Titanfall Team Decides Against Single-Player Campaign
- Thread starter Cognimancer
- Start date
I applaud them openly admitting that their single player experiences suck so badly that only about 5% of their customers have the patience to finish them. I mean rather than up your game in that department, why not just axe it altogether?
Also, why not just make your game an F2P MMO at this point? That is where the real money is at, and the only way you will keep people interested in playing your game 6 months later is to dangle that carrot of grinding stats in front of them.
I mean the alternative would be to pump out DLC maps over and over, and you've already admitted that making content isn't cost effective for you, so we shall not be expecting any.
Now, I assume I'm not the only one that the following statements apply to:
I play the single player content of ANY game FIRST, and I always finish it assuming its not utter crap. If it IS, I disregard the multiplayer and trade it in.
I enjoy single player way more than multi, even in FPS. Especially in FPS actually, because no one is hopping around like a spaz spamming grenades and screaming the nyancat song in my ear for 20 matches.
If I do find the multi enjoyable, I use the single player for learning how to play, and to give the multi CONTEXT.
Resistence 1-3, I barely touched the multi. In fact I rushed through it, saw I didn't like it and stopped playing it. I came back to the single player several times.
Most games with multiplayer only last a few months before only a handful of people are still playing. Either due to boredom or the NEXT game having come out.
If they don't see that franchises are built upon the backs of single player campaigns, and the characters/narrative that they get out there into the world then I don't know how to explain it to them.
If halo just featured a random Spartan and only Multi, or if Gears was just multi with no Marcus etc. then would people be as invested? People other than me I mean as I never played Gears, and hated Halo.
This story puts me in mind of the new multiplayer Legacy of Kain game "Nosgoth."
Except in that case they had been in development for 3 years, then decided to scrap the game favor of the multiplayer. Which fans are pretty much unanimous in saying "wtf? why would you do that!"
Also, why not just make your game an F2P MMO at this point? That is where the real money is at, and the only way you will keep people interested in playing your game 6 months later is to dangle that carrot of grinding stats in front of them.
I mean the alternative would be to pump out DLC maps over and over, and you've already admitted that making content isn't cost effective for you, so we shall not be expecting any.
Now, I assume I'm not the only one that the following statements apply to:
I play the single player content of ANY game FIRST, and I always finish it assuming its not utter crap. If it IS, I disregard the multiplayer and trade it in.
I enjoy single player way more than multi, even in FPS. Especially in FPS actually, because no one is hopping around like a spaz spamming grenades and screaming the nyancat song in my ear for 20 matches.
If I do find the multi enjoyable, I use the single player for learning how to play, and to give the multi CONTEXT.
Resistence 1-3, I barely touched the multi. In fact I rushed through it, saw I didn't like it and stopped playing it. I came back to the single player several times.
Most games with multiplayer only last a few months before only a handful of people are still playing. Either due to boredom or the NEXT game having come out.
If they don't see that franchises are built upon the backs of single player campaigns, and the characters/narrative that they get out there into the world then I don't know how to explain it to them.
If halo just featured a random Spartan and only Multi, or if Gears was just multi with no Marcus etc. then would people be as invested? People other than me I mean as I never played Gears, and hated Halo.
This story puts me in mind of the new multiplayer Legacy of Kain game "Nosgoth."
Except in that case they had been in development for 3 years, then decided to scrap the game favor of the multiplayer. Which fans are pretty much unanimous in saying "wtf? why would you do that!"
And I just decided against spending $60 on a shooter that doesn't even have single player. Look at how easy that was!
Well that's good, hats off to you. But on another note, I can not understand what all the buzz about this game is about? It's colourless, shallow and generic but then I am not a multiplayer. It's like line dancing, people seem to really enjoy it but not for me.
This would be the point where I would bash my keyboard and say "no you are wrong" but after the E3 footage...yeah, that just seems appropriate. Counter Strike and, Team Fortress didn't need single player after all and neither of them have giant, death-mecha...but then...that would apply to a campaign mode...I believe TF2 has the option to play alone against bots...Oh boy, I get to be angry after all!
Titanfall, you're a game that features GIANT FUCKING ROBOTS why CAN'T I play Bot-matches?!
Titanfall, you're a game that features GIANT FUCKING ROBOTS why CAN'T I play Bot-matches?!
While I resent the opening statement of this article, I do feel like this:
I'd rather have focus and one quality gameplay mode than tacked on nonsense. Remember Battlefield 3? They know their strengths and stick with that, that's good.RogueportJack said:
So why should I buy this game and not keep playing Warframe....which was free (but I believe has Micropayments)
I don't have a problem with this. Some single player games have no need for multiplayer and some multiplayer have no need for singleplayer.
I loved the original unreal tournament where "single player" was just playing multiplayer with bots, and I love tf2 where "single player" is just a tutorial regarding each character for the multiplayer.
I loved the original unreal tournament where "single player" was just playing multiplayer with bots, and I love tf2 where "single player" is just a tutorial regarding each character for the multiplayer.
I am somewhat glad to hear this. If I had bought Titanfall only to find it had a half-assed single player campaign and all their effort was obviously concentrated in the multiplayer I would have been pissed. Now I know not to bother buying it at all, and I can spend that money on something else that does concentrate on the single player experience.
Shocking to see them drop any chance of making a single player. When a FPS game has single and multiplayer, I boot up the single player first. This is how I gain the basic skills needed to take on the MP aspect. The whole single player is like a tutorial with a story. Alot of times it's a bad story and predictable twists that come off flat. Worst yet it could have one of those cryptic stories that don't make sense unless you spend weeks online deciphering the clues given. Sure it can be cheesy, but once in awhile it's fun. Of late alot of FPS stories are as riveting as those found in fighting game; "They are the bad guys, kill them. With guns" The reason people stop completing these single player is because the majority of the gameplay is moving from room to room killing anything that moves. It's barely a step above a rail shooter. How many times do you find a turrent in a game and suddenly all these bad guys come at you? Pretty convenient. Or you find a rocket launcher just as a helicopter decides to swoop down or better yet a tank. Thank goodness someone stashed crates of rockets next to each chest high wall that you can use for cover. A perfect place to stop and wait for your health to regenerate.
With this game going online MP only I only have one game I was keeping my eye on for Xbox One; Dead Rising 3. Oh wells. I hope it does well. Maybe I'll grab it on PC later
With this game going online MP only I only have one game I was keeping my eye on for Xbox One; Dead Rising 3. Oh wells. I hope it does well. Maybe I'll grab it on PC later
He's gotta be joking. What kind of incompetent developers devote so much effort to so little content? And what kind of past titles have this team worked on that had campaigns bad enough to give them these horribly skewed impressions of players' preference for multiplayer over singlepl-Cognimancer said:
Bingo. That, right there, is why I don't and probably never will play multiplayer-only games (not even TF2).zidine100 said:
Well as far as I'm concerned they can cut out the SP if the game itself is good. BUT for a pure MP Shooter I'll never pay 50? not even 40. 30? is the highest I'd go for a game like this.
Oh but there already are interesting games in that area. Check out Natural Selection 2 for example.
Oh but there already are interesting games in that area. Check out Natural Selection 2 for example.
Ill just take the money i was going to use for this on the 360 and put that to the Tales HD collection, thanks!