Crytek: Closed Single-Player Must Go

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
F2P wants social gaming because it increases revenues. Certain people will see others with new or better gear and HAVE to have it--the game becomes a mini-competition as who has the coolest, best stuff. Nothing wrong with that model, but single player is a necessary mode that I hope will never go away.

Like others have said, there are many times where I don't want to behave in a social manner. I don't want to care about what someone else thinks or does or wants. And I don't want someone else there to annoy me or even see what I'm doing. "You know that's not the most efficient run". Yeah I know, I'm not playing right now for efficiency or to be the best. "You know there's a better weapon you could get that costs nearly the same". Yeah I know but I want to use this one. "Damn you really suck at this game, let me show you how to play". No thanks I'm playing for fun, not to compete, I compete every day in work and school.

The guy who does what he wants in a multiplayer game is called an A-hole. However there are moments where we all need to be A-holes and play the way we want without consideration for others. That's what single player is for. And there are many types of games not suited for multiplayer, SimCity, as someone else mentioned, is one of those games. I do not want someone else to mess up my city or interfere with my plans. I don't want to spend time communicating how I want some region to look and then get frustrated when the other guy builds something completely different. These developers really need to stop riding the bandwagon and think about what makes sense.
 
[citation][nom]dimar[/nom]I actually tried ST online , and quit after like 20 min of play.[/citation]

If you are looking for a great, Bioware-type story or amazing ground combat, STO is definitely not the way to go. The space battle element of the game is awesome though, IMHO. Its the only MMO I've kept playing after completing the story and/or reaching the level cap.
 
Maybe one day I can erase my memories and replay (and enjoy) Half Life (all of them), MoHAA, CoD1, Battlefield 1942 and all those old good games like it was the first time again....
 
Always on internet gaming is a way of completely controlling the gamers options. It's akin to saying, yes, let the idiot dictator have control. Provide the game, keep your uber lust for control in your pants.
 
No, period.

I have no interest in "social gaming." I play D3 as single player. I play WoW largely as single player and wish is was single player only. I have no intention of playing SimCity as anything other than a single player experience. I like coop with friends but that's different.

Free to play is the death of quality gaming in my opinion. Want proof...
Remember when you had to pay for cable TV because it was commercial free...how high is your cable bill now and how many commercials do you have to sit through?
Free To Play is nothing but another way for companies to first suck you in then nickel and dime you to death later. I'd rather just pay for the game up front and an expansion a year or 2 later.

Maybe I'm just a part of a shrinking, old-school gamer base, I don't know. The one thing social media and gamming has shown me is that I want as little interaction as possible with the majority of the internet populace. (the irony of me posting on here not escaping me)
I certainly don't want my enjoyment and progress in a game dependent on others having to behave properly in a game they didn't even pay for.
Social gaming and fee to play are counter intuitive. Even the Ray and Joan Croc community centers force everyone to pay a membership based on income because they found how people behave in and treat something they have to pay for is very different than how they are towards something simply handed to them. That's life, that's human nature.
 
[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]What this I don't even...And what the fuck am I supposed to do if my ISP shits itself and leaves me without internet access for a day?[/citation]

Play outside?
 
[citation][nom]jalek[/nom]There is a Star Trek MMO, but it doesn't have additions that frequently, and that would likely be the actual result. I've bought into studio claims that with premium support they'd deliver this and that.. and what they really did was divert everything to some other project.[/citation]

That is because STO was a massive failure.
 
[citation][nom]slabbo[/nom]says the developer who can't make a good single player game ever.[/citation]

All their single player games are better then any single player in the CoD games in the past 6 years. But I have a feeling you praise every CoD release as being amazing.
 
The good thing about Blizzard is that they have had enough integrity to not to jump on the "F2P" bandwagon. I don't like their "Get socialized!" stance, but they are making some effort for solo players in WoW, and D3 is a very solo-friendly game. My main complaint about D3 being online only is that their servers are lousy (for this day and age). If you are going to force me into having an online connection when I play, then have the decency to provide rock-solid support for it!

I was actually thinking about buying Crysis 3 (never played the others), but in light of this statement I don't want this clown to have any of my money.

I always find it odd when people say "the economy sux" on one hand, and then turn around and talk about all the smart phones and tablets people are buying. If the economy is so bad, how come the market for luxury items keeps expanding?

And, why does the media keep spreading this lie about F2P being cheaper? Yeah, it's cheaper at the start, but the reason game publishers are using that model is because the average F2P player spends MORE money on the game than the average subscription player. What many of these guys are doing though is starting out their game as a subscription, getting the development costs paid for when people pay full pop for the game up front, and then screwing those people that paid by making the game F2P. Gee, thanks guys.
 
all this effort being put on social aspects of gaming isn't going to leave much money in the budget for... you know... writers... to... write a good story.... :/

Dry
 
Damn it! I used to like Yerli. Oh, well: looks like the new $2,400.00 gaming rig will be used for Word and surfing the web when the single player experience disappears. I'm already pissed off about how web-dependent single player campaigns are now. If Yerli has his way, I'm done with games. I'm surly not going to a console. I'm getting old. If I'm forced into social, then I'll take up bingo. Let's pray to the technology gods that Valve recognizes the folly of this. Crytek, EA, and Origen can kiss my skinny, geek ass.
 
[citation][nom]NiPPonD3nZ0[/nom]Maybe one day I can erase my memories and replay (and enjoy) Half Life (all of them), MoHAA, CoD1, Battlefield 1942 and all those old good games like it was the first time again....[/citation]

Yea those were the days. Sometimes I when I get bored with the more modern games I'll spend a couple days play COD1 COD UO, BF1942 and Red Alert II single player campaign. I even downloaded Battlefield 1918 a WWI mod for 1942. If this online social crap is what gaming goes to then I'm taking all my old games with CD's and playing them until they don't work anymore. I will not pay 15 dollars a month for a bullshit membership and I'm not playing famville type social games online.
 
Still trying to tell the gamer what is right for them? The campaign was the original idea that got people playing games. Online is the bell bottoms and polyester suit of this era. On day people will look back and ask why did I do it? I've gained nothing from it. Ever see a movie with absolutely no plot? (No attempted examples please) Its all just extreme unoriginal laziness. (Mash "B" to continue)
 
As both a PC gamer and PS3 gamer, I am sometimes in the mood to play my games OFFLINE in single player mode against AI opponents. I don't always want to have to wait to join a game or custom create a room or whatever else it takes for online gaming. The day ANY company like Crytek decides to not support single player campaigns is the day I tell them to fook off sideways to Sunday.

As a beta tester for SimBin, I've already been disappointed with their decision to go FTP racing sim for the PC with "RaceRoom Experience." And back in 2007 when the PS3 game "Warhawk" came out, I had no idea it was ONLINE ONLY...wouldn't have bought it otherwise. Someone please tell these corporate money and trend-chasing jackholes that not EVERYONE wants to be SOCIAL when it comes to the gaming experience, be it portable, console, or PC.
 
This has to be the most over-the-top boil-your-blood troll crap article I have read in a long time on this site. If you actually believe this content, then your are the death of gaming. If this is the future of gaming, then I hope lack of competition in the industry will provide companies that will provide that niche of true single player experiences for years to come.
 
So, where does this leave deployed service members who might be lucky enough to get a crappy satellite connection every couple of days?

It's bad enough that most games don't bother with LAN anymore (seriously, we're still playing WC3), now we shouldn't even be allowed to play single-player because we aren't in a land of privilege?

Classy ideas, big devs.
 
I find this way of thinking about games unfortunate. Why are people compelled to state things in extremes? If a world where "closed" single player experiences really incompatible with a world that has social games?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom