By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Here's why I'm fine with Titanfall having no single player campaign.

Tagged games:

fps_d0minat0r on 12 March 2014
vivster said:
I think nobody who wanted to play this game cared about singeplayer. Campaings like in COD and BF were just nice distractions, many people not even touching it and going straight to multiplayer. No one would need a campaign for LOL either.

I think online only multiplayer games are a good thing. But it would be even better if you could play them offline on LAN parties.


Yeah thats because it doesnt have one.

You underestimate the demand for sci-fi singleplayer games. Titanfall could have been epic with SP, much better than COD and BF, and driven the sales a lot more. Plus the guys in the submarine without internet connections could have played it too, but fuck em, right?



Around the Network
vivster on 12 March 2014
fps_d0minat0r said:
vivster said:
I think nobody who wanted to play this game cared about singeplayer. Campaings like in COD and BF were just nice distractions, many people not even touching it and going straight to multiplayer. No one would need a campaign for LOL either.

I think online only multiplayer games are a good thing. But it would be even better if you could play them offline on LAN parties.


Yeah thats because it doesnt have one.

You underestimate the demand for sci-fi singleplayer games. Titanfall could have been epic with SP, much better than COD and BF, and driven the sales a lot more. Plus the guys in the submarine without internet connections could have played it too, but fuck em, right?

Yep that is one reason.

Why would it be bad for a game to not have a mode that it is not made for? Why are you looking for a game you want in a game that isn't what you want?



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

jlmurph2 on 12 March 2014
ktay95 said:
jlmurph2 said:
ktay95 said:
jlmurph2 said:
ktay95 said:
Now it just needs some multiplayer content, gameplay may be good but the games lack of content and the way its all set up is terrible compared to the big FPS franchises.


Has more maps to start than Ghosts and Battlefield with way better gameplay. Updates will happen occasionally with gamemodes with map packs throughout the year. Also doesn't rely on a BS single player. So what lack of content are you referring to?

http://au.ign.com/wikis/titanfall/Game_Modes

http://au.ign.com/wikis/call-of-duty-ghosts/Game_Modes

I count 6 vs 17

Also iirc theres a lack of private games with custom rules, the biggest party you can have is like 6 instead of 12 so you cant play a match with friends only etc.

Hopefully it is updated because it seems like a lack of content imo for a full price game when you compare it to other games in the genre.


I said maps, not modes. Reading is fundamental. 

Of course, because asking me what lack of content Im reffering to and then me providing the lack of content I was reffering to makes no sense right??

READING IS FUNDAMENTAL =P


You ended up comparing Game modes after I said "Has more maps to start than Ghosts and BF". I addressed the Game type issue already. I agree and fully know that there will be updates throughout the game's lifetime. As of right now, there's plenty for me to enjoy for my $60. Which is more than I can say for COD IMO. I just can't spend $60 on a game that hasn't been revolutionized since 2007. 



Panama on 12 March 2014

Agreed. Absolutely worth the extra money. I hope more developers take heed of this and start charging full price for multiplayer only games.



fps_d0minat0r on 12 March 2014
vivster said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
vivster said:
I think nobody who wanted to play this game cared about singeplayer. Campaings like in COD and BF were just nice distractions, many people not even touching it and going straight to multiplayer. No one would need a campaign for LOL either.

I think online only multiplayer games are a good thing. But it would be even better if you could play them offline on LAN parties.


Yeah thats because it doesnt have one.

You underestimate the demand for sci-fi singleplayer games. Titanfall could have been epic with SP, much better than COD and BF, and driven the sales a lot more. Plus the guys in the submarine without internet connections could have played it too, but fuck em, right?

Yep that is one reason.

Why would it be bad for a game to not have a mode that it is not made for? Why are you looking for a game you want in a game that isn't what you want?


im not saying the MP is bad. im saying the SP could have been epic, and im sure it will be in titanfall 2 which hopefully wont be rushed like the first one clearly is.



