Titanfall Team Decides Against Single-Player Campaign

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
CriticKitten said:
Just going to have to close this discussion with an "agree to disagree" statement, as at this point we're both just going to be repeating ourselves. You'd rather them spread out their resources, I believe it's good that they're focusing them. A simple difference of opinions.
 

Reincarnatedwolfgod

New member
Jan 17, 2011
1,002
0
0
A lot of fps single player campaign that are in this type of FPS often feel tacked on. I was never interested in buying to begin with but can respect the decision to focus on the multiplayer and not have something that would likely a have been a tacked on a single player mode.
 

4Aces

New member
May 29, 2012
180
0
0
Assumptions in this thread
1) The MP game will be better instead of just rushed out the door faster (and cheaper)
2) That the SP game had to be 'tacked on' when there are quite a few games that do both well
3) That MP only will either improve their overall success or hinder it

None of these are true by default. Only after seeing how the finished product does will we know what they did well and what amounts to jello nailed to the wall.
 

Lictor Face

New member
Nov 14, 2011
214
0
0
Well, I can't blame them for this decision. Dawn of War 2 retribution had hash campaign. Heck I only completed two faction campaigns before I wandered off. The multiplayer was a dream though and definitely a main draw.

And everyone criticized the COD games for the scripted campaign and gimmicks. I suppose I can't fault them for not wanting to drop into that pit-hole....
 

Lictor Face

New member
Nov 14, 2011
214
0
0
Also, multiplayer games played offline with bots are doable. The battlefront series ( the one where you zipped around to different soldier classes I think ) was a pretty good game. offline or on
 

TheScientificIssole

New member
Jun 9, 2011
514
0
0
Anathrax said:
That's the joke? HA! It's like you layer irony beyond the point of it making sense! I don't think you understood your original post. I don't care about Americans or any of that. I do care about people making uneducated criticisms and justifying them by saying its a joke that didn't exist. Also, what single player is going suck? The one that doesn't exist? I think it would have been fine seeing that I believe that last two COD games that they had control over had solid or even exceptional single-player campaigns(which I believe were MW and MW2).
 

Anathrax

New member
Jan 14, 2013
465
0
0
TheScientificIssole said:
Anathrax said:
That's the joke? HA! It's like you layer irony beyond the point of it making sense! I don't think you understood your original post. I don't care about Americans or any of that. I do care about people making uneducated criticisms and justifying them by saying its a joke that didn't exist. Also, what single player is going suck? The one that doesn't exist? I think it would have been fine seeing that I believe that last two COD games that they had control over had solid or even exceptional single-player campaigns(which I believe were MW and MW2).

...Can we just leave this discussion now? Fine, you got me. My retort? Potato. Just that. Do you want me to remove the MURICA from the original post?
 

aaronexus

New member
Dec 11, 2012
35
0
0
TL;DR If the game sucks or doesn't find an audience we probably won't see the mech genre return for quite some time, which sucks even more than their bizarre stance against story and single player.

--

What I'm getting here is it's basically going to be Battlefield 2142, only browner. Hmm. Since the Battlefield people no longer make Battlefield(i.e. MP only) I can see how people might be interested. People other than me, obviously. There's just a few caveats that make me suspicious that this game is on a one way trip to failure, which would be terrible from my perspective.

1: Several of those games most famous for their multiplayer(CoD4, Halo) drew their players in through an amazing singleplayer experience.

2: The rest of the games with popular multiplayer only gameplay tend to either be budget titles(Team Fortress was part of a bundle) or Free to Play(TF2, the new Tribes), while the older full priced Battlefield 1942-esque games have simply gone away. Despite that, I keep getting the very strong feeling Respawn plans for a $60 release.

3: That 5% figure may be true, I have heard it before, but it is also irrelevant, at least from the sales perspective they seem to be espousing. Skyrim, Bioshock Infinite, Dead Space, Dark Souls, etcetera fraking etcetera.

