Titanfall Team Decides Against Single-Player Campaign
- Thread starter Cognimancer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well I mean, you don't have to pay extra to play singleplayer.WashAran said:
Plus a singleplayer game will last as long as the disc does (or forever if it's digital), whereas a console multiplayer game will last only as long as the servers are kept up.
This is kinda of a good thing.
Though their reasoning sucks, the result isn't bad. It's better to go all-out in multiplayer than have some half-baked versions of both.
Though their reasoning sucks, the result isn't bad. It's better to go all-out in multiplayer than have some half-baked versions of both.
I love the rage on display here, people complaining about the lack of tacked-on single player in the same way they rage about tacked on multiplayer. We all know that any campaign mode based around this would be rubbish (like almost every fps campiagn this gen) yet people still cry out for it? And people think it should be cheaper because of it?
Should Final Fantasy games be sold for less because they don't have a stupid online death-match option? Then why should it be the other way around?
Should Final Fantasy games be sold for less because they don't have a stupid online death-match option? Then why should it be the other way around?
Gambit? Until 3 this was every Battlefield game. There was no singleplayer campaign.Tradjus said:
CriticKitten said:
I don't understand comments like this. How do you know it won't? What exactly is 60.00 in value? It it a finite time amount, or gameplay depth/graphics/story?Genocidicles said:
Throughout all the COD's, Halos, and BFs, my friends and I have logged easily over a thousand hours on multi-player alone. Of course, that is just us, but still we got our money back many times over- just in online play.
Hey, Titanfall devs?
Borderlands 2 runs great as a single-player game. It's designed for team play at its core, but you're entirely free to play on your lonesome if that's your personal preference or if connection woes are keeping you from logging on.
Just sayin'. As, honestly, from my point of view, a multiplayer-only title is an always-online title. Ergo, it's not for me, either technologically or ideologically.
Borderlands 2 runs great as a single-player game. It's designed for team play at its core, but you're entirely free to play on your lonesome if that's your personal preference or if connection woes are keeping you from logging on.
Just sayin'. As, honestly, from my point of view, a multiplayer-only title is an always-online title. Ergo, it's not for me, either technologically or ideologically.
Those games are free-to-play. In fact, DOTA 2 (once it leaves Beta), League of Legends, Heroes of Newerth, Super Monday Night Combat, SMITE (from what I can find), and many, many MMO's outside of World of Warcraft and EVE Online are also free-to-play now.Yuuki said:
Titanfall, by all assumptions so far since we don't really have hard information, will not be.
That's a pretty crucial difference.
Hmm, so does this mean that any developer thinking of making a multiplayer-based game should go the F2P way? That only games with singleplayer campaigns (some which are as short as ~6-7 hours) have the "royal right" to charge $60, but multiplayer games with vastly more content and replay value should be either free or at least 40-50% cheaper from what I've been reading in this thread?shrekfan246 said:
I don't know whether to call that crazy or what. Both models cost a ton of money and effort to develop. Multiplayer especially has very high maintenance costs with constant balancing/patching and content updates.
Also where would you fit games like Guild Wars 1 & 2 by the way, MMO's which have a one-time cost of $60 but only work online in a multiplayer environment? Or should that have been free too?
Are we also going to hand down judgment on Battlefield 3 for it's miserable campaign, despite the fact that it has offered countless people hundreds of hours of entertainment, built entire communities and possibly has the most content/variation I have seen for any first person shooter (ever) for <$100? It's like 3 games squished into one.
Well, I respect people who admit their own weaknesses. So if they don't have the experience or money to put in a decent singleplayer, I would understand.
But if they start bitching about how it's useless because only suckas care about SP and no one plays it anyhow, they can go screw themselves imo.
But if they start bitching about how it's useless because only suckas care about SP and no one plays it anyhow, they can go screw themselves imo.
Based upon their reasons behind it, I support their decision, it's much better to focus on one area and make it the best you can. Most games that have both tend to be noticeably worse in one of them unless they are entwined (like Left 4 Dead).
It's a shame it's on the Xbox though, although perhaps by Spring next year my PC will be upgraded.
It's a shame it's on the Xbox though, although perhaps by Spring next year my PC will be upgraded.
I think for me that'd depend on how large it is. If it's the standard 8 maps and a handful of basic game-modes with some paid DLC down the line then I agree. If they want to charge full retail then the game better be huge.Saviordd1 said:
"Vastly more content and replay value" is a purely subjective measurement.Yuuki said:
For you, multi-player may have more value. Therefore for you, a game like Titanfall may be a better investment.
For me? Multi-player has practically no value. I see no "more content" from playing on the same, generally small, maps over and over and over again against the same [insert number] of enemies every time--Especially in games where certain maps have become 'standardized' and are the only ones you ever get actual games on.
"Oho", you say. "But single-player maps work the same way!"
Sure, when you get right down to the technical level, the single-player campaigns are often about going through maps, often small in many modern games, and overcoming the same enemies over and over. But it changes over the course of the game. How does it change over the course of playing multi-player? How does Team Deathmatch ever become more than "team of guys with guns kills other team of guys with guns"?
Shooting rarely carries a game for me. The reason I had so much fun with Crysis 3's campaign when everyone else was calling the game mediocre was because I loved moving about the massive environments, stealthing my way along and exploiting the AI in silly ways. You can't do that with human opponents, especially in a first-person shooter where you can get easily snuck up on and everyone is generally charging around at top speed through the maps because standing still generally equals death. Granted, it might have actually been different in Crysis 3, I don't know; as it should be glaringly obvious by now, I'm not really a person who cares about the multi-player component of a game.
That's probably the strongest argument for Titanfall also costing a premium, at which point I would ask if it's going to have a continuous, large, seamless world or if it's going to feature the same small cramped claustrophobic maps that are staples of the Call of Duty franchise. No, really, legitimate question, because I don't actually know if Titanfall is supposed to be a multi-player shooter or a shooter MMO. Given the fact that they're supposedly implementing narrative features into the game anyway, it would make far more sense for it to be an MMO.
I've got nothing against the game costing $60, even if it's not an MMO. But I'm not going to buy it, and since it's most likely going to have a fee associated with playing it, I'm probably not going to play it at all (whereas with the likes of Planetside 2 or Tribes: Ascend, if at some point I feel like pressing into competitive multi-player I'm liable to try one of them, because they're free).
Why would they reduce the price? They're putting all their resources and man hours into the multiplayer. Just because there is no single player doesn't mean it's half of a game.CriticKitten said:
"Can't possibly deliver"? Have you even played the game? How do you know if it won't be worth every penny? Some people I swear.
