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

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#151 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18295 posts) -

@ECH71 said:

God I totally f***ing hate multiplayer... It's fun for a short while but then it becomes this time/life consuming bad habit.

No more real pleasure in playing, you just play the same repetitive MP because you can, for the sake of killing time, when you could be enjoying a new engrossing story in another single-player video game.

There's also another reason I hate multiplayer (the PvP kind anyway): it brings out the jerks and can make us a lot more aggressive, put us in a bad mood and ruin our day.

Finally, f*** those guys who turn their first single player campaigns into speed runs and those in industry who use them as examples in deciding whether to continue pursuing the single player game mode.

People make us angry. If we lose to a computer we get pissed, but we all know there's really no one to be angry with there and no one else knows about it, our "honor" is spared. When we lose to a human opponent online we get mad, because we imagine him laughing at us (because that's what we do when we win). Plus, people cheat, camp, glitch, insult each other and do all sorts of things to annoy other players. Small wonder online gaming is such an angry environment.

Unfortunately the new generation of gamers seems to like nothing but that: when they're not playing online shooters they're playing MMOs, and even for single player games they prefer Borderlands, Dark Souls and Pokemon with their uncomplicated assembly line dynamics and no real story to pay attention to.

#152 Posted by YoshiYogurt (5973 posts) -

A game without single player is a game I DO NOT buy or play.

laughable

#153 Edited by TwistedShade (3151 posts) -

I don't see what the big deal is, I can understand why they decided to not include Singleplayer in Titanfall. I mean I myself never touch Call of Duty's story modes, and I haven't even bothered playing BF4's either. It would make more sense to me for those developers to just scratch the story component and put even more focus on Multiplayer because for those kinds of games most consumers are just going to focus on it.

#154 Edited by firefox59 (4362 posts) -

I can't remember if I've posted in this thread, but wouldn't gamers be more upset if there was a SP campaign that was half-assed and/or no one liked (like Battlefield 3). The idea is that they can put more work into the hybrid MP mode to give a better experience. Respawn has been working on this game for a long time. They have been doing something with all that time, so I think we should at least give the game a chance to see if their new style of MP can work. Then, if it sucks you can tell everyone it sucks.

#155 Posted by blangenakker (2235 posts) -

No mode in a game should be half-assed because the publisher demanded it

#156 Posted by o0squishy0o (2754 posts) -

Not sure if there are loads of people on here with not much between the ears or are just putting sarcastic comments down. What is wrong with create a soley multiplayer game? Nothing at all. If anything; creating a total single player game is more questionable.

I'd welcome more multiplayer focused games that don't have to compromise with the single player aspect. Likewise if you want a really good single player experience; why take away resource from that.

Just seems like there are lots of little people on here who havn't got good old common sense

#157 Posted by Gargus (2147 posts) -

/looks at the other hundreds of single player offline games that come out each year

Titanfall isn't the only game you do realize that don't you?

#158 Posted by crazyman158 (44 posts) -

funny how you can make an article by just mainly copying and pasting, but get thousands of views

#159 Edited by dbtbandit67 (353 posts) -

If it'll make the multi-player experience even better, it was the correct decision. It's better not to do it at all, than make a half-hearted attempt at it, and it coming off horrible. But who knows, maybe future iterations will see a brief campaign (or some single player mode of sorts, like survival or practicing against bots).

#160 Posted by GreySeal9 (24114 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.

So let me get this straight: you're allowed to not bother with multi-player, but it is pisses you off when other people don't bother with single-player?

Maybe you shouldn't care so much about how other people play their games.

#161 Posted by Sushiglutton (5226 posts) -

Think it's much better if developers focus on doing the mode they are passionate about rather than a tacked on SP/MP just for the sake of it. It's fine if Battlefield/Titanfall is MP only and the Witcher/Arkham City is SP only.

#162 Edited by luke1889 (14617 posts) -

I'm in a minority here. In the past when I have bought a CoD game (CoD2, MW and MW2), I only played the single player as I have absolutely no interest in multiplayer - online or local.

#163 Posted by Areez (6278 posts) -

@Sushiglutton:

Think it's much better if developers focus on doing the mode they are passionate about rather than a tacked on SP/MP just for the sake of it. It's fine if Battlefield/Titanfall is MP only and the Witcher/Arkham City is SP only.