4: The head in the sand mentality over why games fail they're showing here is concerning for a business that relies on predicting customer desires. EA has shown this before when they decided their MoH:W game wasn't popular because people didn't understand it, not because it sucked and everyone knew it. Seriously, look up their whiny press release on why they're not making more MoH games. It's hilarious.

5: The multiplayer only arena is not only bursting with quality titles already, next gen actually seems to be bringing in even stiffer competition. Bungie's Destiny and Red5's Firefall both have gorgeous aesthetics, interesting, unique gameplay, and a huge emphasis on story and player choice, whereas Titanfall only has us on the gameplay front. It's aesthetics were already a by the numbers CoD look. Cutting out story, if that is what they plan to do, puts it even further behind other titles with potentially fuller experiences and an already established audience.

6: The utter failure of the crowdfunding attempt for the multiplayer focused Heavy Gear sequel, the series which practically invented the fast paced robot combat genre, suggests heavily that the core audience won't be interested in Titanfall, meaning they'll need to really win over a new core audience. Easily said, but not easy to do, especially if they're so out of touch with gamers they can't believe single player games are worth the effort.

7: Storytelling potential is the medium's strongest selling point! Cinema, television, poetry, art, and music are all excellent in their unique way, but they are also all bite sized. None of them are able to replicate what literature is capable of. Movies almost always follow a three act structure, while books can easily encompass dozens. Video games are the only other medium where eight hours is generally considered to be a good minimum you should expect from a full experience, with bite sized games showing up to keep things interesting just like books. For a seeming majority of the industry(including, apparently, Respawn) to not understand the jaw dropping potential of their own medium is more than a little disquieting to those of us who want games to not only match but exceed all other forms of art.

8: Dismissing the supposed 5% as only rushing through the story and the rest as hating story driven campaigns, instead of what I think is more likely, stopping to smell the flowers so much you never quite want to leave, is a serious charge. Unfortunately, as Sterling pointed out in his videos, focus testing is used more for ill than any useful purpose. When Ken Levine tried to find out whether his box art would be appealing to gamers, he went to a frat. How large a percentage of the gaming community does one or even a few highly exclusionary organizations only a small number join really represent the reality of the industry? Did it ever represent us? A certain subset of game companies focusing on group play is fine, social gamers deserve a good experience just like everyone else, but when so many start making these outright attacks on story we run the risk of becoming the new comic book industry: almost completely irrelevant to any serious consideration. Comic books are mostly seen as being about boobs and fight scenes, something they largely deserve. To have gaming relegated to a mere juvenile pleasure when I have personally experienced some of the greatest storytelling moments within it seems like an outright crime to me.

9: The thing I find most immediately concerning as a Heavy Gear fan is, if Titanfall does turn out to be a failure, will the industry leaders recognize why, or will EA do what they did with MoH and MS just did with their Xbunny: whine and take their ball home. That would be the worst part. Even if the developers are kinda morons, I'd rather their game be of high quality and find a solid audience because that would mean I'm more likely to get the games I really want.

As a PC gamer, I'm seeing what I can only describe as a Renaissance. Space sim fans, myself included, recently helped Chris Roberts get $10 million in funding for his new game, the return of point and click adventures means we're finally getting the ending to The Longest Journey, Good Old Games' success means we're seeing rereleases of fondly remembered classics, some of the Battlezone people are on the cusp of releasing a spiritual successor, and I remain convinced that we're seeing so many platformers because Cave Story led the charge back in 2004 and got people like me back into games. Hell, I've recently spent my time on Tyrian2000, a freaking DOS game!

So, when I see the people at Respawn making statements riddled with dishonesty and self deception, I get concerned. Right now, they're holding the genre hostage, as the only company bringing a full fledged mech game to the market. Can they really bring about a return to form for the Mech genre like that? I honestly have no clue, but it does make me wish someone else was doing it.
 

stabnex

New member
Jun 30, 2009
1,039
0
0
Right, because that worked SO WELL for Socom: Confrontation...


