Sure they can. Respawn dev wrote right here that they are just a bunch of gamers who love games making a game they would want to play. They have no design objectives beyond that. Heck, they can even post here without getting clearance from MS/EA/Respawn just like Albert Penello. It is very nice of EA/MS to give them tens of millions to play with and the freedom to engage with fans just like friends.
Titanfall and the single player FPS
- Thread starter Daffy Duck
- Start date
Sure they can. Respawn dev wrote right here that they are just a bunch of gamers who love games making a game they would want to play. They have no design objectives beyond that. Heck, they can even post here without getting clearance from MS/EA/Respawn just like Albert Penello. It is very nice of EA/MS to give them tens of millions to play with and the freedom to engage with fans just like friends.
Agreed.
No every developer is a group of jaded hacks who just spew out the same old games over and over, just because their boss said so.
Some developer truly do love making games.
If Respawn want to try something new, then they should be allowed to. I personally want to see more of Titanfall to see how they blend the two sides together.
Agreed. Wouldn't mind it if bots filled empty spots on servers as well.
Ok...
And if they continue with this crap SP stuff, and MP that is released as a terrible bug ridden mess they'll only have you left playing ur shitty SP campaign lol..
who ends up loosing.
The guy who is looking in the wrong place for his SP FPS fix, or the community who has been there from the start for a MP, large sandbox, 64 player, mod-able, semi-realistic military combat FPS with an arsenal of vehicles for all classes.
See... doesn't that sound awesome? It's something not many games can deliver, and do right. Can you do any of that in the SP portion?!!
So why.. tell me why..?
staticneuron
Member
BF series started out MP only then added in a SP storyline in BF3. One would imagine the had good enough reason to do so, they also added on in BF4.
Personally, I enjoyed BF4 (curious about the lack of silencers though) and thought that it was a decent campaign that was better than BF3, and far better than the MoH.
I just go in, without expectations of a masterpiece and most games can pull of some exciting moments without being completely horrible.
Personally, I enjoyed BF4 (curious about the lack of silencers though) and thought that it was a decent campaign that was better than BF3, and far better than the MoH.
I just go in, without expectations of a masterpiece and most games can pull of some exciting moments without being completely horrible.
If you like Black check out Hard Reset and Shadow Warrior, they are great linear FPS games with an old-school mentality done by an Indie developer. The latter is on sale at the Humble Store right now.
R6:V? I got nothing for ya.
What does this even mean?!
I have a PS4. I own Killzone: Shadow Fall already. I want another FPS to play that has a cinematic single player featuring some vehicle sections, some ground combat and lots of sexy visual effects. I want it based in the 'real' world. I played and enjoyed the campaign in Battlefield 3.
What else should I have bought?
Nice one chap. I've got Hard Reset, I should probably play it soon. As for R6:V, well, I just keep playing the Terrorist Hunt mode to this day. That's never getting uninstalled. I'll check Shadow Warrior out.
That used to be the case back when Battlefield 2 was out in 2005, when Battlefield was still a PC exclusive, and consoles STILL got their 'exclusive' offshoot games based on the principles set in Battlefield 1942/Vietnam/2/2142.
It was a happy world!!
Where were all of these console players screaming for a single player campaign back then?! I don't even think the console Battlefield titles in the PS2/Xbox/GC era were even popular. At least back then it seemed anyone talkin BF was talkin PC.
That you should be able to identify that Battlefield 3 and 4's SP campaigns are crap.
Especially compared to the games you yourself listed.
Yea they look pretty (BF3/4 SP)...
But you got anything else to say on the rest of my post?
Reading these posts is weird given TitanFall is essentially a CoD clone with (Not) Mechs that handle just like humans only bigger.
Dunno what to tell you, I liked 'em.
As for the rest, if there's a sufficient crowd that want to play the game you described, they'll be served. Chances are, they'll continue to be served by Battlefield.
