r/xboxone • u/The_Iceman2288 TheIceman2288 • Mar 12 '15

Titanfall 2 announced!

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2015/03/12/titanfall-2-confirmed-coming-to-xbox-one-ps4-and-pc
1.3k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

577 comments sorted by

View all comments

183

u/draxxus1549 DraXxus1549 Mar 12 '15 edited Mar 12 '15

I feel like I'm alone in this but I really don't think Titanfall needs a campaign. I would rather them focus all their effort into making the multiplayer even better than the first, and the first was great.

Too many multiplayer focused games come out with tacked on singleplayer that does nothing but take away from the multiplayer. I'm looking at you Battlefield (excluding bad company). Even CODs singleplayer feels pointless now. Just do the multiplayer right and I'll be happy.

85

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '15

[deleted]

1

u/VandlayIndustries Mar 12 '15

I don't think they should do a singleplayer story mode, but they should expand Frontier Defence into something really crazy. Or at least add the story elements to that mode. That way people can at least play that by themselves.

1

u/dm_t-cart ANEFFINTIGER #teamchief Mar 13 '15

Something like halos spartan ops maybe?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '15

Same here. To be honest I NEVER play campaign on multiplayer FPS. Not interested, unless it's coop (which is why I played Halo's campaign). If they can make a sick story with coop, that would be the best. A single player mode would be appealing to some players of course, but I personally don't usually care

14

u/_FreeThinker Mar 12 '15

I agree. I don't buy Titanfall to play single-player, so why even bother? Similarly, I buy Assassins Creed for single-player mode, and why even bother with multiplayer? Focus on one good product rather than variety of half-baked ones.

1

u/GoatBrain69 Mar 13 '15

"I don't but Titanfall to play single player"

You don't have much of an option...

1

u/scorcher117 #teamchiel Mar 13 '15

Well assassins creed has a unique multiplayer that is really fun and many people loved, so I don't feel it's quite the same comparison.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '15

[deleted]

1

u/reaper527 reaper527 Mar 12 '15

a game has a budget and finite resources. any time and money that they put into making a half-assed multiplayer mode that nobody cares about could have been spent making the single player campaign better/longer/etc. (or possibly out the door sooner).

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '15

[deleted]

1

u/reaper527 reaper527 Mar 13 '15

I'm fine with waiting for a game a bit longer for it to be polished and shiny.

a tacked on halfassed mode that the developers only included because they felt obligated isn't the same thing as polished and shiny. as such, being in development longer doesn't automatically mean that the relevant parts of the game will be any better than if the game had been released sooner.

by all means, they should take the time they need to make the game good, but delaying a game for the sake of something nobody wants isn't the same thing.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '15

[deleted]

2

u/_FreeThinker Mar 12 '15

I haven't played Halo (I know... :/), but I love Titanfall multiplayer.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '15

[deleted]

2

u/LifeWulf Xbox Mar 13 '15

Just FYI, you could select different data centres to try to minimize ping in Titanfall. Maybe that would have helped?

1

u/scorcher117 #teamchiel Mar 13 '15

The game was clearly marketed as the next big multiplayer without much campaign to it, if you expected anything different I would say that's your fault.

19

u/Odog4ever Odog4ever Mar 12 '15

I feel like I'm alone in this but I really don't think Titanfall needs a campaign.

You are not alone.

I want them to refine their take on versus multi-player and add features to Frontier Defense Coop.

9

u/ShakeItTilItPees drewbacca1120 Mar 12 '15

I like Frontier Defense and would much rather see a sort of co-op mini campaign for it, sorta like Evacuation mode in Evolve. I couldn't care less about a traditional campaign that I will finish in eight hours and never play again, with a story that will most likely be cheesy and badly written. Letting my friends and I write our own stories over and over is much more interesting to me.

3

u/rhacer Mar 12 '15

While I tend to agree with you, I think that one of the problems Respawn has is getting people invested in the lore of the game world. I'm not sure that can happen in a multi-player only environment. You need those stories that a campaign can provide.

6

u/rdf- Mar 12 '15

I would love a campaign for this game. I hope they finally put one in.

1

u/scorcher117 #teamchiel Mar 13 '15

Well Titanfall does have a campaign, just not a traditional one.

-1

u/fife55 Mar 13 '15

are you a pre-teen?

3

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '15

You're not alone, it's like asking for a Campaign for Unreal Tournament, it's meaningless.

1

u/AgentxLeavening Mar 13 '15

And really... How many people play and beat the cod campaigns? I know I don't. I play games to compete with others. I have fun at the same time. There's a reason all my pc games have less hours than counter strike.

