Why Titan Fall has no single player: it's your fault

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18438 posts) -

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/24/why-titanfall-has-no-single-player-campaign

Speaking of why the upcoming Xbone eclusive Titan Fall is mutiplayer-only, producer and Call of Duty co-creator Vince Zampella had this to say:

"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," he 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."

Yup, I've been saying this for years: people don't play single player in shooters anymore, they go straight to multiplayer, and this would inevitably lead to the day when developers would stop bothering with making single player at all. That day has come, and it's on you.

F*ck this industry.

#2 Posted by Bigboi500 (29682 posts) -

I see nothing wrong with the decision. As you said, most players skip the sp and and go right for the mp in games like this, so why bother with a single player campaign when it's not even wanted by the majority? If you want to play FPS sp-only games, stick with Metro, Bioshock and Half Life.

#3 Posted by Pffrbt (6555 posts) -

Not my fault.

#4 Posted by JML897 (33125 posts) -
Bigboi summed it up nicely.
#5 Posted by Jackc8 (8500 posts) -

That whole online multiplayer FPS genre holds zero interest for me.  Yet the entire nucleus of the industry is centered around it.  That's pretty much why I switched to PC gaming - I'd rather go back and play single-player favorites from this gen with better graphics, frame rates and mod's - than bother with this pwn the noob and teabag him nonsense.

#6 Posted by sukraj (22608 posts) -

Not my fault.

Pffrbt

chana not mine neither

#7 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

I think this is a good thing.

Why waste time and effort into an uninspired, uninteresting single player when the majority of your fanbase only cares about the multiplayer? 

Call of Duty has had forgettable, short campaigns for years now while everyone just plays the single player. Hell, I started up Battlefield 3 for the first time in months today and completely forgot about the "Campaign" option. 

And ya know, this works the other way too. Why bother wasting time making a multiplayer mode no one is going to play? Bioshock Infinite knew it and Wolfenstein isn't even going to bother. 

#8 Posted by chaplainDMK (6822 posts) -
Don't make your SP so crappy nobody gives half a damn about it, simple fix. Naughty Dog and the Bioshock series seem to be doing good even though they primarily make SP games.
#9 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

Eh, I'm totally fine with this since I don't play MP only games for the most part and won't be getting an Xbone. I think his reasoning is fvcked in the head, however, seeing as only half of the systems were ever connected online to begin with. 

Game should still be only $40 since it'll be worthless some day though. Paying sixty bucks for a game with a limited life of playability is insane as far as I'm concerned.

Besides that, the bottom is going to fall out of the shooter market, and when it does... oh man, there are going to be some spectacular failures of companies like Respawn.

#10 Posted by ReddestSkies (4087 posts) -

I'm confused by this thread. Did you have a similar reaction when it was announced that Quake 3 wouldn't have a single player campaign?

#11 Posted by MonoSilver (1525 posts) -
Well it's not my fault as I didn't want it and won't be getting it.
#12 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/24/why-titanfall-has-no-single-player-campaign

Speaking of why the upcoming Xbone eclusive Titan Fall is mutiplayer-only, producer and Call of Duty co-creator Vince Zampella had this to say:

"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," he 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."

Yup, I've been saying this for years: people don't play single player in shooters anymore, they go straight to multiplayer, and this would inevitably lead to the day when developers would stop bothering with making single player at all. That day has come, and it's on you.

F*ck this industry.

Black_Knight_00

I wish I could take credit, but I've skipped all of the CoD games...

I don't see why the TC is upset. Respawn sucks at campaigns but they make multiplayer games a lot of people enjoy. Developers making games which only include stuff they do well and gamers enjoy is an idea so wild and crazy it just might work :P. For some developers, that will be SP, for some MP and for others SP and MP.

#13 Posted by JML897 (33125 posts) -

I'm confused by this thread. Did you have a similar reaction when it was announced that Quake 3 wouldn't have a single player campaign?

ReddestSkies
Or Warhawk. Or Counter-Strike. Or the hundreds of other games that concentrate solely on multiplayer. You're right, this thread is weird.
#14 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18438 posts) -
I expected replies such as these. As I said, people don't care about single player anymore and most of you guys are confirming it. You are perfectly entitled to that stance, by the way. It's just sad to see single player beginning to die.
#15 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (34145 posts) -

I wasn't interested too much in the game in the first place so I'm not exactly upset over this. That and there's nothing wrong with games being MP-only.

