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

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by Darkmoone1 (2814 posts) -
Is this guy using Call of Duty as his example? In my totally subjective and not to be taken into law opinion, I think Call of Duty single player modes were meaningless, uninspired, and dull. They just never felt like campaigns that made me feel like I want to know what happened next, which explains why one mission is played then the rest are ignored. All I can think about when playing them was "when is the next explosion and wave of derpy AI troops coming at me?". The only CoD game recently that I played the whole way through and felt good was the first Black Ops game. After that.....didn't care. Anyway Games like Red Dead Redemption, Mortal Kombat(2011), and Portal 2 show that you can have great single player storytelling that people enjoy to play through while having good multiplayer as well. Sure not everyone has to play them, but I think the better creativity and more thought a single player mode has, the more will play it.
#52 Posted by Deadpool-n (467 posts) -

I'm cool with it, I'll be getting it for the PC

#53 Posted by Michael0134567 (28651 posts) -

What have I done?

#54 Posted by Jagged3dge (3895 posts) -

 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. 

UpInFlames

That's how I see it.

I played through the BF3 campaign and wow I see why they made it disc 2... Cause it came off as a complete after-thought that they threw together to say they had a campaign.

#55 Posted by Randolph (10423 posts) -
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.cfisher2833
That's an incredibly stupid assumption, and makes you look like an ass.
#56 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18177 posts) -
[QUOTE="cfisher2833"]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.Randolph
That's an incredibly stupid assumption, and makes you look like an ass.

Yeah, it's like every banal sentence in the world thrown in a blender and served on the rocks with a slice of missing the point on top.
#57 Posted by Justin_G (198 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.

Jackc8

people who do that are being silly. it's all about playing the best that you can for your team, and owning the other team. :cool:

#58 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18330 posts) -
It's fine by me.. I won't be giving them my money. BF4 is said to have a high quality campaign.. they will get my money.
#59 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 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

I think what we'll see is developers focusing more on what moves their product, for better or for worse. I'm sure there are people that love Far Cry's multiplayer, but it's clear most of the funding for that game went into the SP aspect. Given the success of Blood Dragon, I wouldn't be surprised if we see more Far Cry titles with a stricter focus on single player. I'm fine having the Bioshocks, Wolfensteins, and Far Crys along the Titanfalls and Tribes.

#60 Posted by crimsonman1245 (4253 posts) -

Its a game built from the ground up for Multiplayer and everyone is going to buy it for multiplyaer. The single player would have been watered down and taken money and resources away from the multiplayer.

Keep in mind, i HATE multiplayer, and this is how i feel.

I dont want tacked on multiplayer hurting my single player, and i dont want tacked on single player hurting other peoples multiplayer.

#61 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18177 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.IndianaPwns39

I think what we'll see is developers focusing more on what moves their product, for better or for worse. I'm sure there are people that love Far Cry's multiplayer, but it's clear most of the funding for that game went into the SP aspect. Given the success of Blood Dragon, I wouldn't be surprised if we see more Far Cry titles with a stricter focus on single player. I'm fine having the Bioshocks, Wolfensteins, and Far Crys along the Titanfalls and Tribes.

I'm not complaining about multiplayer-only games. I'm pointing out that this guy basically said "No one plays our single player, so we didn't make one." Gamers voted with their controllers, so to speak, and influenced a studio into dropping SP for their game.
#62 Posted by Oozyrat (850 posts) -

Hmm can't really say it's a huge deal. Would've been nice of course but honestly there will be so many other games that have AAA stories that would most likely put this game to shame. It's still surprising though, CoD actually still has many people invested in the story and all of my friends that like the games play through the story. Tbh though, Halo is the only FPS that really has my interest as far as story (and Rainbow Six but that's not really a huge on going story). Really I could see Battlefield benefiting from cutting a single-player out as well. A lot of reviews criticized the stories in those games. I think for games like this, it might be a smart move to do this and include more maps and features. It's the same with single-player games not going into multiplayer. It honestly makes sense. Splitting teams and spending tons of money on both isn't too practical.

