Originally Posted by Heretic
I'll concede that the MP and SP markets are seperate entities, and I'm a little biased towards the single player experience. Personally, I don't think a strictly MP experience is worth $60, but that's just me. I realize there are legions of people who could care less about a campaign, and just want to hop online. In that respect, I don't really "get it". It seems cheap to me. Like when a franchise like Resident Evil releases a MP specific game, and scratch their heads at why it doesn't sell well. It's because they're not catering to their market.
All things considered, it's market specific. Like how a campaign in a Battlefield game seems like a half assed effort, when that's all you should be expecting. It's "Battlefield". A campaign is going to seem limited in comparison to the possibilties there are with the online capabilities, that made the franchise so popular in the first place.
I just think a lot of developers are getting their lines crossed, in trying to compete with one another, which is leading to this "sameness" of the entire industry. Everyone is borrowing from everyone, and it's all getting very bland because of it.
Like you said, it's very market specific. Games like COD do well almost solely based on MP, and games like MGS do well based almost entirely off of single player campaign. I wish there were more games out there that had both great MP and SP, but it just isn't the case (at least in many of the games I've found). Your right about Resident Evil as well. Games like that need to stick to their guns with what they are good at and what has made them successful, rather than trying to be something that they are not. Which by today's standards is almost unheard of sadly.