Titanfall Team Decides Against Single-Player Campaign

[gibboss28]

well I'm not that fussed about the lack of a single player campaign, wasn't really expecting one from this anyway, it did seem more like a multiplayer focused game.

Still got some concerns:

Firstly the price: hopefully they won't charge full price for it

Secondly: Hopefully for the PC version they'll allow gaming communities to host dedicated servers and not rent it like Battlefield 3 did.

Other than that, well lets see what you give us then Respawn.

 

[Astoria]

Well I guess I'm not playing it then. I don't have the internet for online multipayer. Shame, it really looks interesting.

 

[MetalDooley]

This is the right choice for a game which is obviously being pitched at the same market as Call of Duty and the like. How many players played the single-player campaign? Did ANYONE buy COD (or Battlefield etc.) ONLY for the single player? ANe even those who play single player, will only do so once, then never again.

Nice of you to assume you know what other peoples gaming habits are.As a matter of fact I've played every CoD campaign multiple times(except Black Ops 2 just haven't gotten around to it again yet)and I doubt I'm the only person who does that

 

[Scars Unseen]

Games played this year (not a comprehensive list):
Bioshock Infinite
Kerbal Space Program
Devil May Cry
Tomb Raider(single player only)
Saints Row the Third
Skyrim for the umpteenth time
Dragon Age Origins again
Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition
Dark Souls
Dragon's Dogma
The Last of Us(single player only)
System Shock 2(single player only) again

Games planned for 2014 playthrough:
Titanfall

 

[Not Lord Atkin]

Nothing wrong with the decision, they're making it multiplayer-focused so they're saving time and resources on the sp campaign. Just like Crystal Dynamics should have done with Tomb Raider (only vice versa).

What I take issue with is their rationalisation. Come on guys, it's your decision whether to include SP or not. But don't try and pretend SP is not popular enough. That's just not true.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Welp, that scratches that game off my list for the PC.

Fucking tired of multiplayer games, and half assed single player. GIVE ME MORE DEEP IN-DEPTH SINGLE PLAYER GAMES DAMMIT!

Settle down. Didn't you read? It won't have a half assed single player because it won't have a single player at all. If you don't like multiplayer, then don't buy it.

 

[SonofaJohannes]

Aww, but I like single-player. I guess it probably wouldn't have been all that great anyway, but I've always liked having the option of not getting my ass kicked by real people online.

 

[-Dragmire-]

Hmmm... I understand the reasoning, but I personally prefer to have some context for why I'm doing what I'm doing in shooters. This game doesn't interest me nearly as much without a story mode.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

Considering how shit most FPS single player campaigns are, we probably didn't lost much here.

Killzone 2 campaign was one of the better SP experiences I had this gen. And I kept playing MP because SP made me a fan, made me care about avenging Visari, about slaughtering Vektan scum...
Anyhow, it doesn't work for me. For me MP should be complimentary to SP. They both should enhance each other.

Also, SP IS popular. What is not popular is boring, shit, uninspired SP (Homefront, Battlefield, some instances of Call of Duty, you can add your pick here).

 

[HellbirdIV]

"We make these single-player missions that take up all the focus of the studio, that take a huge team six months to make, and players run through it in eight minutes,"

"And how many people finish the single-player game? It's a small percentage. It's like, everyone players through the first level, but five percent of people finish the game."

Holy crap, dude. Did you at least lube yourself up before you pulled those numbers straight out of your ass?

Not every game needs a dedicated singleplayer campaign, but honestly I play more singleplayer in dedicated multiplayer games (Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield) than I play multiplayer in dedicated singleplayer games (Tomb Raider, FarCry), so consider me disappointed we won't see a new scifi premise explored in any great detail.

 

[Anatoli Ossai]

I mean, just look at BioShock 2. It's multiplayer is the spitting image (if not more interesting and more important from a narrative standpoint) of CoD's, and nobody gave a crap about it because BS2 was an awesome game. Same goes for Tomb Raider, and while The Last Of Us' multiplayer is nifty, that sure as hell isn't the reason people are buying that game.

