It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Titanfall won't have a single-player campaign(43 posts)(43 posts)
(43 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 23, 2013
avatar
Stiler: Wow, surpriseds to see people asking for bots.

I mean I never got the appeal of having bots. In MP Games like CS/Red Orchestra I avoid servers with bots on them like the plague.

They have seen with CoD how the majority of players go for the MP (plenty of them don't even touch the sp side of the game, just straight to mp).

As a smaller studio now and this being their first game it would have been a tremendous waste of their money and resources to build some epic big single player campaign that the majority of players coming into it wouldn't really touch/finish and would most likely spend their time in mp.

I never saw the appeal of single player in the CoD games, they are so damn linear in nature, just the same old thing over and over and over, run up to scripted point, fight waves of enemies, along with some AI squad members that are ZERO help and do nothing. IT was boring as hell and got old after the first CoD wher eit was actually something new/different back then.
avatar
nijuu: all the original cod games even up to mw1 were pretty much singleplayer games and pretty decent as well.its only when the mw1 multiplayer too off (I found it quite enjoyable if u ignore the hackers) when it became more multi and sp went down down.
really pretty much all fps shooters are scripted....
I was talking about the first CoD, the WWII one with the soviet campaign, that was epic at the time because it was on such a scale.

Like Medal of Honor: Allied Assult with it's epic Normandy beach landing sequences but kicked in overdrive.

However that kind of scripted focus with giant set pieces like the first one did has been wearing thin. They have done them so much in every CoD since then and there's sooooooooo many other fps that follow that path.

I just have gotten tired of that kind of fps single player thing. That's why I find myself enjoying RPGS a lot more then fps games these days, only rarely do I find some I enjoy like Stalker, Metro: Last Light, etc.
Posted June 23, 2013
avatar
nijuu: all the original cod games even up to mw1 were pretty much singleplayer games and pretty decent as well.its only when the mw1 multiplayer too off (I found it quite enjoyable if u ignore the hackers) when it became more multi and sp went down down.
really pretty much all fps shooters are scripted....
avatar
Stiler: I was talking about the first CoD, the WWII one with the soviet campaign, that was epic at the time because it was on such a scale.

Like Medal of Honor: Allied Assult with it's epic Normandy beach landing sequences but kicked in overdrive.

However that kind of scripted focus with giant set pieces like the first one did has been wearing thin. They have done them so much in every CoD since then and there's sooooooooo many other fps that follow that path.

I just have gotten tired of that kind of fps single player thing. That's why I find myself enjoying RPGS a lot more then fps games these days, only rarely do I find some I enjoy like Stalker, Metro: Last Light, etc.
Unfortunately that's the nature of FPS's. Only ones which are even different are the ones with better script/story/plot like Spec Ops, but even then you don't find anything innovative about game mechanics etc. Haven't seen anything radically new in that genre unfortunately.
Post edited June 23, 2013 by nijuu
Posted June 23, 2013
Good. Not every game needs multi-player. And not every game needs single player. Focus on what you want to make and avoid wasting resources and time on something you don't want. More games should so this.
Posted June 23, 2013
avatar
nijuu: Unfortunately that's the nature of FPS's. Only ones which are even different are the ones with better script/story/plot like Spec Ops, but even then you don't find anything innovative about game mechanics etc. Haven't seen anything radically new in that genre unfortunately.
Well, Spec Ops gets a pass on its mechanics because its combat needed to not be fun in order for the experience to work.

On a side note: Spec Ops is a TPS, not a FPS. I've seen people lump Gears of War in when describing FPS's too. It's funny how we just see a lot of war games as FPS's in our mind now, which makes sense in a way, if we look at the underlying mechanics and the games' appeal they can have plenty in common.
Posted June 23, 2013
avatar
nijuu: Unfortunately that's the nature of FPS's. Only ones which are even different are the ones with better script/story/plot like Spec Ops, but even then you don't find anything innovative about game mechanics etc. Haven't seen anything radically new in that genre unfortunately.
avatar
DaCostaBR: Well, Spec Ops gets a pass on its mechanics because its combat needed to not be fun in order for the experience to work.

