Titanfall Team Decides Against Single-Player Campaign

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

DICE could learn something from this in relation to Battlefield

Yuuki:
It's funny because MMO's and MOBA's are essentially multiplayer-only RPG's, but when you talk about an FPS being multiplayer-only then people...don't like it...? What kinda standards are those lol? Ever heard of Tribes Ascend or Planetside 2?

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.

Titanfall, by all assumptions so far since we don't really have hard information, will not be.

That's a pretty crucial difference.

Well since your cutting 40% of the content I expect the game to be 40% cheaper, if not I'm not buying it.

shrekfan246:

Yuuki:
It's funny because MMO's and MOBA's are essentially multiplayer-only RPG's, but when you talk about an FPS being multiplayer-only then people...don't like it...? What kinda standards are those lol? Ever heard of Tribes Ascend or Planetside 2?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Saviordd1:
Well since your cutting 40% of the content I expect the game to be 40% cheaper, if not I'm not buying it.

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.

Dark Knifer:
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.

TF2 is based off TFC which is a mod of HL, so in theory TF2's single player is HL2.

Yuuki:

shrekfan246:

Yuuki:
It's funny because MMO's and MOBA's are essentially multiplayer-only RPG's, but when you talk about an FPS being multiplayer-only then people...don't like it...? What kinda standards are those lol? Ever heard of Tribes Ascend or Planetside 2?

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.

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 (only ~8-12 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)?

"Vastly more content and replay value" is a purely subjective measurement.

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.

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?

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).

CriticKitten:
I see a lot of people praising them for this decision and saying they respect it.

I would respect them far more if they also made sure to lower their price tag accordingly.

But no. They'll expect us to spend 60 dollars for a purely multiplayer game. Which means they don't get a lick of respect for this decision, at least not from me. They'll be overcharging for a game that can't possibly deliver 60 dollars of value in just its multiplayer mode alone.

Guess that's one less game to care about.

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.

"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.

Online Only?
Welp, I've decided against buying Titanfall now.

Nothing gained, nothing lost.

Anathrax:
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

Call of Duty is MURICA? The game where the same two British dudes and their international based team save the day? Or the one where you play as an American soldier and another soldier from another country, and the international campaign is always better? I think one of us might be blindly criticizing a game because we think we are above something. I also feel as if you call it MURICA because you like to line up your opinions in a way that make your stance on patriotism apparent.
OT: I'm a little disappointed, but I'm not surprised. I end up playing online for crazy amounts of time anyway. Struggling now to think that this game will be a full price game, and if so, whether it will be worth buying. I'm guessing it will be.

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

This.

I might grab it on sale if it has a You Vs. Bots mode, but otherwise... why would you force me to interact with other people where they aren't in punching distance? Ick.

Then I guess I will be unfortunately deciding against buying it then. I don't hate online multiplayer, but I don't see myself playing it enough to warrant a purchase.

Absolutely, totally okay with this.

It's an honest admission of what Respawn's focus is with this game. Hell, the Game Informer cover that revealed this game a few days before E3 described it as "multiplayer-focused" to begin with. This is what I was expecting from the get-go. Now, the devs don't have to spend time and resources on making a single-player campaign that most people who are looking forward to Titanfall will likely never touch.

It's refreshing to me to see games be honest about what audience they are trying to appeal to, rather than try to capture all audiences at once and spread themselves super thin. Despite having never played a Battlefield game, this E3 actually managed to make me interested in Battlefield 4. However, I am ONLY interested in the multiplayer. The single-player looks like the same old rehashed crap that I saw from afar in Battlefield 3, and I would confidently say that my interest in only the multiplayer is shared by quite a few people. If, tomorrow, EA announced that they were cutting the single-player campaign from Battlefield 4 (thus going back to the standard of many of the older PC Battlefield games), I would not feel sad or care in any way.

Believe me, I love my single-player games. I gladly paid $60 for stuff like Bioshock Infinite and Batman: Arkham City. However, that doesn't mean I think multiplayer games aren't also worth full price (especially considering the number of hours that I could potentially get out of them). I think Titanfall looks quite interesting from a multiplayer standpoint, and my interest has not changed in the slightest at this announcement. If all you want is single-player, that's absolutely fine as well. Titanfall just clearly is not the game for you, and there's nothing saying you have to buy it. But, Titanfall seems to know what audience it wants to cater to, rather than go for EVERYONE, and I respect that.

lacktheknack:

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

This.

I might grab it on sale if it has a You Vs. Bots mode, but otherwise... why would you force me to interact with other people where they aren't in punching distance? Ick.

