Stats Show How Rarely Game Campaigns Are Played

The only COD that matter are the original COD and the COD:MW.
Nobody needs the rest when we have CS and now, the battle royale games.

I wonder what happens to Medal of Honor.
 
While Treyarch is getting flak for developing Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 as a multiplayer-only title, statistics show that the decision could be justifiable. According to numbers gathered by TrueAchievements, few players are invested in the series’ single-player story modes.

The participation for the original Black Ops averaged 25.44% with the second game peaking at 27.13%. The third game averaged a paltry 4.14%, though to be fair this game's achievements are a bit different and require you play on higher than regular difficulty to unlock most of them. Still, the story completion achievement, which pops regardless of difficulty, sits at under 9%.

Maybe if the single player campaigns werent just an afterthought...
 
No lose here, COD Black Ops campaigns were all terrible.
Treyarch never could make a good COD game, the plot was boring as hell

COD4:MW and MW2 are still the best
I think they all suck now because the original company that made it, pretty much no longer exists. MW2 blew up the original IW, now its the scraps of its former self.

I gave up on this franchise after MW3. It became a $60 shit show. Was hoping they would make a good sequel to the first MW but it never happened.
I gave up on the CoD series after MW2 because of the stupid DLCs they had.......$15 for a port of 3 MW1 maps. Complete garbage.
 
The last time I tried playing a single player campaign in one of these games was Battlefield 4. Now, it was fun but, I got so far, the save game became corrupted and the only option was to start the game from the beginning. :eek: I was far into the game, did not want to do that and so I downloaded someones save game file, installed it but, it did not last. The save game corruption issues was common across all platforms so I just lost interest and gave up.
 
The company/developer just need to be honest. The COD franchise is just the Madden franchise of the pc's. Pump out a reskinned version of the same game over and over with a few gimmick upgrades? I love multiplayer, but I also love an engrossing single player game. Pretty sure that there are hundreds of SP titles disprove the assertion made in the title.

They know their target audience of the Wal-Mart/Hot Topic gamers and just need to stick with it. Your franchise has zero innovation and appeals to the lowest common denominator of gamers. Just own up to it, enjoy your easy cash grabs, but spare us these contrived justifications for your lack of soul.
 
Which came first? Them slacking off and making the SP portion a "training" mode rather than an engaging story lasting more than 15 min or people not playing SP anymore? While I don't mind if the developer just wants to make MP games, I don't think they should be saying that people don't like SP anymore. There are several SP games with no MP portion that were phenomenal. Maybe they should look at splinting their devs into SP only games and MP only games. That way they can both focus on making them the best they can be rather than a mediocre combo.
 
As you can see, there is a strong correlation between when we stopped giving a shit about developing a quality single-player campaigns and when people stopped playing them. It is reasonable to conclude then, if we stop making them, people will stop playing them."

I see your point. Take my money.
 
"The Story Participation Average is defined as the average percentage of unlocked story-line achievements for gamers that have started the game."

So anyone who's booted the game once? People that played all the campaign but didn't complete all the achievements for picking up different weapons etc have lower scores? I'm not sure I understand the testing methodology, but it doens't seem to justify what their numbers are intended to represent.

It's just their bs methodology to justify what they are doing. This is from a narrow scope of CoD games and perhaps and each studio probably has an idea whether or not THEY should be making SP. If it wasn't wanted, most would have stopped a long time ago. SP also depends on the nature of the game a lot.
 
No lose here, COD Black Ops campaigns were all terrible.
Treyarch never could make a good COD game, the plot was boring as hell

COD4:MW and MW2 are still the best
I thought the first Black Ops had a pretty good single player campaign. And despite how derivative it was, I thoroughly enjoyed the Ghosts campaign. In general, though, I would say Sledgehammer has the worst record when it comes to the single player campaigns with Treyarch a close second.

I would rate the campaigns as such out of the ones I played:
  1. Modern Warfare
  2. Call of Duty 2
  3. Call of Duty & United Offensive
  4. Ghosts
  5. Black Ops
  6. Modern Warfare 2
  7. World at War
  8. Modern Warfare 3
  9. Black Ops II
  10. Advanced Warfare
I haven't gotten around to playing the last 3 games or the console exclusive Call of Duty 3, yet.
 
I bought the CoD games originally FOR the campaign! As the quality of the games declined, RAPIDLY, after the original creative team was unceremoniously fired, I started to wean myself from them, only really playing because my brothers bought the games.

Now? I am completely done with the franchise. I am still boycotting any and all games with microtransactions and loot boxes anyway, but this really seals the deal.

Good luck to Treyarch and their PUBG/Fortnite/Overwatch clone. I am sure they will still sell millions of copies. But I won't be joining you on this one.
 
It's probably deliberately worded ambiguously, but It seems to me this is not even the percentage that played the campaign, but the percentage that played the campaign to completion.

When looking at it like that it falls just below average. Even Mass Effect 3 has a completion rate of less than 50%. Meaning at least one of every two people who played it didn't finish it.
 
I still say that once its released the DLC will fragment the community because there will be a drop off every time they "release new content" When I buy a game I want a full entire game. Not 5 multiplayer maps and 4 game modes that can be consumed and become redundant after 3 months of play. I can no longer (in my mind ) justify playing 60$ for a game just to have to turn around 2 or 3 months later and pay another 20- 30 to get more of the same game. This is what pissed me off with the MW2 DLC.....Activision is known for setting the standard for this type of crap, everyone else follows suit and people continue to buy the CoD series...... I ultimately blame blizzard (they rule the gaming world with their month sub to play WoW) Granted I think WoW is a great game (I no longer play) and they are very engaged with the community. With weekly maintenance and monthly updates. (the expansions add a ton of more content)
CoD series is clearly a cash grab that they created a business model where they don't have to support the game for more than 2 years before they move on. Whether people argree or not these are just my opinions and nothing more.
I find the DLC now-a-days to be close to as predatory as the loot boxes, the biggest prob with loot boxes is the randomness and the "rarity" of items drops.
 