#16 Posted by ReddestSkies (4087 posts) -

I expected replies such as these. As I said, people don't care about single player anymore and most of you guys are confirming it. You are perfectly entitled to that stance, by the way. It's just sad to see single player beginning to die.Black_Knight_00

Or maybe (just maybe), people don't care about single player games from this particular studio? :o

But no, clearly not. People's reaction ITT mean that the whole industry is going to stop making single player games, because nobody care about single player games.

#17 Posted by chaplainDMK (6822 posts) -
[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]I expected replies such as these. As I said, people don't care about single player anymore and most of you guys are confirming it. You are perfectly entitled to that stance, by the way. It's just sad to see single player beginning to die.

You're overreacting. There were always fair splits between multiplayer only and singleplayer games. A lot of old but good MP only series bit the dust and many new SP only series were born. SP isn't going anywhere, neither is MP.
#18 Posted by CaptainSofa (151 posts) -

Fine with me. I play both COD and BF, and I haven't logged one minute into the single player on those. i dont think people buy COD and BF with the single player in mind. If you do, you have some bad taste in video games lol

If I want to play a non-competetive FPS I play Borderlands.

I dont think FPS games lend themselves to making good single player games anyway.

#19 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

I expected replies such as these. As I said, people don't care about single player anymore and most of you guys are confirming it. You are perfectly entitled to that stance, by the way. It's just sad to see single player beginning to die.Black_Knight_00

 

Lol BK stop it. Its not on us. Its on a guy who thinks alienating a million people who bothered to finish his campaigns is a good idea. Every CoD game since MW has sold 20 million copies, right? 5% is 1 million. 1 million gamers finished that shitty campaign. And thats not good enough?

 

And that brings me to my next point: Perhaps the main reason why people dont finish CoD campaigns is because they suck. They are basically onrails campaigns with no real A.I, setpiece after setpiece and predictable as hell. Compare that to something like Heavy Rain which was finished by 80% of the people who played it, and it becomes obvious that single player gaming not going anywhere. You just gave TLOU your game of the gen. I am willing to bet it had a finish ratio of at least 50% and thats a long game.. especially compared to the 5 hour CoD campaigns.

 

SP is not going anywhere. Just in the last year, we have seen amazing single player experiences like Spec Ops, Bioshock Infinite, TLOU, Tomb Raider and Far Cry 3. This Infinity Ward team has always sucked at making single player campaigns. I am glad they are sticking to MP, but his assessment couldnt be more wrong.

#20 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (7472 posts) -
[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]I expected replies such as these. As I said, people don't care about single player anymore and most of you guys are confirming it. You are perfectly entitled to that stance, by the way. It's just sad to see single player beginning to die.

I'm still seeing a lot of single player games being made. And isn't this a good thing? If you're going to make a multiplayer game, don't tack on a lousy campaign (Battlefield 3 could've been better without one). Same way as people complain about how Tomb Raider shouldn't have a multiplayer mode, games like Battlefield 3 and Titanfall should ditch the single player and focus 100% on their core mode.
#21 Posted by JML897 (33125 posts) -

I expected replies such as these. As I said, people don't care about single player anymore and most of you guys are confirming it. You are perfectly entitled to that stance, by the way. It's just sad to see single player beginning to die.Black_Knight_00

Just like it died in 1999 with Quake 3 amirite?

#22 Posted by Randolph (10502 posts) -
I do care about single player, but the people at Respawn were always terrible at it. People weren't "rushing to the end", the end rushed at them. When you have six hour campaigns that are as hilariously bad as games like Modern Warfare 1&2, you should expect people to not care for them. It's a shootan' game, I wouldn't have played it anyway.
#23 Posted by the_ChEeSe_mAn2 (8464 posts) -
The appeal of SP shooters is waning it seems.
#24 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18438 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]I expected replies such as these. As I said, people don't care about single player anymore and most of you guys are confirming it. You are perfectly entitled to that stance, by the way. It's just sad to see single player beginning to die.S0lidSnake

 

Lol BK stop it. Its not on us. Its on a guy who thinks alienating a million people who bothered to finish his campaigns is a good idea. Every CoD game since MW has sold 20 million copies, right? 5% is 1 million. 1 million gamers finished that shitty campaign. And thats not good enough?