Is it that hard to pretend that enemy players are bots? Hell that's what happens in most online shooters anyway, almost nobody communicates or interacts and everyone might as well be rather intelligent (and unpredictable) bots.
As a matter of fact, I could most likely put you against an enemy player in an arena-shooter like Quake or AssaultCube (they have bots) and then ask you afterwards whether you played against a bot or an average human player, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference! I had tried such a thing a few years ago.

Some people don't like multiplayer because they can't tweak the "difficulty" (i.e. they can't switch to easy mode and steamroll everything in sight), are you one of them? Just curious, not meaning any offense :P

On the other side of the coin, some people are turned off by singleplayer - they don't see any satisfaction in stomping AI-controlled enemies because in 99% of games the AI is extremely thick, extremely predictable (in shooters especially) and it is vastly more gratifying to know that you're beating something controlled by a real living person who will learn from their mistakes and devise new cunning ways to exact their revenge upon you!
(^ Boy that was one long sentence.)

The main gripe people have with MP is the lack of story focus and the skill-through-repetition aspect. From what I've read anyway >.<

Anatoli Ossai:

-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

I had quite a bit of fun with the story and characters in Front Mission 3. Mechs and story can coexist.

Also, I'm not big on competitive multiplayer, it's just not my thing.

If this title isn't maximum 30$ (20-25 I would prefer) at launch then I am not interested. I'm not going to pay full price for a multiplayer mode with mechs, I'd rather go play my usual CoD or Battlefield then. That's what they are there for.

Ignoring single player part is a rather stupid decision if you ask me.

aww it looked like a good game too guess I wont be getting it now oh well probably would only be 5 hours long anyway.

"players run through it in eight minutes"

Then don't make your SP campaign eight minutes long, you stupid ... GAH

"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."

... Then don't make a shitty single player? People WILL play your SP if you make it worthwhile.

"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]."

That first part is true, seeing as multiplayer usually doesn't have an ending ... idiot. The last part is only true if your single player campaign is dogpoop. Or designed in a way where you really can't do anything else but move the fuck forward, like, let's say, Call of Duty.
_____________________________________________

Much respect if you want to make a multiplayer game. More power to ya. But, if you need to spew bullshit around for you to feel comfortable with what you're doing, then maybe you need to reconsider the entire game altogether...

Good news for MP fans and my wallet, because i wont be getting this. It sure sucks to be one of the 5 percent..

Well then, not getting this game then.

Yuuki:

lacktheknack:

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

This.

I might grab it on sale if it has a You Vs. Bots mode, but otherwise... why would you force me to interact with other people where they aren't in punching distance? Ick.

Is it that hard to pretend that enemy players are bots? Hell that's what happens in most online shooters anyway, almost nobody communicates or interacts and everyone might as well be rather intelligent (and unpredictable) bots.
As a matter of fact, I could most likely put you against an enemy player in an arena-shooter like Quake or AssaultCube (they have bots) and then ask you afterwards whether you played against a bot or an average human player, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference! I had tried such a thing a few years ago.

Some people don't like multiplayer because they can't tweak the "difficulty" (i.e. they can't switch to easy mode and steamroll everything in sight), are you one of them? Just curious, not meaning any offense :P

On the other side of the coin, some people are turned off by singleplayer - they don't see any satisfaction in stomping AI-controlled enemies because in 99% of games the AI is extremely thick, extremely predictable (in shooters especially) and it is vastly more gratifying to know that you're beating something controlled by a real living person who will learn from their mistakes and devise new cunning ways to exact their revenge upon you!
(^ Boy that was one long sentence.)

The main gripe people have with MP is the lack of story focus and the skill-through-repetition aspect. From what I've read anyway >.<

No, I just despise it when people start acting petty and trollish (ie. every online match I've ever played). There's too many people online who take it seriously. I'd rather play bots who exist to fight you and don't have any agenda, such as following you around making your game miserable when they respawn.

Saviordd1:
Well since your cutting 40% of the content I expect the game to be 40% cheaper, if not I'm not buying it.

I doubt it was ever 40% of their content.

Make me no longer interested in the game then, for more interested in Destiny for incoming multiplayer FPS. But I think it actually for the best to fully focus on multiplayer if that indeed your market.

Well at least they said it upfront. That saves me getting all excited and going to actually buy the thing only to discover what it actually is.

I'd think that the multiplayer would be more than enough provided that it is engaging and expansive. And fun, of course. Granted, I can't see them justifying charging for any additional content that they produce.

piinyouri:
That hurts my heart.

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

Ow.

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.

I think his "single player isn't popular enough" comment needs to be taken in context. Namely, that of him commenting on the state of the competitive, online gaming scene. And, not just in the FPS genre.

In all honesty, how many people bought Call of Duty or even Starcraft 2 for the campaigns?

I'd wager an extremely small percentage.