I agree with this statement. Take BF4 for example and its short campaign. A campaign that feels like Dice included it just for the sake of having a SP mode.

#164 Posted by kapaqs (1 posts) -

I agree its bad enough we really don't own the software we just spent $60.00 for. But like some past and current games MAG, ARMY OF TWO, Titanfall and a few others you not only do not own them but you can only play them till the servers go down then you have nothing but a coaster, there is no playable game on the disk, its completely useless without their servers. I for one will only buy games with single player campaigns of quality. If gamers don't wake up, you will be paying monthly fees just to play a game on top of buying the software, game station online fees and internet costs. Microsoft started down that road with the launch of XBOX ONE, it was only when PlayStation announced that they would not change the way games and the gamers rights would not change. Plus the threats of no sales of the XBOX ONE, IN FACT IT STILL SCARES PEOPLE that Microsoft could change their minds and do what they wanted to do at launch, in fact whats to stop PlayStation to do the same. But PlayStation made it a point to make sure that everyone knew that for now at least, that the gamer had the right to buy, sell, and trade the games they buy and play them anytime they wanted, connected to the online service, the internet or not. You still had something to play and own, you all need to insist on a balance of both online and campaign, in fact at least a 6-8 hours worth of campaign something worth what your playing for. you like online play fine. this will insure that they keep trying to make better online games at a reasonable price. PS1,2,3 YOU DIDN'T NEED TO PAY FOR ONLINE ah but the PS4 YOU DO, PlayStation Plus. XBOX THE SAME WAY BUT THEY REQUIRE GOLD MEMBERSHIP TO PLAY ONLINE. Now they charge for online add-on's and some even for online game play to play on their servers. We all need to stand together. It was the campaign single player and multi-player that gave us very memorable games. we are loosing this fellow gamers, insist on it or don't buy it, raise a stink, stand up for what you buy at least. $500.00 for a system $74.00 for controller and battery $150 for headset and microphone. $50.00 year just to have the privilege to play on line, some games a fee for the right to play on their online servers, plus the fees for add ons, on ,and on, and on

How much you willing to pay to play a game, think about it!

#165 Edited by RadioGooGoo (204 posts) -

I don't see any downside to this.

- They have stats showing few people play the campaigns

- They can concentrate on what people do play

- They can save money and time not building SP campaign

Finally its great news for me. I don't play MP games, so that's one less AAA game I'll need to keep an eye on.

#166 Posted by insanegame377 (332 posts) -

I don't see any downside to this.

- They have stats showing few people play the campaigns

- They can concentrate on what people do play

- They can save money and time not building SP campaign

Finally its great news for me. I don't play MP games, so that's one less AAA game I'll need to keep an eye on.

Pretty much agree with this. Lets be honest if the next CoD was to be multiplayer-only, how many people outside of these forums would really care? If the multiplayer is the reason to buy the game, there isn't too much point in just adding a single-player mode just for the sake of it.

#167 Posted by Zappakata (11 posts) -

I still like completing the campaign in most games, although I get much more use and enjoyment out of the multiplayer. I can understand why they're doing this, and it'll mean they can focus on developing an even better multiplayer.

#168 Posted by Netret0120 (2037 posts) -

I would like the option of an SP because that is where i learn how to play before i go online and inevitably get owned by some hardcore gamer.

I can see why they removed SP though. I am one of the few people that finish SP

#169 Posted by CoquiNegro (173 posts) -

I would like the option of an SP because that is where i learn how to play before i go online and inevitably get owned by some hardcore gamer.

I can see why they removed SP though. I am one of the few people that finish SP

They should have bots and thus you'll learn how to play before hoping online.

To be honest this is a smart move. I personally won't purchase the game since I'm not a multiplayer person, but this is what most games that are geared toward multiplayer should do. Instead of spending resources to develop an awful single player campaign (bf3 was an abomination) they could use them to build a near perfect multiplayer experience. Seriously focus on one thing and you'll reap the benefits.

#170 Posted by t1striker (1549 posts) -

No single-player equals no interest from me.

#171 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18295 posts) -

@kapaqs said:

ARMY OF TWO, Titanfall and a few others you not only do not own them but you can only play them till the servers go down

Which Amy of Two doesn't have an offline campaign?

#172 Posted by CarcassPlays (59 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.

Hell, we have Fallout 3/New Vegas, Far Cry 3, Halo, and Portal 2 (I consider it an FPS).

