So everyone is raging over no Multiplayer in the Order

I'm pretty sure that Warhawk sold for a reduced price, heck I got Warhawk + Headset for a reduced price when it was new. I think it was $50?

Plus, Titanfall just doesn't have the content that other games which had both had - and it is a full priced game. I believe that is the issue people are ridiculing it for. If it had a lot of content then maybe it would be worth the price of entry. Don't claim I am a rabid cow for this - I have a computer which is fully capable of playing the game at much higher settings than the XBone.

13 min of video of some guy repeating himself over and over again... wtf

but yeah, the order could have at least some kind of co-op. Wont buy it full price if its campaign isnt over 15h

Good, means they can focus solely on making a good game. Not every shooter needs multiplayer.

No MP is a crime of 2014 proportions.

@The_Last_Ride:

Most people are happy about this, the people that aren't are mostly young kids who grew up in the ps360 gen... they use multiplayer as a way to be social with people, instead of you know, going out and meeting people in real life. I have a co-worker that is 10 years younger than me and all he does is play mmos and multiplayer. He won't touch a game if it's singleplayer... and I just don't understand this. The same guy will spend 5-10 hours a day online gaming, and doesn't like to go out of his house. For him gaming is a social activity.

I recently played the new steam game "Rust" with him and right away he gave me a full set of rad gear, a bunch of blue prints, guns and a room in their player made tower. I played one time. and never again. Why? I didn't earn anything. It was all given to me and there was nothing left to do but be social with them on teamspeak and do "zombie" runs in the abandoned towns. But for what? All the good stuff was already seen. To me there was nothing left to do as it had already been discovered, mapped out and tamed. The game was ruined hence forth. These same people will play an mmo for the "End game" of raiding and repeat. To me that is not why I play a game. I want to earn the gear, I want to level, and choose my skills. That is the fun. To them the fun is skiping all the leveling and automatically having the best gear and grouping to take on the same thing over and over for a .005% chance of getting something good.... BORING!

For myself and probably for many people of my generation, gaming is a hobby about having fun. It's also a form of escapism. I spend all day with people. I work with people and clients, I walk my dog in the streets of my town, seeing everyone and being social with people, in real life. I have a family , 2 kids , a wife and a cat and a 8 month old puppy. When I get on to game 90% of the time it's to escape into another world. Like I would with a good book. Which is why I like games where you explore and rpgs and open world games are usually the best for this.

I only get to play 1-2 hours a night, and need to be able to pause to deal with family situations. Multiplayer prevents this. I also like to take the time to go over stats and lore on items, or explore every nook in a world, yet in a mmorpg, this can't be done as everyone is always in a rush to level to 80 or what not, and just push on to the next mob. Lore? ha forget it in a multiplayer setting, people will just make jokes about your mom, or some bullshyte , detracting from the game world, and you can only solo so much content. This is why Skyrim is better than the TES Online in every way, for me, at least. Multiplayer can affect the game world for bad if not done right from the beginning. I

Not all games are about multiplayer. Most that have a mp mode only get played by a few people and most stick to cod. Why waste time and resources building something not many will even play. And potentially taking away resources from the single player? Its not a good tradeoff. Especially for a new ip that tells a story. When you have a bunch of people that are all the main character, the protagonist looses his allure, his power as a hero. Also look at games that had forced multiplayer and became the worst in the series... God of war ascension. Threw away a lot of what made god of war 1-3 great, just to add mp that no one wanted. It was not needed, and I am sure it would of been a better game without it.

Now multiplayer is good in games that were designed strictly for that. In those games story usually takes a back seat to the multiplayer, and in such cases, I wouldn't want a single player, or could care less about it. Those games like Quake 3 Arena, Unreal Tornament, Battlefield , Battlefront, Warhawk, Mag, etc... All fine and good and this is the type of multiplayer I prefer.

Just looked at some of the Lemming influx of "no mutloplayer no buy" really? What the hell. Not like they would buy a PlayStation Game anyway. They must of started gaming on the xbaux. i swear there are two types of gamers out there. Those who use gaming as a hobby, to have fun and an escape into another world, and those who want to be social, talk smack, troll be douches and compete by "owning" someone.

Holy shit!!! Did you actually say something I can agree with. As long as the single player is 10+ hours and there is collectables or side missions, then replay value will be there.