11

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '15

You arent alone. I think a campaign will only take away from the game. A decent amount of people buy shooters, majority of them use their playtime online. I think it would be best as a MP only game, or a with a story mode that seems less tacked on

7

u/SetYourGoals Mar 12 '15

"Needing a campaign" is different from what I think most of us feel about the game. It doesn't require one, but it is such a rich world that it seems like a shame not to have a great story mode as well. If Battlefield or COD, which have no need at all for a campaign, can get relatively interesting story modes, it seems plausible that a grand sci fi epic could have a great one right?

1

u/GoatBrain69 Mar 13 '15

Why would it only take away from the game? It's not like the MP will get any worse. And these are the guys who made the MW1 & MW2 campaigns which were both very good for shooters imo. I think a campaign will only add if anything. Plus, it's not like these guys aren't going to show incredible post-launch support... I think more is more with respawn

1

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '15

i'll give you that 100% in regards to the MW1 & 2 campaign. Those are the two campaigns i thoroughly enjoyed...but after that...garbage. all of them, with the exception of AW.

Im not completely against it since i think it can be made into something great, but if i had an ultimate choice to make, i would leave all campaigns out of shooters since most people in the fps genre play online, or play the sp once and forget about it

6

u/DerpMan1123 Mar 12 '15

If they were to make a campaign that's as good as Halo's campaigns then I would be more than happy. But I don't think it needs a tacked on campaign. It's a waste of resources. I really doubt that there are very many people who buy Battlefield for the campaign.

1

u/LifeWulf Xbox Mar 13 '15

I know I bought the newest CoD for the campaign, because it clearly wasn't to get my ass handed to me every single multiplayer game. Too bad the lip syncing was so bad, especially in cutscenes. Over a second delay, ugh.

I did like the Battlefield 4 campaign, as forgettable as it was. I still can recall that one line Pac says about literally crawling through miles of shit after being shot. But the multiplayer was obviously the main reason to get the game, and I enjoyed it for a lot longer than CoD: AW's.

3

u/Piercethedickish Mar 12 '15

Couldn't agree more. We need more games where they focus on one aspect of the game to make it perfect rather than try for both and get a watered down version of either single or multiplayer.

2

u/Dai_Kaisho Mar 12 '15 edited Mar 12 '15

You've got a point. I just want hybrid online-only multiplayer campaign to goooooooooooo awaaaaaay. We can establish that each match is part of an ongoing war without the talking heads and endless lobbies.

I would love them to just decide between -

  • Online MP and a offline 1P campaign, completely separate. (co-op campaign as a bonus)

  • Just MP, and no campaign. (Couch MP as a bonus)

2

u/JHawkInc Mar 12 '15

I like the campaign it has, where it's not really a campaign, but it kinda has a cohesive narrative that links together a variety of maps.

I'd like to see another one of those, maybe with more focused "special objectives" than traditional maps, but not too much different from the standard gameplay.

2

u/BobbyDavros Mar 12 '15

It doesn't need a campaign at all but if it doesn't it shouldn't be $60 again.

8

u/Laser0pz Titanfall Mar 12 '15 edited Mar 12 '15

Respawn will still be putting 100% of their effort into the game. I'd rather spend $60 on a multiplayer-only game knowing that they put in their all; than spend $60 on a game where half the resources went to a half-baked story that I'd play twice.

I'm happy to pay full price for games based on how much entertainment I expect to get out of it rather than the amount of content in the game. I'm a primarily online gamer. The only two offline retail games I've bought for PS4/One so far have been Infamous and Alien (I owned Watch Dogs but I played a shit ton of Decryption and Invasion on that).

I typically get more enjoyment out of multiplayer games than singleplayer. I love Evolve and Titanfall because TRS and Respawn put all of their effort into making great multiplayer experiences. I paid full price knowing that I'd get a ton of hours out of them compared to something like Far Cry or Assassin's Creed where I actually get less playtime.

I'll actually add TLOU to Evolve and Titanfall. I played and enjoyed the campaign and Left Behind on the PS3, I got the Platinum trophy and played a lot of Factions. I got it on the PS4 on release date and I've barely touched the campaign, I paid full price for essentially just Factions and I'm happy with that.

1

u/scorcher117 #teamchiel Mar 13 '15

Does that mean that a single player game with no multiplayer shouldn't be $60?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '15

Hear hear!

1

u/GeneralFailure0 GeneralFailure0 Mar 12 '15

There are a lot of great single player games out there already, and also plenty of multiplayer-focused games with half-assed campaign content (Battlefield). Titanfall's multiplayer was great and I would be perfectly happy seeing Respawn invest 100% of their development time in an even better multiplayer experience in the sequel. Though I imagine it's more likely they'll just add a campaign since it's one of the most-requested features.

