Respawn Exec Wouldn't "Rule Out" Titanfall Single Player

Respawn Exec Wouldn't "Rule Out" Titanfall Single Player

PaulTitanfallBeta_3x3.jpg

Respawn COO Dusty Welch says the studio wants to stick with multiplayer but won't "rule out" single-player as it looks at where to take Titanfall next.

While Titanfall had a lot of good things going for it. Fun action, cool robots, status as a high profile launch window title; it was pretty much bound for some decent success. That the being the case, the game still left some players wishing for more, especially when it came to single player content which its developers at Respawn opted to completely ignore in favor of a story that played out across a somewhat less than well received story campaign. Now, Respawn COO Dusty Welch has revealed that a single player Titanfall might not be entirely out of the question.

Speaking about Titanfall's campaign mode, Welch admitted that the experience given to players perhaps fell short of what the studio had intended. "Campaign mode, I think, was interesting but ultimately not as engaging or rewarding as we would've liked," said Welch. In turn, he said, the studio is considering how to improve on the game's story offerings going forward. While he affirmed the company's dedication to multiplayer, he wouldn't discount single player as an option.

"Would I rule it out for the future? Certainly not," he said. "But I think that there's a lot of reward in continuing to push the paradigm that Titanfall introduced, which is this always connected, real live visceral multiplayer universe. We learned a lot, and I think it's up to us to think about how we apply the learning to make the next game even more expansive and more engaging than the first."

While this obviously doesn't even approach being a confirmation of a single player mode, the very fact that Welch would consider it an option is likely to be seen by good news for players who would have liked a chance to take their Titans for a solo stroll. Add in the fact that Respawn just hired Stig Asmussen, the director of God of War 3 (a single player game if there ever was one), and it's hard not to be hopeful.

Source: Game Informer

Permalink

Titanfall's campaign's problem was a lack of agency. Winning or losing didn't matter - the same basic thing happened, regardless of who's side you were on. If the script said that you lost, you lost - even if you just delivered a crushing defeat to the opposing team. And, likewise, you could win even if you knew you hadn't 'earnt' it.

For Titanfall 2, at the very least I'd like to see that rectified. Maybe have the context of following missions be changed depending on the previous mission - like, say, if a refinery is destroyed, the militia are attacking a battleship with the intention of taking it for themselves. If the refinery wasn't destroyed, they're still attacking said battleship - but as part of a last ditch effort to stop it from blowing up a base of theirs. Change the story, even if you don't change the missions or the objectives.

Also, on that note, I'd love for a map to take place on the external hull of a battleship. Just sayin'.

What a wonderful non-answer. The first game was fun for all of an hour. It's such a goddamn waste of a cool IP.

It would obviously be in their best interest to either 1. Actually deliver on the original hype that the multiplayer "campaign" claimed to offer, or 2. Give the game it's own true single player campaign.

Just last week I was talking to a co-worker of mine about Titanfall. I had it and he didn't, but yet we both acknowledge how awesome it looked, and I commented on how awesome it played. This would happen randomly every couple days or so. Eventually, he asked me "So how is the single player?"

"Single player?" Was my response. "There is no single player."

"What? No single player?"

"Yeah, it's multiplayer only."

"Well then that's stupid."

Despite my efforts to convince him how really damn good the multiplayer was, he refused to believe that was enough to justify getting the game. I can't really blame him.

Point is, I'm sure they lost out on potential sales by lacking at least one of the two options they could go, so here's hoping they get it together the next time around. I'm not saying make it the focus, but at least make it engaging enough that it builds on the current world.

I would. The entire purpose of Titanfall was to create a persistent multiplayer stew of everything that is currently popular in action-shooters (plus giant robots/mechs).

In essence, it would satisfy every condition required for a market-tested dream game:

-100% online multiplayer, which means it has implicit Always-Online DRM (makes investors happy)
-PvP/Competitive emphasis (ala CoD4.x)
-Persistent "progress" oriented action (also from CoD4.x)
-Just a hint of "story" content to get some of the Single Player folks who were on the fence on board, but no more than a hint. A thin coat of honey to swallow a much larger and more bitter pill.

By design it seems intended to be everything BUT a single player experience.

