#1 Posted by whackmypinata (941 posts) -

Fallout 3 has looked great to me lately. It seems very atmospheric, and the gameplay videos look cool. However, I cannot see myself paying $65 for an only single player game. It might just be me or the way I think, but I'd like to hear other views on this.
I'm not big into RPGs, although I do like them somewhat. Playing single player games seems to last much less time than playing a game with both single and multiplayer. Halo 3 by itself in the campaign, what a joke?! Would anyone buy that? I've spent easily 95% of the time playing that game in the multiplayer. So this leads me back to my original question, why pay $65 for a game I'd play once or twice through the campaign? Is it worth it?

#2 Posted by get2sammyb (6412 posts) -

Because Fallout 3's campaign is meant to be absurdly big. Nothing like Halo 3's.

Although to move your topic forward slightly I do worry about the XBOX Live/PSN generation. Don't get me wrong I love me share of online gaming but I'd take the single player experience first everytime. Look at COD4 - a great online game no doubt but that shadows the fact that it genuinely had an amazing single player mode. Sure the game could be faulted for the single player being too short but - it kinda worries me that there are people out there who have COD4 and haven't even touched the single player.

I worry about threads like this. I hope we NEVER reach a time when games drop single player modes in favour of online play because... to me the single player is the heart of the experience. I guess it's just me. I like films and books and stories. I guess I just like to be moved.

#3 Posted by Milkman (16483 posts) -

If the single player is good enough, then sure. I don't mind at all. Especially with something like Fallout 3 where you can spend hundreds of hours playing the story mode.

#4 Posted by BiggerBomb (6944 posts) -

It depends on the game. Fallout 3 is definitely worth the price, other games may not be.

#5 Posted by get2sammyb (6412 posts) -
BiggerBomb said:
"It depends on the game. Fallout 3 is definitely worth the price, other games may not be."
You can say the same about online games. A lot of online play seems pretty pointless at it's core.
#6 Posted by Megalon (1392 posts) -

It's not like Fallout 3 has a 6-10 hour single player campaign. You're paying $65 for a quality game that took a long time to develop. If it doesn't have a feature that you feel it requires, then you should probably not buy it. But you'll likely be missing out on a lot of quality games if you limit yourself in this manner.

#7 Posted by BiggerBomb (6944 posts) -
get2sammyb said:
"BiggerBomb said:
"It depends on the game. Fallout 3 is definitely worth the price, other games may not be."
You can say the same about online games. A lot of online play seems pretty pointless at it's core."

Very true. What I am saying is that replayability and multiplayer are not synonymous. Mass Effect, Oblivion, and soon Fallout 3 are all massive games that allow you to put more hours of new content than repeating the same maps over and over.

That's not to say I don't like multiplayer, I love it. I do, however, prefer a solid singleplayer story and I will always take that over addicting multiplayer.
#8 Posted by TheGreatGuero (9130 posts) -

I thought it would have multiplayer. Regardless, I think single player is far more important anyway. I've noticed that I actually don't even bother trying most games online. Playing online just takes too much time and becomes too addictive and requires practice and learning little tricks and stuff. Because there are already so many games out there and not enough time as it is, I'd rather only invest time in the multiplayer of the biggest and baddest games.

#9 Posted by John (828 posts) -

If you see that after beating the single player story you have no more need to keep the game, I would sell it. Or in that case, you can always rent it (or use gamefly) There are many options in the world of videogames my friend.

#10 Posted by get2sammyb (6412 posts) -
BiggerBomb said:
"get2sammyb said:
"BiggerBomb said:
"It depends on the game. Fallout 3 is definitely worth the price, other games may not be."
You can say the same about online games. A lot of online play seems pretty pointless at it's core."

Very true. What I am saying is that replayability and multiplayer are not synonymous. Mass Effect, Oblivion, and soon Fallout 3 are all massive games that allow you to put more hours of new content than repeating the same maps over and over.

That's not to say I don't like multiplayer, I love it. I do, however, prefer a solid singleplayer story and I will always take that over addicting multiplayer."
Yeah we're on the same level then. Totally agree with what you said.

