Titanfall Team Decides Against Single-Player Campaign

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

I'm a little disappointed because a good campaign can add a lot even to a FPS game, but ultimately it's their decision. As long as there is some sort of tutorial or practice matches available and the rest of the game is good, then I agree with the decision.

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

As much as I love single player campaigns they're usually not that great when the focus is multiplayer. A tutorial and bots should be enough for learning.

Right. Smart move. Saves me the trouble of being excited for this game. Scratch that off my list and (*bleep*) you very much.

That hurts my heart.

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


I guess Bioshock Infinite was just small time then.

Wasn't really interested in the first place, but this just cements this game as a "no buy" from me.

So this game will be a waste of money as 3 months from launch the multiplayer will be empty just as all console multiplayer games become as the online gamers move back to the far more popular CoD and Battlefield games.

I have only now heard of this game, and I hate it already.

I applaud them openly admitting that their single player experiences suck so badly that only about 5% of their customers have the patience to finish them. I mean rather than up your game in that department, why not just axe it altogether?

Also, why not just make your game an F2P MMO at this point? That is where the real money is at, and the only way you will keep people interested in playing your game 6 months later is to dangle that carrot of grinding stats in front of them.

I mean the alternative would be to pump out DLC maps over and over, and you've already admitted that making content isn't cost effective for you, so we shall not be expecting any.

Now, I assume I'm not the only one that the following statements apply to:

I play the single player content of ANY game FIRST, and I always finish it assuming its not utter crap. If it IS, I disregard the multiplayer and trade it in.

I enjoy single player way more than multi, even in FPS. Especially in FPS actually, because no one is hopping around like a spaz spamming grenades and screaming the nyancat song in my ear for 20 matches.

If I do find the multi enjoyable, I use the single player for learning how to play, and to give the multi CONTEXT.

Resistence 1-3, I barely touched the multi. In fact I rushed through it, saw I didn't like it and stopped playing it. I came back to the single player several times.

Most games with multiplayer only last a few months before only a handful of people are still playing. Either due to boredom or the NEXT game having come out.

If they don't see that franchises are built upon the backs of single player campaigns, and the characters/narrative that they get out there into the world then I don't know how to explain it to them.

If halo just featured a random Spartan and only Multi, or if Gears was just multi with no Marcus etc. then would people be as invested? People other than me I mean as I never played Gears, and hated Halo.

This story puts me in mind of the new multiplayer Legacy of Kain game "Nosgoth."

Except in that case they had been in development for 3 years, then decided to scrap the game favor of the multiplayer. Which fans are pretty much unanimous in saying "wtf? why would you do that!"

And I just decided against spending $60 on a shooter that doesn't even have single player. Look at how easy that was!

Well that's good, hats off to you. But on another note, I can not understand what all the buzz about this game is about? It's colourless, shallow and generic but then I am not a multiplayer. It's like line dancing, people seem to really enjoy it but not for me.

This would be the point where I would bash my keyboard and say "no you are wrong" but after the E3 footage...yeah, that just seems appropriate. Counter Strike and, Team Fortress didn't need single player after all and neither of them have giant, death-mecha...but then...that would apply to a campaign mode...I believe TF2 has the option to play alone against bots...Oh boy, I get to be angry after all!

Titanfall, you're a game that features GIANT FUCKING ROBOTS why CAN'T I play Bot-matches?!

Kumagawa Misogi:
So this game will be a waste of money as 3 months from launch the multiplayer will be empty just as all console multiplayer games become as the online gamers move back to the far more popular CoD and Battlefield games.

It might have a longer life on PC. We've got games like Natural Selection 2, Killing Floor, Counter-Strike, all kinds of multiplayer games where matches are easy to find years down the line.

Cool. One less game to buy. Thanks, guys.

But seriously...fuck you.

Well I did think this game looked pretty good, but not anymore- multiplayer only is completely pointless to me. At least I can save my money for other games now i suppose.

While I resent the opening statement of this article, I do feel like this:

If you're going for a quality multiplayer experience, you may as well focus on that.

I'd rather have focus and one quality gameplay mode than tacked on nonsense. Remember Battlefield 3? They know their strengths and stick with that, that's good.

So why should I buy this game and not keep playing Warframe....which was free (but I believe has Micropayments)

I don't have a problem with this. Some single player games have no need for multiplayer and some multiplayer have no need for singleplayer.
I loved the original unreal tournament where "single player" was just playing multiplayer with bots, and I love tf2 where "single player" is just a tutorial regarding each character for the multiplayer.

As long as they know what they want to focus on and then focus on it, I'm OK with it.

I am somewhat glad to hear this. If I had bought Titanfall only to find it had a half-assed single player campaign and all their effort was obviously concentrated in the multiplayer I would have been pissed. Now I know not to bother buying it at all, and I can spend that money on something else that does concentrate on the single player experience.

Shocking to see them drop any chance of making a single player. When a FPS game has single and multiplayer, I boot up the single player first. This is how I gain the basic skills needed to take on the MP aspect. The whole single player is like a tutorial with a story. Alot of times it's a bad story and predictable twists that come off flat. Worst yet it could have one of those cryptic stories that don't make sense unless you spend weeks online deciphering the clues given. Sure it can be cheesy, but once in awhile it's fun. Of late alot of FPS stories are as riveting as those found in fighting game; "They are the bad guys, kill them. With guns" The reason people stop completing these single player is because the majority of the gameplay is moving from room to room killing anything that moves. It's barely a step above a rail shooter. How many times do you find a turrent in a game and suddenly all these bad guys come at you? Pretty convenient. Or you find a rocket launcher just as a helicopter decides to swoop down or better yet a tank. Thank goodness someone stashed crates of rockets next to each chest high wall that you can use for cover. A perfect place to stop and wait for your health to regenerate.

With this game going online MP only I only have one game I was keeping my eye on for Xbox One; Dead Rising 3. Oh wells. I hope it does well. Maybe I'll grab it on PC later

"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."

He's gotta be joking. What kind of incompetent developers devote so much effort to so little content? And what kind of past titles have this team worked on that had campaigns bad enough to give them these horribly skewed impressions of players' preference for multiplayer over singlepl-

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!

Bingo. That, right there, is why I don't and probably never will play multiplayer-only games (not even TF2).

Dude made COD 4: Modern Warfare, Think he knows what he is talking about.

Well as far as I'm concerned they can cut out the SP if the game itself is good. BUT for a pure MP Shooter I'll never pay 50€ not even 40. 30€ is the highest I'd go for a game like this.

Oh but there already are interesting games in that area. Check out Natural Selection 2 for example.

I can dig it. I complain often enough about single-player games with tacked on multiplayer. Inversely, there is no point in tacked on single player.

Ill just take the money i was going to use for this on the 360 and put that to the Tales HD collection, thanks!

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.

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.

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.

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 faggot 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.

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.

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.

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!


Won't be buying it then, hf

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...

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.

 Pages PREV 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