 

And that brings me to my next point: Perhaps the main reason why people dont finish CoD campaigns is because they suck. They are basically onrails campaigns with no real A.I, setpiece after setpiece and predictable as hell. Compare that to something like Heavy Rain which was finished by 80% of the people who played it, and it becomes obvious that single player gaming not going anywhere. You just gave TLOU your game of the gen. I am willing to bet it had a finish ratio of at least 50% and thats a long game.. especially compared to the 5 hour CoD campaigns.

 

SP is not going anywhere. Just in the last year, we have seen amazing single player experiences like Spec Ops, Bioshock Infinite, TLOU, Tomb Raider and Far Cry 3. This Infinity Ward team has always sucked at making single player campaigns. I am glad they are sticking to MP, but his assessment couldnt be more wrong.

CoD campaigns have never sucked, in fact I think they are excellent. Short, sure, but always intense and fun as hell, perfectly alternating action and stealth. The reason why people hate them is because the series comes out every year, which I'll admit is too much. People will burn out on anything if it comes out every year, but calling CoD campaigns bad? Come on. There has never been an objectively bad Call of Duty game, just like there has never been an objectively bad Assassin's Creed game.
#25 Posted by Justforvisit (5047 posts) -

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/24/why-titanfall-has-no-single-player-campaign

Speaking of why the upcoming Xbone eclusive Titan Fall is mutiplayer-only, producer and Call of Duty co-creator Vince Zampella had this to say:

"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," he 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."

Yup, I've been saying this for years: people don't play single player in shooters anymore, they go straight to multiplayer, and this would inevitably lead to the day when developers would stop bothering with making single player at all. That day has come, and it's on you.

F*ck this industry.

Black_Knight_00



I always love me a good single player, even in FPS. But I wouldn't worry, it's just a CoD Guy :D

Remember the first Killzone? FPS do need Stories like THAT to be interesting again, and not the 1.534.324.234.567.199 megatrizillonbillon'th "Oh yeah we're the military we rock the badasses with out big guns"-style of stories everyone is fed up with.

Stories like Borderlands 1 & 2, the FIRST Killzone offered in unique and thoughtful made universes, THAT'S what would make us play them again and we'd LOVE to sink time into them.

It's unfortunate this guy doesn't even seem to realise "Hose after Hose Shooting Gallery" is FAAAAAAAAR from what we want if we shall take a FPS Single Player serious anymore.

#26 Posted by Articuno76 (18778 posts) -
It can be a good thing if developers understand that some FPS's are actually fine just with a meaty single-player mode just as much as the reverse.
#27 Posted by wiouds (5144 posts) -

I do not care about FPS's mp they are too repeative for me. The singple player game have been very innovative this gen. There is no wat a doom level design should ever be allowed as the SP of the game.

#28 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]I expected replies such as these. As I said, people don't care about single player anymore and most of you guys are confirming it. You are perfectly entitled to that stance, by the way. It's just sad to see single player beginning to die.Black_Knight_00

 

Lol BK stop it. Its not on us. Its on a guy who thinks alienating a million people who bothered to finish his campaigns is a good idea. Every CoD game since MW has sold 20 million copies, right? 5% is 1 million. 1 million gamers finished that shitty campaign. And thats not good enough?

 

And that brings me to my next point: Perhaps the main reason why people dont finish CoD campaigns is because they suck. They are basically onrails campaigns with no real A.I, setpiece after setpiece and predictable as hell. Compare that to something like Heavy Rain which was finished by 80% of the people who played it, and it becomes obvious that single player gaming not going anywhere. You just gave TLOU your game of the gen. I am willing to bet it had a finish ratio of at least 50% and thats a long game.. especially compared to the 5 hour CoD campaigns.

 

SP is not going anywhere. Just in the last year, we have seen amazing single player experiences like Spec Ops, Bioshock Infinite, TLOU, Tomb Raider and Far Cry 3. This Infinity Ward team has always sucked at making single player campaigns. I am glad they are sticking to MP, but his assessment couldnt be more wrong.

