Should future FPS's...

I keep hearing alot of complaining about the campaign length of current FPS franchises like CoD, BC2 and Homefront and I was just curious if you guys thought these companies should start having two totally different teams working on the campaign and multiplayer portions of these games and even possible sell them as separate packages. I almost think that is each dev team were to give 100% attention to their project, each portion would be even better. What do you think. think? Would you pay $30 for an online only portion of a CoD or BF game?

Future FPSs should be a hybrid between Chronicles of Riddick and FEAR 1.

Future FPSs should be a hybrid between Chronicles of Riddick and FEAR 1.

[QUOTE="Lucianu"]

Future FPSs should be a hybrid between Chronicles of Riddick and FEAR 1.

EddieTheHead84

I dunno.. can't agree.

Riddick's movie-like interactions, multitude of ways to kill of your enemies, melee, and FEAR's perfect gun mechanics and feel of them = GOAT FPS.

[QUOTE="EddieTheHead84"][QUOTE="Lucianu"]

Future FPSs should be a hybrid between Chronicles of Riddick and FEAR 1.

I dunno.. can't agree.

Riddick's movie-like interactions, multitude of ways to kill of your enemies, melee, and FEAR's perfect gun mechanics and feel of them = GOAT FPS.

I don't want this to happen.

Future fps's should have 2 versions:

Version one: n-version=version made for the main stream that just want easy controlls with no weight and killstreaks.

Version two: h-version=version made for the hardcore fans that want tactics and no killstreaks.

That's the future of fps!

I don't think that would work out from a business perspective.

Unfortunately, the big MP games sell more so they all feel they need to make MP portions of their games. I don't think those MP portions actually do a lot to increase the sales of any particular titles though, since people still gravitate towards the popular ones.

I'd rather most FPS games have a focus on story with added co-op or something.

Developers should get their act together and put it back the way it used to be

I was just curious if you guys thought these companies should start having two totally different teams working on the campaign and multiplayer portions of these games

kungfuchaos

yeah, id rather pay less money for the more openly game-y multiplayer portions than full price for some embarrassing single player campaign. while there are fps's with great single player modes (bioshock is one of my favorite games this generation), im mainly talking about multiplayer focused fps's such as CoD.

if publishers are looking to squeeze more money out of me, the way to do it would be to have $35 multiplayer game and then a $35 single player game. id never pay $60 for the whole thing, but id be more likely to pick up a multiplayer mode for $35 around launch. then im sure plenty of other people would buy both versions and the publisher would get more money out of them too.

Personaly,I'd like to see FPS combat(and TPS combat for that matter) pick up the pace.Quake 3-ish fast arena shooters kind of had the right idea.

i would love the robust narrative driven games like homefront have more length and just chuck the MP component..seriously one of the better FPS stories this gen, makes you think wow this could happen somehow, and the what if question.

I'll be happy as long as future FPS's have Move functionality.

No. There should simply be SP centric and MP centric. For example Battlefield 3 doesn't need a SP campaign.

Future FPS should focus on being original and not a CoD clone.