How to play a sequel game?

There once was a blog I read, and now I can't find the link. The blogger was complaining about how tutorial levels in games are annoying, and how tutorial levels in sequels of games are even worse.

I thought to myself, I agree completely, but I want to express my own ideas and force them upon the internet worlds, if only I had a blog with which to do such a thing.

Wait a minute.

BAM.

Since I don't remember the link or where it was, I'll just go ahead and claim this topic for my own.

Recently I've been playing Mafia 2 (and you should be too, what's wrong with you? you lazy or somethin?? Read the review then try to tell me that your life is more important, it's not).

The tutorial level is that clever crap they've been slinging to us gamers for a few years now. Integrate it into the opening of the game. I have mixed emotions on this. I like it, and I usually like how they incorporate it and Mafia 2 didn't push it.

Gordon and I both agree that that's one of the severe downfalls to Fable 2. Agree with us, won't you?

The opening of Fable 2. I remember it like it was yesterday. I was at the midnight launch for the game, I rushed home, dimmed the lights, put on a robe and lit a few candles, and prepared to have what Peter Molyneux considers sex. Fable games.

Alright, time to pick my gender. I picked a boy since this is America. Hey, who's that narrator? Dame Judi Dench? No? Cool! Alright now I'm a little boy, and I have an older sister. Oh hey, that's how I swing.... ah, same as Fable 1. Hey that's how I interact? Ah, same as Fable 1. Ah good, a cutscene.

Oh, another cutscene. Alright..... mmhmm... more cutscenes. A few errands to run. Learn how to look at things, learn how to use items.... hmm. I'm.... I'm just going to go now. This is completely unsexual to me.

Just like that. Ok, let me explain. Ever play a game where they teach you a move, like a counterpunch or a dodge button. They have you do that 3 times, and then you learn it? (Mafia 2, you pushed this a bit too much). I understand the necessity, but.... I don't know if that's the way you should go about it. Fable 2 basically taught you how to play the entire game while forcing you to watch a good 20 minutes of cutscenes. Well if you hate em, skip em. Wait, you can't since it's a tutorial.

Well... shit. So what do I want? I dunno. I wouldn't say remove the tutorials completely. Some might say "well what are you doing playing the 2nd or 3rd game without playing the first?". This ain't twilight, no one gives a shit if you didn't have anything to do with the first game. Often this is a bit trickier than you think anyway.

Go play the first Elder Scrolls, or the first Call of Duty. Have fun. Tutorials are necessary as the new game usually has a few tricks up it's sleeve and you'll need to know them.

So here's how you can approach the tutorial problem.

1. Flat-out tutorial at the beginning of the game (not skippable).
2. Flat-out tutorial (skippable).
3. Integrate it into the first hour or so of the game.
4. Explain how to do each thing as you get to it.
5. Give a big ole finger to the gamer and have them figure it out.

Ok, 1-4 require a great deal of cutscenes. 5 doesn't really have them, but 5 is rare anyway. (Shooters of the ye olde days used to do that do us)

Skippable tutorials are nice, but usually if the designers are bold enough to choose this, you are already extremely familiar with the controls. (Bully pulls this trick, but it's GTA3, who isn't used to those controls?? Russians?? Denmarks? big shout outs?)

Mafia 2 does 3, Lego Harry Potter does 4, Red Dead does a bit of 1 and 3. Dead Rising does some 4 and 5ish (5 for the melee attacks). Limbo does 3 but in a nice way, Borderlands does 2. And those are all of the games I can see around my xbox. Well... Limbo isnt...shut up.

#3 is alright, but only if they don't make it super obvious that's the reason for portions of the game. (Here, collect this coin on the other side of the wall, oh you need to jump the wall? How do you do that? I'm glad you asked!.......*sigh*.....

Is there a good combo? A nice way to present this issue? Yes! For my money it depends on the game, but usually I'll take a #2 for the basics, #4 for anything interesting. Will the possibility of Fable 3 having a big #1 at the beginning keep me from playing it? No... but... I mean. I know how to play the game. If you changed systems, or completely re-vamped controls then sure, otherwise just let me jump in!