CoD campaigns have never sucked, in fact I think they are excellent. Short, sure, but always intense and fun as hell, perfectly alternating action and stealth. The reason why people hate them is because the series comes out every year, which I'll admit is too much. People will burn out on anything if it comes out every year, but calling CoD campaigns bad? Come on. There has never been an objectively bad Call of Duty game, just like there has never been an objectively bad Assassin's Creed game.

I suppose we disagree on what makes a bad shooter. Are they entertainig, yes. But this series has the worst enemy A.I i have ever seen. They just stand and shoot and wait to be killed. That alone makes it terrible.

 

Then you have the awful respawning enemies. If you aren't moving forward you can potentially keep shooting at enemies forever or until the game decides you've had enough and restarts from the checkpoint.

 

The game plays itself. There are many sections in the games where you are following a bunch of tanks and you literally dont have to do anything. Just walk along and everything plays itself. BLOPs 2s new strategic missions are the only ones where you actually have to take everyone out. Sadly the rest of the game is the same shitty CoD gameplay.

 

Then there are the mechanics that fail when you stop using the L1 quick aim. Everyone says how responsive CoD is compared to other shooters but without the L1 quick aim, it becomes a pain in the ass to take out enemies shooting at your from every direction while you screen fills up with the strawberry jelly effect.

 

You said people hate them because they come out every year. Well I play everyone of them every year and they have all the issues I mentioned above. These are valid issues that make the games a terrible experience.

 

Lets call CoD campaigns what they are. Really well produced on-rails shooters like Time Crisis.

#29 Posted by cfisher2833 (1650 posts) -

This is a great decision on their part. Single player games shouldn't bother wasting their timewith multiplayer and multiplayer focused games (which this clearly is) shouldn't bother with a single player campaign. Chivalry, WotR, Blacklight, Planetside, etc, etc. are all better as a result of this decision. Battlefield initially was the same, but with the latest ones, they've wasted their time with those crappy campaigns, whenthey could have been making the multplayer considerably better. 

 

It's their game to  make as they will. Don't like it? Don't buy it...and honestly you probably don't like it because you're shitty as hell at it. 

#30 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

I suppose it is a good justification for not allocating resources on a single player mode. It's pretty clear that Zampella wants to make the game as polished as he can make it, and the focus of the game is multiplayer. So why sacrifice time and money on a mode that a vast majority of people that CoD ignored, when they can spend it on multiplayer instead?

I wouldn't say that this game indicative of the direction the industry is taking in regards to single player games; as there are plenty of games being developed that have a strong focus on single player. Games like: Kingdom Hearts III, Final Fantasy XV, Infamous: Second Son, Watch Dogs, etc. I'm not worried that one game exclusive to one system is going to change the tide on how first person shooters are made, especially when games like Bioshock Infinite are still being made.

#31 Posted by cfisher2833 (1650 posts) -

I suppose it is a good justification for not allocating resources on a single player mode. It's pretty clear that Zampella wants to make the game as polished as he can make it, and the focus of the game is multiplayer. So why sacrifice time and money on a mode that a vast majority of people that CoD ignored, when they can spend it on multiplayer instead?

I wouldn't say that this game indicative of the direction the industry is taking in regards to single player games; as there are plenty of games being developed that have a strong focus on single player. Games like: Kingdom Hearts III, Final Fantasy XV, Infamous: Second Son, Watch Dogs, etc. I'm not worried that one game exclusive to one system is going to change the tide on how first person shooters are made, especially when games like Bioshock Infinite are still being made.

SirWander

 

Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that. We have seen numerous games (on PC at least) that have focused solely on MP like Natural Selection 2, Chivalry, War of the Roses, and the various F2P games. However, we've also seen many games abandon their MP for single player only. 

#32 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]I expected replies such as these. As I said, people don't care about single player anymore and most of you guys are confirming it. You are perfectly entitled to that stance, by the way. It's just sad to see single player beginning to die.ReddestSkies

Or maybe (just maybe), people don't care about single player games from this particular studio? :o

But no, clearly not. People's reaction ITT mean that the whole industry is going to stop making single player games, because nobody cares about single player games.

pretty much. i'm not complaining about losing single player from this developer on this game. i mean, look at that trailer. "sorry babe, i hope you understand. i just really hate big f*cking robots." i'm sure deathmatches would suit me just fine for that.

still, i'll be playing a big stretch of singleplayer-only games now and loving it.

