Titanfall Team Decides Against Single-Player Campaign
- Thread starter Cognimancer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Shooting any chance of immersion you had in the head. Now any character dialogue will be either skipped or have the addition of "wow this guy looks like a total ****** ha ha".
Also people who don't want xboxlive are also now excluded from this games audience, this just goes to show xbone even without the drm is a bad idea.
Also people who don't want xboxlive are also now excluded from this games audience, this just goes to show xbone even without the drm is a bad idea.
Guess i'll wait a few months to get this one till the price drops and i've seen some reviews / gameplay.
At least they made a decision, and not forces us either half arsed single or multiplayer.
But. WHY did they have to use such bullcrap numbers as an excuse that are clearly pulled out of the most shittiest ass.
At least they made a decision, and not forces us either half arsed single or multiplayer.
But. WHY did they have to use such bullcrap numbers as an excuse that are clearly pulled out of the most shittiest ass.
I can respect their decision, even if I do prefer single-player to multiplayer. I'll always be a fan of not dividing your focus.
On a related note, if they put out a stand-alone single player DLC, I'd sign up for that. Especially if they did it with a reduced price-point.
On a related note, if they put out a stand-alone single player DLC, I'd sign up for that. Especially if they did it with a reduced price-point.
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.
Gears of War devs said the same thing (not quite 50% of players in their case).
So the decision to forgo any single player whatsoever in a FPS...
Well, it's brave.
GL, you probably won't miss my money, probably...
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.
Gears of War devs said the same thing (not quite 50% of players in their case).
So the decision to forgo any single player whatsoever in a FPS...
Well, it's brave.
GL, you probably won't miss my money, probably...
if you want to make it multi-player only just say it, I would say fair enough, just don't bullshit us single players with these fudge factor statistics.
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.
Now they can focus 100% of their efforts into the part of the game that most people will play for a very long time. Sure, it's bold, but it's hard to argue it's wrong.
Now they can focus 100% of their efforts into the part of the game that most people will play for a very long time. Sure, it's bold, but it's hard to argue it's wrong.
If you know it's going to be bad and would only make the game worse, see no reason to have it in there in the first place.
Shame, I love my single player, and usually only multiplayer for a few hours total at most unless it becomes the multiplayer game of the moment in my friendship group.
I guess I do agree with what they're doing though, I hate it when a games company wastes resources on an unnecessary tacked on multiplayer, so the logic must follow the other way round too.
I guess I do agree with what they're doing though, I hate it when a games company wastes resources on an unnecessary tacked on multiplayer, so the logic must follow the other way round too.
Fucking finally, and fps dev acknowledging their campaign narratives aren't worth the disc space they consume. Hopefully this means they'll be able to spend more time on the multiplayer (The only reason people are buying it).
Well the problem is that this game will hardly be worth 60 Euros/Dollars if they think that way.
A glorified shooter where the only difference in controling a titan or a human is that the human can jump and wallrun but otherwise seem to handle exactly the same?
They do know that there is a good handfull of mech multyplayer games out there wich are completly free to play and have comparable graphics? And even more free to play shooters too.
Doing half the work but expecting people to dish over full prize... yep sounds like the game industry.
A glorified shooter where the only difference in controling a titan or a human is that the human can jump and wallrun but otherwise seem to handle exactly the same?
They do know that there is a good handfull of mech multyplayer games out there wich are completly free to play and have comparable graphics? And even more free to play shooters too.
Doing half the work but expecting people to dish over full prize... yep sounds like the game industry.
Why not make a single player like in BF2, just bots. With a game like this I think not many people care if it had a story mode but I do think they care if they can play it alone.
That and gives late players a chance to practice instead of getting their asses handed to them all the time until they get good enough at it.josemlopes said:
Well that sucks, though I guess you can see the reasoning.
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.
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.
I sort of came into this thread to say this. I played the shit out of TF2 when it was relatively new, and it was multiplayer only. If the game has awesome multiplayer, then it should stand on that alone. A half-assed, supergray, 5 hour single player campaign would have bloated production costs anyway, and added very little if the development team didn't even want to make it.MeChaNiZ3D said:
That said, should one pay the standard $60 for a multiplayer only experience where much of the content is created by other people?
I suppose one might say the same for games that are heavily modded, so meh.
Statistics can be made to say what you want them to - lost count of the the times people have said 'X doesn't sell' when you could practically bury them under examples of X doing gangbusters.AyaReiko said: