It wasn't really singleplayer it was Multiplayer with Bots.
Titanfall and the single player FPS
- Thread starter Daffy Duck
- Start date
It wasn't really singleplayer it was Multiplayer with Bots.
Petrae
Member
I wouldn't spend any money on a game that didn't have a single-player element to it. I play multiplayer sparingly-- if that-- so buying a game that focuses on MP exclusively would be a waste of cash.
It disappoints me when people suggest that solo play modes be removed for whatever reason (resources, budget, etc). Thankfully, this trend won't affect me too much as X360/PS3 are my last stops in console gaming, but seeing games moving away from traditional solo play to a constantly connected/social setup and continued focus on playing with someone else reminds me why it's good that I'm getting out.
maximum360
Member
Oddly enough the lack of SP game makes Titanfall seem somewhat unappealing until I realized that I've barely played any of the COD single player missions since Modern Warfare 2. I have Ghosts and haven't even touched the single player once. After getting over the learning curve, the multiplayer experience has gotten better.
Yea, I think a lot more people play the campaigns than most people want to admit (and many people seem to enjoy them). I don't have a problem with them stripping out a campaign as long as the value prop is fair. Like right now it's not even $60 for both multi and single...you have to buy DLC or premium just to play certain modes like capture the flag and air sup. If it's $60 for multiplayer you need to be including all maps and modes at the very least.
nothing wrong with multiplat only games, but i think the price should reflect that. thats all brah.
Anything to back this up?
MGHA
Member
Quake 3 did have singleplayer, but only for the ps2 version, and it was good. Long live The Vadrigar.
ambar_hitman
Member
Multiplayer only game at full price wont sell well. Half baked or not, SP is must for a full priced game.
Mainly because it is being billed as a light mmo in pricepoint, but not delivering that value in terms of content overall. This is not to imply the game will be good or bad, but merely that the amount of content does not reflect upon the price point. You could side by side comparisons in first offerings between halo and titanfall. Halo has a well scripted single player mode and a well produced multiplayer arena setting at a $60 price point. Titanfall only has one of these things. This is where the cost vs value considerations are being originated from (in terms of what is being offerred, not those titles specifically). An argument could be had for the online exclusivity breeding more of a FTP vibe as well, given the potential for the existence exp grinds leading way to booster packs and other microtransaction methodologies.
I'm personally indifferent towards the title and I am more curious as to how well the game does post launch after a year or so if it will supernova and burn out from the concentrated hype behind it, or if it will find wings and breathe (more like resuscitate older era FPS games into the current trend) new life into the FPS genre.
Rogue_Ledr
Banned
Actually that is true.
I didn't think about it before, but you're right! The game is REALLY like Brink.
First person shooter with parkour.
Why would you buy it for a shitty SP? Doesn't make sense!
Is it though? If Battlefield didn't have their terrible SP, would it not be worth $60 if the MP were functioning correctly from day one? A well designed, full featured, multiplayer game is more interesting to some than a half assed SP and a broken MP component.
And single player elements baked into the multiplayer.
Battlefield worked just fine without SP, it never felt incomplete when it was MP only on PC.
With franchises as big as COD or BF i undertand why they do both though. It's not like they lack the rescources.
For smaller titles they usually benefit from focusing on either the SP or MP in my experience.
With franchises as big as COD or BF i undertand why they do both though. It's not like they lack the rescources.
For smaller titles they usually benefit from focusing on either the SP or MP in my experience.
Conversely, the MP portions of some games are also tacked on. Maybe "publishers" think the average "gamer" expects both SP and MP in every game.
ThaddeusMcGee
Member
I like MP and I don't think every game needs an SP campaign, but personally bot matches would greatly increase my interest in this. Like Battlefield's old SP mode, before they inexplicably removed it. Before I hop online and go 3 in 127 over and over I like to have someplace to practice and figure out how all the mechanics work.
You are onto something.
Bots are really nice for practice. Playing with bots right now in CS because I haven't played in a bit.
I believe both of those can also be played solo in large part. You can party up if you want, but don't have to.
iJudged
Banned
I see, source?
Thnx btw.
iJudged
Banned
That's awesome, I like that. Thanks.
