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

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#201 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18399 posts) -

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

These forums have become like a weird fever dream.

#202 Posted by Glutenbob (249 posts) -

why would I even bother buying a Multiplayer focused game to play the singleplayer component. I haven't played Singleplayer in COD since MW2...its just boring. The titanfall devs got it right.

#203 Edited by Decadaver917 (4 posts) -

Nothing wrong with a game focused on multiplayer, it becomes a problem when the multiplayer function of a multiplayer game only is pretty average or underwhelming, which is Titanfalls case. Same goes for single player only games, if your game can survive only on one, hell go for it you got an amazing product. The problem is, thats rarely the case and from what the Beta shows us and their refusal to actually give us information on the game a single month before release, titanfall does not drop into this category of multiplayer that is so complete that it is its own package. This is like some free to play afterthought, its just a slightly better blacklight retribution, not getting robbed for that.

I also feel that the quote is extremely exagerated and also completely miss the point. Its not because they jump into the multiplayer that they dont play your single player, its that your single players are junk. Do you think mass effect, dead space, hell doom 3, sold because of their multiplayer? Single player games still survive and some do pretty well, so clearly its not because players dont want to play them, however if your single player is trash like cod or bf, yeah no one bothers.

#204 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

@firefox59 said:

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.

Two years ago I took my daughters to a videogame exhibit at the Museum of American Art in Washington DC. As souvenirs I bought a mug and The Art of Videogames (coffee table art book). How much more respectable do you need?

Every industry has people who are going to veer more towards art and people who veer more towards commerce (Yet Another Star Wars, Raunchy Comedy 4, Celebfest 12, Transformers 5 and hardcore pornography are made not to be good, but to be profitable). Its frankly unfair to expect the game industry to be any different. People who hate games will always find a reason to hate them and even within the gaming community, opinions differ sharply over what constitutes a good game.

I think the best developers follow their visions. Sometimes that will result in a blockbuster sequel that fans mostly love (nods towards GTA5), sometimes that will result in a reviled sequel (MGS2), sometimes that will result in a great original game with a too small audience (Valkyria Chronicles), sometimes that will in results in a game whose success defies conventional wisdom (Littlebigplanet), sometimes will result in an SP only game (Dead Space), sometimes that will result in an MP only game (Titanfall, Warhawk). If one doesn't like an artist's vision fine, but why get made about it? Move on to an artist whose vision you enjoy.

I really don't like that Titanfall is going to be loaded with bots whose reason for existence is to make players without any skill feel good about themselves and allow them to help win games, but Titanfall's existence is no skin off my back.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/2/14/5411402/titanfall-is-the-perfect-game-for-people-who-are-terrible-at-first

The smart gun has already been derided on internet fora as the ultimate bit of evidence that gaming is being watered down to be spoon fed to the untalented, but the weapon provides just as many upsides as downsides. The one-hit kills only register on Grunts, Titanfall’s take on creeps from the MOBA genre; it takes multiple shots to take down player-controlled pilots.

----------------

Don't be afraid to leave the human to human fighting to the more talented members of your team in favor of farming the AI-controlled Grunts and Specters; they're easy to kill, they add points to your score and will often make the difference in tight games. Titanfall pulls influences from many genres, not just other shooters, so borrow tactics and plays from those other games as well.

#205 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18399 posts) -

@CarnageHeart: As I said before, I don't care about this game in particular, I care if the industry at large starts heading in the same direction. Don't you? Would you be content in a hypothetical future where most games are multiplayer only?

"That will never happen" I hear you thinking, but browse back on these boards four of five years and you'll see people saying the same about microtransactions, free-to-play, online passes and paywalls.

There's something that needs to be kept in mind at all times, it's that gaming companies are first and foremost companies, which by definition want nothing more than making the largest profit possible with the smallest investment possible. Quality standards and content expectations are a bother to them and now that so many gamers have lost interest in single player (by far the most expensive part of a game to produce) it's like a wet dream to them: they can cut a large slice of the game's budget and still please the target audience. Doesn't mean they're evil: they're business companies based on profit, that's what they do.

#206 Edited by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

@CarnageHeart: As I said before, I don't care about this game in particular, I care if the industry at large starts heading in the same direction. Don't you? Would you be content in a hypothetical future where most games are multiplayer only?

"That will never happen" I hear you thinking, but browse back on these boards four of five years and you'll see people saying the same about microtransactions, free-to-play, online passes and paywalls.

There's something that needs to be kept in mind at all times, it's that gaming companies are first and foremost companies, which by definition want nothing more than making the largest profit possible with the smallest investment possible. Quality standards and content expectations are a bother to them and now that so many gamers have lost interest in single player (by far the most expensive part of a game to produce) it's like a wet dream to them: they can cut a large slice of the game's budget and still please the target audience. Doesn't mean they're evil: they're business companies based on profit, that's what they do.

I wouldn't really care if most games were multiplayer. I buy the games I like (a tiny subset of total releases), not 'most games'.

Also, MP games are neither cheap nor easy. They are massive investments and designers are designing/balancing for a bunch of unpredictable humans, not one.

More importantly, there is something called the WoW effect. Success breeds success (the presence of a thriving community encourages people to join an MP games, the possibility of failure discourages people from joining). The list of MMos that have sought to establish themselves yet failed wraps around the block five times. One could say the same of CoD clones.

So no worries, SP games aren't going anywhere. There is a lot of money in such games, they can be cheaper than MP games (or more expensive if one wants to make a GTA5 or AC4) and a lot of developers and many gamers are committed to such games. If they aren't the most popular genre in five years, so what? JRPGs are now very niche, but that didn't make Persona 4: The Golden, Ni No Kuni, or Disgaea D2 any less fun.