I get why so many people will pass without a campaign but I really don't understand why people are so against trying to play online. If the entire BF3 and 4 package was the campaign, I'd probably feel like I was ripped off. The games were like 5 hours of following NPC's around and some voice acting.
EDIT: also I've played Hard Reset now and that game doesn't seem that great. I don't see how people are even saying that was one of the better shooter campaigns on PC.
EDIT: also I've played Hard Reset now and that game doesn't seem that great. I don't see how people are even saying that was one of the better shooter campaigns on PC.
Well, it does make sense coming from a group of people that know COD really damn well. Outside of some of the basic shooting, what else makes it CoD?
We see that argument every Titanfall thread, its become a typical drive-by response.
Always-honest
Banned
I thnk Battlefield should be MP only too. Maybe even CoD. But not Killzone.
You guys dont think they expect to make their money back on this project? Just cuz they enjoy what they're doing doesnt mean the business side of things is going ignored. TitanFall is being published by EA after all and I'm sure thats who is bankrolling most of the project.
I said very specifically that its not black and white or either/or but you guys seem to keep arguing as if it is.
Ted
Member
PS trophy data (from the PS app) provides some potentially interesting data in terms of player interest. For example....
COD BLOPS:
29.5% received the Stand Down trophy for completing the campaign;
28.4% received the Ready for Deployment trophy for reaching level 10 in MP.
BF3:
31.2% received the Ooh-rah trophy for completing the campaign;
48.9% received the M.I.A trophy for taking their first enemy dog tag.
Just a couple of examples I know but to me they do clearly show that even in what is perceived as a multi-player centric FPS a significant amount of buyers do play the SP campaign.
COD BLOPS:
29.5% received the Stand Down trophy for completing the campaign;
28.4% received the Ready for Deployment trophy for reaching level 10 in MP.
BF3:
31.2% received the Ooh-rah trophy for completing the campaign;
48.9% received the M.I.A trophy for taking their first enemy dog tag.
Just a couple of examples I know but to me they do clearly show that even in what is perceived as a multi-player centric FPS a significant amount of buyers do play the SP campaign.
And that's perfectly fine, but you are in the minority on the issue.
Most people see the campaign for what it is, makes sense for us to want DICE to scrap the SP and shift those resources to making the MP perfect.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind a campaign if it was at least good.
But Battlefield for me anyways has always been about the sandbox nature of the gameplay, where it feels like anything is possible.
You can come in first place for a match and strictly play as a transport heli pilot/medic healing and reviving teammates/tank gunner/commander, etc.
It's a great thing that takes precedence over the single player campaign on its worst day!!
DICE go ahead, make crappy single player campaigns but please please please make sure the Multiplayer component is at %110!! and fully featured.
tf2 and cs were never full retail priced games, I think.
It does serve the role of the typical tutorial/training wheels period that many individuals use to cut their teeth on the title before learning the rest of the tricks in the game within the multiplayer portion of the title and also draw in folks who aren't interested in multiplayer, so it is not without use or purpose. This is not to imply that titles which lack these elements are lesser games, or to imply that players who use the single player offering prior or during the multiplayer learning phase are better players as a byproduct of it. I am also not denying the underlying bias within that genre to draw in players for the competitive aspect of the game and has had a large forward inertia that pushed the titles into mainstream popularity within the last console generation.
Interfectum
Member
So in order for something like Titanfall to be given a pass for a full priced game it has to satisfy bullet point customers with a tacked-on SP experience?
Again, where are the numbers that prove this?
15.1% of players have the trophy for completing the campaign on normal.
14.1% of players have the trophy for reaching rank 25 in multi.
Why is everyone so certain what 'the majority' want from these games?
I get what you like about the game. The failing here seems to be that you can't understand what I like about it.
I guess it depends on how much it has cost them. I think growing the community of Titanfall fans is their main priority, since that will dictate if they make any more games.
Who knows what happens in this crazy industry!
I see where you are coming from but beating the game on Normal takes about 5 hours. It probably takes like 25+ hours for a decent to good player to hit 25, and that's with double XP.
