But until the very last weeks of development we were all thinking it was going to offer a campaign. The game was marketed as such since its reveal.
Didn't need one anyway.
Titanfall and the single player FPS
- Thread starter Daffy Duck
- Start date
But until the very last weeks of development we were all thinking it was going to offer a campaign. The game was marketed as such since its reveal.
Didn't need one anyway.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Could be a good thing. As much as some games shouldn't have MP tagged on just to 'tick a box', others simply don't need SP. Yeah, Battlefield, I am looking at you.
Bedameister
Member
You hardly find any good FPS games that have a good SP and a good MP.
Battlefield should have stayed MP onyl, nobody need the SP. CoD would also work finde without a campaign.
On the other hand there are good singleplayer FPS without multiplayer like Metro or Bioshock (forget about Bioshock 2). But unfortunatly there aren't many of those. I wish there would be more singleplayer only FPS out there.
I don't think it's a problem Titanfall has no Singleplayer, I'm very happy that they got the balls to focus on MP.
But the way I know EA they will tell Respawn to implement a SP once Titanfalls does well and if there are people out there who want a SP, they will do it.
Battlefield should have stayed MP onyl, nobody need the SP. CoD would also work finde without a campaign.
On the other hand there are good singleplayer FPS without multiplayer like Metro or Bioshock (forget about Bioshock 2). But unfortunatly there aren't many of those. I wish there would be more singleplayer only FPS out there.
I don't think it's a problem Titanfall has no Singleplayer, I'm very happy that they got the balls to focus on MP.
But the way I know EA they will tell Respawn to implement a SP once Titanfalls does well and if there are people out there who want a SP, they will do it.
I think we need to see some figures before declaring what 'the majority' want from these games. CoD is a franchise that shifts 20 million copies, are you confident that a majority of these 20 million gamers play online? I wouldn't be.
Interfectum
Member
This mentality is part of the problem. If a game is designed from the ground up to be a multiplayer only game then it's not 'half a game.'
Sentenza
Member
I still don't get what Battlefield's single player is there for.
A completely pointless campaign that probably costed a lot and virtually no one appreciated nor cared about.
A very unfair comparison. Consoles did not have multiplayer during that time so there was nothing to miss out on.
I agree the stories are all pretty shitty, some of the set pieces are alright at best, but I still want to play through it.
Do you really believe that if the single player is gone more dev resources will go into multiplayer? That's very naive. Look at the same, tired multiplayer that COD is every year. Are you telling me it's being held back by including a campaign mode? lol.
I think plenty of people will play it and appreciate it. Many people don't even touch the multiplayer aspect of the game.
On PS360, CoD4 and Halo come to mind. I can't think of any other.
hbkajshdvfbkjhvgkahsgdfka
Member
It has personally never bothered me when a game is SP only or MP only. If that's the game then that's the game. I'm probably going to get the same amount of playtime out of the game regardless. Never saw it as half/missing content since that implies there's an objective metric for what is a full game and what isn't. Only demos and betas can be classified as games that aren't "full".
I enjoy the campaigns more than any other part, but I can see why people would be ok with a multiplayer focus. It's definitely fun if you get into. I enjoy playing fighting games pseudo-competitively, and I wouldn't be terribly bothered if they took out the arcade/story mode for example.
What really gets me about Titanfall isn't the multiplayer focus. It's the fact that it's online multiplayer only, to my (admittedly limited at the moment) understanding. Just throw in an offline mode with bots, a split screen mode, and (hopefully) a lan/system link option, and I'd have no issue with buying the game. I just hate being dependent on a web service I have 0 control over for my game to function at all. Nevermind that online only also means I'd have to pay a subscription fee to play it in the first place.