#207 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18399 posts) -

@CarnageHeart said:

I wouldn't really care if most games were multiplayer. I buy the games I like (a tiny subset of total releases), not 'most games'.

Also, MP games are neither cheap nor easy. They are massive investments and designers are designing/balancing for a bunch of unpredictable humans, not one.

More importantly, there is something called the WoW effect. Success breeds success (the presence of a thriving community encourages people to join an MP games, the possibility of failure discourages people from joining). The list of MMos that have sought to establish themselves yet failed wraps around the block five times. One could say the same of CoD clones.

So no worries, SP games aren't going anywhere. There is a lot of money in such games, they can be cheaper than MP games (or more expensive if one wants to make a GTA5 or AC4) and a lot of developers and many gamers are committed to such games. If they aren't the most popular genre in five years, so what? JRPGs are now very niche, but that didn't make Persona 4: The Golden, Ni No Kuni, or Disgaea D2 any less fun.

Don't confuse cheap with cheaper. Don't you agree that not having to hire writers, AI developers, voice actors, cutscene developers and script programmers shaves a large slice off the game's production costs? Sure you're not saying that MP balancing costs as much as all of those combined?

#208 Posted by yearssomuch (54 posts) -

It really depends on the game in question as to whether or not lacking a Single-Player campaign is important or not. In the case of a game like Call of Duty, no, the single player doesn't matter. No one cares. Granted, I enjoy playing SP campaigns on any game, CoD included, but the focus with that particular game is purely multiplayer. It's better for the developers to focus the entirety of their energy on the component people want, as opposed to the components that people will ignore.
How about MOBA's, like DoTA, Smite, or LoL? Would you want to see a single player campaign in those games? Hell, no. A practice mode, sure, but not a campaign.. because it diminishes the point of those games existing in the first place.

However, single player games are still very viable, and anyone saying otherwise is a fanboy shill, at the beck and call of greedy developers who rehash the same game year after year in a 'new' package, encouraging people to buy the newest edition to continue playing with their friends. Fuck that.

#209 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18399 posts) -

@CarnageHeart said:

I wouldn't really care if most games were multiplayer. I buy the games I like (a tiny subset of total releases), not 'most games'.

Also, MP games are neither cheap nor easy. They are massive investments and designers are designing/balancing for a bunch of unpredictable humans, not one.

More importantly, there is something called the WoW effect. Success breeds success (the presence of a thriving community encourages people to join an MP games, the possibility of failure discourages people from joining). The list of MMos that have sought to establish themselves yet failed wraps around the block five times. One could say the same of CoD clones.

So no worries, SP games aren't going anywhere. There is a lot of money in such games, they can be cheaper than MP games (or more expensive if one wants to make a GTA5 or AC4) and a lot of developers and many gamers are committed to such games. If they aren't the most popular genre in five years, so what? JRPGs are now very niche, but that didn't make Persona 4: The Golden, Ni No Kuni, or Disgaea D2 any less fun.

Don't confuse cheap with cheaper. You don't think not having to hire writers, AI developers, voice actors, cutscene developers and script programmers shaves a large slice off the game's production costs? Surely you're not saying that MP balancing costs as much as all of those combined?

#210 Posted by tattoogunman (18 posts) -

@CarnageHeart said:

I wouldn't really care if most games were multiplayer. I buy the games I like (a tiny subset of total releases), not 'most games'.

Also, MP games are neither cheap nor easy. They are massive investments and designers are designing/balancing for a bunch of unpredictable humans, not one.

More importantly, there is something called the WoW effect. Success breeds success (the presence of a thriving community encourages people to join an MP games, the possibility of failure discourages people from joining). The list of MMos that have sought to establish themselves yet failed wraps around the block five times. One could say the same of CoD clones.

So no worries, SP games aren't going anywhere. There is a lot of money in such games, they can be cheaper than MP games (or more expensive if one wants to make a GTA5 or AC4) and a lot of developers and many gamers are committed to such games. If they aren't the most popular genre in five years, so what? JRPGs are now very niche, but that didn't make Persona 4: The Golden, Ni No Kuni, or Disgaea D2 any less fun.

Don't confuse cheap with cheaper. You don't think not having to hire writers, AI developers, voice actors, cutscene developers and script programmers shaves a large slice off the game's production costs? Surely you're not saying that MP balancing costs as much as all of those combined?

And yet we're still going to be charged $60 regardless of whether they cut out the single player portion of the game or not. If they're saving all of that money on production of the game, then they can sell it at a reduced price. I remember when Shadowrun came out it was multiplayer only and was a bit cheaper than a normal game when it came out. It also bombed pretty bad, but I don't think that was only because it was multiplayer only.

Like others have said - a game like the Call of Duty series can thrive on multiplay alone because the game works that way and has a following. If a game cannot provide an engaging multiplayer component, it's going to fail. I've been watching the videos of people playing the beta and it looks ridiculous. People dominating from the rooftop with sniper rifles waiting for their Titan to fall, quick scoping, people easily taking out the Titans on foot (which was probably done to balance gameplay, but still) with weapons that seem to be overpowered (what's the point of being in a Titan if some jerk on the rooftop is packing a Titan level gun and is raining death down on you from above?), etc. The maps look nice and tall, but they didn't appear to be very wide and that just results in mass run 'n gun confrontations. That's fine if that is your thing, but not if you want something a bit more engaging.

