[quote]Stories aren't needed in multiplayer games[/quote] I can't wait. I can't wait for you to justify how a game can have less content and still charge $60, and even then with the story it's still probably not worth $60 unless that game is really good [quote]And vice versa.[/quote] And vice versa? What other scenario could you apply this to? [quote]I've seen an overwhelmingly large amount of people on this forum ignore a game simply because it doesn't have a story mode.[/quote] Which ones? I've never seen this once, and I've been on here an awful lot as of recently. And unless you can prove to me these people exist I'm going to assume that someone criticized a game you liked in the same context you describe but was justified in dismissing it. [quote]That's ridiculous. Even when games do incorporate a story mode to try and appease people who ignorantly ignore fantastic, well-designed games, they still get chewed out (I.e. Titanfall).[/quote] I love this. This... This is just so stupid that I love it. My favorite part is how you chose one example of this and claim victory. And Titanfall's story was utter shit [quote]We've seen some of the best games recently, multiplayer only, getting shat on simply for not wasting resources on a story that most people will play once.[/quote] Okay, I'm going to say it again: citation needed. You can't just sit here and assert things without evidence. [quote]In some of the more recent Call of Dutys, less than 5% of the games population [i]completed[/i] the campaign.[/quote] Great. And as we know Call of Duty is a great game to look at for stories. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, that the recent campaigns have been utter garbage? BO3's has to be my favorite campaign story in a CoD in a long time, I'll admit that, but in the past recent years they've gone to shit [quote]It's obvious that the people who enjoy forcing developers to create pointless stories are the minority, yet they still have the audacity to trash talk a game.[/quote] Oh how dare we! How dare we say how bad a shit game is! How dare anyone say anything about a game. You must have a giant corporate dick in your asshole right now [quote]What's worse, major reviewers have begun to incorporate this idea. Why should a multiplayer only game try to be something it's not?[/quote] Citation Needed. And not to mention that the example you gave, CoD, has never been a multiplayer only game. [quote]This affects developers drastically. Developers already don't take many risks in creating new IPs, simply because of the backlash at what is different.[/quote] You are actually amazing me right now. You are actually doing something I'd think wasn't possible. You are justifying laziness. You are the actual definition of a corporate slave my god [quote]But when they can't even make the type of game they want to, and are forced to shoehorn a version they never intended, it makes them want to even less.[/quote] I'm starting to realize this post is just a giant cluster-blam!- of nothing. All you need is one citation, one, and I'll be fine. [quote]Some of the most creative games in recent years have been trashed simply for this, how does this make other developers feel? They certainly don't want to follow suit and see their fanbase dissipate.[/quote] Please stop your actually hurting my brain. You need to wake up right now and realize that developers, well triple A ones, see you as nothing but a pawn to be exploited. So go ahead, keep sucking the corporate dick, can't wait to see where you end up. Ooh edits, my favorite! [quote]Edit: It appears people are simply complaining about content for price. An argument I've always found borderline idiotic, but none the less, what [b]is[/b] enough content for a multiplayer only game? 20+ maps that you'll likely never play? 40+ guns that'll ensure nothing is ever balanced? 20+ gamemodes which will have such an uneven distribution of players that half are empty?[/quote] It's official, it's official. He is a corporate slave, he is a -blam!-ing corporate slave [quote]I know this concept will likely go way over some people's heads (most couldn't understand the point of this thread), but there is such a thing as "pointless content".[/quote] This is possibly my favorite part of this entire post. What he's basically saying is, "I and the people that agree with me are all much smarter and intelligent than the people who call me out." He is trying to justify his corporate slavery. He has it. He has the CSGO skin insanity. He is beyond cure, just leave him to die

As long as there is heavy post game support I can handle it but if I'm playing half the game and they are asking me for oodles of money for the next four maps after the release then I can't even imagine playing the game.

The reason people didn't like Titanfall was that they charged us full price for half of what a shooter usually is. If they want to give us less content, fine, but don't charge the same amount, then throw in needing to pay for DLC that will lock vanilla players from certain playlists as well. And don't you dare say that that pathetic radio drama that played in the background of the "campaign" that you couldn't hear because it happened during combat counts as a real campaign mode. It's just the multiplayer repackaged, except you have to start with other new players, facing people who have all leveled up and finished the "campaign" meaning the campaign mode is a painful experience of noobs versus vets. It felt entirely inaccessible to me, and I got it relatively soon after its release. If your most fun aspect is your tutorial level, then maybe you need a single player mode.

[quote]Edit: It appears people are simply complaining about content for price. An argument I've always found borderline idiotic, but none the less, what [b]is[/b] enough content for a multiplayer only game? 20+ maps that you'll likely never play? 40+ guns that'll ensure nothing is ever balanced? 20+ gamemodes which will have such an uneven distribution of players that half are empty? [/quote] So your telling me that a game with less content should be the same as one with more? You misunderstand what people are arguing. We are arguing that games without a story should cost less not have useless shit shoved in there. What is happening now is like splitting cod in half, charging $100 for just the multiplayer or just the story.

Exactly the reason overwatch will blow up as an amazing franchise

Multiplayer games aren't worth $60

This is kinda true. Games like cod and battlefield just make a story to put a check in a box.

It would be a great game if they had both gtav has an amazing story and online mode

If they are going to make a MP game only, they should charge $30. No MP cost more to develop than developing a Story especially when it has little content.

Why do so many gamers nowadays think quantity>quality? Id rather have 1 diamond over 5 rocks, but so many people think otherwise.

So COD doesn't need a story right?

Believe it or not, some people enjoy story driven games, not horribly unbalanced multi-player chock full of retarded 12 year olds.

I think one of the problems is people have different ways of perceiving value. For some, a game with story & multiplayer costs $60, so why should a multiplayer-only game cost $60 if it doesn't come with a story mode? Then there are some who do believe they get their fair share out of a multiplayer-only game since you can play it all the time against different people, whereas one can only play a story-only game so many times before it becomes stale to them. That's my view on it, at least. People have different ideas on what games are worth, and some who are used to playing more story-heavy games aren't used to the idea of shelving an equal amount for a multiplayer game they'll pick up from time to time, & vice versa.

Content = price