They shouldn't bother with a 4 hour campaign.

I think a Titanfall single player would be really fun if Respawn ditched the Call of Duty mindset and went with something completely different. I Titanfall's gameplay would work really well for large, open levels with multiple ways to approach every objective. Titans could be used as a reward for completing side objectives, or you could just run at the main objective, guns blazing. I don't know about you guys, but to me that sounds fun as hell.

As for the campaign multiplayer, I think the biggest problem with it in Titanfall is that the game modes were pretty much exactly like the normal multiplayer modes. I think the campaign would be the perfect place for having unique, one-off game modes that may not be the most balanced modes out there, but are still a load of fun. This would also give people a reason to play the campaign again once they've beaten it, something that Titanfall doesn't offer. This seems much more interesting then playing attrition and hardpoint with a bit of exposition at the beginning and end.

All in all though, what Titanfall 2 really needs is more content out on launch. $60 is a lot for a multiplayer only game with only a handful of game modes, regardless of how fun the core gameplay is.

The_Darkness:
Titanfall's campaign's problem was a lack of agency.

That was one problem, the other two were that it was fourty minutes long and that it wasn't a campaign at all, just the multiplayer game types with some talking heads thrown in.

But attrition on the outside of a space ship (or on the outside of two Boarding Action style) would be brilliant.

I was hoping for Left 4 Dead style missions, where your team has to essentially play through a single player style level, but cannot afford to separate due to the many hazards. More realistically I expected something like Rush or Quake III's assault mode, push forward against entrenched enemies to specific objectives. I wasn't expecting the rush job that we got.

To persuade me to buy Titanfall 2 would be pretty easy, better map design (Because Angel City/Boneyard over and over gets boring), a couple of infantry centric modes and lastly either halve the price and dump the campaign entirely, or make the campaign a few hours long and structured like Left 4 Dead.

Are we now at the turning point where multiplayer focused games get a stupid tagged on singleplayer?

WashAran:
Are we now at the turning point where multiplayer focused games get a stupid tagged on singleplayer?

I'd say we hit that point with Modern Warfare 2, then hit it's absolute zenith with Medal of Honor 2010's campaign, all ninety minutes of it.

My biggest problem with tghe current set up for the campaign is this.

If you're a new player... getting access to your Titan chases is going to be a pain. No one plays Campaign anymore.

they need to either pull people from "multiplayer" to fill the respective mission type in the campaign, or fill the campaign with bots so that you don't spend an hour waiting for an opposing team to show up.

It's damn near game breaking at this stage.

As a story though... the Campaign was an abysmal failure. It was just something to do to unlock your custom titans.

You know what I don't want to do when I'm engaging in a life or death battle? Strain to focus on words being said.

There is a reason that most games don't mix combat gameplay and exposition/dialog.

The_Darkness:
Titanfall's campaign's problem was a lack of agency. Winning or losing didn't matter - the same basic thing happened, regardless of who's side you were on. If the script said that you lost, you lost - even if you just delivered a crushing defeat to the opposing team. And, likewise, you could win even if you knew you hadn't 'earnt' it.

Honestly, I'm grateful for that. The campaign as is, is a flawed concept at best.

First off, there's absolutely no point to it. It's not a story. It's multiplayer matches going across all maps and having exposition shouted at you at the beginning and the end of a match. Amusingly, the game cares so little for its own campaign that I've seen it several times where the post-match exposition literally gets cut off in favour of moving to the next map ASAP.

As you've said, there's also no change whether you win or lose. I understand this from a design standpoint to a certain level - you don't want the player getting pissed off losing several matches in a row, possibly not at all through their own fault. This is multiplayer, you can't win a match by yourself and getting stuck with useless teammates while your enemy has experienced players could be irritating. Especially as there are very tangible, and to some people, necessary (for multiplayer) rewards for completing it (two out of three titan chassis).

This all leads to people not playing the singleplayer more than once - why would they, when they can do the same thing in multiplayer matches without pointless exposition being shouted at them. That, in turn, has for effect that people don't play the singleplayer and everyone coming in late to the game having a lot of trouble to find a team. Which the game resolves by making you repeat missions, because not enough of them are on the same level as you. And that's why I'm thankful for the "doesn't matter if you win or lose" thing.