Hell, half of this blog could turn into the opening moments of a game. Let's for now leave it at "games take too long to get going. I understand the need to get the gamer acquainted to the environment, but usually it's just an obvious ploy. I want to play now. Think of the last new game you got where you didn't have to dedicate at least 30 minutes to it before your first save? Here's the kicker: a good portion of games 20 years ago we all grew up on? Those didn't even have saves, you had to just play though. The tutorials were a booklet inside of the game. (Booklet? wtf? what am I playin? a pc game?)

There's something to be said about the first few hours of a game, and something to be said about how people play games. What do you say internet? That a good topic for our podcast?? (whaaaa????)

We've gone from instruction booklets, to 30 minute instruction walkthroughs, but the booklets are still there. For me? I just want to play the game, and figure it out on my own.

Xbox 360's Mafia 2

I was probably one of the few people who played every single bit of Mafia 1.

Does that make me special? No. Does that make me an individual? No.

So what difference does that make and why should anyone care? Mafia 1... wasn't exactly a normal game. It was a limited/open world game that was mainly storyline driven, but a completists paradise. You had the ability to go anywhere, basically do anything, but there were no sidequests.

Now obviously I'm not actually the only person who played every bit of the game, but it took determination and a severe case of a compulsive disorder to actually want to finish everything in the game.

And those bastards.... made Mafia 2 in the same exact way. I walk into my old friend's apartment in Empire City, and there is a magazine on the floor. The option to pick it up appears, so I do, and lo and behold.... there are about 50 more like it to collect.

You bastards.

Wanted posters, Playboy magazines, game posters, cars and clothes. All collectible. Well now I have to get them all.

See here's the problem. I'm an achievementist, meaning I have a desire to get all of the achievements. Completist, trophy-whore, whatever you want to call it. Mafia 2 fulfills my needs in this sense. So what makes it different from any other game that has achievements/collectibles? It makes it possible and worthwhile. Some games require you to find 500 flags, or kill certain people in a certain amount of time. Mafia 2 gives you lower numbers to obtain, but various things to get, to remove some of the tedium.

So what about the game? It's good. Solid. Enjoyable. I played for about 6 hours straight as soon as I started. That's the danger about games like this. They are open-ended, but they don't overwhelm you with sidequests. Rather they have jobs you could do, but no one is forcing you. Usually they just give you more money, that you can spend on clothes or cars or guns. No necessary sidequests.

That does make the game somewhat short. 15ish chapters and I'm on ch 6 now. I started to play yesterday. So does this detract from the overall experience? Not in the least.

Being able to actually complete a game, and see an end in the distance is somewhat refreshing. Remember in GTA4 when you go to the sniper mission on top of the building? It felt like the end, the mission took a good hour to finish, and was pretty tough. Oh no. You weren't done in the least. You had another like 10 missions to do. Even when you finished those, the game informed you that you were only like 60% done. The rest were sidequests.

Now here me out, there's nothing wrong with that. It's just nice to have a game that I know I'll finish in the 20 hour mark, achievements included. I have a stack of games "still to finish", and that stack keeps growing. It'd be nice to not have to put another game on that pile. (Editor note: Doug's concept of finishing a game means 100%, achievements included usually).

The games great. Good strong storyline with a huge twist right before the middle of the game that you won't see coming, and wonder how they could possibly continue the game. If you've played Mafia 1, GTA3-4, Godfather 1 or 2, Sabetour, Red Dead Redemption, Assassin's Creed 1-2, or any other somewhat open gameplay title you're familiar with the concept. There are cars, they handle like cars from the 1940's would. There are guns, you shoot them. The fighting system isn't terrible once you get the hang of it. It's a snap if you were just playing Red Dead. The music and environment are period and spot on for the time period.

The story. The story, just keeps you involved and makes you want to watch the cut scenes. For some reason I connected with our player Vito quickly, he acts and speaks like how I imagine I would if I were in that situation. His character work, and all of the characters you'll run into, obviously have had work put into them. That's something I admire nowadays in games. Some people will show fear in certain situations, everyone has their own idea of morals and justice. One scene in particular I remember looking at Vito and thinking "there's no way he can be ok with this". Sure enough the next scene he starts to have his doubts.

Mafia 1 was recognized for it's strong story and character development. They had a decent fighting system, and a decent structure, but the story was the strong point. Mafia 2 doesn't let down. The reviews are mixed overall, and to me that's a sign of a good game that doesn't appeal to everyone (see: COD crowd). Usually when the critics can't agree it means they refuse to allow a smaller title and a smaller gaming company to get any sort of huge success. 2k Czech were the parents of this game, and the company basically made the first Mafia as well. If it was Activision or Treyarch they'd be proclaiming this game a GTA4 killer, but that's modern gaming politics for you.

