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

@Bigboi500:

Excactly, though the amount of substantial single-player FPS experiences are few they are still around, no developer will bother building a campaign anymore around a MP game without it becoming a tutorial, I wonder how BF4 would turn out if they focused more resources on the SP, it would turn out total crap, adding MP to SP is a different story imo. The development cycle of MP franchises are just to short as it is to add anything else, especially for that small crowd (in the greather scheme) that would enjoy it.

whaa.. lol NO IT WOULD NOT! you can't be serious!? have you seen the graphics and fps animation on BF games??? they are freakin stunning! the problem is all that eye candy is wasted on multiplayer, if they made a BF game that had a campaign of just 4 hours i would buy the hell out of it! speak for yourself m8, my goodness you guys make zero sense to me..

Well BF is a multiplayer franchise above all, has always been, with the amount of trouble BF4 has had as a multiplayer game excuse me for not wanting DICE to shift the focus on bugfixin' in a four hour singleplayer campaign, and in the greater scheme you are few, if I wanna play singleplayer I turn to singleplayer franchises. BF: Bad Company I og II had a decent SP campaign in addition but that's not the way things are anymore with the high cost of development and general taste of the fans. Some games are best served multi and some single. Millions of people enjoy the eye candy the MP experience offer without your opinion.

@shangtsung7: Cool down. That's not acceptable.

Sorry loaf. Don't wanna butt in. You've got awesome points, but that problem is found everywhere. Its like if you want to be acknowledged in a certain prestigious circle, but you can't be acknowledged as 'yourself' then you have to decide whos more valuable. Others approval or a sense of unique identity.

Violence and sex has proven itself to be somewhat commerically appealing to millions of players around the world. Its just that good engaging gameplay comes first. we've enjoyed many games that thematically seem inhumane, uber-aggressive, imperialist and extremely capitalistic, culturally ignorant or any other form of disturbing we can think of. We overlooked it because the gameplay and game design was inarguably solid.

What really hurts games and other media like blockbuster films, and energetic music is the cynical 'circusmaster' or 'pimp' way in which they are managed. Its just cynical shareholders, young number-crunchers and Admen who know majority people like special fx sex and violence and try to construct elaborate smokescreens to scam people for their dollars. They re-iterate to get shovelware out the door faster than you can tweet about it to stay relevant.

Instead of passionate people who eat crap and breathe what they make, or are so internally involved it at least has to be decent.

Consider Id or Valve's history vs other mega publishers and you'll see where this is coming from.

was just joking around.. lol

truth is he's absolutely right tho, as much as it pains me to admit it those of us who prefer sp games have become the minority, and therefor no doubt will soon have to start searching much harder than we used to in order to find something decent to play, its either that or stick to last gen and ps2. i just hope todays gaming industry proves me wrong and comes up with some sort of happy medium for both sides, cause i just got my ps4 and its been played maybe a total of 2 hours tops, and that was just silly puzzle games that are the equivalent of something i play on my phone cause there isn't anything else yet, i'd hate to have to ebay this thing.

No game should have singleplayer anymore. What's the point? WHy play a game by yourself that has an end? It's a waste of money.

IDK. Depending on your platform those subscription fees can add up. ( Apparently buying the game, the rig for it and paying for internet isn't enough anymore)

It goes back to why people play games in the first place. To realize what winning and accomplishment is like on a simpler level.

Online's a different kind of fun, but there are less things you can control. when your friends ain't online, still have to wade through all the insecure assholes, cheaters, and stalkers. Anybody out there can **** up your day, but you can lose yourself in a good single player campaign.

@shangtsung7: Seriously now, you need to learn to be less hostile. This is Games DISCUSSION. We discuss things here. Using the word retard in any context towards another user either towards them or what they post is pretty highly offensive and not going to be allowed.

oh c'mon bro! you know same as i do if anyone was to post what he/she did, but blaming online mp rather than sp they would get trolled relentlessly!

i'm done with this thread, yall argue amongst yourselves..

Lol at topic creator, Not every dev is going to do the same thing.

If a developer doesn't want to hamper the over all quality of their game by putting in a supbar campaign, then more power to them. Games shouldn't be about checking off a list of features. Developers should include content they think will actually benefit their game.