While a singleplayer could be good, it takes effort and I honestly don't think major effort should be spent on a game that's clearly all about the multiplayer. Instead, they could make it an interesting experience that would be worth replaying (because if it's not, they may as well scrap it). Sort of like a game mode of its own. Add objectives, and I mean real objectives, not Hardpoint/Battlefield-style grab&hold ones. Destroy this, capture that. Get one side to defend and the other to attack. Take some hints from Battlefield's Rush mode and do some new stuff of your own. It's not that hard to make an engaging experience worth replaying with what they've got - everything they would need for it already exists within the game.

If you really must do a "campaign" do it like the missions in Enemy Territory: Quake Wars where you have different objectives to attack/defend/build on each map and every time an objective is completed the map shifts. Please for the love of santachrist do not tack on some worthless three hour single player mode like CoD does.

Oh... Did they just found out that the silent single player bunch is actually the majority of gamers? :) Man, that's gotta suck when you find that out while looking at the sales numbers.

AnthrSolidSnake:
It would obviously be in their best interest to either 1. Actually deliver on the original hype that the multiplayer "campaign" claimed to offer, or 2. Give the game it's own true single player campaign.

Just last week I was talking to a co-worker of mine about Titanfall. I had it and he didn't, but yet we both acknowledge how awesome it looked, and I commented on how awesome it played. This would happen randomly every couple days or so. Eventually, he asked me "So how is the single player?"

"Single player?" Was my response. "There is no single player."

"What? No single player?"

"Yeah, it's multiplayer only."

"Well then that's stupid."

Despite my efforts to convince him how really damn good the multiplayer was, he refused to believe that was enough to justify getting the game. I can't really blame him.

Point is, I'm sure they lost out on potential sales by lacking at least one of the two options they could go, so here's hoping they get it together the next time around. I'm not saying make it the focus, but at least make it engaging enough that it builds on the current world.

I have the same opinion as your friend, no SP and no offline mode is a deal breaker for me. Not worth wasting money on a dead game (when the servers are turned off) Sim city taught me that one.

Too late. I already have a preorder for Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare. An offline singleplayer campaign where the outcome actually mattered should have been part of the game at launch. Respawn have missed their chance now. Unless Titanfall 2 comes with an offline single player campaign at launch with no extra cost (Don't even THINK about doing it as a paid DLC!) then all I will be buying that is related to the game is that Hammond Robotics coffee mug

I'm just not quite sure what a single player Titanfall would look like. Mech levels seem straightforward enough, maybe some stealth levels too.

It just seems like it would be really difficult to nail straight up infantry combat and make it still feel like Titanfall.

The fact that the 'no single player' was a controversy at all is just baffling to me. There have been plenty of muliplayer only games in the past, the question is whether there was enough multiplayer content to support a healthy community and Titanfall seems to have failed in that regard. They are doing better now, but at launch I don't think it was robust enough to really make a dent.

BF got along just fine with multiplayer only and with the exception of BC1 the single player have been pretty much worthless bullet points on the box that would have been better spent on the multiplayer.

I would buy the single player game, only if;

1- You didn't need the multiplayer.
2- The single campaign lasted longer than 5 hours.

kind of glad they didnt implement SP. not like activision that always has to put a over the top action based, 4hour long campaign no one really cares for.
the MP in titanfall is fun and thats what matters. its sort of confusing with the campaign mode though. the story is really poorly written and explained. but i guess they wanted to give some story that you feel like that there is a reason why there are titans and why we fight.

Hah. I got to the point where he said ... "I think there is a lot of merit in the paradigm Titanfall introduced..." then I lost it laughing. I think he overlooked, like, every PvP server in an MMO ever as well as pretty much any online only MP shooter ever. Counter Strike comes to mind immediately.. so does Team Fortress.

Personally, I felt the lack of a single player campaign harmed Titanfall's universe immensely. There is no context for the world, no context for the events and no real history or explanation of why we should care about the IMC or Militia. My gripes about the campaign mode were one was basically in the middle of pitched battles and the exposition is droning on in the background. "Sorry, what was that Titanfall? I am supposed to care about this why? Can you please repeat that? I was busy trying not to get my head blown off by 3 enemy titans when you decided to educate me about portions of the plot."

