Titanfall Team Decides Against Single-Player Campaign

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Titanfall Team Decides Against Single-Player Campaign

Titanfall panoramic

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

Titanfall is a game with jetpacks, parkour, and giant mechs, and the internet is consequently abuzz with excitement. The footage we've seen thus far has shown some intense multiplayer action, but talk of a single-player story mode has been notably absent. The simple explanation for that fact is that there is no single-player; Titanfall will be online only.

"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," says Respawn co-founder Vince Zampella. "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."

For Respawn's crew of 60-something heads, those numbers just don't add up. "You split the team," Zampella says. "They're two different games ... but people spend hundreds of hours in the multiplayer experience versus as little time as possible rushing to the end [of the single-player]."

Zampella's pragmatic use of development resources may upset solitary gamers who wanted a slice of the action, but it's probably wise not to overspend when dealing with a relatively small studio. Titanfall will have some story elements, but it will unfold over the course of the "multiplayer experience." And let's be honest, the appeal here is the mechs and jetpacks - a sweeping narrative probably isn't necessary.

Titanfall is due to launch in spring 2014 on Xbox One, Xbox 360, and PC.

Source: Games Industry


Ok that saves me the trouble of buying it, poor wallet is light enough as it is.

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

I actually respect them for this. If you're going for a quality multiplayer experience, you may as well focus on that. If they don't want to shoehorn a campaign in then they shouldn't, especially when the reverse happens so often.

Well I won't lie, that is disappointing. Seems like such an interesting world to tell a story in.

But I can't say it's a big surprise. And since Halo has kinda fallen out of favor with me, I've been wanting a new shooter for the occasions when I feel like some online multiplayer. I'll still keep an eye on Titanfall.

An asspull for statistics to prove their reasoning with no sources, a general assumption that people most of the time play MP and don't spend that long in SP (and if they do it's just to rush to the end)... Look guys, just say you want to make a MP only game. People will respect that; this kind of explanation just paints you as douches to those of us who do enjoy SP experiences.

Hey, at least the MP will be polished.. Hopefully.. I do like Single over Multi, but if it's really good Multi, then the game will hold on its own.

And in a related story, Respawn co-founder Vince Zampella was admitted to hospital today after revelations that he had his head jammed up his arse. Details at 11.

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.

Excellent news. Nothing more painful than when a clearly multiplayer-focused game like Battlefield 3 has too shove in a single player campaign simply because its considered customary. Most gamers don't honestly give a damn about single player when its just acting as a sideshow.

This from the same people that gave us Call of Duty, the series that's not only dragging down the entire industry with its banal gameplay and brainless plots? If you're wondering why people zip through the single player campaigns, Mr. Zampella, perhaps you should make campaigns that don't suck. 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.

Honestly, if they were going to do single player then I would rather see it developed separately than tacked on as an afterthought.

I guess I'll just have to keep hoping that one day somebody will make that Shogo: Mobile Armor Division sequel that I've been waiting to play for the last fifteen years.

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.

Still looks cool, but it's not for me.

I actually respect them for this. If you're going for a quality multiplayer experience, you may as well focus on that. If they don't want to shoehorn a campaign in then they shouldn't, especially when the reverse happens so often.

I agree. How many multiplayer "focused" games have lackluster single player campaigns that just serve as achievement/trophy fodder? I gave up on the first player campaigns for things like COD a while ago. Halo still sparks my interest, but only because I was invested in the universe.

The largest problem with a MP only game, is they will loose out on the sales of people who DO enjoy the FPS campaign and skip the multiplayer aspect.

Good. Tacked on single player is usually crap anyways. See BF3 for an example. I can't even remember what it was about nor the side co-op missions. But I sure did put 200 hours into multiplayer.

Nothing of value was lost. Polish the multiplayer and I'm sure this game will be fairly successful. Interesting concept and I'm most likely going to buy it to satisfy my robot and shooting cravings.

While I can respect wanting to focus entirely on multiplayer and make it the best that it can be, this news pretty much killed any interest I had in the game. Shooters and me don't get along well, so during the rare times I play them it's either single-player or co-op affairs such as Firefight in Halo. Sad too, because the game looked to be doing some really cool things that I would've liked to experience, but if I can't experience them without the pressure and griefing that comes with multiplayer then I'll choose my sanity instead.

Well I suppose that makes up for Wolfenstein.

Well now here's an interesting bit of hypocrisy...

When a studio tries to release a game with no multiplayer elements publishers throw a shit fit and demand some sort of online experience. Mostly for monetization purposes.

But when the reverse happens, in this particular case, people are calling it a good move.