So, given how small Respawns dev team is, I actually respect their decision to drop a singleplayer campaign. At least for this particular title.

I'd rather have no campaign at all instead of having some rushed, tacked on experience that does not mesh with the play mechanics of a multiplayer oriented game.

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 don't know. These were the guys responsible for COD4s campaign. Say what you will about the franchise as a whole, but 4s campaign was pretty well inspired.

Either way, I agree with you. As I said in another thread:

What fascinates me about Titanfall, at least as far as the gaming community is concerned, is how petty and ridiculous some of the complaints have been.

Example:
For years now, people, especially on this forum, have been incessantly bitching about todays games having either tacked on multiplayer or singleplayer experiences. They whine about how the studios design for a game clearly favored one mode of play over the other, and how much that mode (and subsequently the game) suffered by a splitting of resources to make both.

Yet, here we have a small dev team, of which is making a game with a specific style of play in mind, deciding to forgo stretching their already thin resources to make a singleplayer campaign, and the gaming community around here is bitching about it. They're insistent that the game needs both modes or it's a waste of time.

Jesus jumped-up Christ, I am honestly starting to hate being associated with the gaming community now-a-days.

Probably a good call - since they clearly are interested in focusing on multiplayer there's no sense in diverting some time and funds to throwing together a lackluster singleplayer that neither the maker nor the players are interested in alla Battlefield: Bad Company 2

I'm actually curious how this is going to play out sales wise for them. Problem is how do you tell how much having no single player campaign might hurt them?

A thought: What if they went and finished the game as multiplayer only, see how popular the game is, and if sales are doing well THEN go back and make a single player campaign as a free DLC. Why free? Consider the folks on here who are saying they won't buy the game as multi only, but would have if there was a single player mode. In order for the DLC to be any good they'd still have to buy the game, which means sales that would have been left on the table before plus with any luck an expanded player base for multiplayer.

I like the decision and respect them for it.

If you don't have the resources to make a strong single player, I'd rather you pour the resources you do have into making the multiplayer even better. Considering the game is multiplayer centric anyway, this seems like a no brainer.

This is exact same logic that single-player centric games support. How many times does a good single player game suffer because the devs are forced to tact on multiplayer to appease the idiot suits?
Far too many I suspect.

That said, I hope they atleast add some sci-fi narrative. The world could be abit more interesting with an explanation for the mechs and jet-packs.

RaNDM G:
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.

Which is a good point. Anyone complaining about this game need only look at Team Fortress 2. That game is widely successful and does not have a lick of single player.

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

This is absolute BS. Just own the fact that you aren't interested in creating a good SP experience, or are unable to in the time allotted. I won't deny that MP is a big seller of these games.

However, even the Halo guys said it: "[without a good story] what reason does a player have to be playing some 'stupid game' at 3 in the morning?"

My answer: none...and I'm not alone in this opinion.

So yeah, I can respect not shoehorning a subpar SP mode. It perturbs me just as much when they shoehorn in a stupid MP mode. But claiming that it isn't "popular enough to justify" is somewhat weak, IMO.

Game still looks amazing, but I certainly won't be buying it.

EDIT: on the subject of F2P, I believe EVERYONE should be looking into some tiered system. People cried foul when MMO's first came out completely subscription based, and the market has proven that few can support such an infrastructure. A P2P only structure isn't as viable anymore, not when competing services offer similar experiences on a much more affordable system.

That's the beauty of competition people, better returns for the consumer, and better products from the manufacturer.

I was pretty interested in Titanfall but now that I know there will be no single player all my interest in it has died. Perhaps if they actually had a decent written story with no plot holes, gave players choices, and a longer single player campaign than perhaps people might actually take an interest in the story and more people would complete the SP campaign.

oh...well that actually makes sense for them. but that also means I won't be buying it then :/

So...make a campaign worth finishing. Cut out all the flashy spectacle that is causing your levels to take so long to make and focus on fun gameplay. If most players are just trying to blaze through the campaign as quickly as possible and the majority aren't interested in finishing it...here's a hint, it's probably not the players that are the problem.

This bums me out because I like good single player campaigns. I like being able to practice solo. Plus I like having something I can play when the internet is out or be able to play it in a few years when nobody else is playing it because they've moved on to the next big thing.

And also (and this is more something that's been bothering me about the industry for a while) making multiplayer and making single player isn't necessarily supposed to be like making two separate games. I mean it's not a rule set in stone. You can make your single player game and using what you made for the single player, reuse it to make modes where multiple people can play at the same time.

Also this:

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

I can't believe people are whining about this.

Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 have both shown EASILY that you don't need a strong SP campaign or even any at all to make an awesome game.

Trust me, this is a good thing. It means they're straightening out their priorities and putting all of their work into making the multiplayer an unforgettable experience.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 66590)