Analyst labels Bulletstorm sales "disappointing"

That's a shame. I enjoyed Bulletstorm. Saying that, I only rented it, and completed the campaign in less than a week, with little motivation to go back and improve my scores in the Echoes.
All the same, an enjoyable FPS. Funny characters, decent gameplay, some great set pieces, and very nice graphics, and left nicely set for a sequel. I wonder if we'll see one now?

When I pre-ordered this game, it was going to be co-op. I also rented this game so my hubby and I could play the co-op mission. I returned my purchased copy after I saw the interview with Cliff about why the removed co-op. Why do you think Gears was such a popular game, Epic? Because while it was awesome, and it was awesome; it was co-op!!! We couple gamers need more games!

I kept the rented copy so I could play solo, and I finished 50% of the game in one evening - really? I'm a little bummed because my expectations were so high for this game.

I admit game play is great; skillshots, beautiful graphics, a decent story, nice controls... Oh Epic... Bring back co-op. I'll pay for two games, or extra for one. Make the co-op play DLC, I'll buy it! Just bring co-op back to Bulletstorm.

Okay, I know - it's not happening. A girl can dream.

The reason I didn't purchase this is because I know I will play it through once and trade it in. I will purchase it but not till the price drops. There is no.replay value for me just to try getting higher scores

I can see why it didn't set the world alight. Single player is fun and there are some great lines in it, the visuals are great and story is good but for me there was no longevity to it. Finished it today and am looking to trade it in. Just looking for a new game to throw money at.

I really enjoyed it. This, Two Worlds, TDU 2, Dead Space 2 and Dragon Age 2...has there ever been a better start for a year?

When I pre-ordered this game, it was going to be co-op. I also rented this game so my hubby and I could play the co-op mission. I returned my purchased copy after I saw the interview with Cliff about why the removed co-op. Why do you think Gears was such a popular game, Epic? Because while it was awesome, and it was awesome; it was co-op!!! We couple gamers need more games!

I kept the rented copy so I could play solo, and I finished 50% of the game in one evening - really? I'm a little bummed because my expectations were so high for this game.

I admit game play is great; skillshots, beautiful graphics, a decent story, nice controls... Oh Epic... Bring back co-op. I'll pay for two games, or extra for one. Make the co-op play DLC, I'll buy it! Just bring co-op back to Bulletstorm.

Okay, I know - it's not happening. A girl can dream.

And a boy!

I've practically given up on first-person shooters because so few have co-op and the ones that do (usually a tiny choice) don't interest me.

Sadly the industry doesn't think anyone cares for co-op. I wish they'd taken notice of the Left4Dead series which was all about this game type.

In the past I'd filled my allocated friends list up with co-op players. It's such a pleasant way of gaming. It's also one of the most likely features to be announced and then retracted.

I'm glad it failed; just or being another game who's developers promised this feature and failed to have the ability to include it in the final game.

I don't get you, loads of FPS offer co-op:

The left 4 dead games (as you say), Halo series, Borderlands, Rainbow Six, Call of Duty (Spec Ops more than zombies), as for others in general - Gears of war series, ghost recon, Splinter cell, fable, red dead redemption.

Ok those last two are only available co-op online, and the list isn't very long (Im positive there are more) but there are a few AAA titles there, and whilst it is a shame this game doesn't have coop I wouldn't say there is little choice.

Most games people (who I know) want coop on are single player and always have been; Elder scrolls, Fallout 3, Dragon Age (though I can see the latter working) Grand theft auto (SA did have coop, crap coop - splitscreen anyone?)

Or maybe I'm an optimist.

Bezza,
I know there are a few games, but not many with co-op.

To take your list; I hate the Halo series. I have played them all through in co-op at least once though. That's how much I love co-op campaign. In the past I've played co-op campaign games for 18 months or more. I'm incredibly dedicated to the games who allow me to play this way but absolutely refuse to buy a game without co-op campaign. I'd rather rent, and ensure I'm not adding to the developers profits. It's the only way I can send a message to developers. After all, they absolutely don't care what gamers say.

Zombie mode in Call of Duty is not co-op campaign, and in all honesty, while it's fun for a while, it's not worth buying a game for. It's not even worth buying the game secondhand. And I certainly wouldn't care to buy a game made by Treyarch, when they make the worst FPS maps, make some of the dumbest AI and gameplay decisions.

Ghost Recon isn't an option. I absolutely detest their aim system when you're using cover. The screen stays still and your cursor moves. Unbelievably bad idea. And that's why it's not seen in any other shooters. At least allow people to use the standard method of moving/aiming in FPS if they prefer.