I don't think the game looks bad necessarily, but I can definitely tell that the makers also made the earlier Call of Duty games and I think it's going to end up being pretty frustrating to play.


#211 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18399 posts) -

And yet we're still going to be charged $60 regardless of whether they cut out the single player portion of the game or not. If they're saving all of that money on production of the game, then they can sell it at a reduced price

Not going to happen, for two reasons: 1) they want to make money and launching at a lower price would cost them significantly, and 2) perceived value: we tend to look down on games that launch for a reduced price, we start wondering what's wrong with it. It's bad for the game's image.

Yes, I know there are some good games that came out at a budget price, but you still won't ever see EA doing anything like that. They expect you to pay your $60 and buy the map pack and microtransactions if there are any, on top of that.

#212 Posted by ShangTsung7 (247 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.

i haven't the slightest clue what you're going on about m8, my argument is perfectly legitimate, yours makes no sense. yea these online multi-addicts are killing gaming imo, why? because they are trying to turn every damn game in existence into nothing but an online multi sh!t fest and THAT is what you call "selfish"

@dvader654 is what being allowed on the boards? debate? yea opinion sharing, last i checked is allowed here, not sure what you're going on about either.. :/

#213 Edited by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

@Archangel3371 said:

@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.

i haven't the slightest clue what you're going on about m8, my argument is perfectly legitimate, yours makes no sense. yea these online multi-addicts are killing gaming imo, why? because they are trying to turn every damn game in existence into nothing but an online multi sh!t fest and THAT is what you call "selfish"

@dvader654 is what being allowed on the boards? debate? yea opinion sharing, last i checked is allowed here, not sure what you're going on about either.. :/

Using demeaning language and constant insults directed at certain people. You would be banned in a second in other forums.

#214 Posted by ShangTsung7 (247 posts) -

@shangtsung7 said:

@Archangel3371 said:

@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.

i haven't the slightest clue what you're going on about m8, my argument is perfectly legitimate, yours makes no sense. yea these online multi-addicts are killing gaming imo, why? because they are trying to turn every damn game in existence into nothing but an online multi sh!t fest and THAT is what you call "selfish"

@dvader654 is what being allowed on the boards? debate? yea opinion sharing, last i checked is allowed here, not sure what you're going on about either.. :/

Using demeaning language and constant insults directed at certain people. You would be banned in a second in other forums.

i'm not insulting anyone directly, i'm simply posting my opinion, i dunno what you're problem is m8 but i think you're just butthurt cause somebody is actually admitting they aren't thrilled about the new online mp over everything gaming policy, either that or you have way too much time on your hands, its not like i'm the only one stating this either, back up and read some earlier posts in this thread, one guy even flat out said he "fvkin hates online mp and everyone who likes it" so why aren't you singling him out?

#215 Posted by iampenguin (223 posts) -

I think it's a bad thing and I don't care.

#216 Posted by bowchicka07 (1073 posts) -

friends on: MP>SP

no friends on: SP>MP

no internet SP> MP

SP will never die, neither will MP.

Not sure what happened in the last 3 pages but that is all there is to it.

#217 Posted by ShangTsung7 (247 posts) -

friends on: MP>SP

no friends on: SP>MP

no internet SP> MP

SP will never die, neither will MP.

Not sure what happened in the last 3 pages but that is all there is to it.

i dunno m8, the future is looking pretty grim for sp games.

#218 Posted by Archangel3371 (15473 posts) -

@Archangel3371 said:

@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.

i haven't the slightest clue what you're going on about m8, my argument is perfectly legitimate, yours makes no sense. yea these online multi-addicts are killing gaming imo, why? because they are trying to turn every damn game in existence into nothing but an online multi sh!t fest and THAT is what you call "selfish"

@dvader654 is what being allowed on the boards? debate? yea opinion sharing, last i checked is allowed here, not sure what you're going on about either.. :/

Oh please. Your arguments are ridiculous. You spout off with hate and vitriol then when someone calls you out on it you feign ignorance. It's pointless trying to discuss anything with someone like you judging from the tone and utter hyperbolic nonsense of posts.

#219 Edited by ShangTsung7 (247 posts) -

@shangtsung7 said:

@Archangel3371 said:

@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.

i haven't the slightest clue what you're going on about m8, my argument is perfectly legitimate, yours makes no sense. yea these online multi-addicts are killing gaming imo, why? because they are trying to turn every damn game in existence into nothing but an online multi sh!t fest and THAT is what you call "selfish"

@dvader654 is what being allowed on the boards? debate? yea opinion sharing, last i checked is allowed here, not sure what you're going on about either.. :/

Oh please. Your arguments are ridiculous. You spout off with hate and vitriol then when someone calls you out on it you feign ignorance. It's pointless trying to discuss anything with someone like you judging from the tone and utter hyperbolic nonsense of posts.

lol i just gotta ask, no offense but i'm really curious, do you think using all these big words like "feign ignorance" and "vitriol" makes you sound more intelligent?

#220 Edited by Teller76567 (10 posts) -

I play sp how many people did the campaign on cod ghost's on veteran? any one besides me the campaign was good to a extent. Was a good 5 hours i don't like mp in ghost's...i'm stuck with it i paid 60 bucks and some tax on it i know i won't get my money's worth back i know for the new gen i'm going back to nintendo or ps. i know at least for their library's are full of sp games yeah it's fun to troll a noob in cod i do my fair share of online play. But when a new cod comes out the one before it and before that it goes unchecked and people mod and camp and it's not monitored every thing get's out of hand i enjoyed the story line from cod mw triligy but i guess i'm that 5 percent.