#63 Posted by chrisrooR (9026 posts) -
You're exaggerating. There are still many devs working hard on single player experiences.
#64 Posted by The_Last_Ride (69626 posts) -
It's not our fault, i play through all of the singleplayer campaigns. If they want to make a multiplayer only game fine by me. But shooters also have a reputation for a crappy singleplayer
#65 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

[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

I think what we'll see is developers focusing more on what moves their product, for better or for worse. I'm sure there are people that love Far Cry's multiplayer, but it's clear most of the funding for that game went into the SP aspect. Given the success of Blood Dragon, I wouldn't be surprised if we see more Far Cry titles with a stricter focus on single player. I'm fine having the Bioshocks, Wolfensteins, and Far Crys along the Titanfalls and Tribes.

I'm not complaining about multiplayer-only games. I'm pointing out that this guy basically said "No one plays our single player, so we didn't make one." Gamers voted with their controllers, so to speak, and influenced a studio into dropping SP for their game.

Yeah, I get that. 

Though now that I think about it, CoD 1, 2, and the original Modern Warfare had some pretty great campaigns and were praised by fans and critics alike. I think it's unfair to blame the fans when the campaigns were going down hill for a while. 

On a semi-related note, do we know what Titanfall is going to cost? Is this free to play? A downloadable title? A full fledged, multiplayer only $60 game?

#66 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

I see absolutely no problem with this, in fact I prefer it and have been wanting companies to do this for a while now. Why put a five-hour singleplayer campaign in a shooter when the multiplayer is clearly what most people spend the overwhelming majority of their time playing? Games like COD and Battlefield don't need campaigns, and are probably better off just focusing the extra time on the multiplayer. 

I'd like to start calling it tacked-on singleplayer, because that's what it really is. And the opposite is true for the tacked-on multiplayer of singleplayer games. Why bother? 

#67 Posted by Moriarity_ (1349 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.

Bigboi500
Hit the nail on the head.
#68 Posted by Jagged3dge (3895 posts) -

With that said, I expect the MP to launch as a very complete experience.  Not only coming with a handful of maps, and then trying to dish dlc map packs out soon after.  

#69 Posted by Quaker-w00ts (1581 posts) -

not my fault

#70 Posted by Venom_Raptor (6958 posts) -

I hate it when people go straight to multiplayer, really f**** me off. I don't even bother with multiplayer and if I do, I make sure I finish the single player first.

#71 Posted by Legolas_Katarn (15592 posts) -
Makes sense. It would probably make a better MP and cost them less if they don't have a single player, and he's correct about people not playing the single player, when playing Call of Duty I was interested in the amount of people who played through the single player and I almost never found anyone based on their achievements who even finished the first level. I always finish the single player but I have no real interest in games like this having one unless they plan to really focus on making it something interesting and different like Metro, of course, I have almost no interest in the majority of FPS games anyway.
#72 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

I hate it when people go straight to multiplayer, really f**** me off. I don't even bother with multiplayer and if I do, I make sure I finish the single player first.

Venom_Raptor

Even when the SP sucks and the multiplayer is where the real fun is at?

#73 Posted by Jagged3dge (3895 posts) -

I hate it when people go straight to multiplayer, really f**** me off. I don't even bother with multiplayer and if I do, I make sure I finish the single player first.

Venom_Raptor

Oh people don't play games like you so it pisses you off? Get over yourself.

#74 Posted by BadNewsBen (1493 posts) -
I'm fine with MP oriented games not having single player in the same way I'm fine with single player games not having multiplayer.
#75 Posted by syztem (7702 posts) -

Good. Shooters don't need single player. It's like story mode in fighting games... who the hell cares?

Maybe the money they save by cutting out the horrible narrative can go towards making a shooter that doesn't have awful mechanics for the first time since 1999.

#76 Posted by wiouds (5014 posts) -

I find it hard to believe they will used the money saved by not adding SP into improving mp. Also I do not think they will lower the price of the game. The best part of all this is that are acting as if what they want to do is really what the gamers want.

#77 Posted by jsmoke03 (12602 posts) -

pretty dissapointed to find that out. i like playing the sp campaign of fps almost as much as i like the mp portion.