So I'm glad Respawn isn't going Battlefield and putting in a mediocre campaign no one wanted in their clearly multiplayer fps.

Just so you know I mostly play SP myself, (huge RPG enthusiast) I was speaking about FPS shooters just to make it clear, I'm not the guy who want them to put MP inside everything. Just as I don't want SP in everything either, it depends on the game and genre in my opinion.

Single player games coming out within the next month or so:

1. New Donkey Kong
2. New Castlevania
3. Tales of Symphonia
4. Thief
5. South Park: Stick of Truth
6. Yaiba: Ninja Gaiden
7. Dark Souls 2
8. FFX/X-2
9. MGS: Ground Zeroes
10. InFamous: Second Son
11. Dying Light

In the same time frame, here's a list of the multiplayer only games coming out:

1. PVZ:Garden Warfare
2. Titanfall

Well, yes, that's what I said with it seemingly being a typical subcultural conflict. You probably can't have it both ways. It's either keeping things the way they are and not getting the respect from the general population or accepting all this mainstreaming in order to be respected (right now we're pretty much forced to accept the latter). Or, as I said later on, you need some authority figure who can promote videogames in a casual and non-gaming environment.

The economic situation you describe is a given. It's irreversible and inevitable. It might dominate the gaming industry, like it dominates other media. Videogames seem to be going down the same road as the more established media (at a later stage, because they're a younger medium). The difference is that videogames never had an elite to elevate the medium in general towards an art (culturally significant) status (and thereby protecting the medium from a full capitalistic embrace). Videogames are rooted in play; they are seen as toys. They could very well be art, but noone is promoting that on a visible scale. Over time, as videogames become more popular, this lack of perceived cultural significance could hurt variety and the consideration of minority groups (which 'hardcore' gamers are starting to become).

As you point out there are still publishers/developers out there who seem to be doing the right thing. This will always be the case. There will always be 'good' games coming out. Maybe they'll decrease in numbers, but still... Also, I see a lot of potential coming from the indie scene. Those games might not have the same production value as the big titles, but there are a lot of good games there. Game markets and audiences are shifting. The hardcore/dedicated/experienced gamer might not be the centre of the gaming industry anymore. As frustrating as that might be, I think it's something that can't be undone. I also think it's not as big a disaster as some people think. There's still plenty of room for passionate people. But maybe I'm not dedicated enough to see the obvious doom some people predict... ;-)

I realise I'm painting a very optimistic picture here.

@ZZoMBiE13:

how many of those games have a multiplayer component of ANY kind?

Yeah the toy / not toy is the biggest definition problem that video games have to deal with. If they are by definition children's toys, then they are legally responsible for what subject matter they introduce to children. If they are largely interactive arts for varying ages and types of players (which they certainly have demonstrated themselves to be), then they're under pressure to take a little more social responsibility for their content and can't hide behind the curtain of just being a game when they engage taboos. I'm for the latter. If movies had to accept the latter to continue marketing all sorts of challenging ideas, then every medium has to cross that threshold, for freedoms sake.

I see what you're saying about elites. But Videogames I feel didn't need a P.Diddy figure to take them to the next level. VG's biggest achievers knew what they had in their hands. not having an elite its a tricky thing to manage when you're out there on your own. I used to think that DOOM 3 took forever to develop because of the graphics engine. When I first saw the quakecon events I was floored at the sheer amount of polygons.

Now I'm surprised to find out it was mainly because John Carmack kept fighting to keep the dev team small and close knit. nobody expected videogames to have the cultural impact they did. The best entrepreneurs in games so far have been mainly developers that grew a business sense like Valve and knew where the future was headed. Or cross-media execs that understood art and development when they saw it, and how to communicate with developers and dedicated players instead of trying to swindle them.

I equate videogames struggles uniquely to hip-hop. The way these relatively young mediums struggled in larger public sphere as artform is oddly very similar. From publishers who want to sell controversy and the various adults who despise both mediums because only their taboo moments make the headlines.

They're both marketed somewhat to the young or to those of us with testosterone in good reserve not just because young are more impressionable or the dudes are loyal when they get to exercise their inner 'Kratos' but were early adopters actually willing to engage to begin with, than older biased audiences, who have other responsibilities and preferences.

