures don't lie (much). Take a look at this and this. People obviously want to play Modern Warfare (online probably) more than Clash of Heroes. I'm more of a single player type of person (I play online a bit) and I just can't bring myself to pay full price for a fraction of a game. I get that these are two different types of games. I understand that Modern Warfare 2 was expensive to make, and I don't blame developers and publishers for trying to cut costs. I just wish it didn't have to be at the expense of reasonable single player game length.

This was also posted at  http://www.supergamerbros.com.

 
Posted by Guided_By_Tigers

More multiplayer please.

Posted by iam3green

it's all about multiplayer now. i agree more single player games. it's awesome to play single player. i'm playing uncharted and it's nice to see a great single player game. i don't have to hear other people yelling into the mic.

Posted by FluxWaveZ

There are plenty of long single player games.

Posted by Leafhopper

Single player games definitely are in the minority now. I don't know whats worse though a mutiplayer only game that has a campaign for single player yet it is all Multiplayer based (Lost Planet 2) or a game that makes the single player a tacked on feature.

Posted by GunslingerPanda

I agree.

Posted by McBEEF

I always prefer games with a long single player, and if they have unlockable challenge modes or cheats then even better-online multiplayer based games just get old real fast for me

Posted by SlasherMan

I've been on a strict SP gaming diet in the past few months having had enough of online play and dealing with idiots. Still enjoying it, and a good chance to go through my backlog.
I may yet be able to get to the point where I don't own a game I haven't played!

Posted by Video_Game_King
@FluxWaveZ said:
There are plenty of long single player games.
Exactly. Three of the games that I still need to play are pretty much single player, and that's not even including PC games. Including those, I can only think of one that focuses on multiplayer. I should probably qualify all that by saying that these aren't very obscure games that I'm talking about.
Posted by BraveToaster
@FluxWaveZ said:
There are plenty of long single player games.
Indeed. 
Posted by Napalm
@Axxol said:
@FluxWaveZ said:
There are plenty of long single player games.
Indeed. 
I agree. There certainly are, but the ratio of compelling (and long-er) single player-focused games are vastly outnumbered to those that use multiplayer as the main focus. I'm not making this statement statistically, I am simply going by feel.
Posted by nintendoeats

I don't want longer single player. 6-8 hours is a good length. Longer games tend to wear out their welcome before I finish them.
 
There are exceptions of course.

Posted by FancySoapsMan

I haven't played a MP game in months and I've been using my 360 and PS3

Posted by FluxWaveZ
@Napalm said: 
I agree. There certainly are, but the ratio of compelling (and long-er) single player-focused games are vastly outnumbered to those that use multiplayer as the main focus. I'm not making this statement statistically, I am simply going by feel.
I don't doubt that, but I would doubt anyone who would tell me the amount of single player games are lacking. Just last week, 2 big single player titles were released. If one's complaining about the amount of multiplayer games, one's just complaining for the sake of it without considering the fact that there's plenty of what that person still wants.
Posted by Grumbel

Spread across all games, I don't think singleplayer is lacking at all, as there are tons and tons of high profile single player games (LA Noire, Witcher 2, Portal 2, etc.). Even some more Multiplayer focused games such as Mortal Kombat include a lengthy story mode and plenty other things to do in single player. The whole multi- vs singleplayer is only really an issue when it comes to the first person shooters, as everybody there tries to jump the CoD train and thus the single player campaign, which is still present, often feels a little short and underdeveloped. That said, we still have another DeusEx coming, Bioshock 3 is on its way and games like Fallout 3 also have plenty of FPS elements in them.

Posted by mfpantst

Yo you be preachin to this choir- more games without the multiplayer button and without internet interactions PLEASE!
 
LA Noire is such a big draw to me partially because THERE'S NO FUCKING MULTIPLAYER

Edited by X19
@TechnoHermit: Play spec ops mode with your brother, that makes it worth the price in my opinion.
Posted by Positrark

This whole discussion is the reason why developers will start charging for multiplayer in the future. People who like and dislike online play see a very different value in e.g. the next Modern Warfare game, so the reasonable approach is to charge them differently for it.

Posted by BonOrbitz

I'm all for 6-8 hour single-player campaigns (with multiplayer restricted down to Demon Souls or Journey-like experiences). Even when there's co-op, the fact I'm running around with a friend takes me out of the game because it's not my own story anymore and my friend's voice over a muffled headset constantly reminds me of that. 
  
As long as tacked-on multiplayer modes don't take away quality development time from single player modes (Uncharted 2 being a good example of this), then I'm fine with them. *eyes up Mass Effect 3*

Posted by blueaniman93

Yeah, I agree with you. Multiplayer, for me, is mostly something to mess around in for an hour or two. 
The only thing where multiplayer is really great is local play in a fighting game. I don't need the internet to play my games!

Posted by TechnoHermit
@X19: I'll give that a try.
Posted by kingzetta

I want single player because I hate people.

Posted by Tanikaze

Single player is why I play Angry Birds.

Honestly this is part of the reason why I'm such a huge Elder Scrolls fan. There's one Elder Scrolls-branded game with multiplayer, but it's not part of the main series. Bethesda sticks to their guns: multiplayer takes valuable development resources from a mindblowing single player experience. I want really, really long single player games. I wouldn't even mind more games with some shoveldev-ed content(yeah I just coined that) like the procedurally generated quests that plagued Daggerfall. If there's content that's actually good mixed in and it's a fun game I'm more than willing to wade through something designed to eat up my time.

Posted by mordukai
@FluxWaveZ said:
There are plenty of long single player games.
Unfortunately not many of them are good. 
Posted by FluxWaveZ
@Mordukai said:
@FluxWaveZ said:
There are plenty of long single player games.
Unfortunately not many of them are good. 
Not many games with multiplayer are good, either.