Titanfall Team Decides Against Single-Player Campaign

[White_Lama]

Well then, not getting this game then.

 

[lacktheknack]

I respect them for making that call. Unfortunately, it also kills most of my interest in this game. :\

This.

I might grab it on sale if it has a You Vs. Bots mode, but otherwise... why would you force me to interact with other people where they aren't in punching distance? Ick.

Is it that hard to pretend that enemy players are bots? Hell that's what happens in most online shooters anyway, almost nobody communicates or interacts and everyone might as well be rather intelligent (and unpredictable) bots.
As a matter of fact, I could most likely put you against an enemy player in an arena-shooter like Quake or AssaultCube (they have bots) and then ask you afterwards whether you played against a bot or an average human player, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference! I had tried such a thing a few years ago.

Some people don't like multiplayer because they can't tweak the "difficulty" (i.e. they can't switch to easy mode and steamroll everything in sight), are you one of them? Just curious, not meaning any offense

On the other side of the coin, some people are turned off by singleplayer - they don't see any satisfaction in stomping AI-controlled enemies because in 99% of games the AI is extremely thick, extremely predictable (in shooters especially) and it is vastly more gratifying to know that you're beating something controlled by a real living person who will learn from their mistakes and devise new cunning ways to exact their revenge upon you!
(^ Boy that was one long sentence.)

The main gripe people have with MP is the lack of story focus and the skill-through-repetition aspect. From what I've read anyway >.<

No, I just despise it when people start acting petty and trollish (ie. every online match I've ever played). There's too many people online who take it seriously. I'd rather play bots who exist to fight you and don't have any agenda, such as following you around making your game miserable when they respawn.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well since your cutting 40% of the content I expect the game to be 40% cheaper, if not I'm not buying it.

I doubt it was ever 40% of their content.

 

[iniudan]

Make me no longer interested in the game then, for more interested in Destiny for incoming multiplayer FPS. But I think it actually for the best to fully focus on multiplayer if that indeed your market.

 

[TallanKhan]

Well at least they said it upfront. That saves me getting all excited and going to actually buy the thing only to discover what it actually is.

 

[Mahorfeus]

I'd think that the multiplayer would be more than enough provided that it is engaging and expansive. And fun, of course. Granted, I can't see them justifying charging for any additional content that they produce.

 

[Vigormortis]

That hurts my heart.

"Single player isn't popular enough to justify the costs"

Ow.

I haven't been following this game at all though, so really have no idea what it's about, but if it's going to be a competitor to Call of Duty and other competitive online games then can understand the decision and respect it.

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.

So, given how small Respawns dev team is, I actually respect their decision to drop a singleplayer campaign. At least for this particular title.

I'd rather have no campaign at all instead of having some rushed, tacked on experience that does not mesh with the play mechanics of a multiplayer oriented game.

Well, we go on all the time about half-assed multiplayer in singleplayers games, I think it's good that they stick to their strengths. If they don't even think it's worthwhile making, somehow I doubt it would have been that inspired anyway.

I don't know. These were the guys responsible for COD4s campaign. Say what you will about the franchise as a whole, but 4s campaign was pretty well inspired.

Either way, I agree with you. As I said in another thread:

What fascinates me about Titanfall, at least as far as the gaming community is concerned, is how petty and ridiculous some of the complaints have been.

Example:
For years now, people, especially on this forum, have been incessantly bitching about todays games having either tacked on multiplayer or singleplayer experiences. They whine about how the studios design for a game clearly favored one mode of play over the other, and how much that mode (and subsequently the game) suffered by a splitting of resources to make both.

Yet, here we have a small dev team, of which is making a game with a specific style of play in mind, deciding to forgo stretching their already thin resources to make a singleplayer campaign, and the gaming community around here is bitching about it. They're insistent that the game needs both modes or it's a waste of time.

Jesus jumped-up Christ, I am honestly starting to hate being associated with the gaming community now-a-days.

 

[Norix596]

Probably a good call - since they clearly are interested in focusing on multiplayer there's no sense in diverting some time and funds to throwing together a lackluster singleplayer that neither the maker nor the players are interested in alla Battlefield: Bad Company 2

 

[Jaegerwolf]

I'm actually curious how this is going to play out sales wise for them. Problem is how do you tell how much having no single player campaign might hurt them?

A thought: What if they went and finished the game as multiplayer only, see how popular the game is, and if sales are doing well THEN go back and make a single player campaign as a free DLC. Why free? Consider the folks on here who are saying they won't buy the game as multi only, but would have if there was a single player mode. In order for the DLC to be any good they'd still have to buy the game, which means sales that would have been left on the table before plus with any luck an expanded player base for multiplayer.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

I like the decision and respect them for it.

If you don't have the resources to make a strong single player, I'd rather you pour the resources you do have into making the multiplayer even better. Considering the game is multiplayer centric anyway, this seems like a no brainer.

This is exact same logic that single-player centric games support. How many times does a good single player game suffer because the devs are forced to tact on multiplayer to appease the idiot suits?
Far too many I suspect.