#173 Edited by klonoafanboy122 (203 posts) -

wow thats dumb i mean every game has to atleast have some saught of a single player game

thats another fail from xbox

#174 Posted by Beagle050 (716 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00: That justification seems fair. Another way to put it is, "If we made single player, it would be half-ass and suck anyways. We devoted resources to multiplayer instead." It's better to have no single player than tacked-on garbage that's buggy and barely playable.

#175 Posted by MathMattS (4002 posts) -

Overall, I prefer single player over multiplayer. In general, I like the campaigns of the FPSs that come out (most recently, COD Ghosts and BF4-- though I wish BF4 would quit erasing my campaign progress).

There are three MMOs coming out this year-- The Division, Destiny, and Titanfall. I'll be getting all three. I've been reluctant to get into MMOs, but if that's the way things are going, it doesn't look like I have much choice. I wouldn't be surprised if the next COD and BF are MMOs.

#176 Edited by touchscreenpad (220 posts) -

I play FPS games for SP content, I suck at multiplayer. -_-

#177 Posted by kenbladex (1 posts) -

I live in Korea . I can buy the game on Origin for about $36 usd or 40,500 won. I think without MP mode it's worth the 36 bucks. Cause I rarely play them for long anyway ,MP shooters.
also its not a fail for xbox but the publishers. Honesty i have a ps4 with kill zone I only beat the first chapter . Its just the story is so dry and not engaging. I rather spend the time leveling up a class and skill points. However~~ I Would suggest they add a walk through or mini story to as way we are fighting and tutorial. Throwing me into online learning how o play isn't good for anyone.

#178 Edited by bowchicka07 (1073 posts) -

Some games should be like that. Some games should focus on the story more. Some Games should be both! We need variety, stimulation and replay value. I think Destiny will be the trifecta.

#179 Posted by bezza2011 (2384 posts) -

More like the campaign itself is 8mins long, nothing to do with us, it's the boring stories they put infront of us, absolutely no thought goes into them it's a simple story with scripted scenes and the AI is awful, what they mean is we just cut the work load give it to more people and make more money quicker, done.

#180 Edited by yzb (6 posts) -

I don't think it has much to do with spending resources and work-hours, as much as it has with battling piracy.

For example I don't buy a game for PC if i don't test a pirate copy first (meaning going trough the whole SP), and if i don't like the SP i wont buy it, some times even if I like it I end it with the SP and don't buy it. And in this example I will buy it right away.

They are very well capable to make a SP without a regrettable "loss" of capital, cost for making SP mode compared with possible earnings is nothing for the company. But reducing huge chunk of pirate copies that would be downloaded (mainly for playing free SP) and with that reducing the possibilities for rising pirate multi-player servers is big deal for them, that there is a really big loss for them.

#181 Posted by musicXpirate (3040 posts) -

Keep the single player for games that have a good story worth telling. I never have much interest in the story of shooters especially COD or Killzone and end up playing more multiplayer anyway like the majority of people do so what he says makes since. The coop campaign they have going on sounds like a much better idea than some bland futuristic war story with characters we've seen over and over again.

#182 Posted by KainsDaughter (9 posts) -

Was interested - am no longer.

For the most part I hate MP - for almost all games. I am not a competitive player, I hate the chat, and the way a lot of people behave - so yeah, if they think SP isn't worth it, this game isn't worth my money

.From my point of view, 'the part that takes 80% of the resources' has been neglected, bad or broken in a lot of games lately. Mind you, there have been some exceptions, but all in all, the SP has been utterly disappointing. which is very likely to be connected to the finishing rate - as someone else already said,

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.

Credit chaplainDMK

I couldn't agree more.

Anyway, they don't wanna provide a SP - thanks for taken the burden off my wallet.

#183 Posted by ShangTsung7 (247 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.

this dev obviously hasn't spent much time researching gamers, either that or he's only studied the COD lot.. i personally hate online mp, always have, i've even spent hours trying to make myself like it cause sadly thats where the entire industries main focus is headed, its boring, repetitive, pointless, and just plain stupid, if you've ever watched a COD online match it looks like some kind of weird war purgatory, its almost creepy.. i will never understand why some players spend so many hours on it, i wish i was that easily amused.. either way it sucks that soon there will be no more sp in fps games, which will ultimately give me no further reason for playing them.. like you said "fvk this industry" and i couldn't agree more, COD has completely killed the fps genre and soon the entire gaming industry. :(

#184 Edited by FreeCredits (3 posts) -

Not buying Titanfall unless it had a single player campaign, OR online cooperative campaign that works too. I only bought COD and BF series to play their SP, so not a fan of MP really.