On a side note: Spec Ops is a TPS, not a FPS. I've seen people lump Gears of War in when describing FPS's too. It's funny how we just see a lot of war games as FPS's in our mind now, which makes sense in a way, if we look at the underlying mechanics and the games' appeal they can have plenty in common.
WHat is a TPS?. Playing through Spec Ops right now... and game mechanics dont seem that different from COD's or other fps's.. at least to me... the plot seems to be the big difference
Posted June 23, 2013
avatar
DaCostaBR: Well, Spec Ops gets a pass on its mechanics because its combat needed to not be fun in order for the experience to work.

On a side note: Spec Ops is a TPS, not a FPS. I've seen people lump Gears of War in when describing FPS's too. It's funny how we just see a lot of war games as FPS's in our mind now, which makes sense in a way, if we look at the underlying mechanics and the games' appeal they can have plenty in common.
avatar
nijuu: WHat is a TPS?. Playing through Spec Ops right now... and game mechanics dont seem that different from COD's or other fps's.. at least to me... the plot seems to be the big difference
TPS = Third Person Shooter.

In third-person, the camera is NOT seen from the eyes of the player.

The camera's usually somewhere around them - often in modern 3D games, the camera's directly behind the player's on-screen character.

Examples of TPS = Gears of War series; Spec Ops; Max Payne series.
Examples of FPS = Doom series; Quake series; Unreal series; RAGE; STALKER series.
Post edited June 23, 2013 by MysterD
Posted June 23, 2013
avatar
DaCostaBR: Well, Spec Ops gets a pass on its mechanics because its combat needed to not be fun in order for the experience to work.

On a side note: Spec Ops is a TPS, not a FPS. I've seen people lump Gears of War in when describing FPS's too. It's funny how we just see a lot of war games as FPS's in our mind now, which makes sense in a way, if we look at the underlying mechanics and the games' appeal they can have plenty in common.
avatar
nijuu: WHat is a TPS?. Playing through Spec Ops right now... and game mechanics dont seem that different from COD's or other fps's.. at least to me... the plot seems to be the big difference
Third-Person Shooter, while the FPS's are First-Person Shooters. My point is that they are indeed similar, but if we instinctively call a third-person shooter a first-person one, then clearly we're not finding a good word to describe it and there must be a deficiency in naming genres.

Sure we could call them Modern Military Shooters, but like I said, I've seen people call Gears of War a First-Person Shooter as well and that one fits neither category.

I just think there are issues with current naming conventions on genres and I have a bone to pick with them.
Posted March 18, 2014
This is an old thread I know, but does anybody have an opinion about this game?

I ask because while I'm not about to buy it, I've seen a lot of reviewers say a bunch of really, really nice things and I'm not sure if I should believe them. It seems some actual players are immensely underwhelmed and from what I've seen it doesn't really visually wow, doesn't look all too innovative and I can't believe the different implements they put in to make games easier than they are (the auto aiming pistol, the far too easy to kill just so players can level up bots). Also, how many players per map are there?

Edit: Oh, and no single player campaign is a bummer for what they're charging (I guess it's more honest than the shoddy three hour celebrity cameos COD puts out. Still...).
Post edited March 18, 2014 by AnimalMother117
Posted March 18, 2014
I'm actually wondering how they can justify the high price for a game which is multiplayer only.
Posted March 18, 2014
the bloody thing is way to expensive for anything it offers, cant wait to play some better cheaper similar game that are sure to come out in future, but not buying it till it gets to $10 to $15 for thats all its worth
Posted March 18, 2014
avatar
Cormoran: And Titanfall drops right off my radar. For me it's; no SP = no sale.
^This. There are too many dicks in the gaming world that I would prefer to avoid.
Posted March 18, 2014
Was SP ever any good with these types of games?
Posted March 18, 2014
Yeahhhh, no. I live in Northern Idaho, I can hear wolves at night and moose during the day*. Competitive multiplayer internet signal? Not so much. It's a shame because I was actually looking forward to Titanfall, but oh well, no great loss.

*It would actually be really easy to run a LARP set in the Spine of the World now that I think about it, or Winterfell/Beyond the Wall. Might have to try that some day.
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Titanfall won't have a single-player campaign(43 posts)(43 posts)
(43 posts)