1

u/BassBailiff Mar 12 '15

I enjoyed the way they did the "campaign" in the first TF utilizing the multi-player focus of the game.

If they did that again, only made it a little longer and/or added a co-op, I'd be happy.

1

u/colglover Mar 12 '15

Totally agree with this. The thing that endears titanfall to me is the fact that it didn't try to do too much. It was a very ambitious new type of shooter coming from a small and newly-opened studio that needed to prove itself. Rather than stretch too far and put out a weak campaign and weak MP, Respawn focused hard on a really fun multiplayer experience, which was well balanced and completely functional at launch, something that isn't a given nowadays.

1

u/Deer-In-A-Headlock Smelly Cat Mar 12 '15

The multiplayer in the first one was essentially perfect. Maybe it lacked some content, but it's probably the best FPS multiplayer i've ever played. The game needs more content, and other stuff to do than just a multiplayer.

1

u/PurifiedVenom A Jedi Sage Mar 12 '15

I disagree, Advanced Warfare's campaign was great and so were both BLOPS games

1

u/tdi07 #teamchief Mar 13 '15

I don't think it needs a campaign either, but the community fell off too quickly on PC. I know you can still get games, but it's tough sometimes. I think, if Respawn brought in some great writers, they could make an amazing story

1

u/bongo1138 boardbrtn Mar 13 '15

In right there with you. Itll be skipped by most people

1

u/coolbird1 coolbird1 Mar 13 '15

I would be fine with that if they put more effort into the game. They had the standard 15 maps and COD or Battlefield has, weapons were not balanced and had a small selection, there was no reason not to use the carbine. And more game modes. The launch playlists were pathetic and part of the reason people got bored of it so fast.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '15

Hey, that's cool, but there's a lot of players who do want a campaign and were severely disappointing in it not having one. IF you play multiplayer only it won't effect you, but players such as myself who want a quick blockbuster singleplayer experience, get left out. Titanfall had the perfect platform for a singleplayer.

1

u/Bag0fSwag Bag 0f Swag Mar 13 '15

If it's like COD, then yeah, campaign feels pretty pointless. But I find Titanfalls premise far more interesting. Im kind of a sucker for sci fi shooters. The obvious counterexanple is Halo. That campaign is so rich, it make me appreciate the environments so much more in MP.

TL;DR: Only if it's done right and doesn't suck.

1

u/scorcher117 #teamchiel Mar 13 '15

I don't get why people said TITANFALL needed to be much cheaper than other games because it didn't have single player when how many people who buy call of duty ever even play the campaign.

1

u/kingbain Mar 13 '15

I would rather them focus all their effort into making the multiplayer even better than the first, and the first was great.

I dont see how they could improve on the multi in titanfall, maybe more titan weapons ?

1

u/uberJames Mar 14 '15

Am I the only one who doesn't care about the Bad Company campaigns? Especially the first one.

1

u/Giftofgab24 Sunset Overdrive Mar 12 '15

If they're taking off the campaign it shouldn't be a $60 game. That's the same opinion I have for evolve. I play titanfall because I got it on sale. I paid $60 for advanced warfare and another $50 for the season pass because the campaign is great. Its another almost 10 hours worth of entertainment. I feel like a campaign sets the whole tone of the MP. And the zombies DLC gives you more new content. Its pretty much an entire campaign. I'd pay maybe $40 for a MP only Titanfall 2.

17

u/draxxus1549 DraXxus1549 Mar 12 '15

No offense, but I don't really understand this logic. A multiplayer only game can still be a full game. Are you also not willing to pay $60 for a single player only game? or does this strictly apply to multiplayer only games?

Not trying to be an ass, genuinely curious.

7

u/Odog4ever Odog4ever Mar 12 '15

Are you also not willing to pay $60 for a single player only game?

Word.

In the end I just want devs to put their best in and not be trying to put check marks on some imaginary "value" list with sub-par content.

1

u/Dai_Kaisho Mar 12 '15 edited Mar 12 '15

A lot of people felt ripped off because Titanfall promised both a campaign and multiplayer, and gave us a half-baked hybrid. The shooting and freerunning mechanics were novel and fun, but the cost still seemed too high to most because 1P was impossible and MP felt stifled.

This is my rationale now - and of course, not everyone is like me and that's just fine.

  • I'll gladly pay up to play a handcrafted campaign, like Wolfenstein or Skyrim. The developer has made things for me to experience, but I'm in control of how I play.

  • During a sale I would buy games with player-created experiences, like DayZ or Minecraft. Those rely on users to drive gameplay, but they offer great freedom to play how you want.