Yeah, there is that. Plus it was broken for fuck knows how long (though that affected the campaign too). My main point was that we really don't know what the split is between people that play the campaign, people that play multi and people that play both.
Netherscourge
Banned
Online-Only = best DRM there is.
1. Requires registering a product online.
2. Ties an indiviual account to one game license.
3. The installation/client may as well be free. You can't play the game without a purchase mechanism of some sort.
It is the future, if not, already in the makings for almost all online-based games.
1. Requires registering a product online.
2. Ties an indiviual account to one game license.
3. The installation/client may as well be free. You can't play the game without a purchase mechanism of some sort.
It is the future, if not, already in the makings for almost all online-based games.
Its fine that you like the SP and not the MP, just know that the game in it's purest form wasn't made for you, and it's sad to see a game which I have invested in and love go in the direction is has for its last two entries. This is specifically about Battlefield 1942/Vietnam/2/2142/3/4.
It's clear what the game started out as and not so clear where its heading. I just hope less sacrifice is made on the MP portion for any reasons.
Actually, you have that somewhat backwards. Single player game (excluding the mmo genre for comparison purposes) will always have more content by volume. This does not translate into greater time investment overall. Why is this? The only thing a single player game has going for it is the baked in content, not the randomness potential for replayability that multiplayer settings offer. A multiplayer game can squeeze out potentially unlimited replayability out of 5-6 maps. A single player game to get a 10-14 hour playtime out of the campaign needs signifigantly more than that and that is literally additional content every step of the way, regardless of how many assets are re-used throughout.
Ted
Member
Look at an older game then:
COD BLOPS:
29.5% received the Stand Down trophy for completing the campaign;
28.4% received the Ready for Deployment trophy for reaching level 10 in MP.
BF3:
31.2% received the Ooh-rah trophy for completing the campaign;
48.9% received the M.I.A trophy for taking their first enemy dog tag OR/
35.3% received the It's Better Than Nothing trophy for getting 3rd MVP in a ranked match
Both imply that the SP is played (not necessarily enjoyed) by a not insignificant section of players.
BotoxAgent
Member
I am willing to give it a chance that hopefully the mechanics will somehow click with me and I end up not sucking. I didn't completely suck with multiplayer FEAR and Halo, so I there's gotta be some hope for my slow skills.
I will be buying both on the PC and X1 to see which will work best for me.
Another thing, a number of player's trod through the campaign for the gun unlocks for MP.
All signs are pointing torwards MP
Neuromancer
Member
Not to mention, we have zero trophy/achievement data from anyone who played the campaign offline.
Oh brother.
FrankCaron
Member
I'm going to post an idea I've always had that's likely to get me super hate, but if I was running Activision/EA, I'd be doing this with my big shooter:
- Make the campaign a downloadable, seperate game altogether and charge $25-35 for it
- Make the multiplayer game the main disc game and charge $49.99
- To MP, add one-time IAP purchase to unlock everything or IAP to buy currency used to buy gear (as in Ghosts)
- Make an iOS/Android tactical shooter tie in and make it contribute to progression in MP / unlock mods in SP - $10, no IAP (Bonus: make it with Unity and release it on EVERYTHING POSSIBLE; Vita, 3DS, Wii U, PC, Mac, Linux, SteamOS, etc.)
- Season's pass $40
- LE / CE gets all of the above, special metal case, making of DVD/BR, $10 worth of IAP money - $120
Naked Lunch
Member
Battlefield needs to ditch single player too and give us three/four times the number of day one maps.
We should also be looking at combined playtime for all players in SP vs all MP players.
See who Is really having more fun!!
I am not your brother!!
See who Is really having more fun!!
I am not your brother!!
I get where you're coming from. I had no interest in the franchise before BF3 (due to the lack of a campaign), so I don't know what type of effect it's had on the multi-player. If it's having a negative effect on you then I feel your frustration. I'm on the other side of the fence getting pissed off at MP being crowbarred into SP games.