What really gets me about Titanfall isn't the multiplayer focus. It's the fact that it's online multiplayer only, to my (admittedly limited at the moment) understanding. Just throw in an offline mode with bots, a split screen mode, and (hopefully) a lan/system link option, and I'd have no issue with buying the game. I just hate being dependent on a web service I have 0 control over for my game to function at all. Nevermind that online only also means I'd have to pay a subscription fee to play it in the first place.
V AA D E R
Neo Member
For the majority of big FPS franchises the exclusion of a single player campaign would probably be an improvement, because we all know where the revenue is really coming from.
It is just multiplayer that has single player story interwoven within it.
You will get an intro scene, snippets during the match that have multiplayer context, and an ending scene.
They will probably have an offline mode with bots, hasn't been confirmed yet.
WoolyNinja
Member
I haven't finished Battlefield 4's campaign but I am really enjoying what I've played so far. But please do yourself a favor and try the online. I usually don't enjoy multiplayer but Battlefield 4's is great and a lot of fun.
What are you talking about? Goldeneye came out less than a year after Mario 64 and there were tons of multiplayer games in the last gen like Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Sonic, F-Zero, etc.
Sentenza
Member
There are plenty of better options than BF for single player, and there's virtually no reason to purchase it if you don't care about the multiplayer part.
If you "don't care about the multiplayer" in Battlefield, you just don't care about Battlefield.
Neuromancer
Member
My recollection is there's some kind of horde mode type thing, but you have to be online to play it.
BrickArmour
Member
I think it's best to judge each title on its own merits to decide whether it is worth the price they are asking. I think all of the arguments about content on the disc, single player or no, etc, are kind of silly.
It boils down to two questions:
1. What are you selling me?
2. What does it cost?
If I think I am getting good value for my money, I don't care what else is on the disc. What other similar games include for the same price, etc. Titanfall could lack single player but provide the best mp experience ever and could easily justify the $60 price tag. I could spend hundreds of hours with friends in MP and easily get my money's worth. Or Elder Scrolls can snub multiplayer and I could totally enjoy my SP experience in that game. Or it could be a game like Killzone where I personally think the MP kind of stinks and the SP was a visual showpiece but not much more than that. Personally, I felt the game was worth about $40.
Anyways, bottom line from me, I would not want to push some arbitrary expectation on what a game developer tries to sell me because I would rather they focus on making a product that they feel is worthy of my $60 and then we let the market decide. I like the idea that game development is not restricted by arbitrary requirements and restrictions: "Thou must have..."
Looking forward to seeing that developers come up with this generation!
It boils down to two questions:
1. What are you selling me?
2. What does it cost?
If I think I am getting good value for my money, I don't care what else is on the disc. What other similar games include for the same price, etc. Titanfall could lack single player but provide the best mp experience ever and could easily justify the $60 price tag. I could spend hundreds of hours with friends in MP and easily get my money's worth. Or Elder Scrolls can snub multiplayer and I could totally enjoy my SP experience in that game. Or it could be a game like Killzone where I personally think the MP kind of stinks and the SP was a visual showpiece but not much more than that. Personally, I felt the game was worth about $40.
Anyways, bottom line from me, I would not want to push some arbitrary expectation on what a game developer tries to sell me because I would rather they focus on making a product that they feel is worthy of my $60 and then we let the market decide. I like the idea that game development is not restricted by arbitrary requirements and restrictions: "Thou must have..."
Looking forward to seeing that developers come up with this generation!
Kenshin001
Member
Warhawk was also $40 on PSN. I got the full price disc version with the headset but it was still the best value ever, spent hundreds of hours in that game. This should be the model for all shooters going forward. Seems people are getting more and more disenchanted with the mediocre or terrible campaigns devs are pushing out. If they aren't going to make something worthwhile just give people the option to get the MP component on the online store for a reduced price. Think that's what they did with Killzone 3.
That could be fun.
Neuromancer
Member
I don't see it happening. I guess it's possible but I doubt it very much.