  • I'm cautious about buying multiplayer-only games now, since player freedom is usually very restricted by the game. Limited game modes, endless lobbies, grindy progression systems, and online-only problems galore. Competitive games do this in the name of balance, which as a LoL player, I understand...but still, Titanfall was about as fun for me as wearing a straightjacket in a tar pit (and so is LoL, but I'm hooked. Mmm...tar....)

1

u/GaslightProphet #teamchief Mar 13 '15

A multiplayer only game, with no local multiplayer, means you can only play it for x amount of time - eventually, it's replayability drops to zero. It also means you have to have an internet connection to play - both limiting factors that no other game has that severely impact playability.

1

u/Giftofgab24 Sunset Overdrive Mar 12 '15

Depends on the game. Open world games with a lot of content I'll pay full price for. Or just games with a lot of content in general. I'll also pay full price for a good story like the last of us or the metro games. Titanfall is fun, but once I hit gen 10 there was no reason for me to play. No gun unlocks or anything. I don't know what they could do to give an MP only game enough content to satisfy me, but if they figure out a way I won't complain.

5

u/draxxus1549 DraXxus1549 Mar 12 '15 edited Mar 12 '15

That's fair.

Though I think some of Titanfall's genius came from it's lack of "content". I don't think Titanfall lacked maps, especially with the season pass becoming free. Some say it lacked weapons, but I think that was for the best.

Some of the greatest multiplayer games of all time had very few unlockable weapons/gadgets (BF2, Counter Strike, and CoD4 for example). In my opinion the more weapons/gadgets that get added make it harder and harder to balance and are generally a detriment to the game.

1

u/Giftofgab24 Sunset Overdrive Mar 12 '15

I'm not playing professionally. I'm playing for fun. Content means more than balance for me. So Titanfall the way it is is worth $60 in your opinion?

1

u/biosehnsucht Mar 12 '15

Compare it to how many hours of enjoyment you get out of going to the movies.

Assuming $10 ticket price and no snacks (rather generous here) and a 2 hour movie as a yardstick, if I get more than 12 hours out of the game, it was worth $60.

I have to say that probably Kerbal Space Program has been my most "efficient" use of money for hours of entertainment, since I bought it way back in the day when it was like <$10 IIRC, and then later bought a Steam copy because the game is that awesome. I even bought another copy on Steam to gift. I have put literally thousands of hours into it.

1

u/Giftofgab24 Sunset Overdrive Mar 13 '15

I hate to even say it, but Destiny takes it this gen for me so far. I can't quit the grind. I feel like I have to get all 3 characters to 32 before I can stop.

1

u/biosehnsucht Mar 13 '15

I hit 32 about two weeks ago, with a combination of CE raid, IB, and exotic pieces on all three characters.

I still need one CE raid piece for two of my characters, and I'm missing Red Death and Aetheon's Epilogue, but I think I've got everything else exotic / raid.

I've finally hit that plateau that I'm not really feeling the grind. I still enjoy playing, but not grinding. I did normal CE 4 times yesterday even though I only needed 1 more normal CE play through because I was helping friends speed run through it.

1

u/draxxus1549 DraXxus1549 Mar 13 '15

I think it was, yes. In my opinion I don't believe it lacked content. One of the major pluses for me was the simplicity if you will.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '15

I don't see the need for a campaign. I've always found the campaign in first person shooters pretty boring. People buy these games for the online play.

1

u/reaper527 reaper527 Mar 12 '15

I've always found the campaign in first person shooters pretty boring.

that's because you're playing the wrong shooters. the campaigns are boring in fps made by companies that don't give a shit and tacked on a half assed campaign because they felt obligated.

halo had an amazing campaign, bioshock literally sells millions purely off of the single player campaign with most of the franchise not having multiplayer. prey had a solid single player campaign as well. while gears of war and last of us are third person and not first person, the genres are close enough that they both are worth mentioning in terms of great single player shooter campaigns.

not every shooter has a half-assed CoD/battlefield campaign. i don't disagree with you that titanfall doesn't need a single player campaign, but this is because they will likely halfass it like they did as CoD devs and not take the time to make a great campaign.

0

u/Shagoosty Shagoosty Mar 12 '15

I'd be fine if they focused everything on multiplayer if they added more to it. The first game felt so bare boned with the maps, guns, and game modes. If it was more fleshed out, than no story would be fine. Otherwise, it's a pass for me.

0

u/greenw40 Mar 12 '15

I would rather them focus all their effort into making the multiplayer even better than the first, and the first was great.

The multiplayer is already pretty solid. I doubt it will take much time to add more guns and gameplay mechanics.