Should you buy this game? Yes. It has a strong story, great environments, and an experience you have no problem enjoying, visiting, and even revisiting. (There are reasons to play through again). It might not stay on your shelf forever, but for the time it does spend there, you'll enjoy a well-made game as long as you know what to expect and where to look.

Back at work and the Sony Move

So, I went back to work today. I work at one of those.....video game....stores you people shop at.

Look, I enjoy theatre, but it don't pay the bills. So the Sony Rep was in and she had the Sony Move. She wanted me to try it. Alright.

OMG THIS THING.

is the wii.

Epic fail sony. Here's my problem with it. It's the same song and dance I was given during the wii. LOOKIT YOUR MOVING THE CHARACTER WHEN YOU MOVE. I was not impressed. Here are the highlights as expressed by the sony rep/ customers.

1. It's more responsive than the wii.

2. It's got ps3 graphics

3. It's got more adult games.

4. Moves smoother and has more options.

k, well. it doesn't fix my initial problem with motion controls. I don't wanna. Literally it's that simple. Motion controls are fine and good, but I don't want to get up and I don't want to move my arms that much.

I did hear one sane regular customer define it wonderfully "yeah, it's like guitar hero, fine when friends are over, otherwise you look like a moron playing alone".

True stories all around. Take what you do for the Wii, how often you play it, how long you play it, and double that. Surprise, you have the Sony Move. I don't want to move that much when I play games. To me, playing games are supposed to be relaxing and a hobby, not exercise and a family adventure.

So why does it even matter? Why am I complaining about it? The Sony Move, and the Kinetic for all purposes, are being targeted to all gamers. Not families and people with friends, no. ALL GAMERS. Stop that. All gamers don't all want that.

Will I buy the Sony Move? No. Will I buy the kinetic? No. Why? Gaming isn't a full body experience. Gaming isn't a group thing in my mind. Will they make rpgs for the move? Probably not. Will they make first person shooters for the Kinetic? Probably not. Will they make anything that takes any amount of time longer than 2 or 3 hours to play? Of course not. You're moving around and using your full body, that get's exhausting. Oh!! Oh there it is! That's my problem with it.

When I game, I sit, or sometimes lay down, and enjoy the relaxing environment. To me, motion controls are single player naked twister. Fun if a crowd is watching, but even then.. after some time it's just sad.

(Also, I paid off my Fallout, Fable 3, Super Scribblenauts, WWE SvR2011, James Bond: Blood Stone, Wii Goldeneye and Dj Hero 2, so.... that's what's next)

Xbox 360's Dead Rising 2

I think I still like Dead Rising.

Pretty sure. See here's the problem. I loooved Dead Rising 1. First game I ever had on the 360. The 2nd game is fine... but. Ok, let me start over. Dead Rising is a video game about zombies taking over a city/mall. You are a survivor, and you have a gallon of different missions to choose from, and 3 days in which to do everything. Oh and you can fight.

I played the game until the 2nd day when I had to get more medicine for my daughter. (There is a daily requirement that you obtain a specific medicine for your daughter and bring it back to her at a specific time, 3 days pass during the game, so you have to do this 3 times).

Well, you have to get to your daughter at 7am, and it was like 4am, and I was fighting this guy on a motorcycle with chainsaws, and I kinda had the feeling that if I killed him, I'd get his bike.

Long story short, I was done at like 5am, and had 2 hours to get to the other side of the map and find medicine and get back to my daughter. Can't be done.

Aaaaaah. Dead Rising's inherent problem: Time specific objectives.

For instance, a storyline mission will start at 8pm. Let's say it's 3pm now. You are busy collecting and returning survivors as is your secondary objective. 5pm rolls around and you get an updated mission that you think might get you better gear. Well... you can either go do that new gear mission, or the storyline mission. But you have to choose.

Don't do the storyline and the story won't progress, don't do the gear mission and you might be under-equiped for whatever is coming up. And that's the problem with Dead Rising's concept. You're constantly feeling like you're behind, or you won't get to do everything you'd like to do. Some missions are fairly tough, the story line missions tend to be a bit easier. However, either way the only way to raise your characters skill level is to do side missions and retrieve and rescue survivors. Too bad you're too busy doing storyline missions.