'On the face of it, there seems to be an obvious answer to the problem of winning round fans of single player - allow the multiplayer-averse to fight their way through the entire campaign against the AI alone. According to Heppe, however, this isn't on the cards for the moment. "We don't have that in right now, but whether that's something the design team adds later on? I don't know. There's other modes in the game, but we're still in development."'
http://www.oxm.co.uk/63353/features...only-battles-and-winning-over-casual-players/
Your viewpoint strikes me as somewhat narrow minded, to put it lightly.
Eh, I might give it a go. Can't say as I've ever enjoyed an online FPS (except maybe Halo 3), but it can't hurt to give it a go.
Neuromancer
Member
'No true Scotsman' etc etc.
I don't see why anyone should tell other people what they can and can't like. (Personally I found the last two BF campaigns I played atrocious but everyone is entitled to their opinion.)
I don't think this will change the approach of megafranchises like CoD or Battlefield. These games still need to sell gangbusters and even if TitanFall does well, there will still be a fair portion of the population who doesn't get it because they 'don't like playing online' or something along those lines.
It might kickstart a trend for more multiplayer-focused titles without fluff, but chasing the success of somebody else isn't easy to do unless you've got a lot of talent and a good amount of money, in which case it becomes riskier to go online-only as you *are* missing out on that checkbox feature there.
Even on GAF, which is filled with mostly big gaming enthusiasts, I've seen tons of comments about how no single-player is a deal-breaker.
It might kickstart a trend for more multiplayer-focused titles without fluff, but chasing the success of somebody else isn't easy to do unless you've got a lot of talent and a good amount of money, in which case it becomes riskier to go online-only as you *are* missing out on that checkbox feature there.
Even on GAF, which is filled with mostly big gaming enthusiasts, I've seen tons of comments about how no single-player is a deal-breaker.
source?
Exactly..
Why DICE even bothered to add SP campaigns to their mainline Battlefield series is beyond me.
Should have left the SP campaigns for the Bad company series and kept it a console exclusive.
Keep the main Battlefield series MP only and a PC exclusive.
I don't think a better scenario could exist for DICE.
They could keep both development environments separate, and work more closely with their strengths and weaknesses. They would also have more time to polish and make both series shine the way intended, possibly from launch day.
Gives me goose bumps thinking of what Battlefield could have been, or can be if instead of the Battlefield 3/4 we got, they gave us a 100% PC exclusive Battlefield title w/NO SP or CO-OP.
100% 64-bit/DX11+, make it so it actually uses the 8+GB of DDR3 most people have sitting idle.
u__u THE GLORY u__u
Sentenza
Member
Color me shocked.
As long as its fun, I don't care if all of it is online only. As long as Respawn give me a solid reason to keep playing, I don't mind what they do to singleplayer.
This is the opposite to all those people moaning about having MP modes tacked onto a singleplayer game. Why do they need to put in a singleplayer campaign into a game which is said to be online focused?
If they can meld the MP feel and the SP stuff like having more stuff to do than just CoD style deathmatch modes, it should be fun!
This is the opposite to all those people moaning about having MP modes tacked onto a singleplayer game. Why do they need to put in a singleplayer campaign into a game which is said to be online focused?
If they can meld the MP feel and the SP stuff like having more stuff to do than just CoD style deathmatch modes, it should be fun!
Consoles did not have multiplayer? Games like Mario Kart 64 and GoldenEye were very much multiplayer games. And regardless, how about a more recent singleplayer game then. Is Mario Galaxy half a game because it lacks a proper multiplayer mode? How about something like Bioshock Infinite or Mass Effect 2?
Because it sells more copies. Same reason many single-player games choose to shoehorn a multiplayer aspect into their game. Except its perhaps even more important here because many people are quite close minded and do not consider a game that is multiplayer-only to be a 'full game'.
Its important to think of this in terms of business sense, not necessarily what we'd prefer ourselves. Its too easy to get carried away thinking your opinion is somehow representative of how everybody else thinks in matters like this.