#33 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18438 posts) -
I suppose we disagree on what makes a bad shooter. Are they entertainig, yes. But this series has the worst enemy A.I i have ever seen. They just stand and shoot and wait to be killed. That alone makes it terrible. Then you have the awful respawning enemies. If you aren't moving forward you can potentially keep shooting at enemies forever or until the game decides you've had enough and restarts from the checkpoint. The game plays itself. There are many sections in the games where you are following a bunch of tanks and you literally dont have to do anything. Just walk along and everything plays itself. BLOPs 2s new strategic missions are the only ones where you actually have to take everyone out. Sadly the rest of the game is the same shitty CoD gameplay. Then there are the mechanics that fail when you stop using the L1 quick aim. Everyone says how responsive CoD is compared to other shooters but without the L1 quick aim, it becomes a pain in the ass to take out enemies shooting at your from every direction while you screen fills up with the strawberry jelly effect. You said people hate them because they come out every year. Well I play everyone of them every year and they have all the issues I mentioned above. These are valid issues that make the games a terrible experience. Lets call CoD campaigns what they are. Really well produced on-rails shooters like Time Crisis.S0lidSnake
"AI" is an abused term. Call of Duty has no AI, it has scripted enemies programmed to take cover and shoot you. That's it, and it's fine for what the game is trying to be: a linear cinematic shooter. Does it do that well? Hell yes it does. Wher 's the problem then? It does what it set out to do and does it well. Now you may personally dislike that kind of gameplay and that's fine, but it doesn't mean the series sucks. Some of your other points: respawning enemies are almost gone: MW2 only had a couple sections with them (to simulate big battles) and I believe MW3 doesn't have any. Autoaiming can and should be toggled off and if someone leaves it on and spams it's their own problem, not the game's. I never played a CoD game with autoaiming and never will. Plus, the game is sharp as a knife without it, I don't know what these mechanics are that you've seen "fail" I played all of them on veteran without autoaim and the gameplay is perfect. And the strawberry jelly is awesome and so is Time Crisis.
#34 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

 

Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that. We have seen numerous games (on PC at least) that have focused solely on MP like Natural Selection 2, Chivalry, War of the Roses, and the various F2P games. However, we've also seen many games abandon their MP for single player only. 

cfisher2833

There have been plenty of games that place a heavy focus on multiplayer throughout the years. MMORPGs come to mind as games that have been financially successful, WoW in particular, yet they have not been detrimental to single player focused games. I don't think there's anything to worry about in regards to FPS games that focus on their single player. As long there is a viable market for these games, publishers and developers will rise to meet that demand.

#35 Posted by Archangel3371 (15541 posts) -
Meh. I don't really see what the problem is myself. I enjoy both single player and multiplayer myself but if a developer wants to focus on just one or the other then so be it. I would have loved for there to have been mp in Bioshock Infinite but it was still a fantastic game. I very much enjoy the single player in the Call of Duty games and would have like to have seen sp in Titanfall but if the game turns out great, which I think it will, then I'll happily buy and enjoy it. There's always going to be developers who want to do sp, mp, or both.
#36 Posted by Jagged3dge (3895 posts) -

I'm glad that instead of focusing on a tacked on SP, they're putting all the effort into the main draw.

#37 Posted by Krelian-co (10708 posts) -

well what did he expect, cod has the most boring sp ever, when he make good sp experiences people will fiish it.

#38 Posted by BranKetra (48494 posts) -

I usually play a good single player mode even if the multiplayer is better like Halo. A problem with some video games is they are not good enough to keep me entertained the entire playthough like Call of Duty.

#39 Posted by Mrod1212 (1154 posts) -

meh, mp is really not my thing anyways.

#40 Posted by 1PMrFister (3134 posts) -
Wasn't interested in this game to begin with, so it doesn't concern me too much. Besides, it's not as if games like Deep Down, Ryse, Final Fantasy XV, Kingdom Hearts 3, Knack, Fallout 4, Bayonetta 2, The Wonderful 101, Beyond: Two Souls, Batman Arkham Origins, Watch Dogs, and Grand Theft Auto 5 are multiplayer only.
#41 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

You're making it seem like this is the first multiplayer-only FPS in history when in reality they have been made since the 90's. There have been plenty of huge multiplayer-only FPSs and none of them destroyed single-player games.

