Titanfall Team Decides Against Single-Player Campaign

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

They better at least have great local play.

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

Nothing gained, nothing lost.

wait it has no campaign AND no local play... well that means I won't be touching it either. To bad I was excited to play this too.

TheScientificIssole:

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.

I think you might be looking into that a little to hard my friend. I meant no offence to Americans or anyone. My point is the single player is probably going to suck. That's it. Have a pleasant whatever.

Arnoxthe1:
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.

Thing is with focusing on the multiplayer experience is it relies very much on things they can't control; namely the players. I'm pretty sure if we went back and asked everyone who's posted here saying they won't buy the game now, a major reason for not wanting multiplayer would be because they didn't want to deal with other players, especially the whiny ones or hackers.

Yes UT and Quake 3 were great multiplayer games, but they're also from another age that wasn't asking $60 for a n online only title AND were both PC games where you could have more control over who you play with.

Could this still work for them? Maybe. But it is a situation where all the eggs are going into one basket.

Cognimancer:
probably isn't necessary.

Sums up my feelings about this game.

UsefulPlayer 1:
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.

But TF2 was first released in the Orange Box, along with 4 other singleplayer games. Then when it was released stand alone it was a good deal cheaper than a full priced game. And then it was made F2P.

Whereas Titanfall will be released like a regular game at full price.

that was the impression i got from e3, but glad to have confirmation. glad as in, glad i know not to buy it. no single player = no interest

Gizen:
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.

Titanfall will release on the 360 and PC as well as the Uno.

I can respect them for making the decision to focus on a multiplayer title instead of trying to be all things to all people. However, this saddens me because a game that had piqued my interest has now lost any chance at being purchased by me. I abhor multiplayer only titles, mainly because I don't have the time to invest in becoming good at playing against other people who spend all their time in FPS multiplayer. Honestly speaking, I am an eclectic gamer and tend to bounce from one title to the next and single player or co-op with the occasional foray into optional multiplayer is where it is at for me.

Great. I wish Yager were given the freedom to do the same and axe the multiplayer on Spec Ops: The Line.

The apologists out in full force in this thread, I see. These guys should form a counter-insurgency to face off against the Nintendo Defense Force. That'll be fun.

WashAran:
You mean like games that are only singelplayer and are priced lower than normal?
How do you guys determin that they are not putting all the resources they save on sp in to the mp?

Maybe because they explicitly state in the article that they're doing this to cut production costs (namely in terms of development time "lost")?

And a game lacking multiplayer is not necessarily a death mark against its price tag. Multiplayer should only exist on games it makes sense for. Here, it makes perfect sense to have multiplayer....but removing the single player entirely means I'm left with a game that's completely unplayable unless I play with (and against) other people.

That's a death mark on a $60 game to me. I buy games to play them, I don't like paying full price for a game I'm literally incapable of playing without other people around. I've only ever bought such a game once (GW2), and that only got a "meh" because of how much of the content can be soloed without any outside help. The fact that said content wasn't all that great (nor has it been all that great in any other MMO-style game) only encourages me to avoid such games even more. I don't have the slightest bit of confidence that Titanfall can deliver a genuinely good storyline with just its multiplayer.

And a multiplayer-only design structure is a potential problem for the game down the road, when the player count starts to drop off and there's much less people around to play it with you. Matches will take much longer to form up, and you'll be able to play much less as a result.

But please, keep clinging to this notion that a game lacking multiplayer and a game lacking single player are totally the same scenario, even though they're obviously not.

MrWunderful:
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?

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.

DugMachine:
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.

I don't understand comments like these, either, where a game's value is purely dictated by how long you can play it without getting horrendously bored. By that logic, all of those F2P MMOs out there which do relatively nothing new or interesting must be the best games ever made, right?

Don't make me laugh. A game's "value" isn't determined purely by the game's length, just like you don't judge a movie's length as the primary basis for whether or not it's worth the money. It's based on the game's ability to deliver on a vast array of things, from story to graphical quality to gameplay.