It was the same problem in the first game, but it's somewhat hard to address. I feel as though the creators simply want you to play through multiple times; once doing straight storyline missions, once with side missions, once just screwing around. But I don't have that same desire. I like doing the storyline missions, and completing the side quests as well. (I'll have WoW to thank for that). Problem is, you're being timed. You have to be at specific places at specific times.

Alright, all that aside, is the game any good? Yes!

They took everything we liked about the first game, and transferred it over. Controls are the same and simple (jump, punch, use weapon, throw). I did notice that our new character (Chuck Greene) is a bit less pugilistic than Frank from the first game. I think this is the creators way of getting us to use more weapons. And there are a various a-sundry of weapons to use. Everything from matrimonial aides to MMA gloves. The possibilities are endless.

Oh, you say there's something else? Ah yes, combining weapons. Take a box of nails and a baseball bat, get some tape, and you have the "Moe Szyslak Alien Killer", more commonly know as board with nails in it. A bucket with a power drill? A hilarious helmet. Some combinations are revealed to you during the course of the game, while others are found at specific sides (maintenance closets). Some aren't even mentioned at all until you try them. There's a great deal of fun to be had trying out different combinations and seeing what works. As in the first game, the weapons will eventually break, and no weapon is greater than the other. (The crowbar, while effective, has to wide attack, while the baseball bat is weak on single strikes, the strong attack has a huge range and arc). Every weapon has a light and strong attack, and some have special effects when thrown.

Might I mention the online play? You mean online play that Doug actually enjoys?? Wha?? Yep, it transforms the game into a co-op game anytime you'd like. Find a particularly hard mission? Jump online and see if someone will help you out, complete strangers or friends alike. Want to try the in-game mini-game "Terror Is Reality" to make some cash? You sure can, with again complete strangers or friends. People can jump into and out of your game, and you can do the same. It's a nice little feature that would be awesome if more people were actually playing the game, haha, but it works.

Cons? Aside from the timing issue, Chuck seems a bit slow at running for a former motocross pro. You don't get the melee attacks from the first game right away so running into a horde of zombies without a weapon is sketchy to say the least. The storyline is a bit farfetched. Yeah. I said it, a zombie story is a bit farfetched. Hilariously nowadays there are believable zombie stories, and unbelievable ones. You'll see what I mean when you reach the train level.

Pros? Tons of zombies to kill, lots of weapons, tons of missions, lots of comedy. The replay is through the roof, many times through and many different possibilities.

Should you buy this game?

Not unless you enjoyed the first one and know what you're getting into. There will be DLCs though, so don't worry too much if you do buy it. Plus the co-op allows for tons of fun later on.

Should you rent this game?

Sure! It would be an extremely fun weekend adventure without the feeling of devoting something to it.

It's killing hundreds of thousands of zombies, in hundreds of different ways. Take it or leave it.

UT2K4 for the PC?

Do you see what's happening? 3 people, from 3 different places, will all generally agree.

Shooters; they just don't make them like they used to.

FPS games are dying, and the console is what they're going to be buried in.

Here's my problem (and it's been stated time and time again, especially in the Metro 2033 review)

Consoles just aren't made for shooters. Now, here's why:

The keyboard and mouse combo generally found on a pc allows for greater control and diversity for gaming.

10's of keys compared to roughly under 10 buttons (remappable of course using shoulder buttons and the such). The mouse allows for extremely precise selections. Snipers paradise as it were.

IF controllers were so great for sniping and general view/ selection controls, don't you think computers would use controllers? Give a computer user a trackball and watch them squirm.

I could go on and on about pc/console shooters, but most average age gamers will tell you that it's harder and harder to play on a console, but rarer and rarer to find and be able to play a pc shooter. (Crysis, look, the fact that you're a benchmark game is a BAD thing, it means you're basically unplayable).

Folks, here's the skinny. The recent discussions of console shooters have reminded me of a wonderful excellent shooter. A beautiful shooter, arguably one of the best games out there.

Unreal Tournament 2004.

Now, what ties this all together. A gaming/theatre friend the other day admitted to me that he'd never played the fabled UT2K4. I handed him my mac and said "PLAY NOW".