#221 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18399 posts) -

lol i just gotta ask, no offense but i'm really curious, do you think using all these big words like "feign ignorance" and "vitriol" makes you sound more intelligent?

"Feign" and "vitriol" are big words?

#222 Edited by ShangTsung7 (247 posts) -

@shangtsung7 said:

lol i just gotta ask, no offense but i'm really curious, do you think using all these big words like "feign ignorance" and "vitriol" makes you sound more intelligent?

"Feign" and "vitriol" are big words?

odd, basically.. in fact i'm not even sure what "vitriol" means.

interesting choice of words, i'll give him that..

#223 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18399 posts) -

@shangtsung7 said:

odd, basically.. in fact i'm not even sure what "vitriol" means.

interesting choice of words, i'll give him that..

Vitriol is sulfuric acid. It's a common figure of speech to convey the idea that someone is being aggressive and snarky.

#224 Posted by ShangTsung7 (247 posts) -

@shangtsung7 said:

odd, basically.. in fact i'm not even sure what "vitriol" means.

interesting choice of words, i'll give him that..

Vitriol is sulfuric acid. It's a common figure of speech to convey the idea that someone is being aggressive and snarky.

ah.. indeed. thanks m8, learn something new everyday..

#225 Edited by loafofgame (520 posts) -

"That will never happen" I hear you thinking, but browse back on these boards four of five years and you'll see people saying the same about microtransactions, free-to-play, online passes and paywalls.

What makes this case problematic is that all this mainstreaming is probably the only way videogames might become more generally accepted and respected. Mainstreaming games brings in more people and improves the chance they might find other games that change their general perspective on videogames. It might lead to the majority of games being questionable, as we see with film, but it might also lead to greater opportunities for variety and orginality, a broader audience and less ignorance. Although games will probably never be as accessible and varied as films.

This appears to be a typical subcultural conflict. People want respect and acknowledgement for the quality of the thing they love (which for the majority is strange and uncomfortable), but at the same time they want nothing to do with any form of commercialism or mainstreaming that might improve popular perception, but is seen as threatening the foundation of what they love.

As weird as it sounds, without all this 'crap' videogames will probably never become a respectable art. The respectable status you desire will most likely only arise through the popularity of these developments you loath. I think the advantage other arts (like literature, painting and even film) had was that the general perception was still strongly influenced by the standards and ideas of an elite. Videogames don't have an elite to convince or influence the masses. Besides, the power of the elite has dwindled, if not disappeared. One could even argue that the status of the arts is wholly perceived and constructed by an elite, who thinks and claims it's of general importance, while the actual majority simply wants to be entertained. I think film, for example, has a respectable status, because there's so much 'crap' for the masses.

(and then there's the whole debate whether play can/will ever be considered art)

#226 Edited by Decadaver917 (4 posts) -
@shangtsung7 said:

i dunno m8, the future is looking pretty grim for sp games.

Not exactly, but due to higher cost, poor single player games are weeded out quickly. Good single player games are doing quiet well, they just arent the kind of game you do in a yearly fashion.

-Mass effect

-Dragon age

-Elder scroll

-Bioshock

-Metro

-Tomb Raider

-Grand theft auto (sold by the shitload before they ever had multiplayer)

-Fallout

-Deus ex

-Any naughty dog game

-Zelda and Mario games, even on that failure of a wii-u

Thats not even counting amazing indy experience like the swapper or baird.

When ever you hate or like the games i mentioned here, no one can argue with their future, pretty much forged only by single player. The future is grim in single player if you cant pull it off. Studios like Infinity wards and people like respawn were never good at it. Their single player where always bare bone, with uninsipired story or simply a reteling of basic war history, of course no one takes these seriously and play them anymore. Its just harder to pull off now, you either have to be a talented Indy with a unique and inspired game or a huge AAA story game with voice acting and huge production value to back you up or you fail.

#227 Edited by Wickerman777 (1185 posts) -

Guess I'm directly the opposite of most people that play these games. I completed the campaigns of all three COD: Modern Warfare games (Did the first one on veteran difficulty as well) but I've never played a match of COD multiplayer ... ever. Haven't even tried it. Have beaten the campaigns of all the Gears of War games except for Judgement (Intend to get to that one eventually) but have played maybe a dozen matches total of multiplayer (Probably not even that many). When the first Halo was on Xbox I played multiplayer of that A LOT via system link and then later online with some service (I forget what it was) that allowed you do so (It basically tricked the game into thinking the games were local). That's the exception to the rule though cuz I've barely played any of the other Halo games online at all (I think the last one I even tried online was Halo 3) but have played through the campaigns of all of them.

I just don't get into online multiplayer. It isn't fun to me. I think a big part of it is my age. When I was young I probably would have loved it if it had been available the way it is today but as an older guy it's all about the campaign to me.

And something I hate is coop. I don't get why people play like that. It totally ruins the game. Is akin to playing with a God code cuz you can't die unless everyone dies at the same time. If there's no challenge it isn't a game ... you're just pushing buttons. And what really gets my goat is the people who will intentionally ruin the campaign of a game by playing in 4 player coop and then complain about the AI and/or difficulty. Hello!!!!!!! How in the hell was the game suppose to challenge you at all when your character is invulnerable since getting smoked is meaningless unless all 4 of you get killed simultaneously ... which is quite unlikely to happen?

#228 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18399 posts) -

This appears to be a typical subcultural conflict. People want respect and acknowledgement for the quality of the thing they love (which for the majority is strange and uncomfortable), but at the same time they want nothing to do with any form of commercialism or mainstreaming that might improve popular perception, but is seen as threatening the foundation of what they love.