#185 Edited by Pituky (1 posts) -

A total deception. This game isn't worth my money for me, I never will buy MP only games. According to the gameplays it looks great, but I enjoy (a lot) SP campaigns. Not for me.

#186 Posted by ShangTsung7 (247 posts) -

@Gargus said:

/looks at the other hundreds of single player offline games that come out each year

Titanfall isn't the only game you do realize that don't you?

"hundreds of single player offline games that come out each year" LMFAO!!!

seriously? seriously??? and where are these games? WHERE? really, i wanna know so i'll have something to play, i have seen NO sp only games in the past year aside from Bioshock Infinite "which sucked balls" and Dishonored, everything else was online multi-trash with a 30 minute long tacked on campaign that felt like a small dlc extra.

omg where do you guys get this info, i mean don't get me wrong i wish you were right, i REALLY wish you were right, but.. sadly you're not, if you were i would have games to play right now, i don't, why? cause of the annoying ass multi-trend. i'm sorry if i'm sounding like a dick but seriously m8 listen to yourself, can you name just 5 sp only games that came out in the last year? cause i sure as hell can't.

#187 Edited by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

one word...eSports.

Some in the gaming industry understand this but many appear not to. Gaming is a platform, its not a story. It IS interesting to try and make an interactive story as an experiment and risk but the real blood is treating a game as...well...a game.

Despite what gamers actually say, what they actually do is not always the same,even more so when it comes to 'games as stories'

#188 Edited by ShangTsung7 (247 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

one word...eSports.

Some in the gaming industry understand this but many appear not to. Gaming is a platform, its not a story. It IS interesting to try and make an interactive story as an experiment and risk but the real blood is treating a game as...well...a game.

Despite what gamers actually say, what they actually do is not always the same,even more so when it comes to 'games as stories'

still the same, story mode aside, not every gamer wants to be forced into jumping online to partake in a boring, repetitive, game of "shoot the other guys, rinse, repeat, shoot the other guys" in a big open circle they call a "map" every time they want to play a game. i am one of those gamers and i grew up in the nes days, back when video games were both frustrating AND fun, and its a completely different scenario when you're doing something similar in a sp story cause their is at least rime or reason in what you're doing, progress making, ect. online multiplayer is just a stupid, fukin retarded kids game that easily amused people play as a means to inflate their ego, there is nothing entertaining about it what-so-ever and even tho they won't admit it, trust me when i say that even those who are into it do not actually have "fun" with it. example- one of my best friends is a COD addict and i've watched him on several occasions play these mindless online multi games for hours with an almost deified look on his face and once asked him what he gets out of it, his obvious answer was "kicking the sh!t outa noobs" but then when i asked him what he got out of that his answer was almost depressing, he replied "i dunno, its what everybody does" thats just sad bro, fuk online mp.

#189 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18295 posts) -

@shangtsung7 said:

"hundreds of single player offline games that come out each year" LMFAO!!!

seriously? seriously??? and where are these games? WHERE? really, i wanna know so i'll have something to play, i have seen NO sp only games in the past year aside from Bioshock Infinite "which sucked balls" and Dishonored, everything else was online multi-trash with a 30 minute long tacked on campaign that felt like a small dlc extra.

omg where do you guys get this info, i mean don't get me wrong i wish you were right, i REALLY wish you were right, but.. sadly you're not, if you were i would have games to play right now, i don't, why? cause of the annoying ass multi-trend. i'm sorry if i'm sounding like a dick but seriously m8 listen to yourself, can you name just 5 sp only games that came out in the last year? cause i sure as hell can't.

I don't think the duration alone of a single player campaign is an indication of its quality. Spec Ops The Line and Journey are short but intense, Bioshock Infinite and Castlevania LoS are 20 hours long and grueling experiences, at least for me.

I also don't think having a multiplayer mode necessarily detracts from the single player experience. Most of the time development of the multiplayer component is outsourced to a small external studio, so it doesn't even detract time and resources from the making of the main game.