OT: I guess the buzz wasn't as widespread as they thought seeing how this is about the second time I've heard about the game, ever. The fact that they're ostracizing players is no surprise, seems to be the hip thing to do in the game industry these days.
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
I've only once bought a multiplayer only game. So that kills my interest.
It's good that they are focusing on what they think they do best.

What makes the whole thing kind of sad is when developers have to say "....to justify the cost." I know this isn't a stable industry, but products are best made when they are for the idea of entertaining people and not simply making profits. Simply put: they should CHOOSING what game they want to make, not have to think about what will sell best.

4Aces said:
Assumptions in this thread
1) The MP game will be better instead of just rushed out the door faster (and cheaper)
2) That the SP game had to be 'tacked on' when there are quite a few games that do both well
3) That MP only will either improve their overall success or hinder it

None of these are true by default. Only after seeing how the finished product does will we know what they did well and what amounts to jello nailed to the wall.
Well, they're speaking from experience. But your point does stand, these are not true by default.


Vigormortis said:
I think his "single player isn't popular enough" comment needs to be taken in context. Namely, that of him commenting on the state of the competitive, online gaming scene. And, not just in the FPS genre.

In all honesty, how many people bought Call of Duty or even Starcraft 2 for the campaigns?

I'd wager an extremely small percentage.
Well....On the Starcraft 2 issue.

Cartographer said:
According to Blizz, 50% of players never played multiplayer Starcraft 2.
Think about that for a moment.
The sequel to the poster child for competitive online multiplayer gameplay and half of all the people who bought it never played multiplayer.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
Single player is popular you idiots. Otherwise every game would be multiplayer. But saying that, atleast they are not gonna add a half arsed 5 hour single player game. Lets hope they sell this game as a multiplayer only.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
Lovely Mixture said:
Well....On the Starcraft 2 issue.

Cartographer said:
According to Blizz, 50% of players never played multiplayer Starcraft 2.
Think about that for a moment.
The sequel to the poster child for competitive online multiplayer gameplay and half of all the people who bought it never played multiplayer.
I'd like a link to that statistic. Not that I'm doubting it, but I'd like to see how they broke down the numbers.

I mean, for instance: How many of those that purchased the game actually finished the campaign? How many tried the campaign, decided they didn't like it nor the gameplay, and gave up on the game entirely? For that matter, how many bought the game simply because of the hype, and not necessarily because they knew what they were getting?

Saying "50%" isn't necessarily indicative of the actual number of people who bought the game simply to play solo.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Regardless, I think the topic is getting past the point of relevance. The issue is: here we have a developer smart enough to say they aren't going to "tack on" a superfluous game mode in a title that's clearly not designed for it. They're not trying to homogenize the game to make it appeal to as wide an audience as possible. They know their target audience and they're devoting all resources to that demographic.

This is the sort of thing we, the gaming community, have been demanding of developers for years. We've been lamenting about the steady decline in game quality and originality because of devs and publishers simplifying, homogenizing, and over-stuffing with their games with pointless fluff in an attempt to appease everyone.

Yet, here we're finally seeing a dev do exactly what we've wanted all along and we're collectively bitching about it.

It baffles me...

[sub]I'm not saying someone is "dumb" for not wanting a multiplayer-only game. But complaining that a multiplayer-only game doesn't have a solo campaign is most definitely dumb.[/sub]
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
Vigormortis said:
I'd like a link to that statistic. Not that I'm doubting it, but I'd like to see how they broke down the numbers.

I mean, for instance: How many of those that purchased the game actually finished the campaign? How many tried the campaign, decided they didn't like it nor the gameplay, and gave up on the game entirely? For that matter, how many bought the game simply because of the hype, and not necessarily because they knew what they were getting?