There is simply no way that this game will deliver a $60 caliber experience with simply its multiplayer "campaign". What has been shown of the combat in the game to date is not largely impressive, it's standard CoD-style combat with mechs added in. Oh sure, the graphics are impressive, and the combat looks fun and fast-paced. The mechs even do some neat things that add dimension to the game's combat system. But even with everything they've shown, to date, it simply doesn't constitute a $60 game to me.

You're welcome to disagree if you like, and feel free to base your entire judgment of a game's "quality" on how long you play it for. I'll stick to judging a game by its actual merits, and thus far, Titanfall has shown me absolutely nothing that makes me want to pay $60 for it. The revelation that the game is unplayable unless you go full multiplayer is only another reason not to be interested in it. Because I've yet to see a multiplayer-only game that delivers a great story (and no, SWTOR fans, your game really doesn't do that, so stop bringing that one up), and the combat, while it has its own quirks, is nothing that other shooters don't also offer.

CriticKitten:
snip

You should read the artical again, both for that matter, because in none of them is anyone saying anything about cuting cost.

WashAran:
You should read the artical again, both for that matter, because in none of them is anyone saying anything about cuting cost.

You should read my post again.

Maybe because they explicitly state in the article that they're doing this to cut production costs (namely in terms of development time "lost")?

They make it very clear in the article that they don't want to pour "hundreds of hours" and "millions of dollars" (ha!) into a single player that "no one will play". Development time is a form of cost, ergo cutting development time is a cost-cutting measure.

Thanks for playing.

EDIT: Moved to my new post.

Hell yea.

One of the things I've been hating about Defiance is that while it's primarily multiplayer co-op, near the end of every chapter there is a solo mission that you can't bring your friends into; the instance is closed off until you complete it, then. That's not good game design. Why make an open world where I can group with friends and even form my own clan and have multiple in-game chat channels, but throw me in a phase all by myself to fight a boss?! GRRRRRR!!!

*deep breath*

Anyway, this looks cool. I still want to play it even if there's no comprehensive single player story. Sometimes multiplayer can be better, because it strips away all serious tone for the sake of fun. I had a way better time hitting people with sledgehammers in Red Faction's multiplayer. It's interesting to see how players react to each other in the same environment. I remember there being a game mode where the object was simply destroy the other's base, so everyone on the enemy team wouldn't bother attacking you, they'd just go to your tower, you'd go to theirs and whoever whacked down enough wall and supports first won. I also remember all the times I became a Big Daddy in Bioshock 2's multiplayer and went on a frenzied murder-drill rampage.

On one hand I appreciate them not wasting time on a crappy single-player campaign, but at the same time I do wish a game like this would have a decent story campaign to explain a few things (they can still do that with a MP only game, just look at TF2, but I doubt they will). Also 60 bucks is a bit steep for just a multiplayer game, TF2 was only $12 at launch and these days most are free to play with micro-trasactions.

CriticKitten:

WashAran:
You should read the artical again, both for that matter, because in none of them is anyone saying anything about cuting cost.

You should read my post again.

Maybe because they explicitly state in the article that they're doing this to cut production costs (namely in terms of development time "lost")?

They make it very clear in the article that they don't want to pour "hundreds of hours" and "millions of dollars" (ha!) into a single player that "no one will play". Development time is a form of cost, ergo cutting development time is a cost-cutting measure.

Thanks for playing.

1.This is the actual quote.

Cognimancer:

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]."

2.The "millions of dollars" is nowhere to be found in the artical.

3.From the original artical, where they say they are going to put all thair rescources in to the multiplayer.

"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 8 minutes," Zampella said. "And how many people finish the single-player game? It's a small percentage. It's like, everyone plays through the first level, but 5 percent of people finish the game. Really, you split the team. They're two different games. They're balanced differently, they're scoped differently. But people spend hundreds of hours in the multiplayer experience versus 'as little time as possible rushing to the end' [in single-player]. So why do all the resources go there? To us it made sense to put it here. Now everybody sees all those resources, and multiplayer is better. For us it made sense."