Are you kidding. Do you know how big and how much money they spent developing Tomb Raider and Bioshock? Those studios are massive! And so is the COD studio. Did you even read the article? Their studio is moderate in comparison. With you rather they spent resources on shitty multiplayer AND single player or just well polished half? Geez.

 

[Anatoli Ossai]

However they should at least add bots or something. A game should never be exclusively multiplayer unless it really needs to be, MMO's probably being the only case.

Tell that to Dust 514, MAG and Ravaged

 

[Something Amyss]

Considering how shit most FPS single player campaigns are, we probably didn't lost much here.

Indeed. I have trouble being upset that an FPS multiplayer game didn't tack on a 4 hour campaign that most people would hate and mock anyway.

 

[UnnDunn]

An asspull for statistics to prove their reasoning with no sources...

As the developers of several blockbuster games, they collect all sorts of stats telling them how their games are being played. So when they say a small percentage of people play single-player, that isn't something they pulled out of thin air; that's something they've seen in their post-release tracking data.

 

[Anatoli Ossai]

"We make these single-player missions that take up all the focus of the studio, that take a huge team six months to make, and players run through it in eight minutes,"

"And how many people finish the single-player game? It's a small percentage. It's like, everyone players through the first level, but five percent of people finish the game."

but honestly I play more singleplayer in dedicated multiplayer games (Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield) than I play multiplayer in dedicated singleplayer games (Tomb Raider, FarCry)

So your counter argument to his "bogus stats" is assuming your preference single handed counts against their observation? that doesn't even make sense. They never said people don't play singleplayer, they said compared to multiplayer the investment isn't worth the pay off

 

[Taurus Vis]

This is shocking, I never expected too see multiplayer focused titles too just drop the pretensions and come right out with the fact that they don't give a single shit about single player, but wow, just wow.
Now I'm just waiting for this too happen in the next COD and Battlefield and for these types of games too diverge into their own very specific genre.
That'll only happen if this gambit is successful though.

Battlefield never had single player when it was on PC. The only reason it changed this policy is that console gamers were still largely offline and DICE wanted to be on console. I fully expect Battlefield to go this way because they were always multiplayer focused. And honestly, nobody buys Battlefield for it's SP anyways.

 

[Anatoli Ossai]

Hmmm... I understand the reasoning, but I personally prefer to have some context for why I'm doing what I'm doing in shooters. This game doesn't interest me nearly as much without a story mode.

If you need a Shakespearean anecdote or deep character development before you can jump into a Mech warrior or strap on a jet pack with guns blazing then

a. you never wanted to play in the first place

or

b. you expect way too much from the world

 

[Anatoli Ossai]

Well atleast they're being honest. Not all games need singleplayer, I hope that it's reflected in the price though. A multiplayer only game shouldn't really be more than about £20-£30.

Interesting point. But remember they aren't spending half their resources on it. Absence of single player doesn't equate to half a product. Same way single player games without multiplayer add-ons are still priced competitively.

 

[HellbirdIV]

So your counter argument to his "bogus stats" is assuming your preference single handed counts against their observation?

No, my preference counts for me being disappointed in seeing an interesting scifi premise wasted. That's the kind of thing you miss when you quote things out of context.

Also, why are you so defensive? Are they paying you to spindoctor for them or something, 'cause I don't see a good reason to go double-posting flimsy justifications otherwise.

 

[beez]

They should actually scrap the game too, just sell the box for 60e because making the game doesn't justify the actual costs, as it might totally flop.

Seriously, I knew this, as they hinted it at e3 but why create a cool game IP if they don't push the limits? Companies are really going to be this lazy from now on? MS just lost their only usable launch title. As far as games being worth 50-50% of the 60$, euro price. Well, by the time they are done with the single player, all the elements are in place, they just snap together a few maps with objects and stuff from already in the single player and since all the elements of the game are already programmed, multiplayer is more of an addon than single player.

I know this discussion is really played out by now, but still, games are less and less about innovation, art, more of how to get the retarded players to throw money at you as a developer... and it really pisses me off. I mean really, just when the possibilites to make all these good ideas come true, most devs are wasting time on copying the one who copied the one who copied the one who copied...

I digress tho, but looking at Respawn's past, hoping they will have a good time trying to get that quake 3 engine running on the APU trololol.

So I'm personally skipping this.