The problem is the "man covered in shit" argument: you can achieve a degree of respectability through your efforts and even manage to shift popular perception of your medium, but then a man covered in shit pops up and yells "I agree with this guy!" and all people will remember is the man covered in shit. In other words, we find it easier to focus on the negative aspects and let them overshadow the positive ones. Someone who thinks videogames are stupid toys can be presented half a hundred deep and meaningful games, but all it takes for them to roll back to their initial position is one bad example backing it up.

#229 Posted by ShangTsung7 (247 posts) -

@shangtsung7 said:

i dunno m8, the future is looking pretty grim for sp games.

Not exactly, but due to higher cost, poor single player games are weeded out quickly. Good single player games are doing quiet well, they just arent the kind of game you do in a yearly fashion.

-Mass effect

-Dragon age

-Elder scroll

-Bioshock

-Metro

-Tomb Raider

-Grand theft auto (sold by the shitload before they ever had multiplayer)

-Fallout

-Deus ex

-Any naughty dog game

-Zelda and Mario games, even on that failure of a wii-u

Thats not even counting amazing indy experience like the swapper or baird.

When ever you hate or like the games i mentioned here, no one can argue with their future, pretty much forged only by single player. The future is grim in single player if you cant pull it off. Studios like Infinity wards and people like respawn were never good at it. Their single player where always bare bone, with uninsipired story or simply a reteling of basic war history, of course no one takes these seriously and play them anymore. Its just harder to pull off now, you either have to be a talented Indy with a unique and inspired game or a huge AAA story game with voice acting and huge production value to back you up or you fail.

the games you mentioned are pretty old m8, and TES series has already been destroyed by online mp, which is truly sad cause that was the last great sp game series we had left.

#230 Edited by Decadaver917 (4 posts) -

@Decadaver917 said:
@shangtsung7 said:

i dunno m8, the future is looking pretty grim for sp games.

Not exactly, but due to higher cost, poor single player games are weeded out quickly. Good single player games are doing quiet well, they just arent the kind of game you do in a yearly fashion.

-Mass effect

-Dragon age

-Elder scroll

-Bioshock

-Metro

-Tomb Raider

-Grand theft auto (sold by the shitload before they ever had multiplayer)

-Fallout

-Deus ex

-Any naughty dog game

-Zelda and Mario games, even on that failure of a wii-u

Thats not even counting amazing indy experience like the swapper or baird.

When ever you hate or like the games i mentioned here, no one can argue with their future, pretty much forged only by single player. The future is grim in single player if you cant pull it off. Studios like Infinity wards and people like respawn were never good at it. Their single player where always bare bone, with uninsipired story or simply a reteling of basic war history, of course no one takes these seriously and play them anymore. Its just harder to pull off now, you either have to be a talented Indy with a unique and inspired game or a huge AAA story game with voice acting and huge production value to back you up or you fail.

the games you mentioned are pretty old m8, and TES series has already been destroyed by online mp, which is truly sad cause that was the last great sp game series we had left.

You are aware its not the same team doing the online game right and they already confirmed this changes nothing for when ever another elder scroll happens? Old? In what way all? The oldest one on the list is dx:hr and edios montreal already said they plan another one. Everything else has pretty recent entry or a sequel incoming.

#231 Posted by TheDarkWolf86 (237 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00: Its a sad reality, but true. Many games have done a horrible job at single-player stories that they do focus more and more in the online aspect. I remember a few particular games that released online versions just to keep up with the masses. The online side of the game was HORRIBLE! Over the years I have even noticed my interest in games have focused more with RPGs, MMO type genres because there is more focus on the games story, rather than creating something every year to meet the demands of players. Like I have said in a previous thread, the gaming community will be drastically changed and practically gone within the next 10 years. Too high expectations have caused a fallout of many gamers who want to enjoy the experience of the core of the game rather than sign into a game, die 15 times in 10 minutes and feel like they accomplished something worthwhile! R.I.P. SOCOM II ...lol!!!

#232 Posted by tattoogunman (18 posts) -

@TheDarkWolf86: The other main problem that I see with online games is that they (the majority that I'm aware of at any rate) focus on one thing - kill the person at the other end of the connection. I've gotten so bored with the Call of Duty and related types of games because they are nothing but the exact same game done over and over again with a different map, gun(s), and killstreaks. It's spawn, kill and be killed, respawn and repeat - it just gets old. There has been very little to no changes in online multiplayer pretty much since its inception other than it being a frag fest. A few games have come along trying to introduce co-op play for the campaign modes which is all fine and well, but it still focuses on kill the bad guy. The games that try to introduce other modes of play also suffer from this because all anyone does is continue to rack up kills by ignoring the actual objective. Vehicles are a nice touch, but as I'm sure everyone knows from playing games like Battlefield, they are also just as frustrating because they just don't work right (i.e. running people over and shooting them point blank with tank rounds just to see them Halo jumping away from you with no damage). I know I am probably in the minority when I say that, but it would be nice to see a refreshing take on multiplayer by introducing something new (not sure what exactly though, that's kind of the problem). My other issue with online play are the sheer number of stupid people/kids that you have to deal with unless you have a large friend base to play with. I got to the point that all I did was mute everyone anyway because I got so sick of people talking smack the whole time, it's just annoying. I'd rather see a large game built for consoles that are similar to many of the PC games. You do your own thing, but when the time is right, you can play against other players.

