- Jan 28, 2011
- 65
- 0
- 18,630
Hello everyone! I wrote a paper on video games! I recommend you take the time to read my entire post before jumping to conclusions. Although I am a fan of BF3, I tried to be as unbiased as possible.
Mike Mercury
12/30/11
BF3 and MW3: Does Single Player Matter?
Okay, I'll be the one to say it. I'm noticing that in BF3 vs MW3 threads, for some reason, the single player campaign seems to be an overly hot topic of inflated importance. In both of these games, the multiplayer is the meat of the game. If you want the most awesome single player campaign, my only advice would be not to play first person shooters. Whether we (the gamers) like it or not, developers of FPS games such as BF and COD aren't producing single player campaigns like they're the most important aspect of the game.
So honestly, if BF3's campaign sucks, that should account for a small fraction of your overall impression of the game. Because let's be real, most people (in the long run) put many times more hours into the multiplayer than the campaign. Now, that might not apply to every single gamer. I'm not saying that there's something wrong, per se, to play the campaign more than the multiplayer, but it's not what the developers intended. I guess I also can't say that there's anything wrong with discussing the single player aspect of these games, but it really shouldn't be the selling/breaking point for a multiplayer FPS.
I'll give an example of a game where the campaign actually is important. For many people, (myself included) it kind of sucked that Ubisoft skimped out on the length of the brotherhood campaign in favor of the multiplayer. After all, the previous games were exclusively single player, and the single player was what many fans knew and loved about Assassin's Creed. Brotherhood wasn't a bad game or anything, but it made sense that some people were a little bummed about the campaign being a lot shorter than the previous game.
That being said, battlefield is an entirely different story than assassin’s creed. The campaigns for battlefield have NEVER been really great. Most of the BF games didn't even have a single player. And yet all of the sudden, the fact that MW3's campaign is better than BF3's is like a really big portion of the MW3 fans' argument against BF3. In reality, COD campaigns have always been better than BF campaigns, so it's silly that people are so surprised at how that fact has in fact stayed the same.
The bottom line here is that no matter how you look at it, BF3’s campaign could be the worst piece of crap ever made, but in the end it just doesn’t matter. Conversely, the campaign of MW3 is what it is, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter either. There aren’t any studies showing exactly how many hours have been spent playing the single player versus the multiplayer in either of these games, but if there were to be such a study, the results wouldn’t be hard to predict.
Discuss, and keep the flaming to a minimum! I'm okay if you disagree with me. My goal here isn't to personally insult anyone or put anyone down for having a different opinion.
Mike Mercury
12/30/11
BF3 and MW3: Does Single Player Matter?
Okay, I'll be the one to say it. I'm noticing that in BF3 vs MW3 threads, for some reason, the single player campaign seems to be an overly hot topic of inflated importance. In both of these games, the multiplayer is the meat of the game. If you want the most awesome single player campaign, my only advice would be not to play first person shooters. Whether we (the gamers) like it or not, developers of FPS games such as BF and COD aren't producing single player campaigns like they're the most important aspect of the game.
So honestly, if BF3's campaign sucks, that should account for a small fraction of your overall impression of the game. Because let's be real, most people (in the long run) put many times more hours into the multiplayer than the campaign. Now, that might not apply to every single gamer. I'm not saying that there's something wrong, per se, to play the campaign more than the multiplayer, but it's not what the developers intended. I guess I also can't say that there's anything wrong with discussing the single player aspect of these games, but it really shouldn't be the selling/breaking point for a multiplayer FPS.
I'll give an example of a game where the campaign actually is important. For many people, (myself included) it kind of sucked that Ubisoft skimped out on the length of the brotherhood campaign in favor of the multiplayer. After all, the previous games were exclusively single player, and the single player was what many fans knew and loved about Assassin's Creed. Brotherhood wasn't a bad game or anything, but it made sense that some people were a little bummed about the campaign being a lot shorter than the previous game.
That being said, battlefield is an entirely different story than assassin’s creed. The campaigns for battlefield have NEVER been really great. Most of the BF games didn't even have a single player. And yet all of the sudden, the fact that MW3's campaign is better than BF3's is like a really big portion of the MW3 fans' argument against BF3. In reality, COD campaigns have always been better than BF campaigns, so it's silly that people are so surprised at how that fact has in fact stayed the same.
The bottom line here is that no matter how you look at it, BF3’s campaign could be the worst piece of crap ever made, but in the end it just doesn’t matter. Conversely, the campaign of MW3 is what it is, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter either. There aren’t any studies showing exactly how many hours have been spent playing the single player versus the multiplayer in either of these games, but if there were to be such a study, the results wouldn’t be hard to predict.
Discuss, and keep the flaming to a minimum! I'm okay if you disagree with me. My goal here isn't to personally insult anyone or put anyone down for having a different opinion.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram