A lot of the games you pointed out were core, plain shooters. I am pretty sure RE4 wasn't just a shooter, but also a horror game. How many horror games are big into the online thing? I don't that it was really the fact that Halo 1 was that incredibly much longer, but the fact that Halo 2 was a lot easier (besides legendary). I mean we knew how to kill the flood already in Halo 2 and with the introduction of the battle rifle it got rid of a whole bunch of close encounters that could end in a melee fight.
Now for Gears. You say the single-player was short, but truthfully the entire game lacks depth. The online mode has no customization (the most is choosing your character and deciding where the guns are in player matches). Besides that there isn't much... There are only 4 game modes which don't change a whole bunch up. Each game mode besides Annex is really just deathmatch.
Now i will agree that many games need to put more into their single-player game. Gears needed more in almost every aspect but graphics and fun gameplay. Of course though there are games out there that are offline primary games, but if your looker for offline primary shooters than your not going to find a lot. Bioshock will probably be the one out of the 20 there will be for the 360.
Now the games that are offline primary are... Viva Pinata, Kameo, Condemned, almost all sports title really, King Kong, N3, DW:5 (i think five), then you have your alt sports with Tony Hawks, and etc. Now i can name off some others like Enchanted Arms, Mass Effect (not out), Blue Dragon (kind of out), Lost Odyssy (not out), Eternal Sonata (not out). Of course you don't see me listing any shooters. The reason for that is because 90% or more shooters have taken to online play a lot.
Back in the N64 days i played Goldeneye more for its multiplayer and same with Perfect Dark. Even with Halo 1... the big reason i kept playing it was because 12-16 people lan parties were tons of fun and really in a shooter playing the same level over and over again to me becomes just trying to find glitches. I don't replay most shooters because their story is awesome.... no i replay them because they are fun experience so i will probably play co-op after i beat the story solo and then never go back to it again. I used to do this even when their wasn't online gaming for consoles.
Really now i have a bigger problem with developers focusing on graphics. Yea Gears looks awesome, but it lacks depth in every single way. The game play is a ton of fun, but even that is played the way they made the game. What usually happens is just running and gunning with shotguns which takes out a lot of strategy from the shooter. Of course i love Halo and that is a run and gun, but that game was trying to be one. My problem is that many developers focus on making the game look super pretty and then giving you almost half a game and then saying "there will be sequals or mabye more content". Why would i want to pay $60 to get the rest of the content that should have been in the 1st game? That would be the reason i am really looking forward to Halo 3. I truly don't think the graphics are anywhere near as good as Gears... but really they are almost doubling the amount of content that they added from Halo 1 to 2 and the they are almost doubling to tripling the features.
No not every game needs a multiplayer component and that is evident in Oblivion, Bioshock, and every Final Fantasy ever made (i don't feel like backspacing so i will add this now), and of course MGS. The games are awesome, but in truth i don't think i have every really played video games for their story..... if i really wanted a story i would read a book. I usually play them because they are fun and if their single-player is only 6 hours long i am fine with that.... as long as it is fun.
Log in to comment