WashAran:
-snip-

1) I read the original article. It denotes "six months" as a development time period. Try doing a little basic math here and see if you can reason the rest out for yourself.

2) The word is, in fact, spelled "article". And while the statement "millions of dollars" is not explicitly stated, it's rather heavily implied by their tone. They're essentially saying they devote a vast amount of resources to the single player (which isn't actually true) and since no one plays it (also not true), that it's a waste of resources. The reality is that people blow through the single player content because these companies devote nearly NOTHING towards making the single player mode significant in terms of content. Of course people will blow through it fast if you don't put any genuine time or effort into making it any good.

3) ....do you REALLY think that's how it works?

Let's face reality for a minute. Development teams trying to make games like CoD do not split their time and effort 50/50 over the SP and MP. They devote the vast majority of their resources to the MP, throw a pittance of effort at the SP (which in turn produces a terrible SP mode), and then wonder why people don't bother trying to complete their SP content.

They aren't devoting all that money and time to the MP, they're just cutting it wholesale from their development costs. If the world worked as you suggest it does, then their multiplayer should have at least double the content of any CoD game. Let's just wait and see if that's actually what happens, shall we? My money's on NOPE.

Dreadman75:
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.

This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say. Where are the devs publicly decrying having to tack on multiplayer to a game that's primarily SP-focused? Oh yeah, there aren't any. >_<

As awesome as Titanfall looks, I won't be buying it. As someone else said, I'll just stick with TF2.

Also, this really does make Zampella sound like an insufferable jerk.

Oh what's that you don't want my money? OK then.

Also you only doing half the work? then i better see it for half the average price and then you'll have my attention. But for some reason i doubt that.

One release date i dont care about then , but now its a wait and see if servers work and if there is a player base. And i thought they love people pre ordering games ? That will go right out of the window wont it ?

While I disagree with his underlying notion that "Single Player is Dead", I have to say that I'd much rather see a game that clearly wants to be multiplayer-only actually BE multiplayer-only. As I recall, Respawn was formed by former Infinity Ward guys, right? You can't blame them for having this opinion considering the Call of Duty franchise really is a multiplayer series that has a half-hearted story stuffed into it.

As a matter of fact, I'll go ahead and say it: I think all FPS's might as well be Multiplayer Only...seems like that's what the majority of FPS players get them for anyways. And by focusing all their resources on developing a quality multiplayer experience, we might just see some truly memorable multiplayer games. That still leaves plenty of genres to which single player is more applicable (puzzle, action/adventure, RPG just to name a few).

I have one word for you.

BOTS!

Use bots, Unreal Tournament got away with it why can't you?

Well, there goes the one Xbox 180 game I was even relatively interested in

Kiya:
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.

What would be cool:

After the multiplayer part is released and selling, if they wanted to do a Single Player element, they release expansion packs or episodes with specifically geared single player storylines instead of tacking it on.

RJ 17:

As a matter of fact, I'll go ahead and say it: I think all FPS's might as well be Multiplayer Only...seems like that's what the majority of FPS players get them for anyways. And by focusing all their resources on developing a quality multiplayer experience, we might just see some truly memorable multiplayer games. That still leaves plenty of genres to which single player is more applicable (puzzle, action/adventure, RPG just to name a few).

Refusing to serve the single-player FPS market is a great way to leave money on the table while throwing away money trying to grab a piece of an already oversaturated market at the same time.

The problem with trying to sell to the multiplayer FPS market is that people who player multiplayer FPS tend to dump all of their time into one game. They also tend to play games that are popular, concentrating on the winners rather than splitting their sales across the market. That means that you're either going to make it big or crash and burn.

If the multiplayer FPS market was something that was starved for attention right now this might be a smart move. As it is, I hope they aren't spending much to make this game, because if they are it's going to be another "We sold two million copies, but lost our shirt because we were stupid enough to think we were going to sell 10 million".

BloodSquirrel:
Snip.

Risk-taking is part of being in business. You can either go for the gold knowing there's a chance you can fail, or you can play it safe for a guaranteed, but much smaller, return. By most people's accounts, CoD is getting old. It's reign at the top isn't going to last much longer, how are we going to find "the next big thing" if developers are too afraid to try and make "the next big thing"? Sure, there's a good chance the game could flop if you go all-in on Multiplayer Only, but by pooling your resources and focusing your efforts on multiplayer, you're given a better chance to create something truly special.

Maybe it was a bit much for me to say "ALL FPS's should be multiplayer only", but you cannot deny that the guy has a point. Going back to the genre leader: how many CoD players actually care about the story? I'm sure there's a percentage of'em, but it's heavily outmatch by the percentage of players that just want to play the multiplayer. Putting a story in just seems like it's more tradition now than anything. Months of development spent on the single player only to come with a campaign that can be breezed through in a few hours because most of the game's resources were spent on multiplayer anyways. Why not just skip the single player and do everything you can to make a damn fine multiplayer experience?

Look at Team Fortress 2: no single player campaign to be found, and people absolutely love it.

Want game but don't want the matching console. Find out it's multi only, now don't want either.

RJ 17:

BloodSquirrel:
Snip.

Risk-taking is part of being in business. You can either go for the gold knowing there's a chance you can fail, or you can play it safe for a guaranteed, but much smaller, return. By most people's accounts, CoD is getting old. It's reign at the top isn't going to last much longer, how are we going to find "the next big thing" if developers are too afraid to try and make "the next big thing"? Sure, there's a good chance the game could flop if you go all-in on Multiplayer Only, but by pooling your resources and focusing your efforts on multiplayer, you're given a better chance to create something truly special.

Maybe it was a bit much for me to say "ALL FPS's should be multiplayer only", but you cannot deny that the guy has a point. Going back to the genre leader: how many CoD players actually care about the story? I'm sure there's a percentage of'em, but it's heavily outmatch by the percentage of players that just want to play the multiplayer. Putting a story in just seems like it's more tradition now than anything. Months of development spent on the single player only to come with a campaign that can be breezed through in a few hours because most of the game's resources were spent on multiplayer anyways. Why not just skip the single player and do everything you can to make a damn fine multiplayer experience?

Look at Team Fortress 2: no single player campaign to be found, and people absolutely love it.

Taking *smart* risks is a part of being in business. There's a point in time where you just need to recognize when there are more fertile portions of the market to go after. You also need to be able to subsidize the potential losses from risky products with more stable revenue streams, which requires you to not break the bank on them. We've seen companies put out products that need to sell as many copies as the market leader in order to turn a profit, and it never turns out well. Meanwhile, the biggest new successes tend to come from companies that found an unexploited market and exploded in popularity. CoD-style shooters weren't leading sales until CoD came along. And the neat thing about unexploited markets is that there's a lower cost of entry.

EA has been trying the "force a hit by spending extroardinary amounts of money" strategy and it's resulted in such flawless successes as MOD:Warfighter and TOR.

RJ 17:
As a matter of fact, I'll go ahead and say it: I think all FPS's might as well be Multiplayer Only...seems like that's what the majority of FPS players get them for anyways. And by focusing all their resources on developing a quality multiplayer experience, we might just see some truly memorable multiplayer games. That still leaves plenty of genres to which single player is more applicable (puzzle, action/adventure, RPG just to name a few).

Agreed. It would also cut down on the workload. I always thought it was a kinda sad that multiplayer-centric games are required to have a campaign/story when the average gamer only plays through it once. Someone put lots of time and effort into that single player portion; All the characters, environments, storyboards, vehicles, voice-acting, etc. And they're never revisited. I almost feels like they serve as little more than padded out tutorials now, or just an excuse to get famous actors on-board for voice work.

