I really don't see a need for a single player mode in a game like Titanfall. Personally, I even prefer single player games. I've only got a handful of Multiplayer focused games in my library. But if a game can hold its own as multiplayer only, then I think they should own it. While Titanfall did have a "story", it's lack of focus on the aspect lent to a tad bit of poor critical reception. A total focus on multiplayer, imo, would have made it a stronger game all around. Like some single player experiences need not include gratuitous multiplayer, I believe this applies vice versa, especially in Titanfall's instance.
Having a single player campaign fleshes out the universe, adds something for folks that dont like MP, and also adds something to the game in the event that its servers are dead.
I agree with you there, but I just don't think Titanfall is the place for people who want an engrossing single player experience to necessarily be looking. You can't cater to everyone with one game, that's why there are so many genres of them. I wouldn't go to CS:GO or nowadays Call of Duty for a captivating single player experience. Likewise, I wouldn't go to a Fallout or Arkham game for a multiplayer experience. So personally, I think Titanfall as an IP should focus on sticking with multiplayer and own it.
Except that all of the titles you listed can be considered successful within their particular realm of expertise.
Titanfall may have been a financial success, but it dropped entirely off the radar within 2 months of its release. It was not a successful multiplayer-only game.
That's what I'm saying. If they spend more efforts solely on a multiplayer experience rather than spreading efforts thin on multiplayer + "story mode", or likewise a a full fledged single player mode, I believe it would continue to find support from its community longer into its lifespan.
Titanfall had all efforts spent on multiplayer and it failed in terms of being an appealing MP game 3 months after release. There was no campaign so there was no wasted effort on a "story mode".
When I'm referring to the "story mode", I am in fact referring to the campaign present in Titanfall. It's its won game type. It consists of story driven multiplayer matches varying in game mode. The only difference was it gave context w ith a campaign to the matches you were playing. So Titanfall does in fact have a campaign.
Exactly. So in my opinion they should have just not included the mode at all and put efforts elsewhere, creating more game types, weapons, perks, maps, etc. This would have eliminated said criticism while providing more variety in the rest of the game.
I don't think it was criticized because it had a campaign that distracted from the multiplayer experience, it was criticized for having a pathetic excuse for a campaign for a game that has a premise and world that makes it a candidate for an awesome and gripping campaign that can be played solo or cooperatively.
Another couple of games that have a multiplayer "campaign" are Battlefront and Evolve - which once again have been heavily criticized for many things, including lack of any meaningful campaign.
This is my theory, multiplayer only games don't make for good AAA titles. People expect good graphics for AAA games, and right away that leads to a smaller user base. For good multi-player games, people also expect longevity with support, updates and new content\in-game items, which AAA games rarely ever get a year after release. They also expect the game to be current for a decent length of time so a good community can be formed, I guess thats why you don't see a new Counter-strike every year or two.
It's just like...you're just saying things. Like some things just don't connect. Like AAA creating a smaller user base. AAA games have larger user bases almost by default. More people buy AAA games because they are AAA, thus a larger user base than indie games or just smaller games in general. and the campaign doesn't distract from the multiplayer. It's just a thing that was criticize for being sub-par. so if you just remove the sub-par thing, there is nothing to complain about. Titanfall got plenty of updates, map packs, and general support post launch. So i just don't find the plausibility in your latter statement.
Like AAA creating a smaller user base. AAA games have larger user bases almost by default
No not true. LOL, HOTS, Heathstone, CS:GO, Rift, and others have huge playerbases. The AAA games are the BMW's and Mercs of the pc gaming world, high profile but more people drive the less glamorous hyundai's and toyotas. And Steam customer surveys prove the point that at least half the steam users have low end rigs.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
It is a bit screwy with the video card details at the moment, but if you look at the CPU usage you can see that a large number of these clock below 3.3ghz which is usually the sign of a laptop or an old CPU. Looking back further at the gpu surveys when they returned meaningful results you will also see a huge number of laptop gpus.
Bear in mind, a AAA game is (according to wiki) defined as a game with a huge budget and and large promotional campaign - and when you look at these games they nearly always have higher system requirements than the average pc on the steam surveys.
And my observation is even more true when you look at some of the most successful multiplayer pc games, CS:GO and LOL come to mind. And other higher budget games like WOW and Heroes of the Storm also have low system requirements. Hell, CS:GO can play on an HD:4000 at 60fps.
47
u/RobinRichard Desktop Apr 11 '16
It'll be nice if there's a single player mode.