What you find to be a good value might differ from others, right? Also, the lack of content I can't comment on, as I haven't played Titanfall or Warhawk, but if I bought Titanfall, and played for 60 hours, I would be paying $1 an hour for my entertainment. Which is easily on of the cheapest hobbies I can think of.

Also, you can't claim lack of bias because you have a system. I'm sure a lot of people have all of them in here, and you can see their lack of bias all over the place.

Would you call an online 1 vs 1 game with only 1 mode and 1 level good value if you got 60 hours of entertainment with it?
If someone plays a single player game lasting 2 hours and no replayability for 30 times would you call that good value?

No, Titanfall does not have good value for $60, for a budget price I would say it does though.

Good. Most tacked-on MP sucks anyway. For the most part games should either be dedicated SP or dedicated MP.

This isn't Santa Monica... its Ready at Dawn. A company who made Daxter, God of war chains of Olympus, and God of war ghost of sparta. Some of the highest rated games on the PSP. This is their first console game. I am glad they are focusing on just single player. It's what they are good at. And besides this is an action adventure not a fps... Lems need to stop with this MP for everything crusade. XBL has them brainwashed.

Yeah, i am more of the opposite

Totally agree, that's why when i play MMO's i usually play pvp or something other than just PVE

Totally agree, that's why i liked RPG's so much, i like the story and just lose myself in it

I totally get it, that's why i like singleplayer games so much

Just look at Tomb Raider aswell and other games

I totally agree with that, if you can do multiplayer alone and focus on that, then it should be just that. Don't shoehorn something in the game that shouldn't be there. I am so sick of that added on singleplayer, co op or multiplayer crap that shouldn't even be there

yeah, after seing these reactions i think it has to more true than i thought

The game is going to be impressive enough in graphics and gameplay to overcome the fps and no MP complaints.

Its another case of xbots reaching, only making their console of choice look worse

My take on FPS:

Zero fucks give. I'm tired of every dev nowadays feeling the need to divert resources from SP to make a shitty tacked on MP mode (see GOW:A and TR).

Were not the guy in the video's an idiot or a Lemming in disguise, he obviously thinks the Order 1886 is something it's not. He looks like one of those COD bro fist type players, even if Order 1886 had MP it still wouldn't be a competitive game.

Gamers are hypocrites.

They complained when Tomb Raider got multiplayer, they complained when Assasin's Creed got multiplayer, they complained when Mass Effect got multiplayer, they complained when Bioshock got multiplayer, they complained that Titanfall is only multiplayer, and now they are complaining that The Order doesn't have multiplayer.

We need to just accept that gamers are whiny, self-obsessed children, and will never be happy with anything.

As long as the single player experience is long enough to justify paying 60 dollars Im fine with it.

I definitely agree with this and I have to say, it really does get to the point where developers shouldn't listen to gamers.

A great single player experience seems like "a lost art" for video games. Especially for shooters. I know most people are always going to try and find things to complain about. But I respect their decision for not adding tacked on multi player to try and cater to the bro crowd.

But unfortunately I don't see this game selling well because so many people this day and age have the "no multi player, no buy" mentality. That's why so many devs are pressured into putting in tacked on multi player.

Totally agree!

No mp is fine with me... Seems like a missed opportunity to not develop some coop however... Still interested in the game though

Casual gamers want multiplayer in everything.

Mostly lems are on the attack ...

All they have to counter games like Order is

1) A bad 6 scored game ( metacritic) that runs 900p/30fps

2) A multiplatform that will run at 720p and a god knows what frames ... Titanfall

And here we are , whining about a game that runs at 1080p!!! and 30frames because it lacks multiplayer ... Like its the only game focusing on single player alone in the history of video gaming.

I guess I missed that back in E3. I remember getting all hyped up on Santa Monica's New Game back then. Didn't know it wasn't developed by them.

They might do a patch for it if people are asking for it perhaps. But it's totally fine with me aswell

I don't get the rage at all. The game looks great and it may actually get me to buy a PS4. If the devs wanted to focus all their time and efforts on one aspect then good. It had better be a great single player game. I have no issues that it has no multiplayer. I could list 30 games that don't that I bought and love. The 30fps is BS too. If its stable then its all good. Unless a game is unplayable at times like Battlefield, whatever the resolution and fps comes in at is fine by me so long as the game delivers big-ime.

Im not paying full prize for single player only. I will get the game later on if its good though.