It is always a good thing when a developer recognizes its strenghts and doesn't waste anyone's time and money. People always go on about how it's stupid when a great single-player game has a worthless tacked-on multiplayer and they're completely right. But this works both ways. Multiplayer games don't need tacked-on single-player either. Battlefield went from multiplayer-only to both and what did we get? Forgettable campaigns and according to a lot of fans, the multiplayer suffered for it. Call of Duty does it both and does neither particularly well. So yeah, by all means, screw these "full package" games.

I think Valve's route really is the best - completely seperate single-player and multiplayer franchises. Just like Half-Life and Portal don't need multiplayer, Team Fortress and Counter-Strike don't need single-player.

#42 Posted by ShadowJax04 (3344 posts) -
Yeah no... let the dude have his mediocre multiplayer game. If it turns out to be good, good times. But SP games will not simply die out dude, not by a long shot. Different game, different audience. Who honestly cared for the latest CoD's campaign mode? I didn't.. Then again I never play CoD.
#43 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18438 posts) -

You're making it seem like this is the first multiplayer-only FPS in history when in reality they have been made since the 90's. There have been plenty of huge multiplayer-only FPSs and none of them destroyed single-player games.

It is always a good thing when a developer recognizes its strenghts and doesn't waste anyone's time and money. People always go on about how it's stupid when a great single-player game has a worthless tacked-on multiplayer and they're completely right. But this works both ways. Multiplayer games don't need tacked-on single-player either. Battlefield went from multiplayer-only to both and what did we get? Forgettable campaigns and according to a lot of fans, the multiplayer suffered for it. Call of Duty does it both and does neither particularly well. So yeah, by all means, screw these "full package" games.

I think Valve's route really is the best - completely seperate single-player and multiplayer franchises. Just like Half-Life and Portal don't need multiplayer, Team Fortress and Counter-Strike don't need single-player.

UpInFlames
You're missing one key detail. Zampella didn't just say "We want to focus all our funds and attention on multiplayer." He said "We make single player and people don't play it, so we won't bother making it this time around." he's pointing out an alarming trend, and he's not the first one: remember when Valve said Portal 2 would be their last purely single player game and some Ctytek guy said that single player is a waste and has to go away? Feel free to dismiss everything I say, but the fact that Quake 3 and Tribes didn't kill single player doesn't mean it can't be killed.
#44 Posted by ShadowJax04 (3344 posts) -
[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

You're making it seem like this is the first multiplayer-only FPS in history when in reality they have been made since the 90's. There have been plenty of huge multiplayer-only FPSs and none of them destroyed single-player games.

It is always a good thing when a developer recognizes its strenghts and doesn't waste anyone's time and money. People always go on about how it's stupid when a great single-player game has a worthless tacked-on multiplayer and they're completely right. But this works both ways. Multiplayer games don't need tacked-on single-player either. Battlefield went from multiplayer-only to both and what did we get? Forgettable campaigns and according to a lot of fans, the multiplayer suffered for it. Call of Duty does it both and does neither particularly well. So yeah, by all means, screw these "full package" games.

I think Valve's route really is the best - completely seperate single-player and multiplayer franchises. Just like Half-Life and Portal don't need multiplayer, Team Fortress and Counter-Strike don't need single-player.

Black_Knight_00
You're missing one key detail. Zampella didn't just say "We want to focus all our funds and attention on multiplayer." He said "We make single player and people don't play it, so we won't bother making it this time around." he's pointing out an alarming trend, and he's not the first one: remember when Valve said Portal 2 would be their last purely single player game and some Ctytek guy said that single player is a waste and has to go away? Feel free to dismiss everything I say, but the fact that Quake 3 and Tribes didn't kill single player doesn't mean it can't be killed.