TheSpaceBetween
Member
Not just with FPS games, but many developers seem to have issues making a great SP campaign and multiplayer. It is my wish that for the most part they should just go with whatever the main focus will be. Of course, some games can get it right, like Portal 2, but that is more the exception. I think the concept of Titanfall is cool and wish it was a SP only game, but I'm glad they are sharpening their focus. Same with the new Wolfenstein game, which is single player only. More developers should follow suit. I'd rather have one deep, complete and polished mode rather than several half assed ones.
Wow... I guess I wasn't following this game closely enough, but there is no SP campaign?
...Why the fuck not? It has mechs and crazy wall-running. Those 2 things alone sound like it would make for a great SP game.
Are they really okay with not selling more copies of this game?
That is a sizable chunk of players expecting a SP campaign.
This is going to be a whole SimCity scenario again isn't it?
Sounds even less attractive now. I was going to wait for a sale on it when it got down to like $10, but what's the point? Who knows if there will be enough people playing on the servers by then.
...Why the fuck not? It has mechs and crazy wall-running. Those 2 things alone sound like it would make for a great SP game.
Are they really okay with not selling more copies of this game?
That is a sizable chunk of players expecting a SP campaign.
This is going to be a whole SimCity scenario again isn't it?
Sounds even less attractive now. I was going to wait for a sale on it when it got down to like $10, but what's the point? Who knows if there will be enough people playing on the servers by then.
The Nature Roy
Member
And for The Division:
"First, its important to note that The Division is fully playable solo. (Its a wonderful single-player game! Barnard promises.)"
http://blog.ubi.com/the-division-classless-characters-second-screens-mid-crisis-world-e3-2013/
The 2 things that gets me about MP only
1. The servers aren't up forever and when EA turns them off the party is pretty much over for that game.
2.the meta game for MP titles change up alot over it's life time. For the better or worse. A bad patch or 2 followed by a even worse community can fuck it up and with no coop mode (yet?) to balance back with it's over.
1. The servers aren't up forever and when EA turns them off the party is pretty much over for that game.
2.the meta game for MP titles change up alot over it's life time. For the better or worse. A bad patch or 2 followed by a even worse community can fuck it up and with no coop mode (yet?) to balance back with it's over.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Because nobody wants a half-baked singleplayer campaign that diverts resources from multiplayer. Well, I guess based on this thread, some people do, but them aside.
The real question is not "why the fuck is there no proper singleplayer campaign". The real question is "Will this game be worth $60?". That remains to be seen, and even then, will vary from person to person.
Thanks for selecting that one point and ignoring the rest of my post. Where the fuck are all your presumptions coming from?
Why does it have to be half-baked? Isn't there a ton of time and money being put into this?
Seriously. This is bullshit.
It's a multiplayer game, they've never sold it as anything else. There is nothing wrong with games being multiplayer only, just as there's nothing wrong with games being singleplayer only. I understand that some people might not be interested in this game as a multiplayer only game, in fact I would probably be more interested if there was a campaign personally as I'm really not into CoD style multiplayer, but to act as if it's somehow outrageous that the game has no campaign is stupid considering the multiplayer is the main appeal for a lot of people.
The Albatross
Member
I don't think that it would be a bad thing. I think that the single players in the CoD, BFs, and so on, are really, really shitty and not even worth playing. The last CoD I bought, Modern Warfare 2, I played the MW just to do that murder rampage that everybody was talking about... And that was the end of it. The game was garbage.
I do think that the multiplayer in these games is good, despite the overwhelming criticism of everything and their, apparently, horrible effects on gaming at large.
The first developer to truly build a compelling and engaged single-player experience into a multiplayer-focused shooting game will really do well on consoles. A game that you can enjoy alone without other players, that has something good in it for the solitary/lone-wolf type, but is accented by the multiplayer experience. Destiny looks to be on the right track with this from what we've heard. Frankly, I'll be playing Titanfall for the twitch multiplayer, and everything that goes along with it.
Because it's not the focus of the game. It's the same reason why not every great single player game should have a tacked on, half-baked multiplayer. "Well why does Tomb Raider's multiplayer have to be half-baked?!" Well it doesn't, but it usually is when the focus is on single player. For a game that has a focus on a specific area -- like Titanfall has a focus on the multiplayer aspect -- I don't see why it has to have a single player.