Well, really, "If you "don't care about the multiplayer" in Battlefield, you just don't care about Battlefield" is just bollocks. I bought Bad Company 1 & 2, BF3 and BF4 just to play the campaigns and enjoyed each and every one of them. When BF5 launches I'll be there day one to buy it and play through the campaign. Because I don't choose the same menu option as you though, I somehow don't care about the games. What a bizarre notion.
I disagree.
Your post seems to make a suggestion that multiplayer content is worth less, both in terms of content and financial value, than single player is. People are more than happy to pay $60 for single player story based games with a 10-14 campaign, even ones that don't feature multiplayer of any kind. Why would a multiplayer only game that potentially offers substantially more content and play time than a single player campaign, be deemed to be worth less because it's missing "essential single player content"?
I like single player games and don't particularly want them to dissapear, but I also appreciate it when a developer makes a decision to focus their time and attention on a specific thing, be it single or multiplayer. If Respawn want to make a multiplayer only game then that's the product they want to make, and people can choose to buy that product or not. Not every single player game needs a multiplayer component and not every multiplayer focused game needs a single player campaign.
dreamghost
Member
If a FPS ships without a single player campaign and is $60 it needs to have some kind of bot mode.
The question i got with Titanfall is if it's $60 and it only ships with six maps will people find that acceptable at that price range if it's multiplayer only?
The question i got with Titanfall is if it's $60 and it only ships with six maps will people find that acceptable at that price range if it's multiplayer only?
Originally Posted by Wizman23
Because the SP games in both BF4 and COD are utter dog shit and take away dev resources from MP which the majority of people buy those games for.
source?
The SP in COD aint bad if you like rollercoasters, pretty sweet spectacle!
But you cant think that most people buy BF for its SP.
Battlefield has always been about MP, this is FACT.
Who ever looks forwards to a new mainline Battlefield title for its campaign is full of shit...
It's impossible as it is a new trend that began this generation with Battlefield 3...
Because the SP games in both BF4 and COD are utter dog shit and take away dev resources from MP which the majority of people buy those games for.
source?
The SP in COD aint bad if you like rollercoasters, pretty sweet spectacle!
But you cant think that most people buy BF for its SP.
Battlefield has always been about MP, this is FACT.
Who ever looks forwards to a new mainline Battlefield title for its campaign is full of shit...
It's impossible as it is a new trend that began this generation with Battlefield 3...
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
Im gonna get shot down for this, but I do feel that people are going to have a bit of a shock when Titanfall releases. Because its being propped up as a Console war talking point, people are ignoring the lack of single player, stating "Nobody buys these games for single player"
They are missing a simple and fundamental point. Even if you accept the flawed premise that nobody buys a FPS for single player (which is patently false anyway), its part of the package and value perception.
There are people who accept titanfall for what it is and still wont buy it at full price.
Its gonna be interesting to see how this all plays out.
They are missing a simple and fundamental point. Even if you accept the flawed premise that nobody buys a FPS for single player (which is patently false anyway), its part of the package and value perception.
There are people who accept titanfall for what it is and still wont buy it at full price.
Its gonna be interesting to see how this all plays out.
I've always assumed the publishers had the PhDs and MBAs doing the research to show that it's good business to do a singleplayer campaign.
For one, the game demos better to an audience when you can control every aspect of what's going to happen. The dramatic scenes that often end up as cheesy afterthoughts in the final product build endless hype and interest leading up to release. That alone is likely reason enough to continue to shit out the annual shooting gallery loaded five hour campaign. I mean, once you have the gameplay template, how hard is it to develop different environments to push the player down?
For one, the game demos better to an audience when you can control every aspect of what's going to happen. The dramatic scenes that often end up as cheesy afterthoughts in the final product build endless hype and interest leading up to release. That alone is likely reason enough to continue to shit out the annual shooting gallery loaded five hour campaign. I mean, once you have the gameplay template, how hard is it to develop different environments to push the player down?