Saying "50%" isn't necessarily indicative of the actual number of people who bought the game simply to play solo.
Well it's just from the their own people. No idea how much it rings true, I'm awfully curious about it myself.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-01-21-do-you-suffer-from-starcraft-2-ladder-anxiety-blizzard-hopes-heart-of-the-swarm-will-help-you-beat-it


Vigormortis said:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Yet, here we're finally seeing a dev do exactly what we've wanted all along and we're collectively bitching about it.

It baffles me...
I'd say there's a pretty clear split here. Some people like it, others are just annoyed at it.

Vigormortis said:
Regardless, I think the topic is getting past the point of relevance. The issue is: here we have a developer smart enough to say they aren't going to "tack on" a superfluous game mode in a title that's clearly not designed for it. They're not trying to homogenize the game to make it appeal to as wide an audience as possible. They know their target audience and they're devoting all resources to that demographic.

This is the sort of thing we, the gaming community, have been demanding of developers for years. We've been lamenting about the steady decline in game quality and originality because of devs and publishers simplifying, homogenizing, and over-stuffing with their games with pointless fluff in an attempt to appease everyone.
I presume that those who are annoyed at it just dislike that a developer is saying "it's not worth the money because people beat it too quickly" instead of JUST saying "we are gonna make it multiplayer only because that's what we're good at and it's what we want to do a."

Now the attitude of "we should focus on one crowd" is not a bad plan in game development. But when people hear "we aren't focusing on YOUR crowd" it rings of scorn to those who consider themselves part of that crowd.

To bring up Blizzard again, when asked about Diablo III being always online and why they couldn't put in an offline mode, their VP said: "You're introducing a separate user flow, a separate path that players are going to go down. And, at the end of the day, how many people are going to want to do that?"

Guess how well that comment went down...

Simply put, when developers or executies say "you aren't the focus of our product." It's irritating to some. It mildly irritates me because it's not the attitude I like to see in game development, but I can respect that he's being upfront about it.
 

Terramax

New member
Jan 11, 2008
3,747
0
0
Phrozenflame500 said:
Considering how shit most FPS single player campaigns are, we probably didn't lost much here.
Agreed. Nearly all FPS, built to be played multiplayer, have very poor, arbitrary single player modes. It's refreshing to see a dev decide not to both wasting theirs, and the consumer's time, with it.

It does mean that people like me won't be buying the game, and it's unlikely Yahtzee will be taking the piss out of it though.
 

Seneschal

Blessed are the righteous
Jun 27, 2009
561
0
0
It's for the best.

I mean, to all the people (me included) who are now scratching it off their lists - if they hadn't said this, we would have been conned into buying another multiplayer shooter with tacked-on singleplayer.

At least they're being honest.
 

JarinArenos

New member
Jan 31, 2012
556
0
0
I understand that single-player campaigns take resources to produce, but it just seems that more and more games are jumping on this "CoD competitive multiplayer" bandwagon as a lazy way to cut massive swathes off of their workload. No single-player means no scripting or AI. They just toss together the basic combat mechanics and have at it. It just seems... cheap.

"If you don't have ubertwitch reflexes and don't enjoy constantly getting your ass handed to you, we don't want you to play our game" is the message I keep getting.
 

Grayson Mills

New member
Nov 23, 2013
1
0
0
This is going to hurt sales for Titanfall and X-box one. With military members not having online access for extended amounts of time, why would i pay for either. Multi-player mode can be fun however it wouldn't take much to make single player mode worth it.... unlock moves or weapons, abilities, armor, skins, and so on only found in single player mode and use them in multi-player, Hell one up multi-player mode and bring back big ass hard boss fights. no.... all you want is a mindless FPS. maybe its time for you as players want more from a game, then better graphics!
 

unstabLized

New member
Mar 9, 2012
660
0
0
Hey that's fine with me. I much prefer it if games focus either all out on Single Player or all out on Multiplayer. Usually it means that the game will be fantastic, and if this team figures that it's not worth it, more power to them, it means there's a higher chance that the Multi will kick ass.