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

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.

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.

Not my fault.

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

Not my fault.

Pffrbt

chana not mine neither

I think this is a good thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We make these single-player missions that take up all the focus of the studio, that take a huge team six months to make, and players run through it in 8 minutes," he said. "And how many people finish the single-player game? It's a small percentage. It's like, everyone plays through the first level, but 5 percent of people finish the game. Really, you split the team. They're two different games. They're balanced differently, they're scoped differently. But people spend hundreds of hours in the multiplayer experience versus 'as little time as possible rushing to the end' [in single-player]. So why do all the resources go there? To us it made sense to put it here. Now everybody sees all those resources, and multiplayer is better. For us it made sense."

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

F*ck this industry.

Black_Knight_00

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

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

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

ReddestSkies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just like it died in 1999 with Quake 3 amirite?

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We make these single-player missions that take up all the focus of the studio, that take a huge team six months to make, and players run through it in 8 minutes," he said. "And how many people finish the single-player game? It's a small percentage. It's like, everyone plays through the first level, but 5 percent of people finish the game. Really, you split the team. They're two different games. They're balanced differently, they're scoped differently. But people spend hundreds of hours in the multiplayer experience versus 'as little time as possible rushing to the end' [in single-player]. So why do all the resources go there? To us it made sense to put it here. Now everybody sees all those resources, and multiplayer is better. For us it made sense."

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

F*ck this industry.

Black_Knight_00

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

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SirWander

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suppose we disagree on what makes a bad shooter. Are they entertainig, yes. But this series has the worst enemy A.I i have ever seen. They just stand and shoot and wait to be killed. That alone makes it terrible. Then you have the awful respawning enemies. If you aren't moving forward you can potentially keep shooting at enemies forever or until the game decides you've had enough and restarts from the checkpoint. The game plays itself. There are many sections in the games where you are following a bunch of tanks and you literally dont have to do anything. Just walk along and everything plays itself. BLOPs 2s new strategic missions are the only ones where you actually have to take everyone out. Sadly the rest of the game is the same shitty CoD gameplay. Then there are the mechanics that fail when you stop using the L1 quick aim. Everyone says how responsive CoD is compared to other shooters but without the L1 quick aim, it becomes a pain in the ass to take out enemies shooting at your from every direction while you screen fills up with the strawberry jelly effect. You said people hate them because they come out every year. Well I play everyone of them every year and they have all the issues I mentioned above. These are valid issues that make the games a terrible experience. Lets call CoD campaigns what they are. Really well produced on-rails shooters like Time Crisis.S0lidSnake

 

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

cfisher2833

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

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

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

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

meh, mp is really not my thing anyways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

UpInFlames

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

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

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

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

Black_Knight_00

If SP dies out any time soon because what some developers do and say that I'll literally eat my shorts. Pure MP games is nothing new and there will always be good SP games even if MP is going to 'trend' more than it already does.ShadowJax04

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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