I'm old. I bought the originals only for the SP campaigns. They were fun, and I had a great time playing through. When the games became MP focused, I stopped playing and lost all interest. I remember back when some of the top games invested in a good story line and I was immersed in a SP experience. I think age has gotten to me, because I don't find that anymore.
 
FPS campaigns have sucked for years now which is why I no longer buy or play most of them. Over fifty with work, family, volunteer work, etc. means when I have time to game I don't want to deal with 12 year olds practicing their temper tantrums. I'll got SP 90% of the time so the modern FPS with its MP-only or at least SP-sucks tilt are off my buy list.
 
Making a blanket statement that campaigns are not played much is inaccurate as it depends on the game in question. I always play the campaigns for one big reason "Hackers". I quit playing Battlefield series [and I have them all] because of hackers. I have yet to get beaten in single player mode from an AI player sniping you with a head shot every time from all the way across the map. After a few rounds of getting your ass handed to you by hackers I vent my frustration by pulling up a single player game or switch to campaign mode. Last night some low life hack was killing me with head shots from across the map while I was inside a tank.
 
This data is so miss leading and cherry picked so badly to argue against Singleplayer that it is revolting. I would also bet people who play Multiplayer longer then a week is probably less then 40% as well. Zelda the breath of the wild, God of war, Divinity II, Witcher 3 say hi. And im sure people didn't buy mass effect and dead space for the "Multiplayer mode"
 
CoD is the outlier? People play its SP because the MP is not that engaging with the tiny maps.
 
CoD has shifted to an MP focused game. Maybe it has always been that way. I remember CoD 2 and 4 were big campaign wise, although 4 was noted for the short length. Some games actually do work with a good SP campaign and good multiplayer. Think of Homeworld 2. However, not all games are that way.

That's the thing though... COD didn't start out as a MP game. We all played it for the SP because that's what people played when the original Call of Duties dropped. Hell, even Modern Warfare 1-3 had great campaigns and followed the stories of particular characters so really I think they are switching to MP-only because they don't want to put the effort into SP. If they want to deliver a MP-only game then cut that fucker's price to $40 and $60 for the game with a Season Pass. If people want the campaign, then you should be able to pay for it separately. Like, when they remastered COD 4... all I cared for was the campaign. But, I had to buy the Legacy Edition of Infinite Warfare and not until a year later did they release COD4 Remastered on it's own.

There are 3 studios that make COD games and each COD game by the time we see it is on a 3 year development cycle. Having a Multiplayer-only game is the biggest cash-grab ever imo because it takes no effort to say, "Okay, let's have 20 maps where people shoot each other." You don't have to put in any effort on story, or anything... you just keep releasing MP maps. For some games that works successfully like R6: Siege, but that's another game I don't play b/c there is no SP which was a huge disappointment especially after they abandoned the concept behind Rainbow Six Patriots.
 
only 50% of mass effect players played the story mode, and fallout 16%, well that is great, BS article.

I worked my way through that article with a grain of salt until I saw that and closed it. They hilariously took their snow job a little too far.

The COD franchise is just the Madden franchise of the pc's.

Pretty much this. Essentially $60 for a skin/map pack.
 
Multiplayer..... Haven't played any in years. I cut my multiplayer gaming teeth on Tribes and the original Counter Strike, those had a learning curve and the people that played them was into the team methodology of it. When Battlefield 1942 came out, it was fun, but the modern combat add-on(before they patched it and screwed up the helo piloting) was AWESOME. I played a little multiplayer on the modern combat version of COD, but alas' the general public in them was not to my liking. I drifted away from MP and pretty much just do SP anymore. I guess more of my age and the addons you earn as you play, I think you need to learn the game instead of getting more benefits as you play. I can understand the reasoning behind the MP versions, corporate minds=profit. I will stick with my SP though, Last COD I played was BO 2 I think, just didn't care for it, campaign that is, not thought out, just threw something together to match the maps is what I got. I got sandbox games now that are fun, Far Cry games, GTAV, Middle-earth(I know, not the same genre). Anyways, not much, but my 2 cents. :)
 
"The Story Participation Average is defined as the average percentage of unlocked story-line achievements for gamers that have started the game."

So anyone who's booted the game once? People that played all the campaign but didn't complete all the achievements for picking up different weapons etc have lower scores? I'm not sure I understand the testing methodology, but it doens't seem to justify what their numbers are intended to represent.
It includes players who haven't played any of the story line as well. ;)
 
the only ( might be) good thing is that those personnel behind SP can now go jump ship to another company which appreciates SP.
 
At least we still got our SUV's!

TEENS-SUV_AAA-Foundation-for-Traffic-Safety.jpg
 
Maybe if the single player campaigns werent just an afterthought...
They aren't. Well at least not in Black ops 1, and Infinite Warfare, the ones I played from the series.
 
Really?? I must be the only one then that generally plays games LIKE Gears of War, Titanfall 2 etc Single Player and beat it before I venture online. I call Shenanigans to those being the number. I beat GTA V on many platforms.. Only played online a few times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _l_
like this
"DICE believes in both all-out multiplayer and single player" - Battlefield.com/News

Might be time to thoroughly support DICE and boycott all other game developers who are saying they won't be supporting SP
 
Back
Top