Red Dead Redemption is not a first-person game. I'm talking first person shooter games only, so Splinter cell, Gears of War and Fable are out of the question too. Although I've played a total of three third-person games, I hate this style of game. No atmosphere for me, terrible view, always have a character in the way (obviously that's the idea), so these games are not for me, although I fully accept they're generally better games, more complete, better value, better stories and character development than first-person shooters.

Rainbow Six is unplayable because of the horrendeous 30 and less frames a second. Although this is probably the best game of the lot that you've mentioend. A couple of the past games still remain some of favourite ever games. I remember why I got rid of the last one in the end... Unbelievably bad AI, with ridiculous aiming ability. With Modern Warfare's engine and AI I'd still be playing Rainbow Six today, probably. Terrorist hunt was amazing fun too. You could play that co-op.

So that leaves Borderland and Left4Dead. Borderlands I played and had some fun with for a while, but it's badly designed in that you either end up joining a game where you can unload clip after clip with no effect on the enemy, or it's the complete opposite and you're too powerful, and that's just as dull. Fun for a while, but thoughtless decisions by the developer screwed this one up. I suspect it's dead online now because most others thought the same.

So Left4Dead... The first game was amazing, except for the badly designed game AI director, or whatever it was called. I played it all the time, made a load of friends and had a wonderful time. Then, one year later, those idiots at Valve brought out that terrible sequel and everyone stopped playing the first.

Saying that, there are plenty of games I'd love to have been able to play co-op campaign. I'm not interested in wasting money on a single player game only and will never buy a shooter again that doesn't have online co-op campaign.

I'd probably own on a dozen or more first person shooters right now if developers actually stuck to their guns and produced their games with co-op campaign or if co-op-scared developers bit the bullet and learnt how to code a game to play online co-op campaign.

The choice currently sits at zero, but hopefully there might be one or two coming in the next year or so. Fingers crossed.

Some fair points, I just named the games I like playing co-op, and obviously opinions will differ.

But you have to agree there is choice out there, whether you like them or not. I agree there should be more but I had to say there are some out there.

Bezza89
Yep, I agree there some, albeit a p**s poor choice, but if you happen to be lucky enough to like what little is on offer then you're happy. I think it's fast becoming a game type that will all but disappear soon.

I can only imagine the outcry if single player or adversarial multiplayer game types were treated the same way as co-op campaign. It's probably fair to say they're safe, even if single player games are rapidly shrinking (in FPS). Maybe they'll become rare too as the industry accepts gamers mainly buy games for multiplayer, and that's where the majority of their profits lie. There's also the added bonus of selling extra maps for what must be fast, easy money.

Come to think of it, perhaps the whole promise of co-op campaign is a marketing ploy to get people interested in a game. Perhaps it even works for the majority of gamers.

the industry accepts gamers mainly buy games for multiplayer,

Successive reports from the statistics of MS and several big developers have all show that with the exception of a few like CoD only about 40% of gamers play multiplayer regularly. Sod Co-op, I want single player FPS that last more then twenty minutes.

I enjoyed Kayne and Lynch 1+2, that was a lot of fun!

I cannot say i agree on your opinion on borderlands. That for me was insanely addictive. There were three of us, all as different classes,having a blast as we rolled on through the meaty story.
The reason it was either too hard or easy was because you were playing with other gamers who had progressed further in the game, or had not yet reached the level you were currently at.

Refusing to play games that dont have a co-op campaign means you will miss out on some top titles.

I bet you cannot wait for Gears 3, four player co-op baby!! That wil be truly special

I bought bulletstorm after umming and arring, and have really enjoyed it so far. The campaign was great, good story, characters, and the settings were nice and varied. I too was gutted when i took it back to mine with my friend, and realized NO CO-OP campaign,NO CO-OP echoes, only anarchy mode which is fun bit still a little disappointing. I do not regret buying the game, and plan to replay this one on very hard for those cheevos, and get some juicy points on echoes mode. Perhaps they will update with DLC or a patch for the lack of Co-op but it will probably be to late, as gamers would of moved on to their next game by then.

MORTAL KOMBAT IN APRIL >.<

I hate this style of game.

Rainbow Six is unplayable because of the horrendeous 30 and less frames a second.

So that leaves Borderland and Left4Dead. Borderlands I played and had some fun with for a while, but it's badly designed

So Left4Dead... The first game was amazing, except for the badly designed game AI director

those idiots at Valve brought out that terrible sequel and everyone stopped playing the first.

Sounds to me like you don't like all that much buddy! Maybe you're a little too hard to please?