If SP dies out any time soon because what some developers do and say that I'll literally eat my shorts. Pure MP games is nothing new and there will always be good SP games even if MP is going to 'trend' more than it already does.
#45 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18438 posts) -
If SP dies out any time soon because what some developers do and say that I'll literally eat my shorts. Pure MP games is nothing new and there will always be good SP games even if MP is going to 'trend' more than it already does.ShadowJax04
I hope you are 100% right. I really do.
#46 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

You're missing one key detail. Zampella didn't just say "We want to focus all our funds and attention on multiplayer." He said "We make single player and people don't play it, so we won't bother making it this time around." he's pointing out an alarming trend, and he's not the first one: remember when Valve said Portal 2 would be their last purely single player game and some Ctytek guy said that single player is a waste and has to go away? Feel free to dismiss everything I say, but the fact that Quake 3 and Tribes didn't kill single player doesn't mean it can't be killed.Black_Knight_00

The vast majority of Call of Duty players buy and play Call of Duty for the multiplayer. Zampella's talking about his personal experience, not an industry-wide trend.

Regarding Valve, they said Portal 2 is probably the last isolated single-player experience which many took out of context and thought it meant no more single-player games from Valve. Gabe Newell later on said that that simply wasn't the case. Crytek talks a lot of bullshit. And they're now making a single-player game. Lots of developers comment on the current gaming climate, but the climate constantly changes, so I wouldn't really put much stock into statements like that. I mean, every developer under the sun praised the Wii and talked how they'd love to do something on it, but nobody did.

If Counter-Strike didn't kill single-player, nothing will.

There will always be a demand for single-player games and there will always be developers that will cater to that demand.

#47 Posted by godfather_1 (562 posts) -
I have no issues with this, if they want to focus on multiplayer then fine, but make it the best possible MP that you can. I hate it when developers make a SP game that's awesome and tack on a MP just for the sake of it and sometimes affects the quality of the SP. The same can be said for MP-focused games with tacked on SP for the sake of following standard gaming conventions.
#48 Posted by ShadowJax04 (3344 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]You're missing one key detail. Zampella didn't just say "We want to focus all our funds and attention on multiplayer." He said "We make single player and people don't play it, so we won't bother making it this time around." he's pointing out an alarming trend, and he's not the first one: remember when Valve said Portal 2 would be their last purely single player game and some Ctytek guy said that single player is a waste and has to go away? Feel free to dismiss everything I say, but the fact that Quake 3 and Tribes didn't kill single player doesn't mean it can't be killed.UpInFlames

The vast majority of Call of Duty players buy and play Call of Duty for the multiplayer. Zampella's talking about his personal experience, not an industry-wide trend.

Regarding Valve, they said Portal 2 is probably the last isolated single-player experience which many took out of context and thought it meant no more single-player games from Valve. Gabe Newell later on said that that simply wasn't the case. Crytek talks a lot of bullshit. And they're now making a single-player game. Lots of developers comment on the current gaming climate, but the climate constantly changes, so I wouldn't really put much stock into statements like that. I mean, every developer under the sun praised the Wii and talked how they'd love to do something on it, but nobody did.

If Counter-Strike didn't kill single-player, nothing will.

There will always be a demand for single-player games and there will always be developers that will cater to that demand.

Hit the nail on the head I might say. As Boromir said, one does not simply walk into Mordor. Single player is a trend that does not simply go away. It never just goes away, it's a trend that's been consistently in demand for many, many years and unless we're going to have a supremely perfected multiplayer-only game that exceeds everyone's expectations with soaring 10's all over the net, it won't simply vanish. New developers won't simply follow suit in Titan Fall's or Gave Newell's footsteps unless it's a universally perfect game that renders single player gaming obsolete (somehow?) There's always a new SP game being developed and we certainly won't have to fear a takeover in the next generation of consoles. Nor the next one unless said marvel of a universally perfect, acclaimed multiplayer-only, holy grail of games comes along that makes everyone see how wrong we were all along.

#49 Posted by wiouds (5144 posts) -

He making a game that does not have singple player. Just look at the trend of what game deveoplers say about what will happen. If you notice they are all about what is favoring to them. hey don't want used games so they are claiming that digital is the foture dispite many not wanting it.

In other words, they are taking what they want to happen and find what support it.

#50 Posted by keech (1327 posts) -

Single player games aren't going anywhere.  It's very important to remember online mutliplayer is still fairly new to console gamers.  This generation was when it really took off on consoles.  Where as the PC hit that same stride in the 90's.  Look at the PC now, It's arguably the most diverse platform for gaming at this point in time.  Not just in terms of single and multiplayer, but also in the sheer variety of what kind of games you can get on it.

 

I do believe the console market will also find this balance eventually.  There will always be demand for great single player and multiplayer games.