I understand their sentiment with this. If the single player is going to be tacked on, then they shouldn't include it. But the opposite should be upheld as well. If a game doesn't need multiplayer, then it shouldn't be forced to include it.

Better no single-player then tacked on garbage single-player I suppose. *shrug*

Meh, few developers can make a single player campaign that is worth anything at all in an FPS. I'm guessing they don't have what it takes to make one, but also it is very resource intensive, so I simultaneously don't blame them for skipping it. The thing is... they kind of lost me. It's not F2P, and it's not worth shelling out $60 for a multiplayer only experience, usually. That is why I don't buy COD games, and I skipped the last Battlefield game. Though, I did really enjoy Brink because of the movement mechanics and it wasn't always just team death match (which can be very boring). We'll see what happens. The play videos do seem pretty cool. But the odds are against me being interested in shelling out money for this.

So, I find this news to actually be kind of hilarious.

Here, Titanfall was looking to be the one and only Xbox One exclusive title that was actually good, that actually had the potential to move units and sell Xbones all by itself... And it just pissed that all down the drain. I don't know, maybe something will change between now and when the Xbone launches in a few months, but my personal experience working at a game store is that online-multiplayer-only console games do not sell. At least, not for very long. We have massive piles of copies of Socom Confrontation, MAG, Shadowrun and Warhawk that we can not get rid of for longer than a day. People come in, want to buy them, and then return them, frequently mere hours later, after realizing that the game has no offline mode for them. We could not move these games if we were giving them away. Because we HAVE. We've given out copies of some of these games away for free, and people still don't want it.

Mind you, I'm certain Titanfall will sell better than all those games. For starters, it'll likely be higher quality than all of them, so that'll help, but the number of people who don't have a good enough internet connection to be able to play, or just aren't interested in multiplayer (which, for FPS games especially, has a bad reputation for attracting obnoxious 12 year olds) is not to be underestimated. Combined with the still lackluster enthusiasm for the Xbone in general as well as its higher price tag, and I suddenly see a lot of anticipation and desire for this game dropping off.

And what makes this so ironic to me is that it's being done by Respawn, aka, the guys who made the two GOOD Call of Duty games. I don't actually have any friends who like playing CoD multiplayer. Hell, as a whole, most of my friends detest the entire CoD franchise, BUT, they all make exceptions for Modern Warfare 1 and 2's single player campaign.

It's probably what most people would buy the game for anyway. Saves them money to not develope a story and make cutscenes. I'm still not getting an Xbone, but if when it comes to the PC I'll be ready.

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

That makes sense. If you don't want to make a single player mode don't, make your multiplayer mode better.

Shortens your games life expectancy though but it works for TF2 so it could work with other games, provided it gets plenty of support.

Between this and Wolfenstein it seems like developers are finally re-learning that you don't need multiplayer AND singleplayer in your game. Maybe if it catches on they will stop spending so much money to develop their games? Also, he could have probably used more tact. Blaming it on the gamers seems a little shitty of him especially considering that most people probably didn't finish the single player campaign because it was crap.

To be fair, the games these guys make actually are known more for their multiplayer than their singleplayer. If it means refocusing on what they feel is important, then power to them quite frankly.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me, just look at Halo and what it did for the previous Xbox's because of its multiplayer.

I was all ready to be pissed about this, and call this guy a twat.

But its an FPS with a 'strong multi player' focus, so this is probably for the best. Better no single player then a shit one that holds the game back, and naturally the reverse.

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!

Well I won't lie, that is disappointing. Seems like such an interesting world to tell a story in.

But I can't say it's a big surprise. And since Halo has kinda fallen out of favor with me, I've been wanting a new shooter for the occasions when I feel like some online multiplayer. I'll still keep an eye on Titanfall.

who knows, maybe if it does well enough they might put out a sequel or something of the sort that is singleplayer, or at least a spinoff
here's hoping at least

I actually respect them for this. If you're going for a quality multiplayer experience, you may as well focus on that. If they don't want to shoehorn a campaign in then they shouldn't, especially when the reverse happens so often.

I agree their good for making a choice of what their game is and sticking with it, but their also dicks for saying SP is useless and no-one plays them. Personally SP games are some of my favorite ones and last the longest (if their good), MP ones are often short lived.

That hurts my heart.

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


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.

So... One game less to keep an eye on. I like that they want to focus on one aspect of the game instead of having a shit single player like BF3 did, but I'll never buy a multiplayer only game. I miss when the sp and mp were good thou, like CoD's enemy at the gates look alike for the Russian campaign, or Modern Warfare's. Those were pretty good and the MP was pretty fun too.

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.

so new players have no way to get adjusted to your games main focus bar jumping into random matches and having to listen to a bunch of whiners calling then noobs, GREAT PLAN GUYS!

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here