What other single player FPS games do you play?
These same doctorates greenlit 200-300 million dollars for games like The Old Republic and Elder Scrolls Online. We all know what happened with the former, and we all know what will happen to the latter.
You never know, Respawn might actually get the balance right and it could be MP focused with SP trimmings and nobody will really notice it does not have a dedicated SP mode. I am sure they will change if the game does not do so well but I would rather they give it a shot!
Business sense does not always drive games development. Some developers make games to be fun and to match their design ideals, not just to fill pockets. Some are the opposite and that's why we have CoD.
Bad company and the mainline Battlefield are 2 different, independent series.
You sir are confused.
Exactly. People have been conditioned to think a video game is single-player first and multiplayer is just optional or secondary. But times are a changin' and this outdated notion needs to be thrown to the curve.
But for people in the business of making or publishing these games, it *is* important to keep in mind that many people still are close-minded like this. Its not wise to overestimate the intelligence of your consumer base.
Sentenza
Member
I'm not saying to other people what they can and can't like. In fact I actually don't give a damn about what they like.
I'm saying that if you don't like orange segments you shouldn't buy oranges just because "there is the peel on top as well".
Battlefield is 95% multiplayer, with a rushed horrible campaign tackled in... And the latter is just a recent addition, because it used to be just 100% multiplayer from the start of this franchise.
In short, if you don't want to play battlefield in multiplayer, I see no reason you should care about Battlefield at all.
Which doesn't mean that you CAN'T. It's just something bloody silly to do.
No, it's not. And Bad Company is NOT Battlefield.
Oh, and by the way just because you do something that doesn't mean I should find it completely fine to please you.
They don't need to do anything.
I think the contention is that some believe COD/BF single player campaigns are unimportant to sales and others think they are. The numbers of single player campaign only players aren't publicly available, so all we are left with is conjecture.
It seems logicial, however, that EA and Acti would only keep funding a SP mode in those games if there was a decent sized audience that demanded that.
That's besides the point he's making. He plays those games for their campaigns. If they didn't exist, that would be one less sale for their publishers.
Its not black and white and doesn't have to be either/or. But publishers who fund large-budget games most definitely expect a return on their investment. Its always a balancing act. Nobody can really afford to spend tens of millions of dollars on a niche product just 'out of love'.
I know.
Um, I don't think it's me that's confused!
Dunno really, whatever takes my fancy. I used to play CoD but stopped at MW2. Halo I played up until ODST. I dip in and out of the Killzone franchise. I fucking LOVED the Rainbow Six: Vegas games. Far Cry 2 & 3 were both cracking games. I'll try anything really, although the only FPS series I'd love to see new installments for are Black and the R6:V games.
Fuck me you're uptight.
you say its the smart move to shoehorn in an MP mode if one doesn't exist or vice versa.
In the end you will be left with something lackluster.
I would prefer a scenario where the developer rather than shoehorn in any mode, or anything at all for that matter, instead uses that time to improve the "mode" they already have.
The added time gained from not shoehorning in an extra 'mode' could be used to improve existing content and gameplay. Rather then waste resources on a mode for your marketing checklist, use those resources to take your decent game to a great game!!
In the end you will be left with something lackluster.
I would prefer a scenario where the developer rather than shoehorn in any mode, or anything at all for that matter, instead uses that time to improve the "mode" they already have.
The added time gained from not shoehorning in an extra 'mode' could be used to improve existing content and gameplay. Rather then waste resources on a mode for your marketing checklist, use those resources to take your decent game to a great game!!
I didn't think BF4 's campaign was bad. It wasn't the best single player FPS out there but certainly not horrible. There were a few great set pieces in it, such as
the aircraft Carrier sinking
Devilgunman
Member
TBH, if Titanfall has SP, even a shitty one, I might buy it. MP only is instant No-No from me.