COD Black Ops 4 - Dropping Campaign

[Cub.]

Morons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-43793243

That’s me not buying this then. There is a worrying trend of game makers shunning / ignoring and neglecting a strong, creative and “non-repetitive” campaign.

This goes one step further. Doing away with a campaign altogether.

 

[Smiffyboy1990]

Can’t stand playing online I’ve always loved playing single player. Shame it’s gone this way.

 

[Darren S]

This has been a long running argument - especially with FPS games. For me, I always play the campaign through first - the COD games in particular.

Very rarely do I switch tact, unless games like the excellent Sniper Elite 4 come along where the co-op mode is just as enjoyable as the core campaign.

I find it a bit tiresome to focus purely on multiplayer. Rainbow Six Siege is supposedly a great game - but the heavy bias of multiplayer just bores me. I’d much rather attempt something myself or stand alongside another player or two to take on a common objective - rather than face the sizeable number of players that don’t give a s**t - the uber-fanatics who spend 28 hours per day on it and know EVERYTHING about the map - or those who have spent £164 on buying the best kit within five minutes of downloading the game.

Multiplayer games tend to have the bad quality of chucking you in and letting you find out what is happening yourself. That’s rarely a good solution - usually just a frustrating one.

This potentially could be the first COD that I don’t buy...

 

[Cub.]

This has been a long running argument - especially with FPS games. For me, I always play the campaign through first - the COD games in particular.

Very rarely do I switch tact, unless games like the excellent Sniper Elite 4 come along where the co-op mode is just as enjoyable as the core campaign.

I find it a bit tiresome to focus purely on multiplayer. Rainbow Six Siege is supposedly a great game - but the heavy bias of multiplayer just bores me. I’d much rather attempt something myself or stand alongside another player or two to take on a common objective - rather than face the sizeable number of players that don’t give a s**t - the uber-fanatics who spend 28 hours per day on it and know EVERYTHING about the map - or those who have spent £164 on buying the best kit within five minutes of downloading the game.

Multiplayer games tend to have the bad quality of chucking you in and letting you find out what is happening yourself. That’s rarely a good solution - usually just a frustrating one.

This potentially could be the first COD that I don’t buy...

Exactly the same view as me.

I’ve genuinely enjoyed most of the campaigns to date, the early ones were epic, later ones not so much. Now, not going to be one at all ensive:

 

[Ray Gin]

I very rarely game alone, when I'm online I'm mostly chatting with and gaming with mates, so I'm not too bothered about campaigns in most games, especially FPS games which tend to be my favourite. I find there's a lot more fun to be had on multiplayer in FPS games especially in squad base game modes where you can take on other teams of players/groups of friends and see who wins. The older campaigns (COD4/MW2) I completed and enjoyed, but nowhere near as much as the multiplayer sides of both.

 

[Daz.]

Excellent. Tits.

A pause button is essential with a 3 year old - no online gaming for me these days!

I'll stick to Wolfenstein

 

[Daz...]

The first Titanfall didn’t have a campaign and suffered because of it.

May as well call it Call of Duty Online, it doesn’t deserve the Black Ops name if it’s got no story.

 

[T12]

If COD will have no campaign next time around, then multiplayer has to be flawless.

If I spent £45+ on a game and only got the WW2 multiplayer experience I would be hugely disappointed! (I.e all the poor hit detection, match making, gun inconsistencies etc.)

 

[Darren S]

I very rarely game alone, when I'm online I'm mostly chatting with and gaming with mates, so I'm not too bothered about campaigns in most games, especially FPS games which tend to be my favourite. I find there's a lot more fun to be had on multiplayer in FPS games especially in squad base game modes where you can take on other teams of players/groups of friends and see who wins. The older campaigns (COD4/MW2) I completed and enjoyed, but nowhere near as much as the multiplayer sides of both.

Liam's got a point with favouring multiplayer. I only have to look at the online sessions on SE4 and there will usually be a handful of co-op games in progress. Switch the tab to multiplayer, and there are screens-worth of sessions currently open. It seems like they are merely following the trend of what's popular.

It's (arguably) easier for the game companies to produce purely multiplayer games also. The amount of work put into cut-scenes, multiple actor voices, scripted sections with enemy AI and structural changes that are often found in SP campaigns, all start to add up.

 

[imprezaworks]

Online for a long time has taken over from campaign. I only played the campaign when my internet was an ass or the game was getting an update.

 

[Silent_Scone]

What's this, like a less is more situation? Doesn't really apply to video games. Have to admit, ever since MWF2 they've been pretty s**t.

 

[Stay Puft]

Only multiplayer anyway, so doesn't bother me. But I dont understand what there is to gain by cutting campaign??

 

[Daz...]

Only multiplayer anyway, so doesn't bother me. But I dont understand what there is to gain by cutting campaign??

It will give them more time to create dlc to sell separately, making them more money.

 

[Dafthead]

I only buy these for the campaign

 

[DrR]

I've not even played the campaigns on the last two CODs.

 

[R3k1355]

If COD will have no campaign next time around, then multiplayer has to be flawless.

If I spent £45+ on a game and only got the WW2 multiplayer experience I would be hugely disappointed! (I.e all the poor hit detection, match making, gun inconsistencies etc.)

This. Most multiplayer games are terrible for annoying bugs, at best they make the game frustrating, at worse they ruin it completely.

With nothing else to fall back on this needs to have the best multiplayer experience of any game on the market, not just the same old s**t with a new face on it.

 

[malcolmgt]

They say its to make multiplayer better but they could just not release games so quick.
Also after all these years of releasing games there are still issues with the online multiplayer parts.

 

[Darren S]

They say its to make multiplayer better but they could just not release games so quick.
Also after all these years of releasing games there are still issues with the online multiplayer parts.

Unfortunately - that's unlikely to happen. The CD Projekt Red's of this world are few and far between. Holding onto just one title (I'm thinking Witcher 3 here) and focusing their attention on not only patching it - but also to add significant features and depth to the few DLCs that have been released for it.

The market cycle (and dare I say it) and public perception of releasing games is to get s**t out quick - and then worry about fixing the major issues afterwards. Regardless of its success - lets get the next release out. After all, the will earn more from the next pre-orders and hype over the next game than fixing issues with an established release.

Of course, to the gaming masses - they would prefer it to be exactly the opposite.

 

[R3k1355]

Also after all these years of releasing games there are still issues with the online multiplayer parts.

and always the same issues as well.