This game... a beautiful birth of many different things. Unreal existed years before, Unreal Tournament existed as a ps2 game as well. Unreal is an engine that many prolific shooters still use to this day. Where do I begin? Hell, I still remember if you bought UT2K4 and owned UT2K3 they'd send you a check for $10. Sweet deal.

It was just a good game. The multiplayer put all other multiplayers to shame.

YOU HEAR ME? ALL OTHERS!!!

It was lightning fast, simple to pick up, and easy to play. It didn't require a beast of a system, didn't require complex controls if you didn't want to, it was very accessible in that sense. And that's ultimately what made it sell so well. Same thing with Unreal Tournament and Unreal Tournament 2k3. Look, Halo, COD:MW, BF- all of them take something from UT2K4. It's that simple.

You were a futuristic smash-tv/running man type thing. It had space stations, future guns and monsters look SHUT UP, it doesn't matter. Play it. You'll see what I mean. Rankings? Didn't exist, you had name recognition. Adjustable multiplayer games? Nope. Suck it up wussy.

The game was tough, but easy to play, tough to master. 6 (?) skill levels, tons of weapons, mapeditors that you actually wanted to use and play with. There's a reason why you'll find a ton of UT2K4 competitions today, it's like the great equalizer. Put Goldeneye and UT2K4 in the same room and the room explodes.

ok maybe not. But UT2K4 was the pc version of what Goldeneye did for the console. That make sense? Great.

Here's a sample of my current UT2K4 key mapping. Q and E switch weapons, WASD move me, R makes me use doors, F brings up a leaderboard. Space makes me jump. CTR makes me crouch. Shift zooms me. Simple. Simple Simple.

Look at the mapping for COD, it's a nightmare. There's a run button, a jump, a grenade button, a melee button, a shoot, an aim, a crouch, a use button, look that's not the point. Too complicated makes for less precision. You're great at COD? Awesome. you probably don't like Halo. You're great at Halo? Great, you probably hate Battlefield. UT2K4 surmised all of those games.

About 15 weapons, all with an alternate fire, nothing fancy. Hundreds of maps, HUNDREDS. A solid engine that ran at 60fps without blinking. Ping didn't exist. Hackers didn't care. You didn't have rankings. A built in music player. Modifiable taunts. Modifiable game rules (no gravity, regen health only when you shoot). A ton of player and game options. Bots.

WAIT. DID YOU SAY MUSIC PLAYER? yep. create a playlist and ut2k4 would play it in game. FIND THAT BUILT INTO A MODERN SHOOTER. Doesn't exist. I actually turned on COD, Halo, and BF just now to check. Doesn't exist. You have to use the console media player.

WAIT, DID YOU SAY BOTS?

Yep. want to play an online CTF game but don't have enough friends with you? The adjustable AT bots will join in, and the adjustable AI bots will kick your ass if needed. Or you can make them easier. pansy. but the ai is pretty dang smart either way.

So obviously, console shooters are dying, just no one thought to tell the fans. Doug what about the great sales of modern console shooters? Aummduh.... more people are playing games in general nowadays. Doesn't count. Also, take the average COD player, are they honestly a gamer? Or a COD gamer? Give them Final Fantasy and see what happens.

OR. go pick up a copy of UT2K4 and play that for a while.

OH WAIT DID I FORGET TO MENTION. epic games (the creators) are cool with the game being distributed for free? Hmmmmmmmmmm. Epic indeed.

Halo, and goodbye. For reals this time!