I do think that the multiplayer in these games is good, despite the overwhelming criticism of everything and their, apparently, horrible effects on gaming at large.
The first developer to truly build a compelling and engaged single-player experience into a multiplayer-focused shooting game will really do well on consoles. A game that you can enjoy alone without other players, that has something good in it for the solitary/lone-wolf type, but is accented by the multiplayer experience. Destiny looks to be on the right track with this from what we've heard. Frankly, I'll be playing Titanfall for the twitch multiplayer, and everything that goes along with it.
Because it's not the focus of the game. It's the same reason why not every great single player game should have a tacked on, half-baked multiplayer. "Well why does Tomb Raider's multiplayer have to be half-baked?!" Well it doesn't, but it usually is when the focus is on single player. For a game that has a focus on a specific area -- like Titanfall has a focus on the multiplayer aspect -- I don't see why it has to have a single player.
Wow... I guess I wasn't following this game closely enough, but there is no SP campaign?
...Why the fuck not? It has mechs and crazy wall-running. Those 2 things alone sound like it would make for a great SP game.
Are they really okay with not selling more copies of this game?
That is a sizable chunk of players expecting a SP campaign.
This is going to be a whole SimCity scenario again isn't it?
Sounds even less attractive now. I was going to wait for a sale on it when it got down to like $10, but what's the point? Who knows if there will be enough people playing on the servers by then.
This post reminds me about people complaining about fighting games not having proper single player "campaigns."
Super Stardust
Member
A good multiplayer game can last you hundreds of hours, i'll gladly pay full price for that
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
It doesn't have to be half-baked; they could gladly spend tons of man-hours on creating a singleplayer campaign that not everyone will play through, much less not something everyone would play through more than once, but why would you want them to divert resources? You're probably not the demographic for this game if something like this elicits anything more of a "huh, no singleplayer, well ok". Not every shooter needs to have campaign, and they've explicitly stated repeatedly that instead they're going for multiplayer with narrative aspects in addition to traditional multiplayer modes. Also keep in mind that Respawn is a startup; the whole reason at first that the game wasn't on PS4 was a result of them wanting to partner up with MS and focus on one version's development along with PC (360 version is outsourced by the way). The money hat hadn't even come into play by that point in time, it was more a matter of how big a bite they even had the ability to chew. EA is going to market the hell out of Titanfall and MS will advertise as well of course, but Respawn isn't comprised of an Assassin's Creed sized dev team. You're talking double digit employees, not triple. One glance at the graphics could tell you it's not some alpha omega sized giant blockbuster despite the media hype train.
Please elaborate on the issue you're having, because the only two issues I see are the full price tag, which may or may not turn out to be justified, and the fact that EA will want to do a better job of letting everyone know that it's multiplayer-only if not have Respawn provide an offline mode with bots. The absence of a campaign obviously will deter a number of consumers, but there's a number of us who also don't give a shit.
Glorified G
Member
Contingent on the continued interest from the online community and how long the publisher decides they want to continue to pay to keep the servers up.
Personally, that's a lot of asterisks for a $60 game.
My mistake, I thought you were talking about online multiplayer.
I'm glad Titanfall is a multiplayer only game, the more focus, the better.
After the abhorrent travesty that was BF4's campaign, I don't think developers should waste their resources trying to do too much. AAA development these days is too complex and too complicated. Give me one cohesive product, rather than... whatever the fuck BF4 was (absolute garbage campaign and broken, buggy multiplayer).
Besides, I'm extremely interested to see what Titanfall does for "Campaign Multiplayer".
After the abhorrent travesty that was BF4's campaign, I don't think developers should waste their resources trying to do too much. AAA development these days is too complex and too complicated. Give me one cohesive product, rather than... whatever the fuck BF4 was (absolute garbage campaign and broken, buggy multiplayer).
Besides, I'm extremely interested to see what Titanfall does for "Campaign Multiplayer".
Clarkus Darkus
Member
Lets be honest there wont be any SP moments of glory, This is another MP focused game, And it contains Micro-transactions which isn't a surprise to no one.
Why do you say that? We've explicitly said otherwise:
http://www.videogamer.com/xboxone/t...s_in_titanfall_thats_not_us_says_respawn.html
Maybe that's not a don't surprise for everyone not surprised?
iJudged
Banned
Excited to see what they come away with, ty.