The problem comes when multiplayer (fun but shallow and repetitive by definition) becomes the main focus, that's the death of gaming right there.

#190 Posted by ShangTsung7 (247 posts) -

@shangtsung7 said:

"hundreds of single player offline games that come out each year" LMFAO!!!

seriously? seriously??? and where are these games? WHERE? really, i wanna know so i'll have something to play, i have seen NO sp only games in the past year aside from Bioshock Infinite "which sucked balls" and Dishonored, everything else was online multi-trash with a 30 minute long tacked on campaign that felt like a small dlc extra.

omg where do you guys get this info, i mean don't get me wrong i wish you were right, i REALLY wish you were right, but.. sadly you're not, if you were i would have games to play right now, i don't, why? cause of the annoying ass multi-trend. i'm sorry if i'm sounding like a dick but seriously m8 listen to yourself, can you name just 5 sp only games that came out in the last year? cause i sure as hell can't.

I don't think the duration alone of a single player campaign is an indication of its quality. Spec Ops The Line and Journey are short but intense, Bioshock Infinite and Castlevania LoS are 20 hours long and grueling experiences, at least for me.

I also don't think having a multiplayer mode necessarily detracts from the single player experience. Most of the time development of the multiplayer component is outsourced to a small external studio, so it doesn't even detract time and resources from the making of the main game.

The problem comes when multiplayer (fun but shallow and repetitive by definition) becomes the main focus, that's the death of gaming right there.

yes, the duration of a game makes a HUGE difference, i don't care how intense something is, if its over in an hour when i'm at the height of my enjoyment it is nothing more than a let down and a tease..

IT DOES NOT MATTER if a different studio, dev, team, whatever design the online mp mode the fact remains that it STILL takes up on disk memory! which leaches off the main story thus making it SHORTER! i dunno why this is so hard for the people who argue "but the online is made by a seperate team" to comprehend, put on your thinking caps ffs!

and yes i totally agree, when the main focus becomes online mp thats the death of gaming, hence why gaming sucks ass nowadays.

#191 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18295 posts) -

yes, the duration of a game makes a HUGE difference, i don't care how intense something is, if its over in an hour when i'm at the height of my enjoyment it is nothing more than a let down and a tease..

IT DOES NOT MATTER if a different studio, dev, team, whatever design the online mp mode the fact remains that it STILL takes up on disk memory! which leaches off the main story thus making it SHORTER! i dunno why this is so hard for the people who argue "but the online is made by a seperate team" to comprehend, put on your thinking caps ffs!

and yes i totally agree, when the main focus becomes online mp thats the death of gaming, hence why gaming sucks ass nowadays.

Good lord, disk memory? Please tell me you don't really think that's why campaigns are short. Campaigns aren't short because there isn't enough space on the disk, they are short because single player is expensive to produce and requires a large budget, also because people are playing less and less single player, hence the token campaigns (though your "1 hour" figure is hyperbolic).

But yeah, we do agree on the current state of gaming, it's a sad situation with all the multiplayer CoD clones, MOBAS and MMORPGs.

#192 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

@ECH71 said:

God I totally f***ing hate multiplayer... It's fun for a short while but then it becomes this time/life consuming bad habit.

No more real pleasure in playing, you just play the same repetitive MP because you can, for the sake of killing time, when you could be enjoying a new engrossing story in another single-player video game.

There's also another reason I hate multiplayer (the PvP kind anyway): it brings out the jerks and can make us a lot more aggressive, put us in a bad mood and ruin our day.

Finally, f*** those guys who turn their first single player campaigns into speed runs and those in industry who use them as examples in deciding whether to continue pursuing the single player game mode.

People make us angry. If we lose to a computer we get pissed, but we all know there's really no one to be angry with there and no one else knows about it, our "honor" is spared. When we lose to a human opponent online we get mad, because we imagine him laughing at us (because that's what we do when we win). Plus, people cheat, camp, glitch, insult each other and do all sorts of things to annoy other players. Small wonder online gaming is such an angry environment.

Unfortunately the new generation of gamers seems to like nothing but that: when they're not playing online shooters they're playing MMOs, and even for single player games they prefer Borderlands, Dark Souls and Pokemon with their uncomplicated assembly line dynamics and no real story to pay attention to.