This is why I'm about done with console gaming and am about 99% sure I'm going back to PC gaming, even if I have to shell out the money for a decent gaming PC. I'm so sick and tired of nothing coming out but FPS games that are the same thing over and over again (I don't care about racing games or sports games and those make up about 98% of the alternatives available for consoles). I'd rather have an immersive single player game similar to Elder Scrolls than just running around in circles on a small map shooting at people, but that's just me. I had higher hopes for something like Titanfall because it looked like it was going to infuse a bit of newness to the genre, but looking at the videos, it's just more of the same with a robot suit you can jump into once in a while.

#233 Edited by TheDarkWolf86 (237 posts) -

@tattoogunman: I agree with you on all accounts! If you are looking for a type of game that allows you to play by yourself or with the company of others trying to meet an objective, goal, etc. then I would suggest E.V.E. Online. http://www.eveonline.com/ I to cannot stand playing online games with gamers who refuse to commit to the basic premise of the game. I played Ghost Recon: Future Soldier for a short period of time until more Call of Duty players came to the game looking for something to entertain their time while they waited for the next Call of Duty to be released. The same thing went for M.A.G. (Massive Action Gaming) and Star wars: Battlefront 2. All three games were awesome and the basic idea behind it was to take an objective and fight the enemy. You had to work as a team to complete the objective and to win. Unfortunately most gamers have no patience, have little experience, or expect too much from games that they refuse to commit to the game long enough to see what it is capable of!

#234 Edited by ShangTsung7 (247 posts) -

@shangtsung7 said:

@Decadaver917 said:
@shangtsung7 said:

i dunno m8, the future is looking pretty grim for sp games.

Not exactly, but due to higher cost, poor single player games are weeded out quickly. Good single player games are doing quiet well, they just arent the kind of game you do in a yearly fashion.

-Mass effect

-Dragon age

-Elder scroll

-Bioshock

-Metro

-Tomb Raider

-Grand theft auto (sold by the shitload before they ever had multiplayer)

-Fallout

-Deus ex

-Any naughty dog game

-Zelda and Mario games, even on that failure of a wii-u

Thats not even counting amazing indy experience like the swapper or baird.

When ever you hate or like the games i mentioned here, no one can argue with their future, pretty much forged only by single player. The future is grim in single player if you cant pull it off. Studios like Infinity wards and people like respawn were never good at it. Their single player where always bare bone, with uninsipired story or simply a reteling of basic war history, of course no one takes these seriously and play them anymore. Its just harder to pull off now, you either have to be a talented Indy with a unique and inspired game or a huge AAA story game with voice acting and huge production value to back you up or you fail.

the games you mentioned are pretty old m8, and TES series has already been destroyed by online mp, which is truly sad cause that was the last great sp game series we had left.

You are aware its not the same team doing the online game right and they already confirmed this changes nothing for when ever another elder scroll happens? Old? In what way all? The oldest one on the list is dx:hr and edios montreal already said they plan another one. Everything else has pretty recent entry or a sequel incoming.

i'm aware but you have to understand, once bethesda witnesses all the COD groupies flocking to it like moths to a flame we can kiss TES goodbye..

and trust me, as much as it pains me to say this "cause Deus Ex HR happens to be my favorite game of all time!" if they ever make another, there is no way in hell they won't shovel in an online mode, the multi-addicts went ape sh!t when it first released because of this, as you may recall.

#235 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18399 posts) -

@tattoogunman: I agree with you points, competitive multiplayer hasn't evolved at all, it only applied incrementally prettier coats of paint. As for your quest for a good multiplayer experience: Portal 2 has a very enjoyable and clever coop campaign. I advise you give it a go before they shut servers down.

#236 Edited by loafofgame (520 posts) -
@Black_Knight_00 said:

The problem is the "man covered in shit" argument: you can achieve a degree of respectability through your efforts and even manage to shift popular perception of your medium, but then a man covered in shit pops up and yells "I agree with this guy!" and all people will remember is the man covered in shit. In other words, we find it easier to focus on the negative aspects and let them overshadow the positive ones. Someone who thinks videogames are stupid toys can be presented half a hundred deep and meaningful games, but all it takes for them to roll back to their initial position is one bad example backing it up.

People rather complain than praise, yes. But shit covered men are inevitable. You've got them in film aswell, but with film there's no tendency to then smear that shit over the entire industry. It could ruin a specific film, but its area of effect is relatively small. That's because people are generally less ignorant about films. They are much more ignorant about videogames. And what videogames lack is someone who or something that consistently exposes casual and non-gamers to videogames. So the question is: how do videogames get to a point that shit covered men don't influence popular perception?

Then again, maybe games simply require too much of an effort from casual and non-gamers (learning controls, investing time and money) to ever achieve a respectable status.

#237 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18399 posts) -

@loafofgame said:

People rather complain than praise, yes. But shit covered men are inevitable. You've got them in film aswell, but with film there's no tendency to then smear that shit over the entire industry. It could ruin a specific film, but its area of effect is relatively small. That's because people are generally less ignorant about films. They are much more ignorant about videogames. And what videogames lack is someone who or something that consistently exposes casual and non-gamers to videogames. So the question is: how do videogames get to a point that shit covered men don't influence popular perception?

Then again, maybe games simply require too much of an effort from casual and non-gamers (learning controls, investing time and money) to ever achieve a respectable status.

I think it's a sum of the factors you mentioned. Let's take someone who talks about videogames but knows little and less about them: Anita Sarkeesian. She admitted in a video that she doesn't play videogames (I quote): "I would love to play videogames, but I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads, it's just gross."