Honestly, it just lacks a reason for players to suspend disbelief and buy into the fact that Titanfall's universe could exist. Not to mention, it's really just jamming the MP full of explosions, guns, action and giant mechs with no context, or reason for people to care.

If you want to make a singleplayer, make a proper one or just don't bother, I'm confused sometimes about how most developers just forgot about how Call of Duty 1-2 were actually fun, while the first one was a pretty good omage to "Enemy at the Gates". Even 4 was pretty good, and it was actually quite baffling to have a character die on it.

After 4, I played MW 2 campaign and it was the most annoying Hollywood-esque wannabe that I've seen, and I still can't get myself to care about the franchise since.

But it wouldn't do them any good to implement it just as an afterthought either, like BF3 did.

kanetsb:
Oh... Did they just found out that the silent single player bunch is actually the majority of gamers? :) Man, that's gotta suck when you find that out while looking at the sales numbers.

Since when?
Considering games like Call of Duty and Battlefield are constantly having huge record breaking sales numbers; and the majority of those players aren't playing the single player...I'd argue that single player only people aren't the majority of gamers.

I have two points.

One of my favorite games of the last few years is named Monday Night Combat. It's basically the Running Man with instantly Cloning and a wicked sense of humor. I loved it. It's always online. Normally that's not my thing, but it was so fun I didn't care.

When I got in, the game scene was 'dying'. Instead of doing something about it, the development team (Team Uber) was focused on the sequel.

... That was free-to-play.

Both scenes are dead now. Sure the idea is that 'if the game is popular, you'll have more time until it dies out. But the fact is that it will die out. I don't ever want to put down money for a experience that is limited by the need for other people's interaction again.

Point the Second.

I've never been into Call of Duty. I know a lot of people who weren't, but were excited for Titanfall. Single Player isn't where you hone your abilities to kill other players, but it is where you hone the basic needs of the FPS that you're playing. A tutorial for something like that is nothing. I spent a lot of time getting shot because I was trying to running up a wall that needed a certain boost. I couldn't practice that in a live fire fight.

I don't want to learn about the lethality and use of a new gun during a firefight. I want to go to a gun of which the capabilities are known to me. I learn that in the single player.

The point is summed up like this. For me and other non Call of Duty players... we needed a place to privately cut out teeth, learn how things worked for real (not that stupid ten minute tutorial), and not just be point boxes for people who've been playing this type of game for years.

Again, a Single player would not be the end all, be all to that type of thing. But it would give us a grounding before just chucking us to the veterans.

frankly i respect that focus.
it's a math issue. how many millions of dollars do we spend on a pointless setpiece to setpiece real single player campaign and how many dollars do we lose to people that won't buy a multiplayer-only game?

i actually think that not having any actual context for the universe has a lot of potential to make the universe so much cooler. you literally only see the parts that pertain to you and you get to use your imagination a little. it's like the wipeout universe, where there's all these companies and crap and they have personality that is almost exclusively communicated through how they design their cars.

why the hell do the single-player people care that multiplayer people have a game just for them? fps fans don't complain that dragon age doesn't have a vs. mode, but the tone when people talk about titanfall not having 1 player sounds like pure diaper rash

edit: i do like the guy above's training mode thing he's talking about. especially with all the parkour and crap in titanfall, it would be pretty nice to just run around and see where you can get to without getting shot.

I think they should stick to their guns and ignore all the people who think they want a single-player campaign from Titanfall, as history tends to prove them wrong. A decade ago Black came out, it was one of the best single-player FPS games in years, yet it failed to reach sales expectations. When I asked my friends if they were getting it, the response was almost solidly "wut no multiplayer, lol that's stupid". Then, two years ago, Spec-ops: the line, praise for it's hard-hitting and engaging story, flopped as well.

Titanfall, on the other hand, has sold millions, and did so despite being a Microsoft exclusive. What with the game going multi-platform next time around, it should have no problems turning a profit without wasting money and resources on a single-player campaign which would almost certainly be shit anyway.

 

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