I think COD4 did a brilliant job of providing a brilliant single player and online play. If only all games had so much value. *sighs*.
#11 Posted by mordecaix7 (657 posts) -
Megalon said:
"It's not like Fallout 3 has a 6-10 hour single player campaign. You're paying $65 for a quality game that took a long time to develop. If it doesn't have a feature that you feel it requires, then you should probably not buy it. But you'll likely be missing out on a lot of quality games if you limit yourself in this manner."
Agreed.  Fallout 3 is a game that will go on and on and on, especially if you're wanting to spend time with it exploring.  It isn't a linear adventure...unless you want it to be :)
#12 Posted by Kush (8889 posts) -

I think $60 for a great SP game is a better deal than $60 for a great MP game...

#13 Posted by Pibo47 (3166 posts) -
Kush said:
"I think $60 for a great SP game is a better deal than $60 for a great MP game..."
Same here, but with fallout3, i dont really think the gameplay looks that great, kinda underwhelming. But every thing else about it looks good.
#14 Posted by Kush (8889 posts) -
Pibo47 said:
"Same here, but with fallout3, i dont really think the gameplay looks that great, kinda underwhelming. But every thing else about it looks good."
I don't think the gamplay looks that bad, but I never really go into a Bethesda game for the combat...
#15 Posted by jakob187 (21640 posts) -

Well, given that Fallout is based around a post-apocalyptic world...and you shouldn't ever really see too many folks hanging around the world in the first place...then it would seem that Fallout is the LEAST likely candidate for multiplayer gaming.

Which would be why someone is making an MMO of the damn thing.

People are gonna fuck this license all sorts of up.  =  (
#16 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -

Well, before online multiplayer became a mandatory feature in every shooter game, that's how much they cost. Think of it this way, would you pay 65 dollars for Perfect Dark in 1999? I know I would. So if you think that this game might be that good, then go for it.

#17 Posted by Foil_Charizard (345 posts) -

If any single player game is worth the money it is probably Fallout three, the campaign will last you plenty longer then most games plus you open up a world of all but guaranteed expansions and add ons in the future.
Geno said:

"Well, before online multiplayer became a mandatory feature in every shooter game, that's how much they cost. Think of it this way, would you pay 65 dollars for Perfect Dark in 1999? I know I would. So if you think that this game might be that good, then go for it."
The introduction of Multiplayer online play has totally changed the market though.  Online play is generally expected by most people now a days. I'm not saying single player only is bad, Mass Effect is one of my all time favorite games, but when developers are offering never ending online experiences it makes other games that don't include that look lesser in comparison. Plus even adjusting for real dollars video games more expensive now then the recent past.
 
#18 Posted by Dalai (6980 posts) -

I once paid $75 for a baseball game... so $65 for a game like Fallout 3 isn't that big of a deal.

#19 Posted by TheGTAvaccine (2884 posts) -

If the single player is good enough, which Fallout 3 is likely to be, then yes, it is justified. Take Dead Space for example. Single Player only, but very much worth full price.

#20 Posted by DoctorTran (1544 posts) -

I honestly have no problem paying 65 bucks for Single Player games.

#21 Posted by Shadow (4977 posts) -
#22 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) -

I suppose this is the breaking point where games are simply costing too much in relation to their content.

#23 Posted by jakob187 (21640 posts) -
HandsomeDead said:
"I suppose this is the breaking point where games are simply costing too much in relation to their content."
You remember back whenever Nintendo cartridges first came out?  Remember how much they cost?
Trust me, $60 for a game doesn't bother me one bit, especially given what the games entail nowadays.  Above which, you have to look at the increased costs of development, higher publisher takes, a still relatively young market that is FINALLY seeing expansion beyond the usual numbers...I mean, so many variables come into it that the developers end up basically making enough money to keep their hardware upgraded and pay the bills.   =  /

By the way, I just found out that my buddy is going to be graduating from game development in college sometime next year, and we're going to be making a game together.  I guarantee everyone that it's going to be sick as hell!
#24 Posted by Ginger_Avenger (193 posts) -

Fallout 3 is so massive you would never need an online mode for it.

#25 Posted by clarke0 (1077 posts) -

Well Fallout 3 is 50 bucks on PC. :) Anyways, if the game is good then I think it's worth spending $60 even if it's short. If you are unsure about how much you will like it you can always rent the game or buy it for half price a couple months later.

#26 Posted by bjorno (1411 posts) -

only if its made my bethesda.