Titanfall Team Decides Against Single-Player Campaign

hazabaza1

Want Skyrim. Want. Do want.
Nov 26, 2008
9,612
0
0
Hopefully they're not charging full price for this. Unless there's loads of content, like a horde mode and stuff on top of all the other PvP things.
 

lancar

New member
Aug 11, 2009
428
0
0
It's good to know I won't have to care about this title, then. I was getting a bit hyped, but now I know I won't have to and can concentrate on other titles.

Don't get me wrong, it's good that they know what they want to focus on, but it's still a bit dissapointing I won't get to enjoy this interesting premise.
 

NICKMAN

New member
Jan 19, 2012
1
0
0
I'll accept that they don't want to make the single player part of the game. Now since they'll be saving all that money it had better cost $30-$40 tops.
 

verdant monkai

New member
Oct 30, 2011
1,519
0
0
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.
 

Longstreet

New member
Jun 16, 2012
705
0
0
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.
 

shirkbot

New member
Apr 15, 2013
433
0
0
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.
 

Megacherv

Kinect Development Sucks...
Sep 24, 2008
2,650
0
0
Hey Vince! Try making a single-player campaign that would actually last more than 8 minutes! Not all campaigns have to be as short as Modern Warfare you know!

Prick!
 

Cartographer

New member
Jun 1, 2009
212
0
0
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...
 

Frostbyte666

New member
Nov 27, 2010
399
0
0
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.
 

IronMit

New member
Jul 24, 2012
533
0
0
Respect.

Tak'd on SP is as bad as tak'd on MP

However considering they are saving costs on writers, voice actors, cinematic cutscenes shouldn't the game also be a bit cheaper?
 

Alfador_VII

New member
Nov 2, 2009
1,326
0
0
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.
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
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.
 

Steve Dark

New member
Oct 23, 2008
468
0
0
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.
 

Revolutionary

Pub Club Am Broken
May 30, 2009
1,833
0
41
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).
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
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.
 

josemlopes

New member
Jun 9, 2008
3,950
0
0
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.
 

chozo_hybrid

What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets.
Jul 15, 2009
3,479
14
43
josemlopes said:
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.
 

IBlackKiteI

New member
Mar 12, 2010
1,613
0
0
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.