Current Events > why are so many shooters geared towards multiplayer nowadays?

(+) Yeah! (+)

especially the so-called tactical ones like the Tom Clancy games.
---

normies don't have the time for single player games
---

MakoReizei posted...

especially the so-called tactical ones like the Tom Clancy games.

Tactic games are often more fun when you are coordinating with real people as opposed to computers.
---

The player base can create their own content through multiplayer.
---

Cause playing against real people > playing against same old AI
---

Well 2 reasons really.

1. Easier to sell to more if your friends can play with you. While a single player will sell once and then share while a multiplayer will sell to yourself and your friends if you all want to play.

2. Leaderboards. People love being at the top. No matter how meaningless it is people just love being on top.
---

Uncle_Drew posted...

Cause playing against real people > playing against same old AI

and here it is
---

Uncle_Drew posted...

Cause playing against real people > playing against same old AI

nah.
---

The most dangerous game.
---

So the game developers don't have to make an actual game.

It's easier to pit players against each other than to make engaging content

Rainbow Six Siege is the best candidate to be a tactical multiplayer shooter, and sure enough it's successful.

But yeah, there are plenty of single player-focused shooters out there. In recent years:

BioShock Infinite
Metro: Last Light
Doom 4
Dishonored
Resident Evil 7
Wolfenstein: New Order

And even the multiplayer focused shooters like Battlefield 1 and Titanfall 2 have great campaigns.
---

Annihilated posted...

So the game developers don't have to make an actual game.

The fact that local-co op and single player campaigns are not even a priority it seems, more and more, I would say yeah this could be true.

Speaking on the subject. Does Rainbow Six Vegas 1 or 2 have a single player and/or local co-op?
---

Less people are going to spend hundreds of hours on a campaign rather than multiplayer.
---

it's low effort for the casual gamers that arent interested in investing time into a campaign, and it's easier to sell DLC/cosmetics/etc for a multiplayer shooter
---

Less people are going to spend hundreds of hours on a campaign rather than multiplayer.

Which is good for you, the developer, assing you make other games that you want them to buy.
---

Why isn't rocket jumping a thing anymore?
---

Spooking posted...

Why do a lot of FPS games have objectives now instead of TDM or DM?

Once again, the answer is normies. Nowadays, people want instant gratification. For objective-based games, you feel rewarded if your team wins regardless of your skill level. If your team loses, people tend to blame their teammates for their loss
---

Free for all doesn't seem to be a thing anymore.
---

MakoReizei posted...

Uncle_Drew posted...

Cause playing against real people > playing against same old AI

nah.

AI is predictable and won't change the way it plays and what it does based on what you do. How can you say nah?
---

MakoReizei posted...

Uncle_Drew posted...

Cause playing against real people > playing against same old AI

nah.

Why do you say that?
---

FightingGames posted...

Spooking posted...

Why do a lot of FPS games have objectives now instead of TDM or DM?

Once again, the answer is normies. Nowadays, people want instant gratification. For objective-based games, you feel rewarded if your team wins regardless of your skill level. If your team loses, people tend to blame their teammates for their loss

normies dont want to learn how to play an objective or work with other people, they just want to shoot their gun a lot at other players and then look at the scoreboard and go "hell yea, check out my KDR"
---

Uncle_Drew posted...

MakoReizei posted...

Uncle_Drew posted...

Cause playing against real people > playing against same old AI

nah.

Why do you say that?

you can't always play with people. AI is always there.

Besides there's less pressure when it's just you and the AI
---

FightingGames posted...

Spooking posted...

Why do a lot of FPS games have objectives now instead of TDM or DM?

Once again, the answer is normies. Nowadays, people want instant gratification. For objective-based games, you feel rewarded if your team wins regardless of your skill level. If your team loses, people tend to blame their teammates for their loss

I disagree with this point. Objective modes spawn from class-based gameplay. The rise of the "hero shooter" is the reason we see so many objective modes instead of traditional TDM. Half your classes become useless in a straight "kill or die" mode so it doesn't make sense to include them except as an afterthought.
---

I think it's a combination of this:

Rexdragon125 posted...

It's easier to pit players against each other than to make engaging content

and the fact that all the really big hit games atm are multiplayer which means they're probably trying to imitate that success somewhere
---

MakoReizei posted...

Uncle_Drew posted...

MakoReizei posted...

Uncle_Drew posted...

Cause playing against real people > playing against same old AI

nah.

Why do you say that?

you can't always play with people. AI is always there.

Besides there's less pressure when it's just you and the AI

Yeah but doesn't that get boring awfully quick? Take Call of Duty for example, 10 times out of 10, im gonna go into actual public lobbies in multiplayer instead of loading up a local game against bots. Yeah the bots can be fun to mess around with for a few minutes, but there is only so much they can do, and they also suck. They can not adapt to you, or really change up strategies and such like you would find in the public lobbies, it would just be the same thing over and over cause there is no adaptation from them
---

@thanosibe posted...

Annihilated posted...

So the game developers don't have to make an actual game.

The fact that local-co op and single player campaigns are not even a priority it seems, more and more, I would say yeah this could be true.

Speaking on the subject. Does Rainbow Six Vegas 1 or 2 have a single player and/or local co-op?

Yes to both but local co-op is limited to 2 players.
---

Take Call of Duty for example, 10 times out of 10, im gonna go into actual public lobbies in multiplayer instead of loading up a local game against bots.

Well, yes, if you're going to play multiplayer but swap out the players for AI's, it's not going to be as fun.

Kinda like if you were trying to go through campaign mode, but swapped out the 100 AI's per level with other players, it's also not going to be fun.
---

Romulox28 posted...

it's low effort for the casual gamers that arent interested in investing time into a campaign, and it's easier to sell DLC/cosmetics/etc for a multiplayer shooter

I know I am a casual gamer, and I am just the opposite. I have no desire to spend endless hours honing fictional skills just so I can compete online with people that do have hundreds of hours to hone fictional skills. I'd much rather relax and play a campaign at whatever difficulty level I want to do at the time.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Not to mention FPS rose to such a popular style of gaming due to multiplayer. I don't get the hate.

When we experienced Halo and Halo 2 multiplayer 15 years ago it was groundbreaking.

LMFAO @ calling Halo groundbreaking.
---

Some people don't have anything to prove and prefer to chill out after work doing a campaign, or messing with bots, over being a play to win tryhard all the time. Plus you don't have to commit 20-40 minutes to every game and can quit at any time without screwing over a team.

Lonestar2000 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Not to mention FPS rose to such a popular style of gaming due to multiplayer. I don't get the hate.

When we experienced Halo and Halo 2 multiplayer 15 years ago it was groundbreaking.

LMFAO @ calling Halo groundbreaking.

Are you too young to have played Halo/Halo 2 when it first came out? It wasn't the "first" to do anything by a long shot, but it completely changed how FPS titles worked on consoles, and Halo 2 was THE use case proving that online console multiplayer not only worked, but was in demand.
---

Shooters have always been primarily about the multiplayer.

Also shooters suck
---

DevsBro posted...

Take Call of Duty for example, 10 times out of 10, im gonna go into actual public lobbies in multiplayer instead of loading up a local game against bots.

Well, yes, if you're going to play multiplayer but swap out the players for AI's, it's not going to be as fun.

Kinda like if you were trying to go through campaign mode, but swapped out the 100 AI's per level with other players, it's also not going to be fun.

Ok fair enough maybe that wasn't a good analogy, so switch playing against bots to playing the campaign over and over. It's going to be the same thing every time. The missions will be the same, the enemy locations will be the same etc etc
In multiplayer, pretty much every match is going to be different, and there are a ton of game modes to choose from. The only thing you can change about a campaign is the AI difficulty
---

thanosibe posted...

Romulox28 posted...

it's low effort for the casual gamers that arent interested in investing time into a campaign, and it's easier to sell DLC/cosmetics/etc for a multiplayer shooter

I know I am a casual gamer, and I am just the opposite. I have no desire to spend endless hours honing fictional skills just so I can compete online with people that do have hundreds of hours to hone fictional skills. I'd much rather relax and play a campaign at whatever difficulty level I want to do at the time.

same, and what sucks now is that with the vast majority of the new multiplayer games out there, there's no focus on any kind of community element, which is replaced with a competitive component, so if you are interested in multiplayer but dont want to spend the time/effort to become competitive and climb ladders and shit, you are stuck playing quick matches with a revolving door of randomly selected people until you get bored
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Lonestar2000 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Not to mention FPS rose to such a popular style of gaming due to multiplayer. I don't get the hate.