If losing a game makes someone angry, they have personal issues. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it shouldn't. I mostly play SP games, but I play online quite a bit (put a lot of time into Warhawk, and am putting a couple hours a week into Killzone Shadowfall). Win or lose, its all good so long as a game is competitive. Humans are more satisfying opponents than AI because in SP games players are automatically designated the center of the universe. In MP games nobody is holding back. If a game is badly designed playing against humans can suck, but if a game is badly designed playing against AI can suck.

Also it strikes me as strange that you look down on some games because they don't have enough focus on story. I like a good story, but I don't think that story needs to be a focus of every game. I'm fine with story-lite or absent games like Resogun, Virtua Fighter 5 and Dragon's Crown I'm also fine with story heavy games like Persona 4, TLOU and Heavy Rain.

As I've said before, designers should focus on what they are passionate about. If they are only passionate about SP, no point in them wasting time on MP, if they are only passionate about MP, no point in them wasting time on SP.

#193 Posted by Korvus (3228 posts) -

I ever only play the SP part of 99% of the games I buy so it's not my fault; you're welcome =D

#194 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18295 posts) -

If losing a game makes someone angry, they have personal issues. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it shouldn't. I mostly play SP games, but I play online quite a bit (put a lot of time into Warhawk, and am putting a couple hours a week into Killzone Shadowfall). Win or lose, its all good so long as a game is competitive. Humans are more satisfying opponents than AI because in SP games players are automatically designated the center of the universe. In MP games nobody is holding back. If a game is badly designed playing against humans can suck, but if a game is badly designed playing against AI can suck.

Also it strikes me as strange that you look down on some games because they don't have enough focus on story. I like a good story, but I don't think that story needs to be a focus of every game. I'm fine with story-lite or absent games like Resogun, Virtua Fighter 5 and Dragon's Crown I'm also fine with story heavy games like Persona 4, TLOU and Heavy Rain.

As I've said before, designers should focus on what they are passionate about. If they are only passionate about SP, no point in them wasting time on MP, if they are only passionate about MP, no point in them wasting time on SP.

It's not a matter of looking down: I play a ton of plotless games as well, but I am bitter about seeing games with grindstone gameplay being the direction the industry is heading. Multiplayer is fun, grinding loot in Borderlands is cool, but we need less of that and more games with substance if we want this medium to leave the bog of contempt it still lies in. Most people still see videogames as nothing but entertainment and when we look at what the industry at large is doing, it's not hard to see why.

#195 Posted by firefox59 (4362 posts) -

It's not a matter of looking down: I play a ton of plotless games as well, but I am bitter about seeing games with grindstone gameplay being the direction the industry is heading. Multiplayer is fun, grinding loot in Borderlands is cool, but we need less of that and more games with substance if we want this medium to leave the bog of contempt it still lies in. Most people still see videogames as nothing but entertainment and when we look at what the industry at large is doing, it's not hard to see why.

I'm not sure if you intended that last sentence as a quip or part of your main argument but that general opinion isn't really going to change. You think that repetitive games with little passion are the cause of the general populace not looking at video games as art. The large majority of people think of movies and music the same way, nothing but entertainment. We who get more involved and come to video game forums or break down the technical aspects of a certain movie scene look at our hobbies with a different passion.

There will always be examples of media that degrade the overall perspective of the medium. It's just that video games are different in that not everyone plays them where as with most other things everyone partakes in the activity. IMO the biggest problem with the image of video games is the crappy mobile games like Candy Crush or the Temple Run game. People think that's what a video game is. That or something like Grand Theft Auto which terms video games into a pariah.

#196 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18295 posts) -

I'm not sure if you intended that last sentence as a quip or part of your main argument but that general opinion isn't really going to change. You think that repetitive games with little passion are the cause of the general populace not looking at video games as art. The large majority of people think of movies and music the same way, nothing but entertainment. We who get more involved and come to video game forums or break down the technical aspects of a certain movie scene look at our hobbies with a different passion.

There will always be examples of media that degrade the overall perspective of the medium. It's just that video games are different in that not everyone plays them where as with most other things everyone partakes in the activity. IMO the biggest problem with the image of video games is the crappy mobile games like Candy Crush or the Temple Run game. People think that's what a video game is. That or something like Grand Theft Auto which terms video games into a pariah.