That said, I hope they atleast add some sci-fi narrative. The world could be abit more interesting with an explanation for the mechs and jet-packs.

There's a substantial amount of gamers out there who would buy a game for the single-player, and only muck around in multiplayer after finishing the campaign. I happen to be one of them. If I wanted multiplayer only, I'm fine with Team Fortress 2.

Which is a good point. Anyone complaining about this game need only look at Team Fortress 2. That game is widely successful and does not have a lick of single player.

 

[Seracen]

"The developers at Respawn Entertainment don't think single-player is popular enough to justify the costs."

This is absolute BS. Just own the fact that you aren't interested in creating a good SP experience, or are unable to in the time allotted. I won't deny that MP is a big seller of these games.

However, even the Halo guys said it: "[without a good story] what reason does a player have to be playing some 'stupid game' at 3 in the morning?"

My answer: none...and I'm not alone in this opinion.

So yeah, I can respect not shoehorning a subpar SP mode. It perturbs me just as much when they shoehorn in a stupid MP mode. But claiming that it isn't "popular enough to justify" is somewhat weak, IMO.

Game still looks amazing, but I certainly won't be buying it.

EDIT: on the subject of F2P, I believe EVERYONE should be looking into some tiered system. People cried foul when MMO's first came out completely subscription based, and the market has proven that few can support such an infrastructure. A P2P only structure isn't as viable anymore, not when competing services offer similar experiences on a much more affordable system.

That's the beauty of competition people, better returns for the consumer, and better products from the manufacturer.

 

[Bat Vader]

I was pretty interested in Titanfall but now that I know there will be no single player all my interest in it has died. Perhaps if they actually had a decent written story with no plot holes, gave players choices, and a longer single player campaign than perhaps people might actually take an interest in the story and more people would complete the SP campaign.

 

[duchaked]

oh...well that actually makes sense for them. but that also means I won't be buying it then :/

 

[Jingle Fett]

So...make a campaign worth finishing. Cut out all the flashy spectacle that is causing your levels to take so long to make and focus on fun gameplay. If most players are just trying to blaze through the campaign as quickly as possible and the majority aren't interested in finishing it...here's a hint, it's probably not the players that are the problem.

This bums me out because I like good single player campaigns. I like being able to practice solo. Plus I like having something I can play when the internet is out or be able to play it in a few years when nobody else is playing it because they've moved on to the next big thing.

And also (and this is more something that's been bothering me about the industry for a while) making multiplayer and making single player isn't necessarily supposed to be like making two separate games. I mean it's not a rule set in stone. You can make your single player game and using what you made for the single player, reuse it to make modes where multiple people can play at the same time.

Also this:

I respect them for making that call. Unfortunately, it also kills most of my interest in this game. :\

 

[Arnoxthe1]

I can't believe people are whining about this.

Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 have both shown EASILY that you don't need a strong SP campaign or even any at all to make an awesome game.

Trust me, this is a good thing. It means they're straightening out their priorities and putting all of their work into making the multiplayer an unforgettable experience.

 

[aba1]

They better at least have great local play.

 

[aba1]

Online Only?
Welp, I've decided against buying Titanfall now.

Nothing gained, nothing lost.

wait it has no campaign AND no local play... well that means I won't be touching it either. To bad I was excited to play this too.

 

[Anathrax]

Wohoo! We cut out the crappy, "cinematic", cutscene laden explosions everyone I'm so macho MURICA single player in what is supposed to be a multiplayer focus title. Now if only Batolfeel and Collar Duty would do the same.

Edit: Because let's face it, "Wouldn't justify the costs"? It would be a Micheal Bay film*Infinity

Call of Duty is MURICA? The game where the same two British dudes and their international based team save the day? Or the one where you play as an American soldier and another soldier from another country, and the international campaign is always better? I think one of us might be blindly criticizing a game because we think we are above something. I also feel as if you call it MURICA because you like to line up your opinions in a way that make your stance on patriotism apparent.

I think you might be looking into that a little to hard my friend. I meant no offence to Americans or anyone. My point is the single player is probably going to suck. That's it. Have a pleasant whatever.

 

[Jaegerwolf]

I can't believe people are whining about this.

Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 have both shown EASILY that you don't need a strong SP campaign or even any at all to make an awesome game.

Trust me, this is a good thing. It means they're straightening out their priorities and putting all of their work into making the multiplayer an unforgettable experience.

Thing is with focusing on the multiplayer experience is it relies very much on things they can't control; namely the players. I'm pretty sure if we went back and asked everyone who's posted here saying they won't buy the game now, a major reason for not wanting multiplayer would be because they didn't want to deal with other players, especially the whiny ones or hackers.

Yes UT and Quake 3 were great multiplayer games, but they're also from another age that wasn't asking $60 for a n online only title AND were both PC games where you could have more control over who you play with.

Could this still work for them? Maybe. But it is a situation where all the eggs are going into one basket.

 

[Corvo-Attano-77]

probably isn't necessary.

Sums up my feelings about this game.