I actually really enjoyed bulletstorm. Its a break from the pretentious FPS's like COD and MoH who try too hard to be 'realistic'. Bulletstorm is made for having fun, I'm on my third play through now, just enjoying finding all the skillshots and seeing what combos i can rack up. I think that games now are far too much about playing through once so you can say you've completed it, and gamerscore doesn't help in this respect (although I'm a big fan in general). Too many gamers finish a game and then throw it away for the next 8 hour 'campaign mode'. Bulletstorm has got me coming back for more because its actually enjoyable to play through, the story makes little difference to the experience (fortunately- its not oscar winning stuff). It was a nice flashback to a time when FPS games were balls-out explosion fests, and while I'm glad we've moved past that in many respects as I've grown up with the games, its refreshing to take a hit from the bong that is Bulletstorm.

DMIK

I admit, I use forums to express my negative views of gaming, rather than praising it. But as I've said on a few occasions, when I like a game, I really love it.

Here's a list of games that I have loved; ProEvo (all versions), Forza (2 only, the last one I didn't care for), Gran Turismo (only played the most recent), Riddick, The Darkness, Top Spin (the first one on the Xbox, sequel was bad), Close Combat: first to fight (stunning game for co-op), Rainbow Six (the first one on the original Xbox and to a lesser extend the last one), Tomb Raider (the first one I loved, never touched another), Oblivion (game-breaking glitches ruined this sadly), Colin McRae (bought all but one, and it's my favourite game series) and Mass Effect (first one rates as one of my all time favs). On the computer America's Army, Strike Force (an Unreal Tournament mod), Dark Forces, Ace Combat, Command and Conquer, Warcraft and Marathon, the shooter that started my gaming obsession. I'm sure I've missed a couple out. But each of those games was played obsessively, with the majority having me play all-nighters many, many times. I've often put gaming in front of work and relationships.

Prior to that, as a kid I had a ZX Spectrum (I think man had just dropped out of the trees when this was about!).

The majority of my complaints are based around sequels being worse rather than better and improving on the originals. Or worse still developers' apparent insistence on not learning from and watching the rest of the industry.

I love the style of first-person and find third-person almost unplayable. First-person has the ability to completely emerse me in it's virtual world. Third-person is like watching a really bad movie, most of the time, the turning and aim is slow (which is why of course most of these games have some form of aiming aid, or in GTA's case auto aiming; really what is the point!?!). Fortunately when shooters fail, there's often a driving game or sports game to keep me entertained.

I'm a passionate gamer, and I'm vocal, and as a designer I have opinions, I want to see standards, and having that unique ability to touch-type I end up posting long, vocal and opinionated messages. Admittedly I find it easier to complain about what's wrong, rather than go on about what's right. So while it may appear that I'm miserable gamer, I'm more a disappointed one than anything. I've grown up with gaming, but gaming doesn't seem to be maturing. It's still very much an amateur business, with what seems like low standards, except in graphical terms. AI hasn't developed since the 90s, games have far more glitches, and sequels often seem to get worse rather than improve on the past. I hate the way the industry more than ever sees gamers as little walking bank accounts.

I'm a big fan of realism and sim-like games. And I absolutely love co-op campaign. Combine those elements and I'm in heaven (assuming I like the game!).

I'm totally with you on the gamerscore. I have always played games for fun. I don't need a carrott to play. I don't need a reward beyond the fun the game gives me. I don't even need a leaderboard (although I've actually topped one, and come high in several). One of the worst games for Gamerscore was the original Left4Dead. I made plenty of friends playing through co-op, but ultimately after helping dozens finish the game they'd disappear. They only seemed to play to get those final Gamerscores and were off to a new game to earn more. That's what gaming has become for some. Sad, really sad. I expect Microsoft (and Sony) will reset their respective Gamerscores, with their future machines, which makes the persuit of such a thing utterly pointless. I mean, seriously, who's impressed with Gamerscore? Who are these people bragging to? Other gamers who spend lots of money and time also building it up. It's no representation of skill and for me has helped the industry perhaps sell more games but also ensured no game will last too long either. It's turned gaming into the fast-food of entertainment.

Had Bulletstorm included co-op campaign I'd be playing it today. The same goes for many first-person shooters. I can only imagine how much fun Bulletstorm would have been if playing alongside a couple of friends (which are easy to make in a co-op game and the most pleasant to play alongside).

Haha glad to hear there are a few there you really enjoyed! I stand by the fact that pro evo is still the best football game ever made, although fifa 11 has now surpassed any pro evo made after this. Couple of other excellent games on that list, the starbreeze efforts in particular. Although I must say there were a few glitches in The Darkness. Very happy to see command and conquer on there, have you played the newest game? I discovered it had been released without me hearing a thing about it!

