Though I didn’t get to play much of Dead Space when it released, I’ve been wanting to do so, even though I’m a big wuss when it comes to survival-horror games. Many people I know have played and loved the game, so it’s definitely on my list of titles I’d love to tackle eventually.
How did it do in sales, though? Well, according to the most recent EA podcast, it seems that twice as many people played Dead Space as bought it. Though there was some internal speculation about this, the discussion revolved around whether or not the game had enough content to justify its $60 price point. When you’re matched up against a game like Fallout 3, which is 40 hours easily without multiplayer, then that certainly makes sense.
So what do you guys look for when you buy a single player game? Would you rather it have more modes, or multiplayer added on? What kind of content do you need to spend $60? Personally, I feel like Resident Evil 5 is one of the most recent examples of a game that didn’t have traditional multiplayer giving you plenty of bang for the buck. What do you think?
Source- Kotaku
Yeah, I’d have to say that Fallout 3 is one of the better examples that can be used. It was money well spent, with or without the multiplayer.
When I pick out a Single player game, I tend to mostly look for story, replayability, and what it’s got inside. And, if it’s a PC game, if there are plenty of fun mods to keep the game going, than that’s also something I like to look for.
As long as the game keeps me occupied for a week or two, but still stays interesting and fun afterward to keep playing, than it’s worth the $60 that I.
*points to half life series*
story
veriety of things to do
imaginative enviroments – which can be passed or studied to the point of a whole hour in a few areas
unpredictability – which stay within the bounds of the genre
worst purchase ever was The Return of Matt Hazard…even though it was priced at $50, it was only worth MAYBE $20 or $25. I heard dead space was great, maybe if they had planned for free DLC or something, who knows
No, Eddy. Resident Evil 5 sucks. lol
Anyway, I’m going to start at the top of the list for this answer.
For a multiplayer game to be worth $60, I want a solid Co-Op mode, whether it’s a Wave Survival mode (like Nazi Zombies or Horde) or something like MW2’s Special Forces, where you go through missions specially-designed for Co-Op with friends splitscreen and via online. I also want an innovative online versus with several cool modes that aren’t just standard TDM’s, but things like Search and Destroy, HQ, and other unique gamemodes. Customizing one’s character is also a great bonus.
For a solo-only game, I want an engaging story that’s well-written and drives the game along smoothly. The gameplay should also be top-notch, whichever genre it may be. If it’s an RPG, give me a lot customization for my skills and equipment; if it’s an adventure, give me a large open area for me to explore and find cool and helpful secrets like weapons or skills, optional but still challenging and rewarding bosses, and a vast expanse of land to fight cool monsters and find cities with awesome loot. Now, if the game’s linear, I honestly have no problem with that, but at least throw in a dash of exploration and discovery.
Now for all games and their DLC, developers should NOT chop off bits of the game and then release them for $10 a download. That’s not a smart business plan, that’s bullshit. I don’t want to have to play $60 (which should be the 100% cost) to get an incomplete game and then $10 more for bits and scraps that finally make a complete mosaic at a price of $100 or so. When a game is released, it has to be complete. Adding DLC is just that – more content that’s bonus; it should add more weapons or maps or characters or whatever, not have the whole game rely on its amazing DLC while the original is lackluster. I can understand companies want to add more content for extra money, but don’t release the game in chunks so fans have to fork over more money and less serious players won’t even bother.
Half-Life is the epitome of a great singleplayer game. Basically, all I need is a price tag that fits the quality of the gameplay and story combined.
In Mirrors edge, the gameplay was innovative and the stroy wasn’t half-bad, but for the $60 price tag, it just wasn’t worthy. If the price tag was $40 or so I’d’ve bought it and had not second thoughts. Another game that I keep coming back to is GRAW 2, I don’t know why but I just love the singleplayer campaign.
If it’s a game that has a strong history behind it, like halo or Half-Life, then $60-50 is worth it.
If it’s a new franchise that has multi-player and single-player, then I would have to read up on it before I buy it. It would have to have a long, good single-player or a new twist on multi-player to get me interested, but I’m a sucker for an excellent single-player. Co-op is always a plus, and if it doesn’t come with Co-op, give it an SDK or the fan base will fall(a.k.a. Far Cry 2).
I too agree with everyone’s choice of half life here. I mean, let’s be honest, I don’t think anyone here would mind bending over for a good half life game. Although in the case of Dead Space, I found personally it was money well spent. I’ve sunk a lot of hours into that game, enjoyed it, and still come back for more. Depends on the person sometimes I guess.
Multiplayer is never a selling point for me; simply because Counter-Strike can’t be beaten (Crack-Strike). I’ve played CoD 4 online for months when it was new, I’ve played Halo with my friends, but nothing ever beats the experience that a great CS Server provides.
So on that note, I really only game for Single Player experiences. My criteria always has STORY at the top. A Great story always triumphs, but something innovative in the gameplay definitely helps. I cant remember how long I waited for HL2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Bioshock, Fallout 3, and more recently, Prototype.
Some games don’t need multiplayer; I feel like a lot of the games that throw it in there, simply add it to make up for their lacluster campaign.
to each his own.
No, Cossack, RE5 kicks ass lol.
I just got Dead Space yesterday and started playing today. So far it really feels like one of those games you play and you know it’s something special. But I got it for £15 rather than the full £40 so it’s worth what I payed so far lol.
I think in single player games it needs good replayability of the main story mode (eg. RE5, MGS4, Fallout 3) and steady streams of updates and DLC like for Fallout. If what everyone says about Fallout’s DLC is true then more devs should take a leaf out of their book and not Ubisoft’s!