Listen, I realize it’s rated as one of the most award-winning games across the world. It’s the reason the Xbox took off the way it did. Heck, it’s the reason console shooters just exploded. Yes, I did admittedly wait for it come the midnight release, and yes I have technically bought it twice thus far, but I am no longer impressed with Halo.
Halo: Reach (Reach), lemme just say, has a very impressive campaign mode. The story feels epic, and let me just say I am a fan of the books so I know how this game ends. The whole game just has this feeling of epic dread surrounding it, like all hope is lost and you are just going through the motions to try and survive. It was just awesome. Sadly, the campaign is only five hours and you are left with is the multiplayer.
This is where Halo, at once was my love, and now is old hat. I used to enjoy everything Halo 1,2, and 3 had to offer. But, it was during Halo 3 when something struck me: It felt like every other Halo game before it. The maps where similar to the ones in Halo 1 and 2, the combat was the same but with slightly different weapons, and there were slightly different vehicles. I totally skipped Halo: ODST because it was a slight retelling of Halo 3, which I didn’t care for Bungie getting lazy on the storyboarding. Halo: Reach has enough different elements, but finds a way to still F’ some things up. Allow me to explain….
Reach introduces new items like jetpacks, active camo, dodge rolls, armor lock (temp invincibility) and what not. It case you don’t know the stroyline, Reach is the planet where Spartans (the type of soldier in armor the Master Chief is) train and learn to be alien destroying soldiers. So…if this is the planet where all this awesome technology came from, why isn’t it in any of the other games? Also, it used to be in Halo 1 that popping a Hunter (a monstrous alien with a shield and cannon arm) in the back with the pistol would drop him. Now it takes 50 shotgun blasts, or 6-8 rocket blasts, more magazines of rifle ammo than you will ever have on you, etc.
The point is they made what was a somewhat simple task in the first Halo into a ridiculous endeavor. Perhaps the developers wanted to instill the fear you should have felt against them in the first place, which is fine I can respect that. Also, did you guys know that it has taken Bungie 8 years to finally put a sprint mechanic into a Halo game? I remembered when it was promised back in before Halo 2 was released, but then again Bungie also promised shootable cover, but I guess they decided against realism since glass is still and acceptable form of cover 500 years in the future.
As a matter of fact, after playing Halo for YEARS now, it never crossed my mind to think…why is it 500 years in the future, a freaking half century later, we are still using gas-powered ballistic weapons? What? You know what was the most advanced weapon in 1510? THE CROSSBOW! Are we to believe that in the future, weapon advancements pretty much halted at the gas-powered assault rifle. The weapons in MW2 are more advanced than the Human ones in Halo. The Covenant ones are interesting, but my point is made.
My final point to why I can no longer play Halo, it’s just not original anymore. You really wanna know the reason why Reach’s campaign seems so good to me? It’s because it plays out like both Modern Warfare games. The story is similar, the set-up is exactly the same, there is even a moment where you are manning a gunship’s automatic grenade launcher while you fly to your next destination. Hell, there was even a dual sniper scene. All Bungie did was straight up copy Modern Warfare. Now, if only they just copied the multiplayer formula, since the moment MW: Black Ops comes out, Reach is gone, as in, it’s being traded at my local Gamestop (favorite ever to shop in) the moment it comes out.

My gripes with console shooters

Okay, so am I the only one who thinks that the console shooter is annoying to play?  I realize that console shooters are the most popular games out there, but still... console input for aiming pretty much... blows.  The joystick is remarkably imprecise, at least compared to the mouse on a PC shooter.  I mean, yes there's usually a secondary button for making more precise aim (typically the right trigger) but even then, i feel like the game design isn't set up with the intent that you're going to use that function very often.  The amount that I use that right  trigger to aim is ridiculous, I feel like I'm always pushing that button.

I mean ever since Goldeneye proved that console shooters could work, I feel like we never evolved past that setup.  It's essentially the same input style, except slightly more ergonomic.  AND Goldeneye had an aim assist, so that's what really made that system work.  I mean, I could be wrong because maybe I don't have my joystick speed set up correctly, or maybe I'm just asking too much for there to be a very precise input, or maybe I'm just bad at these things.

I mean this is my main reason I think Fallout 3 is my favorite console shooter, since there is the VATS system, so I don't have to sit there for 30 seconds trying to hone in on some guys head whilst he's wailing away at me with a super sledge.  I can just hit that VATS button and Voila!  It takes the scattering of shooting I would have been doing, and leaves it up to chance based on my characters stats.  I mean sometimes I like sitting there with a sniper rifle or scoped 44 mag and picking people off from a distance, but that's because I can take the time to hone in on where I want to aim since I'm not being immediately attacked by the guy I'm trying to kill.  Honestly I don't see how anyone can play multiplayer Halo or MW2 without wanting to kill themselves because they can't seem to hit anyone unless they're playing as some sort of sniper position.

Okay, to be honest, I'm maybe overplaying my distaste of console shooters.  But then again maybe not... I mean I haven't played Battlefield:BC2 since i finished the singleplayer campaign.  Maybe my real problem is that I'm no good at console multiplayer... I don't know.  Am I wrong about this shit?