When we experienced Halo and Halo 2 multiplayer 15 years ago it was groundbreaking.

LMFAO @ calling Halo groundbreaking.

How was it not?

Anything done in Halo had been done years before in PC games.
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Shooters have always been primarily about the multiplayer.

Also shooters suck

but the best ones either don't have multiplayer at all or don't focus on it.

Like Half Life.
---

I even mine out,Metro 2033,Fallout ect.

Cheaper to make rng box of guns than single player dlc. And the rng box will sell better

HiddenLurker posted...

2. Leaderboards. People love being at the top. No matter how meaningless it is people just love being on top

You don't need multi for leader boards.
---

Lonestar2000 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Lonestar2000 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Not to mention FPS rose to such a popular style of gaming due to multiplayer. I don't get the hate.

When we experienced Halo and Halo 2 multiplayer 15 years ago it was groundbreaking.

LMFAO @ calling Halo groundbreaking.

How was it not?

Anything done in Halo had been done years before in PC games.

So? Halo did those this all at once, and more importantly, made it accessible for a larger audience. Halo 2 is the reason shooters became 90% of the gaming market for almost 10 years.
---

Uncle_Drew posted...

Cause playing against real people > playing against same old AI

This.
---

Romulox28 posted...

thanosibe posted...

Romulox28 posted...

it's low effort for the casual gamers that arent interested in investing time into a campaign, and it's easier to sell DLC/cosmetics/etc for a multiplayer shooter

I know I am a casual gamer, and I am just the opposite. I have no desire to spend endless hours honing fictional skills just so I can compete online with people that do have hundreds of hours to hone fictional skills. I'd much rather relax and play a campaign at whatever difficulty level I want to do at the time.

same, and what sucks now is that with the vast majority of the new multiplayer games out there, there's no focus on any kind of community element, which is replaced with a competitive component, so if you are interested in multiplayer but dont want to spend the time/effort to become competitive and climb ladders and shit, you are stuck playing quick matches with a revolving door of randomly selected people until you get bored

Yeah, the only time I even got halfway good at online multiplayer was when I tried Dark Sector's. And I think that was only because I met several genuinely nice people that would give me tips and help me get better. It overall seemed like a nice community at the time. I just got the 360 and game in 2008 so the multiplayer was already dying. But it was fun.

Any other I have tired, even as the games come out, my skills were too far down the ladder to even compete, and with the competitive nature of most multiplayers, I was just a kill score for people.
---

Money. Multiplayer, if popular, prevents resale to Gamestops (at least for a few months, which is the bulk of a games sales window anyways). It also promotes microtransactions. Also, most FPS fans tend to be multiplayer first, so you need to sell to that crowd.
---

Lonestar2000 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Lonestar2000 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Not to mention FPS rose to such a popular style of gaming due to multiplayer. I don't get the hate.

When we experienced Halo and Halo 2 multiplayer 15 years ago it was groundbreaking.

LMFAO @ calling Halo groundbreaking.

How was it not?

Anything done in Halo had been done years before in PC games.

I always roll my eyes when people say this in regards to Goldeneye and later Halo. Yes, people have been playing multiplayer shooters on the PC for years before either game, but until Goldeneye, it wasn't really wasn't accessible to the average video game player as consoles were far more popular. With Goldeneye it was finally easy for four people to just sit-down, grab a controller and shoot each other. Halo took the Goldeneye formula refined it so the controls didn't suck and put it on a better selling console. Halo 2 finally made online shooting available to the masses.

Just because you did it first doesn't make you groundbreaking. You have to resonate with the populace and have a wide-spread impact. And in terms multiplayer in FPS games, Goldeneye and the first two Halos were far more groundbreaking than their PC predecessors.
---

Not to mention, Halo didn't play like any PC shooter at the time. Heck, people give credit to Battlefield for incorporating vehicles into shooters, but Battlefield 1942 didn't come out until nearly a year after Halo: Combat Evolved.
---