Now that's the emblem of the non-gamer or farmville gamer who knows nothing about the medium aside from what they hear from other media, such as gossip magazines or news broadcasts. I remember in November 2006 a massively popular and influential italian magazine coming out with a cover story about the PS2 game Rule of Rose, a mediocre survival horror where the protagonist (a 19 years-old girl) is at one point during a non interactive FMV dream sequence locked in a trunk by a group of bullies. Now, the magazine cover presented this caption in huge letters: "The new videogames: bury the child alive to win." Intentionally deceptive, completely twisting the content of the game by 180 degrees and echoed by a ludicrous article inside the magazine: "The child is buried alive after experiencing all sorts of psychological and sexual abuse" none of which happens in the game.

Is it surprising that the gaming medium is so misunderstood? On one hand we have charismatic feminist charlatans spreading misinformation by conveying the idea that games are about nothing more than "shooting people and ripping off their heads", on the other we have other media slandering and misrepresenting it to generate outrage and therefore increase ratings. The man is not even covered in shit: someone is saying that he's covered in shit and people believe it. Why so readily? Because, as you said, understanding videogames takes effort and it's easier to dismiss something as unworthy than to take the time to study and understand it.

#238 Posted by loafofgame (520 posts) -

Is it surprising that the gaming medium is so misunderstood? On one hand we have charismatic feminist charlatans spreading misinformation by conveying the idea that games are about nothing more than "shooting people and ripping off their heads", on the other we have other media slandering and misrepresenting it to generate outrage and therefore increase ratings. The man is not even covered in shit: someone is saying that he's covered in shit and people believe it. Why so readily? Because, as you said, understanding videogames takes effort and it's easier to dismiss something as unworthy than to take the time to study and understand it.

There seems to be a need for someone who goes out there and promotes videogames on a visible scale. Someone who can counter (not attack) people like Sarkeesian and bring forward a more balanced and constructive perspective. A visible go-to guy who can react to these accusations with solid arguments and, more importantly, reaches that large audience. Scholarly research on videogames is expanding (and I mean theoretical research, not the empirical research about measuring the effects of violence in games, etc.). Maybe at some point one of these scholars will rise up and bring the advantages and beauty of videogames to a larger public. Then there'll be an authority figure who can promote videogames. Or maybe there are other ways. But there needs to be a visible promoter.

#239 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18399 posts) -

There seems to be a need for someone who goes out there and promotes videogames on a visible scale. Someone who can counter (not attack) people like Sarkeesian and bring forward a more balanced and constructive perspective. A visible go-to guy who can react to these accusations with solid arguments and, more importantly, reaches that large audience. Scholarly research on videogames is expanding (and I mean theoretical research, not the empirical research about measuring the effects of violence in games, etc.). Maybe at some point one of these scholars will rise up and bring the advantages and beauty of videogames to a larger public. Then there'll be an authority figure who can promote videogames. Or maybe there are other ways. But there needs to be a visible promoter.

I agree. Let's make that happen.

#240 Edited by thatotherguy12 (6 posts) -

Well. Is there a novel or something? I don't want to be thrown into a conflict for a fuck all reason. I don't play the single player for the single player, I play single player so i know what the hell is going on, and being thrown into a new universe with no backstory what so ever isn't very conducive to knowing why they are fighting.

-Edit: Let it be known that I hate multiplayer aside from FPS. I much prefer single player games on consoles. as they are generally more fun in my opinion. I'll play this game simply because it has robot combat, something I don't get to see a lot of, but if there was a single player only version of it I would most certainly buy it instead of Titanfall.

#241 Edited by Tenacious88 (6 posts) -

Black _knight, you make a lot of good points, for me It was aggravating to see that titanfall didn't have single player especially being a next-gen title. They could have really did something great with a SP campaign but I'm not buying a straight multiplayer game. Single player for me is the heart of gaming it lets you bury yourself deep in fiction and enjoy doing things at your own pace. I'm not against multiplayer but there starting to smother games with it that have no need for multiplayer. Elder scrolls online being one of them IMO. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be a passionate gamer if these kinds of decisions keep up.

#242 Posted by tattoogunman (18 posts) -

Black _knight, you make a lot of good points, for me It was aggravating to see that titanfall didn't have single player especially being a next-gen title. They could have really did something great with a SP campaign but I'm not buying a straight multiplayer game. Single player for me is the heart of gaming it lets you bury yourself deep in fiction and enjoy doing things at your own pace. I'm not against multiplayer but there starting to smother games with it that have no need for multiplayer. Elder scrolls online being one of them IMO. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be a passionate gamer if these kinds of decisions keep up.

Yep and that's the difference - a game like Call of Duty doesn't really need a single player campaign. The only one that I've actually finished the campaign on was Ghosts and that was only because something about it caught my attention more than the others (maybe it was the space or underwater levels, I don't really know). They always have basically the same story - you are doing a variety of missions, there is some old timer involved who has been around since 'nam (or whenever) telling you how it was, etc. Titanfall is something new and it would be nice to know what you are supposed to be fighting (if anything). I can remember seeing one video where it starts off with someone throwing a guy into a hole in the ground for whatever reason and someone saying he had to stay alive long enough for evac, so I had assumed there would be some kind of campaign mode. I can also see why a developer would exclude it, it just depends on the game. If you are making a game called "Mech Combat" which is just about you running around in suits killing each other, there really isn't a need for it you know?

I've said it before and I'll say it here - the reason why I shy away from online play is all of the annoying people. I don't have any friends to play with, so I would always play with the random group and, well, you get what you pay for. On Ghosts, I just make my own levels and play against bots and that's something I would probably continue with Titanfall if it had the capability. As for now though, I'll be spending my $60 on the next Thief game ;)

#243 Posted by Nastuhi (6 posts) -

How can you compare Titanfall to Call of duty and Battlefield? I know Ifinity ward made it, but it looks like a completely different game. I for one, am going to be buying it. It looks very fun.