BloodSquirrel:
CoD-style shooters weren't leading sales until CoD came along. And the neat thing about unexploited markets is that there's a lower cost of entry.

My point exactly, Respawn is still a small company at this point and has to be careful how it uses its resources. Edit(kinda forgot an important sentence or two in here) Respawn is trying to come up with a new idea and experience to see if it'll be a hit, because just like you said: "CoD-style shooters weren't leading sales until CoD came along." Again: risk taking, "how can we find the next big thing if we don't go looking for it?" Respawn is taking a chance with this new game and hoping that it takes off, so they want to put it together as well as they can.End Edit They can either divvy their resources up between a story campaign and a multiplayer and likely end up with a bland, mediocre-at-best game because they spread themselves too thin, or they can focus their efforts in one or the other. There's countless singleplayer-only games out there, and when those games suddenly show up with multiplayer the gaming community starts moaning "Ohhhhh that multiplayer is just shoehorned in! It's completely unnecessary! Yadda-yadda-yadda!" Mass Effect 3 is a perfect example of this.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical then to look at a game that's declaring itself multiplayer-only and get pissed off because they DON'T want to shoehorn in a completely unnecessary singleplayer campaign? Again I point to the popularity of games like Team Fortress 2. That game is multiplayer-only and no one bitches about there being no campaign to it. My point is that just like how there's no reason to force multiplayer into a game that's primarily designed as singleplayer, there's also no reason to force singpleplayer into a game that's being primarily designed as a multiplayer.

RJ 17:

Maybe it was a bit much for me to say "ALL FPS's should be multiplayer only", but you cannot deny that the guy has a point. Going back to the genre leader: how many CoD players actually care about the story? I'm sure there's a percentage of'em, but it's heavily outmatch by the percentage of players that just want to play the multiplayer. Putting a story in just seems like it's more tradition now than anything. Months of development spent on the single player only to come with a campaign that can be breezed through in a few hours because most of the game's resources were spent on multiplayer anyways. Why not just skip the single player and do everything you can to make a damn fine multiplayer experience?

Look at Team Fortress 2: no single player campaign to be found, and people absolutely love it.

Fair, and I certainly support developers tightening their focus to create a superior product, but there are dangers in producing multiplayer only FPS games. They suffer from the exact same thing as MMORPGs do, every single one must inevitably be compared to WOW and they must effectively fight WOW for playerbase.

If you make an online only FPS you open yourself up to being compared to TF2 and COD for team based FPS, and L4D, ZombieCOD and Day Z if its a zombieshooter. And unfortunately you have to have a pretty amazing showing to do well, because you are fighting well established franchises with large to massive player bases and competing on price point with a F2P and a mod in the PC market. Just look at what happened to Brink, admittedly the game had issues but it got chewed up and spit out so fast the developers didn't have a chance to try to fix it.

Edit:
Unfucked some quotes.

EvilRoy:
Snip

Perfectly good points, but that goes back to what I was talking about with risk-taking. Indeed, you've got to fight the current king of the hill before you can become the king of the hill yourself. But does that mean you should just give up and not even bother trying because "Damnit, we'll NEVER make an MMO that's better than WoW. It's the end-all-be-all of MMO's and there really is no point in putting in the effort to try and dethrone it" or saying the same thing about shooters and CoD? Like I said, we're never going to find "the next big thing" unless people are willing to challenge the current big thing. Is there a chance this could be a bust? Certainly, and it wouldn't be the first one to fall short of CoD's throne. But it's worth the effort if you honestly believe you've got a shot at pulling it off, and by pooling your resources into multiplayer-only rather than trying to slap in a singleplayer campaign that will likely go neglected by most players, I'd argue that you're giving yourself the best possible chance. We all know that the majority of CoD players play it primarily for the multiplayer, so that's the arena in which the battle will be decided. By putting all your resources into a multiplayer game, you're putting all your effort into creating a multiplayer experience that you hope will be able to finally knock the king from his multiplayer throne.