It wouldn't surprise me. For all the disdain, they're pretty fucking good fun to play through if that's what floats your boat. Not sure why I stopped playing CoD campaigns. Maybe because I know they'll never top CoD4.
Good point, I hadn't thought about that.
They could probably spend way more time getting the online sorted and doing lengthy testing to get the bugs out.
I see where you are coming from also, and there is room for both of us to enjoy the series! But the enjoyment of one group shouldn't take away from another due to development decisions likely based on monie. If DICE decides to cater to both groups they need to deliver on both sides.
This is DICE and EA here, not a small company by any means. They were even voted most hated company in the U.S, that shows how popular they are.
Now, SP games getting tacked on MP modes, that's a whole other beast
Netherscourge
Banned
Battlefield SP is nothing but a tech demo to sell the game engine (Frostbyte) to other developers and build hype for the game.
I think we are generally agreeing but I might have worded it poorly.
I meant in terms of the value of content for the end consumer, rather than the development resource required to make 5-6 MP maps vs a 10 hour single player campaign.
That "potentially unlimited replayability" is what I meant when I questioned why people have a problem with paying for a product that offers that and only that, vs being fine to pay $60 for a single player game that only offers the "baked in content" of a SP campaign.
I don't know what the mental barrier is between paying $60 for Uncharted 2 and paying $60 for TitanFall. Just to use an example of an offline only game vs an online only one. To disregard TitanFall at that price point seems to devalue or play down the quality and potential future enjoyment of a product based on the fact it only offers online, which to me isn't necessarily right.
fuzzyreactor
Banned
I'm totally ok with with FPS games not having campaigns. I spend maybe 10 hours playing a campaign and hundreds playing the MP. If they can use those resources and time for the MP, I'm all for it and actually would prefer more companies to do this.
BRocknRolla
Member
When you say "if" they did away with the single player campaign, it made me think, "Haven't they really already?" But I guess they haven't. There's still a token campaign in there every year. Sometimes it's alright, sometimes it's downright awful, but generally speaking, it's continued a downward trend in quality. Some people, myself included, will never buy a game that is multiplayer-only. For a while I was buying CoD for the campaign, but after MW2, I decided I was fed up with paying for a half-hearted/nonsensical campaign, and as what's left is multiplayer-only, there's nothing left there for me.
When I first saw Titanfall announced, I was excited at the aesthetic. A sci-fi shooter is always welcome in my book. At the end of the day though, a single player shooter is all I would have wanted. It's hard to know the effect it might have had. As it stands though, a multiplayer-only shooter is a no-buy for me. Simple as that. Price really doesn't factor as I don't see it as "half a game" one way or the other. It's simply not a game for me.
When I first saw Titanfall announced, I was excited at the aesthetic. A sci-fi shooter is always welcome in my book. At the end of the day though, a single player shooter is all I would have wanted. It's hard to know the effect it might have had. As it stands though, a multiplayer-only shooter is a no-buy for me. Simple as that. Price really doesn't factor as I don't see it as "half a game" one way or the other. It's simply not a game for me.
Surely it should be the other way make the MP DL and keep the SP for retail.
If you're buying for multi then you probably have internet a lot of people don't have internet at home
KillerDark
Member
I wouldn't be bothered at all, in fact I would prefer this. BF4's singleplayer for example is horrible and they probably spent a decent amount of time on it. Imagine what they could have done if they only had multiplayer... I bet the launch would have been a lot smoother.
I have no problem with a game being only singleplayer or only multiplayer, make it a fun, focused experience and do what you do best. For me, BF is all about the multiplayer and the only reason I've even played any singleplayer is because they make you to unlock guns. I don't feel like games need to have both SP/MP in order to be good.
I forgot to a /s to my post.
where exactly did you read that in my post. if anything my suggestion was the other way.
Interfectum
Member
I dunno, I'm tired brah. Too quick on the draw.
My guess is no, and they'll probably chalk it up to some cloud BS.