Their milestones were largely achieved in underground or creatively independent environments, and commercialized when businessmen saw the dollar signs but tried to manage both mediums like toy franchises or pop rock bands, without really getting in touch with their communities differences, need for agency and self definition within.

And both have most recently come to a cultural crossroads in their own communities, where industry beef and social spats run the gamit for press, click bait and hype. People who have different worldviews of what both mediums represent are at odds, should it be hardcore? should it be soft? etc etc.. when there's really more than enough room for varied styles, sub genres, memes and themes in the mainstream.

You know what well said. Its so true this guy hit the nail on the head. They have the stats these companies and quite simple hardly anyone completes or even plays the Single Player. Its dead sadly thats just how it is its better to focus i agree.

if fps single player campaigns go by the wayside, im going to be pissed....i actually enjoy and play fps shooters campaigns

I agree.

I was thinking more of a critical elite: people talking about and discussing videogames; publicly and visibly explaining why videogames are culturally relevant and can be considered art. Videogames definitely do have big names, but those only exist within the videogaming context. They don't reach out into that casual and non-gaming space; they don't influence the casual and non-gaming crowd. The non-gaming crowd mainly sees the negative associations (sexist, racist, violent, childish, waste of time) in the mainstream media. Film can get away with sexism and violence, because people are aware of the many alternatives and because they generally see film as culturally relevant and art. Someone needs to convincingly tell those non-gamers that videogames are very similar.

Nice analogy. I do feel hip-hop is a bit further in maturing though. And it has also pervaded society in a much more positive way (at least in my country: The Netherlands). Over here hip-hop is a very broad and accessible phenomenon that seems to have achieved a respectable cultural position, where the room for different styles, genres and themes is actually acknowledged. Also, personally, the beauty of hip-hop is the focus on sampling, recontextualising the snippets of other artists and genres. It's part of the success of hip-hop and it opens up hip-hop to a wide variety of people. Videogames still have a long way to go in that department, I think.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. I agree that COD hasn't ever really done the "single player" modes any justice. But, as far as multiplayer is concerned, they have done a bang up job, imo. So, if they want to concentrate on doing what they do best, why the grief? I do have to disagree with black knight, as far as the sp industry dying. First, there are too many people that don't have access to high speed internet, but want to keep up to date with consoles. The industry, as a whole, has, and will always produce sp games. The main focus, at least as far as shooters are concerned, may be multiplayer, but there are too many people out there who want to focus on the storyline, and how the gameplay will interact with it.

i won't be buying this, but i understand why Respawn is doing this

Why not try a bigger based co-op or like cod the spec-ops mission that you can run through with friends I don't think it should only be online they should try other things.

I'm obviously part of the minority that Isn't really interested in the whole multiplayer aspect of gaming .I much prefer the single player campaign where you can get into a story and character and be deeply emursed in a game for hours.I just see multiplayer as mindless FPS killing and get bored of it very quickly .Im probably gonna get proper slated for saying that but its just my personal opinion,so i really hope there are still developers out there who would rather focus on having longer SP campaigns and less MP.

It makes a lot of sense what Zampella stated, People just don't go for sp as much in COD since COD4's multiplayer became the biggest feature. Its for the best since the majority of players are don't focus on it, plus the sp portion became less interesting (at least for me). Focusing on MP (hopefully) makes the experience far more better.

I don't mean you any offense, but do you really think there isn't enough room for both?

Think about it. Single player games are still around, and online multiplayer games have been prevalent since the 90s. Online shooters not having single player options isn't the same as the hobby of gaming not having single player options. I get that they may not appeal to you, but that doesn't mean they aren't a valid form of entertainment for those who do.

I'm the first to trumpet that games are an art form. And I feel this one is just as much a work of art as any single player RPG or Character focused action title. A game is, in a lot of ways, the ultimate expression of the artist/art lover paradigm. A painting is still a painting no matter what, but it only becomes art when it is viewed by an art lover. Their emotional reaction is the difference between paint smears on a canvas and a work of art. And a game is just pixels and polygons until a player comes along and interacts with it. Just because they aren't using their game to tell a single player story doesn't make it any less of an artistic expression of the team who made it.

Or at least that's my take on the matter.