As long as there is a decent SP tutorial I can accept this. I still won't buy it, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

RJ 17:
-snip of all prior posts-

The problem with your analogy to TF2 is that Titanfall isn't anything like TF2. TF2 survived because it's a shooter primarily on PC (and thus has little competition from CoD) and it looks and plays nothing like CoD at all. It's not a natural opponent to CoD, so it has nothing to fear from CoD.

Titanfall is a game that looks like CoD with mech units added in, and quite possibly plays like it as well, and it's releasing primarily on the Xbone (though it will likely push more units on PC than on Xbone). So it will naturally be competing with every other shooter on the market, including CoD.

Do you really, honestly think Titanfall will be that much better than CoD? Because, I really don't. And even if it was, that's no guarantee it'll succeed either.

The problem is that Titanfall is going for a market that other people have already picked their dedicated "winner" in. It's like the MMO market and how everyone's convinced that the next big MMO will topple WoW....yet it never happens. And it's not because those MMOs are worse than WoW, hell, in many cases they're better. It's because you're not going to pull someone away from an older, experienced and well-entrenched game franchise they enjoy by offering them a similar experience in a new, untested franchise that could die at any minute.

Titanfall is going to end up competing with CoD for people's attention in regards to shooters, and it needs every advantage it can get in order to keep pace with a franchise like that. It's throwing away a potentially huge advantage right now by abandoning single player, which in CoD is generally short and lackluster, in order to entrench itself firmly into a multiplayer mode that almost assuredly won't provide nearly enough of a differentiated experience to match up against CoD.

They're trying to take over the shooter genre by focusing only on the mode of gameplay that most shooter fans play, and as a result, they're ditching an area where they could make huge strides and potentially win new converts to the genre. Most people expect the SP to suck (because most studios dedicate relatively few resources to their SP in an FPS), so a game which provides a good SP experience tends to gain much more recognition for it. Spec Ops: The Line is one such example. Titanfall's decision to cut SP out entirely is just going to result in a lot of people rolling their eyes at it and grabbing the next CoD instead.

They're not "taking a risk" by getting rid of SP, they're actually playing it safe. And I have a feeling that their decision to play it safe will damage their sales figures.

CriticKitten:
Snip.

To clarify, the point of the TF2 comparison wasn't to say that this game is going to be as big of a hit as TF2. Indeed, it is going to be primarily on consoles and as such has to deal with console shooters as competitors. The point of bringing up TF2 was to show that there's other multiplayer-only games out there and people don't complain about them...so why are they complaining about this one declaring itself as multiplayer-only?

And I'd argue the very fact that they ARE making this a console shooter and thus inevitably putting it up against CoD is risk-taking. For that matter, they're taking an even bigger risk by going all-in on multiplayer. As I said to EvilRoy: whether or not a shooter is better than CoD will be decided with it's multiplayer, as that's why the majority of CoD players play CoD in the first place. You could come up with a wonderful campaign and indepth story and sell some units, but you'll never be as big as the multiplayer fanbase for CoD unless you take the challenge to the realm of multiplayer. By putting all your effort and resources into creating your multiplayer experience, I'd argue that you're giving yourself the best possible chance to come up with a multiplayer that surpasses CoD. It could very easily fall flat on it's face and fail, becoming the next Warfighter. But once again I'll ask: just because CoD is the current king of the mountain and other games have failed at knocking it down, does that mean that no one should even bother trying? We'll never know if something turns out better than CoD unless people are willing to make games to challenge it's superiority. There in lies the risk: you know you're going up against the champ, you can either put the best foot forward that you possibly can knowing that there's a fair chance you'll come out a loser like all the other contenders while there's also a chance you might actually pull it off, or you can give up and go home without even trying.

 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