In terms of gamerscore, I do think there are benefits. This largely depends on how well thought out they are. For some games, it actually adds to the enjoyment (crackdown had some gems although I'm aware you're adverse to third person games haha)and in some cases adds to longevity once you've seen all the game has to offer, occasionally you revisit bits you wouldn't have done otherwise just to get an achievement. It all stems from the arcade machines, and being the one that nobody could budge from winner stays on. There is a large amount of pride in gamers, and thats why leaderboards and gamerscore have taken off. I have a gamerscore of roughly 60,000. Thats a lot, but I have enjoyed earning them. I don't go out of my way to earn the ones I won't enjoy such as collecting all the feathers in AC 2, but I do get a sense of satisfaction when I unlock something challenging. God knows it has pushed me to complete the CoD games on veteran at times! Occasionally the AI made me want to give up, but the promise of displaying the fact I'd completed the game 100% was enough to see me through.
I do agree, however, that some developers see achievements as a means to sell more games. Some will give easy points just to ensure the real score chasers will buy that game or at the very least rent it. Thats not good enough in any world.

On your points about games getting more glitchy, there are recent releases of real quality out there. The problem is that now much of the development time is spent on fixing online gameplay, and sometimes things suffer as a result. I think the case with sequels is that often the developer tries to hard to differentiate itself from the first title, and sometimes gets this wrong. However, the recent Splinter Cell game and Assassins Creed 2 were fine examples of sequels that offered much more than previous games in the series. Again, third-person, apologies I hope the new Ghost Recon game goes back to the original format, GR:IT was one of the best experiences on the old xbox, still play with a lot of people I met on that game!

DMIK,

I was lucky with The Darkness. I didn't experience any problems at all from what I can remember. The biggest problem with the game was an issue with the aim system. Although the game's control adjustments were years ahead of anything I've seen since, except Riddick, which was based on the same engein. The problem was fine adjustments and tiny movements when aiming were innaccurate, and I'm sure this put people off. If it had the controls fidelity of say Halo or Left 4 Dead. I think it would have been more popular. But for the fact you could adjust the X and Y movement/look independantly and also the acceleration of movement was an absolute joy.

Speaking of control fidelity, I think the best game control for me is Left 4 Dead. It allowed you aim so quick, and was accurate I'm convinced that helped in it's popularity. This is always one of my frustrations and a source of many complaints that you have a game with stunning conrol like Left 4 Dead and Halo, and games like Riddick and The Darkness that have superior control adjustments but no shooter has combined them all to have the most accurate and customisable controls ever. I don't understand why.

Surely the first and most important aspect of a shooter is making controls that suit everyone, and allow every gamer to have the perfect set up. The opposite end of the scale is Far Cry 2! I've spent many a forum post complaining about the controls in that, which rate as possibly the worst ever. Which is a shame because I thought the rest of the game was excellent (ignoring the tedious road blocks).

Something else I've discussed many times, which would probably have had you assume I just hate games is actually this third-person issue. Perhaps you'd find this strange that I actually believe third-person games are generally superior to first-person! By that I mean they tend to have more interesting and better developed characters and stories. I also love the way most allow you to build a character, or customise one. The simplicity of first-person characters has it's place, but as is proved by the popularity of many an RPG or third-person adventure; gamers love customising and building their own character.

Which brings up another complaint I've argued for years. Why is a game third- or first-person only!? Why not allow gamers, as with Oblivion (although handled badly in third-person) allow gamers to play as they wish. A sports game, for example allows many views usually. A flying game and a racing game allows in-cockpit or outside view. But RPG and shooters seem rather backward in that you're forced one view or another. The truth is I miss out on literally tons of games because of usually a couple of brainless decisions by developers. That's usually where my complaints stem from. No one expects a gamer to play a game type they don't like. Equally no one expects a gamer to play a game whose controls they dislike. But if the industry were a little smarter, and ensured controls were fully customisable and allow gamers to play in the view of their choosing, surely more would be sold!? I know I'm proof alone that this is the case, and I'm sure it's true of many gamers.

Interestingly, the Ghost Recon games also allowed a third- and first-person view. In fact this game showed that you could literally shoe-horn a first-person view without the need to add gun/hand animation therefore adding the view option without creating any production cost issues. It went the simple route of moving the view to eye level and giving you a crosshair in the centre of the screen. Simple and effective. Hopefully now you understand it's not hatred, but frustration that leads to my negative comments. And it's usually aimed at one person... the producers who oversee the production.

Saying that I won't ever find a positive thing to say about Gamerscore (or avatars) but that's me I'm afraid.