@ZZoMBiE13: See that's my issue with it. They clearly stated that there isn't enough room for both. Most games do have single player and multiplayer which is fine, give the player the option to choose what they want to do. I'm not against mmorpg or any online gaming as a whole, i just don't like the fact that people who enjoy single player campaigns and storylines and i'll even throw PC gamers on top of that, get thrown on the backburner and they'll get to us when they get to us IF they do at all.

They said they want to spend all their time fixing the bugs and making the multiplayer experience better and that's why there's no single player, but i can almost guarantee that there will be DLC content that they'll come out with in the future. I know i'm not the only one out there that disagrees with this and basically feels shunned because i enjoy single player over multiplayer and as i mentioned before, PC gaming.

Not this game but the industry as a whole has pretty much put PC gamers to the side as well. I mean there hasn't been a PC exclusive game that's been worth anything that i've come across in a long time. If im wrong, please correct me. Everything is console exclusive now. Hell before the Xbox One came out they wanted to make it so you HAD to have a permanent internet connection to even use it, until they heard that Sony wasn't doing it so they changed it.

Anyways, i understand your point of view and i agree with you, i just feel like i'm being pushed to the side and they're just like, "Oh you don't like it? Well, that's just too bad. You'll have to get over it." And that's just bad business to me. Oh well, i guess i'll just have to chalk this game up as a loss and move on to the next one. This looks like an exciting year for games anyway. UbiSoft has some good stuff coming out soon and hopefully Rockstar comes through too.

@john925: Let's not throw insults at broad groups of gamers, please. To each their own, and one mans trash is another mans treasure. Simple principles, and they make for a calm and respectful discussion.

Eh, from what I understand finish through rates of games aren't likely much lower than in the past. I mean, the first full length single player game I ever completed was likely Rayman Revolution. I came close on other occasions but that was the first one I saw the end credits. I have finished quite a few since then though.

I hardly think single player is dying. See my post below.

Except I kind of don't see it.

I seem to be the only one who recognises what a great generation this is looking to be for almost all genres. There are many promising single player games. Many. Witcher 3, Dragon Age Inquisition, Dying Light, Aliens Isolation, X, FFVX, Dark Souls 2, TellTales Game of Thrones, Infamous Second Son, Watch_Dogs, Metal Gear Solid V, Persona 5 and South Park: Stick of Truth. Then there's The Order 1886, The Evil Within, Mirror's Edge, Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive, Wolfenstein: The New Order, Mario Kart 8, Bayonetta 2.

The we have smaller titles with great pedigrees like Project Eternity and Torment: Tides of Numenor. There are probably others I don't know (like the recently release Broken Age).

Then we have smaller, quirkier, more artsy fare like Child of Light, Transistor, Rime, The Witness, Below and so on.

Like I said, MANY, and this is before the first proper next gen E3.

say No to EA game or just download it ...~~

I for one am really disappointed. I love single player campaigns. I mean the good ones like in Bioshock, far cry 3 etc. not the half-assed SPs like COD and BF. I dont think its true that people dont want SP, its just that people dont want shitty repetitive SPs which we just keep on getting year on year. Make a SP worth playing and people will play!

I belong to that 5% of the population :P

yeah... most people don't play the single player, i never do on these types of shooters, so why waste resources making a single player campaign that is always horrible and short anyway? almost all the games i play are single player focused and most come with a poorly made multiplayer mode that very few people use, i hope this trend catches on there too. don't waste time making something very few people are going to utilize. i see no problem having games that are specifically made be be multiplayer and i wish games that are specifically made for single player would leave out the tacked on multiplayer modes.

@Black_Knight_00: I COMPLETELY agree. And now us gamers who actually enjoy singly player must suffer.

The best examples of that are RPG's imho

Back on the topic... I did want to say that regardless of any debate on SP vs MP... I am just bummed to miss out on this sweet looking game...since I personally do not enjoy MP games. Only my feeling, no flames please. ;-) I just hoped there was going to be a cool story to go with the amazing graphics... That's all.