#78 Posted by blueboxdoctor (2397 posts) -

First of all, it's one game and don't forget, Sony had Warhawk which was MP only.  People only play MP in shooters clearly designed for the MP with a tacked on SP (i.e. BF3 and COD, though at least some of the COD campaigns weren't bad).  It all depends on what type of game it is.  Bioshock doesn't benefit from MP, as they found in the 2nd game and eventually getting rid of it in Infinite. 

Basically, if a game is designed for MP then there's a good chance the SP won't be as good and same goes for games made for SP with a tacked on MP (Tomb Raider).  Then there are the few times when devs get both modes done really well (recently, The Last of Us, KZ2/3, and Halo 4 have done this).

So I don't think it's really the consumers fault as much as developers tacking on things that don't fit for their particular game and then they blame everyone else when it isn't played.  At least these guys are coming out and saying they have no interest in a tacked on SP (granted, I don't like how they're blaming players for not playing a mode that will never exist).

#79 Posted by 4nationfury (606 posts) -

It's not entirely the players' fault. Singleplayer campaigns in FPS don't offer much if you ask me. You can get through them extremely quick. You get some foreign threat you have to take on and then you play through several action pieces. The end. Devs need to up their work and get more creative like Bioshock.

Or if you want to be conventional, I think of a game I played a few years ago. I remember enjoying Bad Company's single player. It let you play through different areas in a progressing story and try out a few vehicles and all that, but there was a lot of fun characters and banter. More of that please.

#80 Posted by nutcrackr (12361 posts) -
common sense, but you could argue that a hyper-linear scripted ride is going to be the absolute worst bang for your development buck. If they made an open world shooter, you can drastically increase player game time over an equivalent area. In other words: game devolopers can be smarter with single player games.
#81 Posted by wiouds (5014 posts) -

common sense, but you could argue that a hyper-linear scripted ride is going to be the absolute worst bang for your development buck. If they made an open world shooter, you can drastically increase player game time over an equivalent area. In other words: game devolopers can be smarter with single player games. nutcrackr

I find open world shooters are the worse shooters out there. The more linear shooters are better. I would play any of the CoD games once more over palying Far Cry 3 a second time.

#82 Posted by Venom_Raptor (6958 posts) -

[QUOTE="Venom_Raptor"]

I hate it when people go straight to multiplayer, really f**** me off. I don't even bother with multiplayer and if I do, I make sure I finish the single player first.

CarnageHeart

Even when the SP sucks and the multiplayer is where the real fun is at?

If the single player sucks I won't get the game, simple as that. I won't get a game for multiplayer.

#83 Posted by cejay0813 (611 posts) -

Great news to me!

 

Now more effort can be put into making a balanced and bug-free multiplayer experience. If only more games took this approach. 

#84 Posted by wiouds (5014 posts) -

Great news to me!

 

Now more effort can be put into making a balanced and bug-free multiplayer experience. If only more games took this approach. 

cejay0813

Can does not mean that they will.

#85 Posted by Eikichi-Onizuka (8022 posts) -
I just wonder where they pulled that number from since people don't have to be signed in to play the campaign.
#86 Posted by BranKetra (47789 posts) -

The original Halo trilogy is a set of video games with good single player modes. I intend to eventually get an Xbox 360 just for the Halo trilogy I mentioned in my previous statement and keep it as part of my collection because of the single player campaigns, so some video games feature great single player and multiplayer modes.

#87 Posted by XIntoTheBlue (842 posts) -
Don't quite agree with the article. Developers must decide if they want their game to be a multiplayer game or a single player game and make the game based on that. Trying to mash both types together into one game will leave parts of the game lacking, in my opinion. When I bought BF3, for example, I bought it precisely for its multiplayer which is what Battlefield is all about. Why would I buy it for single player? Makes no sense. They should have put in place SP training levels in it instead so people can get used to how things work (like flying the aircraft and 'copters properly).
#88 Posted by wiifan001 (18343 posts) -
No campaign? wtf!? I want to play a freekin Titanfall campaign. My interest in this game certainly plumetted.
#89 Posted by SaintJimmmy (2815 posts) -
I actually don't mind this decision i don't want to see single player shooters eliminated but, i wouldn't mind if multiplayer and single player shooters are separate I feel it would increase the quality in the games which is alot coming from me that hates everything about call of duty and the director.
#90 Posted by yellosnolvr (19302 posts) -
this shouldn't even be a big deal. were people expecting some amazing single player experience from the same dipshits who birthed the beginnings of the 'cancerfps' trend?
#91 Posted by AzelKosMos (34194 posts) -

Good. Shooters don't need single player. It's like story mode in fighting games... who the hell cares?

