Titanfall Team Decides Against Single-Player Campaign

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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."

Translates as

We make these single player missions that take up all the focus of the studio, that we don't spend much time on making, but are still bizarrely surprised when people find them too easy, or not worth the effort of finishing even though they are staggeringly short to begin with; I mean, we can't convince people to play our single player shit for 4 hours. So we've decided "If it's hard, it's not worth doing" and now we can solely focus on making Modern Warfare with Mechs.

I'm glad they're giving me a decent excuse not to buy their game, and i'm happy they're aware how shitty their single player offerings are, but I am surprised at the amount of people who are hailing this as something amazing...looks like Battlefield 2142 to me - a sci-fi-reimagining of a popular product they've made before.

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.

josemlopes:
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.

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.

MeChaNiZ3D:
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.

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.

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.

Nice to see some two-faced hypocrisy here. Game goes singleplayer only, people cheer for them and celebrate for sticking to what the game is about. Game goes multiplayer only, people tell them to fuck off.

So they are making something in the vein of the old multiplayer FPS Titles. As long as they are charging around 40-50 usd for it and not a full 60 it's a go.

AyaReiko:

piinyouri:
That hurts my heart.

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

Ow.

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.

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.

well I'm not that fussed about the lack of a single player campaign, wasn't really expecting one from this anyway, it did seem more like a multiplayer focused game.

Still got some concerns:

Firstly the price: hopefully they won't charge full price for it

Secondly: Hopefully for the PC version they'll allow gaming communities to host dedicated servers and not rent it like Battlefield 3 did.

Other than that, well lets see what you give us then Respawn.

Well I guess I'm not playing it then. I don't have the internet for online multipayer. Shame, it really looks interesting.

Alfador_VII:
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.

Nice of you to assume you know what other peoples gaming habits are.As a matter of fact I've played every CoD campaign multiple times(except Black Ops 2 just haven't gotten around to it again yet)and I doubt I'm the only person who does that

Games played this year (not a comprehensive list):
Bioshock Infinite
Kerbal Space Program
Devil May Cry
Tomb Raider(single player only)
Saints Row the Third
Skyrim for the umpteenth time
Dragon Age Origins again
Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition
Dark Souls
Dragon's Dogma
The Last of Us(single player only)
System Shock 2(single player only) again

Games planned for 2014 playthrough:
Titanfall

Well atleast they're being honest. Not all games need singleplayer, I hope that it's reflected in the price though. A multiplayer only game shouldn't really be more than about 20-30.

Nothing wrong with the decision, they're making it multiplayer-focused so they're saving time and resources on the sp campaign. Just like Crystal Dynamics should have done with Tomb Raider (only vice versa).

What I take issue with is their rationalisation. Come on guys, it's your decision whether to include SP or not. But don't try and pretend SP is not popular enough. That's just not true.

neppakyo:
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!

Settle down. Didn't you read? It won't have a half assed single player because it won't have a single player at all. If you don't like multiplayer, then don't buy it.

Aww, but I like single-player. I guess it probably wouldn't have been all that great anyway, but I've always liked having the option of not getting my ass kicked by real people online.

So they want to focus on multiplayer to make it a good as it can be. Good, I respect that. But the digs at singleplayer were not called for. Should have just said 'we don't want to split our resources and do a bad job of it, so we are focusing on this' and left it at that.

Fortunately for me, I'm not a console person, so I should have plenty time to hear all about it before it makes its way over to PC and decide on whether or not it's worth my time. That is assuming I'm remembering stuff correctly, that it's out on the Xbox One first.

Hmmm... I understand the reasoning, but I personally prefer to have some context for why I'm doing what I'm doing in shooters. This game doesn't interest me nearly as much without a story mode.

Phrozenflame500:
Considering how shit most FPS single player campaigns are, we probably didn't lost much here.

Killzone 2 campaign was one of the better SP experiences I had this gen. And I kept playing MP because SP made me a fan, made me care about avenging Visari, about slaughtering Vektan scum...
Anyhow, it doesn't work for me. For me MP should be complimentary to SP. They both should enhance each other.

Also, SP IS popular. What is not popular is boring, shit, uninspired SP (Homefront, Battlefield, some instances of Call of Duty, you can add your pick here).

Respawn co-founder Vince Zampella:
"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,"

"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."

Holy crap, dude. Did you at least lube yourself up before you pulled those numbers straight out of your ass?

Not every game needs a dedicated singleplayer campaign, but honestly I play more singleplayer in dedicated multiplayer games (Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield) than I play multiplayer in dedicated singleplayer games (Tomb Raider, FarCry), so consider me disappointed we won't see a new scifi premise explored in any great detail.

LysanderNemoinis:
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.

Are you kidding. Do you know how big and how much money they spent developing Tomb Raider and Bioshock? Those studios are massive! And so is the COD studio. Did you even read the article? Their studio is moderate in comparison. With you rather they spent resources on shitty multiplayer AND single player or just well polished half? Geez.

IBlackKiteI:

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.

Tell that to Dust 514, MAG and Ravaged

Phrozenflame500:
Considering how shit most FPS single player campaigns are, we probably didn't lost much here.

Indeed. I have trouble being upset that an FPS multiplayer game didn't tack on a 4 hour campaign that most people would hate and mock anyway.

kael013:
An asspull for statistics to prove their reasoning with no sources...

As the developers of several blockbuster games, they collect all sorts of stats telling them how their games are being played. So when they say a small percentage of people play single-player, that isn't something they pulled out of thin air; that's something they've seen in their post-release tracking data.

HellbirdIV:

Respawn co-founder Vince Zampella:
"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,"

"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."

but honestly I play more singleplayer in dedicated multiplayer games (Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield) than I play multiplayer in dedicated singleplayer games (Tomb Raider, FarCry)

So your counter argument to his "bogus stats" is assuming your preference single handed counts against their observation? that doesn't even make sense. They never said people don't play singleplayer, they said compared to multiplayer the investment isn't worth the pay off

Tradjus:
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.

Battlefield never had single player when it was on PC. The only reason it changed this policy is that console gamers were still largely offline and DICE wanted to be on console. I fully expect Battlefield to go this way because they were always multiplayer focused. And honestly, nobody buys Battlefield for it's SP anyways.

-Dragmire-:
Hmmm... I understand the reasoning, but I personally prefer to have some context for why I'm doing what I'm doing in shooters. This game doesn't interest me nearly as much without a story mode.

If you need a Shakespearean anecdote or deep character development before you can jump into a Mech warrior or strap on a jet pack with guns blazing then

a. you never wanted to play in the first place

or

b. you expect way too much from the world

Abandon4093:
Well atleast they're being honest. Not all games need singleplayer, I hope that it's reflected in the price though. A multiplayer only game shouldn't really be more than about 20-30.

Interesting point. But remember they aren't spending half their resources on it. Absence of single player doesn't equate to half a product. Same way single player games without multiplayer add-ons are still priced competitively.

Anatoli Ossai:
So your counter argument to his "bogus stats" is assuming your preference single handed counts against their observation?

No, my preference counts for me being disappointed in seeing an interesting scifi premise wasted. That's the kind of thing you miss when you quote things out of context.

Also, why are you so defensive? Are they paying you to spindoctor for them or something, 'cause I don't see a good reason to go double-posting flimsy justifications otherwise.

 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
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here