No, it wasn't a joke: I want this medium to achieve a respectable status in my lifetime. As you said the problem is that the common perception of what a videogame is is tainted by the casual scene (including the blur of copy/paste MOBAs and MMOs that clog the PC market) and the big blockbusters. Though those have a reason to be as well, we need more games like The Last of Us or Journey, we need to raise the bar for what games are expected to deliver in terms of depth and meaning.

#197 Posted by ShangTsung7 (247 posts) -

@shangtsung7 said:

yes, the duration of a game makes a HUGE difference, i don't care how intense something is, if its over in an hour when i'm at the height of my enjoyment it is nothing more than a let down and a tease..

IT DOES NOT MATTER if a different studio, dev, team, whatever design the online mp mode the fact remains that it STILL takes up on disk memory! which leaches off the main story thus making it SHORTER! i dunno why this is so hard for the people who argue "but the online is made by a seperate team" to comprehend, put on your thinking caps ffs!

and yes i totally agree, when the main focus becomes online mp thats the death of gaming, hence why gaming sucks ass nowadays.

Good lord, disk memory? Please tell me you don't really think that's why campaigns are short. Campaigns aren't short because there isn't enough space on the disk, they are short because single player is expensive to produce and requires a large budget, also because people are playing less and less single player, hence the token campaigns (though your "1 hour" figure is hyperbolic).

But yeah, we do agree on the current state of gaming, it's a sad situation with all the multiplayer CoD clones, MOBAS and MMORPGs.

see, you can let them feed you that sh!t sandwich all you want but i know better, OF COURSE they WANT you to think disk space isn't the reason for a 2 hour long campaign, they're not going to admit it m8, my goodness use your head! but its the obvious reason, one which a 12 year old could figure out..

1 or 2 hour long campaign = devs were too busy dicking around on a useless online mode to satisfy the COD kiddies. ALWAYS. period. ;)

i swear man, i seriously just wish these g-damn selfish online multi-addicts would just get another hobby or something and leave gaming the fvk alone, i'm sick of never having anything to play damnit. :(

#198 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

one word...eSports.

Some in the gaming industry understand this but many appear not to. Gaming is a platform, its not a story. It IS interesting to try and make an interactive story as an experiment and risk but the real blood is treating a game as...well...a game.

Despite what gamers actually say, what they actually do is not always the same,even more so when it comes to 'games as stories'

still the same, story mode aside, not every gamer wants to be forced into jumping online to partake in a boring, repetitive, game of "shoot the other guys, rinse, repeat, shoot the other guys" in a big open circle they call a "map" every time they want to play a game. i am one of those gamers and i grew up in the nes days, back when video games were both frustrating AND fun, and its a completely different scenario when you're doing something similar in a sp story cause their is at least rime or reason in what you're doing, progress making, ect. online multiplayer is just a stupid, fukin retarded kids game that easily amused people play as a means to inflate their ego, there is nothing entertaining about it what-so-ever and even tho they won't admit it, trust me when i say that even those who are into it do not actually have "fun" with it. example- one of my best friends is a COD addict and i've watched him on several occasions play these mindless online multi games for hours with an almost deified look on his face and once asked him what he gets out of it, his obvious answer was "kicking the sh!t outa noobs" but then when i asked him what he got out of that his answer was almost depressing, he replied "i dunno, its what everybody does" thats just sad bro, fuk online mp.

I am not talking about 'every gamer' and I am not talking about just eSports.

I am talking about games as a platform which is what they have been for thousands of years.

D&D = platform

chess = platform

football = platform

#199 Edited by Archangel3371 (15363 posts) -

@shangtsung7: If anyone is being selfish it's you. Having nothing to play, multiplayer 'addicts' killing gaming, 1 to 2 hour sp campaigns, disk space limiting sp, all hyperbolic nonsense. Then there's your constant insults towards those that enjoy mp gaming calling them 'kiddies' and 'retards' which is just juvenile and pathetic. If this had been an already existing franchise that had been sp only and was now going to mp only and you were a fan of it previously then perhaps I could understand someone being upset but this is a new IP being developed by basically a new developer who wants it to be an mp only game so why you have so much hate for it is beyond me. An mp only game like this is but a drop in the ocean of great games that still have very excellent sp content however people like you feel that the entirety of the gaming universe should revolve around you. Perhaps you should be the one to leave.

#200 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

@Archangel3371: I just saw what is going on here. Why is this crap being allowed in these boards.