Around the Network
squibbfire on 12 March 2014

Wait ...What? No single player?  and this game costs money? sounds blah.  Good thing thief is out:)



jlmurph2 on 12 March 2014
fps_d0minat0r said:
vivster said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
vivster said:
I think nobody who wanted to play this game cared about singeplayer. Campaings like in COD and BF were just nice distractions, many people not even touching it and going straight to multiplayer. No one would need a campaign for LOL either.

I think online only multiplayer games are a good thing. But it would be even better if you could play them offline on LAN parties.


Yeah thats because it doesnt have one.

You underestimate the demand for sci-fi singleplayer games. Titanfall could have been epic with SP, much better than COD and BF, and driven the sales a lot more. Plus the guys in the submarine without internet connections could have played it too, but fuck em, right?

Yep that is one reason.

Why would it be bad for a game to not have a mode that it is not made for? Why are you looking for a game you want in a game that isn't what you want?


im not saying the MP is bad. im saying the SP could have been epic, and im sure it will be in titanfall 2 which hopefully wont be rushed like the first one clearly is.

You're right about that. Vince actually said that EA didn't give them enough resources to get a single-player in. Maybe that had to do with Time/Money.



vivster on 12 March 2014
fps_d0minat0r said:
vivster said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
vivster said:
I think nobody who wanted to play this game cared about singeplayer. Campaings like in COD and BF were just nice distractions, many people not even touching it and going straight to multiplayer. No one would need a campaign for LOL either.

I think online only multiplayer games are a good thing. But it would be even better if you could play them offline on LAN parties.


Yeah thats because it doesnt have one.

You underestimate the demand for sci-fi singleplayer games. Titanfall could have been epic with SP, much better than COD and BF, and driven the sales a lot more. Plus the guys in the submarine without internet connections could have played it too, but fuck em, right?

Yep that is one reason.

Why would it be bad for a game to not have a mode that it is not made for? Why are you looking for a game you want in a game that isn't what you want?


im not saying the MP is bad. im saying the SP could have been epic, and im sure it will be in titanfall 2 which hopefully wont be rushed like the first one clearly is.

A lot of things could've been great. A PS4 release for example. But I also think it is a good thing that the devs are making the game they want and are not forced to do a single player campaign against their will.

There are other people claiming SP is bad for multiplayer games because it takes away recources from perfecting the multiplayer. Which is a fair argument since making a singleplayer campaign just takes so much longer than making multiplayer. Of course Titanfall is a good example of how to still fuck it up when you're only doing multiplayer.(not saying it is bad but unfinished)

I hope if they do SP in the sequel they are doing it because they want to and not because people demanding things they're not entitled to.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

crissindahouse on 12 March 2014

A multiplayer only game is as fine as a singleplayer only game, nobody needs reasons to justify that. Not to forget that the average time someone will play Titanfall will be probably much more as the average time someone will play a game like Bioshock so that the price per hour is much lower on average.

It would be nice to have a great singleplayer and also nice to have a really good multiplayer in Bioshock but chance is very high that these modes wouldn't be very good in these games so that they don't really need them.



Too_Talls on 12 March 2014
crissindahouse said:
A multiplayer only game is as fine as a singleplayer only game, nobody needs reasons to justify that. Not to forget that the average time someone will play Titanfall will be probably much more as the average time someone will play a game like Bioshock so that the price per hour is much lower on average.

It would be nice to have a great singleplayer and also nice to have a really good multiplayer in Bioshock but chance is very high that these modes wouldn't be very good in these games so that they don't really need them.


^this, after 10 hours or so most single player games are done and doomed to the dust clooecting closet. while I still can find a reason to play very old multi player games like cod 4. I racked up 85 days worth of just multi player time in MW2.

I have played through the ocorina of time 3 times and that takes not nearly as much time.



http://imageshack.com/a/img801/6426/f7pc.gif

^Yes that's me ripping it up in the GIF. :)