I would have prefered a SP experience in Titanfall but I like that they chose not to put it in at all unlike CoD. Because with CoD is sort of seems a little misleading to have SP in there when it is going to be such a short experience, all for that extra bit of $$$ from the people who are new to the series or parents who don't know any better. At least with Titanfall they had the decency to keep it out and work to a better MP experience. I personally won't be getting Titanfall because it is MP. I do think it is a slight issue in a way though, but I don't think a lot of developers will follow this model. It's like GearBox making Borderlands MP only, that would pretty much kill the game off, it just wouldn't work for that type of game and you don't need to be in the industry to see that, it needs the combination of SP and MP to thrive. CoD needs to get rid of SP since they want yearly releases and it's never really that good now days. Maybe if they get a bigger team, Titanfall 2 might have SP. Although he said people finish the SP really fast, that's entirely the developers fault for not spending more than 6 months to make a good SP experience -.-

Well if they decided to be MP it's ok, but i have to say the game ain't worth 60$, with VAT for me is more than 70$, and without SP it's like mehh, i play the games for the story that's why i started to play visual novels like Ever 17, G-senjou no Maou and the list goes on, i even started to learn Japanese for that reason, so no, for me the story is almost everything, what would happen with mass effect or dragon age without story, i don't even want to think about it. Can't say though that i didn't like playing Modern Warfare 2, Quake 3, Doom 2, Counter Strike ................. in MP but after a few hours it was like, almost the same freaking thing. But i already pre ordered watch dogs which should have a pretty decent SP, emphasize on singel player.

I’m not an active on-line gamer like I used to be and don't pay as close attention to all the game details. I did not fully realize there is no single player or split screen in Titan Fall until these past few weeks in watching and reading the news reports. I guess I was expecting another great set of characters and storyline to be part of Titan Fall but to find out there is none is very disappointing. For someone who started out in PC’s in the very early ‘70’s - the best games are the one’s that have a story and memorable characters – hell, even DOOM started out as just a networked shooter that I spent many a wee hour with my co-workers tied to our networked PCs all night. But then they added to the game a story with some great characters that made it even better.

I even pre-ordered the Titan Fall Collectors Edition for the PC which I picked up today – the model mech is great!! But I will not be loading the game anytime soon – hoping that a forthcoming story and single player will be added. I read this recent article that echo’s my sentiment exactly so I’ll just post the link and some comments of the author –

“Titanfall needs its Captain Price. Its Marcus Fenix. Its Master Chief. I don’t think it’s enough to just have a collection of expendable Titans and soldiers running around. Players shouldn’t have to read internet wikis to have a proper picture painted of the story.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/03/11/the-great-titanfall-debate-do-multiplayer-shooters-need-single-player-campaigns/

And here is another article that I feel speaks to the silent majority of us gamers – I think Microsoft will have to add single player and split screen if they really want to make a big leap forward in game and console sales.

“Titanfall is great, but it’s probably not the console seller Microsoft is hoping it would be”

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/03/10/titanfall-is-great-but-probably-not-a-reason-to-choose-the-new-xbox-over-the-playstation-4-like-microsoft-hopes/?__lsa=6881-4544

I completely understand why Respawn would do this. I would have liked a traditional campaign though, especially if it could be played cooperatively.

I think you have to look at this as the beginning of more fulfilling experiences when it comes to games. If developers feel they can make a game that is better as a pure single player game, than that seems perfectly fine to me.

If developers feel they can make a game that is strictly a competitive multiplayer experience, I think players should respect that.

I understand the tradition with most games. Singleplayer is the standard. Full retail game experiences have an expansive single playeror the former and multiplayer. If the game is worth $60 as a pure multiplayer or Single player it shouldn't matter.

People respect developers for solely focusing on single player. I don't see why we can't do the same for developers that want to the same with multiplayer.

@Wild_man_22:

absolutely. the entire premise that a multiplayer game should be forced to tack on a single-player campaign is ridiculous to me.

@Black_Knight_00: it's simple there's games that are known to be good simply for their multi player and single player doesn't get touched, and there's games that are good for single player, and their multi player don't get touched. Cods linear single player campaigns are old fashioned even with the movie like glitz, I have given up on their single player years ago same with battlefield. I would rather the developers concentrate on doing one thing amazingly, saying that though I don't think this game would work single player I just can't see it.

The only games I can think of that has a successful single player and multi player are halo and Gta.

Titanfall does have story elements but it's tied in to multi player, the game looks good and looks like it will be fun to play but haven't decided wether to get xboxone or ps4 and I'm yet to see if it's worth getting xbox1 just for this game.