#244 Edited by mgools (898 posts) -

Some might play only multiplayer, but many of us play both. So many other games have had great multiplayer and single player. EX. Halo. IMO if you give me only a MP game than I consider it half a game, and should only pay half price compared to regular games. This game having only 6 human players and no single player = cancel of order. I have a backlog of game anyway, so was kind of glad they pulled this, so I wont waste my money.

#245 Posted by Metamania (11996 posts) -

@nastuhi said:

How can you compare Titanfall to Call of duty and Battlefield? I know Ifinity ward made it, but it looks like a completely different game. I for one, am going to be buying it. It looks very fun.

Because Titanfall is pretty much a FPS in that vein, which is why people compare it. Also, I hate to say it, but Call Of Duty and Battlefield have apparently set the standard for what multiplayer FPS gaming should be, so people have a measuring stick and will judge any other FPS by that one.

But Titanfall, to me, does look refreshing and new, so I'm looking forward to playing it on the 360. It's too bad that there's no beta going on for the 360.

#246 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18399 posts) -

@tenacious88 said:

Black _knight, you make a lot of good points, for me It was aggravating to see that titanfall didn't have single player especially being a next-gen title. They could have really did something great with a SP campaign but I'm not buying a straight multiplayer game. Single player for me is the heart of gaming it lets you bury yourself deep in fiction and enjoy doing things at your own pace. I'm not against multiplayer but there starting to smother games with it that have no need for multiplayer. Elder scrolls online being one of them IMO. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be a passionate gamer if these kinds of decisions keep up.

I share your sentiment, yet keep in mind that Elder Scrolls Online is just a spinoff made by a junior team at Bethesda, it will not impact the making of the next proper chapter in the series (which I expect is already well in the making by now), so rest easy on that front. Let's just ingnore this online-only breeze and wait for the real meat.

#247 Posted by ShangTsung7 (247 posts) -

@mgools said:

Some might play only multiplayer, but many of us play both. So many other games have had great multiplayer and single player. EX. Halo. IMO if you give me only a MP game than I consider it half a game, and should only pay half price compared to regular games. This game having only 6 human players and no single player = cancel of order. I have a backlog of game anyway, so was kind of glad they pulled this, so I wont waste my money.

and some of us ONLY play sp! a lot of people forget this, not everyone is into online mp as i and others have stated countless times on these forums, online mp only games don't belong on consoles, they belong on pc for numerous reasons, not everyone appreciates being forced to jump online every time they want to play a game and people "and game devs" should respect that, its just selfish otherwise. i hate the new online mp in console gaming trend, its as if its now a staple to force multiplayer upon everyone in every game and thats just not fair to the rest of us, nobody seems to want to address these issues cause it doesn't effect them and therefor they don't care, meanwhile those of us who get bored at the very thought of online mp are left out in the cold with nothing to play, its not right and it needs to stop.

#248 Edited by bezza2011 (2408 posts) -

Nothing wrong with titanfall being a multiplayer only game, what i don't like is saying it's our fault, no i'm sorry but it's cod's fault and all the rest which seem to do an absolute rubbish job of the main story and it's not because anyone runs through it in 8minutes it's because the campaign itself is 8minutes long, i'd happily play a single player game of titanfall if the story fit and was good enough to hold my interest but the big problem is fps games are made for shooting anything and anyone and it just works as a multiplayer more than a single player game.

#249 Posted by udUbdaWgz1 (631 posts) -

like I've been saying for years: the required multiplayer component forced by msoft was going to inevitably lead to this crap.

as well, multiplayer should be a separate entity from single-player and bought digitally at the appropriate price.

stop infecting my single player games with the virus known as multiplayer. if the multiplayer is well-developed then those who want it will be more than willing to buy it digitally with full resource allocation.

at its core this is all a power play by the companies, devs, etc. and gamers have fallen right into the trap.

single player gamers MUST STOP buying multiplayer games with substandard and short single player campaigns.

#250 Posted by ShangTsung7 (247 posts) -

like I've been saying for years: the required multiplayer component forced by msoft was going to inevitably lead to this crap.

as well, multiplayer should be a separate entity from single-player and bought digitally at the appropriate price.

stop infecting my single player games with the virus known as multiplayer. if the multiplayer is well-developed then those who want it will be more than willing to buy it digitally with full resource allocation.

at its core this is all a power play by the companies, devs, etc. and gamers have fallen right into the trap.

single player gamers MUST STOP buying multiplayer games with substandard and short single player campaigns.

^^ THIS.

couldn't have put it better myself, me and my friends call it "the multi-treatment" when a game's length, extras, content, and so forth get butchered by online mp, its gotten to the point to where if i hear a game will be implementing an online mode i scratch it off my list immediately and avoid it like the plague regardless of how interesting it looks. how would the COD fanbase like it if us sp gamers b!tched and moaned untill their precious online modes suffered from it? my guess is they'd be just as pissed as us, so why is it ok if the gaming we care about is dwarfed to the point of practically being done away with but its NOT ok if their beloved multiplayer gets taken down a few notches? that is just pot calling the kettle hypocrisy imo and the devs who do it should be ashamed of themselves.

gaming as a whole isn't just about online mp, its about the gamers and not all gamers are obsessed with multiplayer! i can't for the life of me understand why that is so hard for game companies to comprehend.