Maybe the money they save by cutting out the horrible narrative can go towards making a shooter that doesn't have awful mechanics for the first time since 1999.

syztem
I care. I actually love the COD single player though I know that's not a popular view here not to mention Halo, Resistance and hybrid shooters like Bioshock and Borderlands. Multiplayer is great fun but without a single player mode would feel like a half package.
#92 Posted by HipHopBeats (2861 posts) -

I have no interest in Titanfall but Titanfall certainly doesn't need a single player campaign. It looks to be specifically aimed at COD/BF players. Appeal to a specific audience is a good thing. It's a bad thing when a dev tries to appeal to every type of gamer with the same game.

Single player games with a tacked on multiplayer like God Of War, Tomb Raider or a multiplayer driven game with crap single player like COD games. Not every game needs to be aimed at every gamer. I hope to see more specific focused games like Dark Souls and Titanfall next gen versus the 'let's appeal to everybody' crap.

#93 Posted by Ballroompirate (22210 posts) -

It's not our fault the SP in the CoD games suck, the only decent one was CoD4, after that it was the same crap over and over again. Hell at least the SP in BF3 was pretty looking even though it was copying the SP from CoD.

#94 Posted by HipHopBeats (2861 posts) -

Hats off to Levine for making Bioshock Infinite with no tacked on multiplayer despite my disappointment with the actual campaign. I can only imagine how epic Mass effect 3 could have really been if the focus was geared strictly towards the campaign which is why everyone wanted to play it in the first place.

#95 Posted by Treflis (11418 posts) -
I don't see why they need to excuse themselves for not having a Single Player part if their intention from the start was to make a Multiplayer game. ID software didn't have to do that when Quake 3 arena came out, Nor did Valve when they released Counter-strike. Granted I prefer Single player but if the goal from the start is Multiplayer then it's okay.
#96 Posted by BigCat2K20 (245 posts) -

Don't blame me for it! I do play single player games (even with tacked on single player in an multiplayer focused games as well). I'm not shocked by the news at all. I'd rather see an only online multiplayer game & actually turn out to be pretty good. No single player mode vs tacked on single player with little to zero effort? Take your pick. I've zero interest in Titanfall for it's just COD/BF meets Mobile Suit Gundam.

#97 Posted by cravnsn (11 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.

Jackc8

Couldn't have said it better myself

#98 Posted by MrAurora (2 posts) -

I know this thread is a couple months old but i gotta chime in because i too, miss the good single player campaign in FPS games. i have a serious question tho - what is it you guys like about the multiplayer ? I have tried to get into it but frankly it the other players that ruin it for me. I use to be hardcore into battlefield 1942 when it came out but in recent years this has been my experiance with EVERY MP game i have tried to play: first off, live chat - always some DB that wont stop talking, is an ego maniac, its has to just blame blame blame until i cant take thier mouth anymore and quit. Or, i get a 13year old with a headset saying "i am going to stand on the hood of this car - you drive and i will try to stay on" - its always something and it just ruins it for me. There is no story at all so its just shoot shoot shoot. Respawn, and listen to a-holes run thier mouths. No matter what game, thats my experiance. I spend more time trying to find a game with no annoying people then playing so i just stopped playing. What is it you guys like about that ?

#99 Edited by Evil_Saluki (4872 posts) -

Bah we had MMO's for years yet we still get single player games.

#100 Edited by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

This thread is so overly dramatic. Single player games are fine, crappy single player campaigns can die. They said they wanted to make the online of Titanfall like a campaign, I am all for that.

What is up with the quoting????