Titanfall dev: "Hardly anybody bothers with single-player"

So apparently no one read the article.

Zampella was careful not to be outright disdainful of the single-player/multiplayer divide seen in other games, and said it could be done successfully if enough resources were devoted to the project. Assassin's Creed was one such franchise where he said the catch-all approach had clearly worked.
Click to expand...

Funny how that little bit adds a ton of context to what he is talking about. READING the short article makes it clear that the entire context is around the games Zampella has worked on and about that specific genre. He was also very specifically talking about games that try be big single-player titles with big multiplayer. He didn't mean ALL single player games in the entire industry.
 
I dunno, I thought the SP in Call of Duty was the only halfway decent part of the games.
 
Derangel said:
So apparently no one read the article.

"Zampella was careful not to be outright disdainful of the single-player/multiplayer divide seen in other games, and said it could be done successfully if enough resources were devoted to the project. Assassin's Creed was one such franchise where he said the catch-all approach had clearly worked."

Funny how that little bit adds a ton of context to what he is talking about. READING the short article makes it clear that the entire context is around the games Zampella has worked on and about that specific genre. He was also very specifically talking about games that try be big single-player titles with big multiplayer. He didn't mean ALL single player games in the entire industry.
Click to expand...

He still shows his bias towards mp in that statement. AC was SP series that had crappy(IMO) MP tacked on at the expense of the SP campaign, it is however a good example of why devs should focus one or the other.
 
I don't mind playing MP at times, but i DO like to have a choice if i want one. Not to be forced into playing with other people because they assumed that everyone wants it.
At times i can't stand playing MP games because people act like total jerks, and other times it's a fun time for all.
For myself i grew up playing SP a lot so it's my preferred way to play games. It's nice to relax sometimes and not have to worry about anyone else bothering you.
 
Ebernanut said:
He still shows his bias towards mp in that statement. AC was SP series that had crappy(IMO) MP tacked on at the expense of the SP campaign, it is however a good example of why devs should focus one or the other.
Click to expand...

I think the MP in AC looks neat, though I never spent much time on it. I really don't think the MP hurt AC anywhere near as much as Ubi's insistence on making it a yearly franchise. Ubisoft is about the only publisher that I think can pull off the combination of both at a good level as long as the teams are given time. With the way Ubisoft operates it's game development process it can have an entire studio doing multiplayer while their main Montreal studio handles the single player with other studios providing support where needed. Given the right amount of time nothing would suffer.
 
The crappy part is just my opinion, I don't think the gameplay is a good base for multiplayer and it seemed a bit forced to me. You're right that the short dev cycle was the biggest issue but I do seem to remember Ubi using the the MP component as an excuse for the short SP campaign. Games don't have an unlimited budget and adding a MP or SP component doesn't double the audience so they can't just double the budget, most of the funding for the second component has to come from the original component meaning it will suffer.

It may just be my bias against MP but you can't convince me that MP has been anything but bad for the AC series. I don't have anything against MP games being made I just think that games should focus on MP or SP and not try to do both.
 
I must be the minority I tend to play the single player of most games. The only games I play for multiplayer are MMOs.
 
True you can make successful MP games with no single player mode attached to it (Quake, TF2), but having good portion of both are what makes a great game. Blizzard RTS are a great example. I spent tons of time on their MP compared to measly 10 hrs on each of their single player mode, but that's where they built characters that got attached to the players and had strong franchise going.

Today's develpers are so into creating a certain length of playtime for marketing, that they forget simple things. It's not how much of a playtime you can suck out of your player base, but how much impact you can bring.
 
I feel like in the world of FPS games that the MP and SP experiences are becoming very different.

To create a title that gives you both like Call of Duty is amazing. But making the progression path of a MP game this "kill 1000 guys with the sniper rifle to unlock the next thing" as the only option is beginning to annoy players.

The great thing about single player is that single events are rewarding...and also some multiplayer games like Borderlands, Diablo, MMOs reward you for defeating certain enemies.

My issue with CoD and similar games is I haveto grind my ass off for ages before I get access to certain gear. It's tedious.

I think they could learn a lot from Borderlands and how random rewards for very specific singular actions feel really great...and honestly could be hugely improved upon.

Something like a bounty or non-critical task given with a time limit on it with a high-value reward once ever 5 games or so.
 
I guess I'm a minority also. I haven't played MP in years. If I were to play MP I would rather a Co-Op experience.
 
Not many games do both well. Great single player games like Tomb Raider really didn't need a basic multiplayer experience bolted on. I feel the same way about The Last of Us. I didn't buy it for the multiplayer. On the flip side COD has become multiplayer only for me so I think it was smart for Respawn to focus solely on making that experience good for their first game as a new studio.
 
JohnleMVP said:
Not many games do both well. Great single player games like Tomb Raider really didn't need a basic multiplayer experience bolted on. I feel the same way about The Last of Us. I didn't buy it for the multiplayer. On the flip side COD has become multiplayer only for me so I think it was smart for Respawn to focus solely on making that experience good for their first game as a new studio.
Click to expand...

But Last of Us has great multiplayer so it's icing on an already delicious cake :D
 
First off AC games are marketed extremely....extremely well and although it is a yearly franchise their level designers make a different environment so much so that you will always have 2-3 million a year that is just interested in playing a different setting.

AC in Rome
AC in America
etc.

To pull that off requires a huge staff which is what Ubisoft has already set up so hats off to them for milking the cow. I always play AC games, but I never buy them and there in lies the issue.

Games without a strong multiplayer do not have a high retention rate and how many people are pirating games that are single player in the first place?

It makes sense as a studio to make multiplayer only games even if they anticipate certain users not having an online connection.

Not to say single player is dead I just agree with a previous poster that most SP will go the way of episode format.
 
Kinsaras said:
But Last of Us has great multiplayer so it's icing on an already delicious cake :D
Click to expand...

The Last of Us does have a decent multiplayer, but I think it is too soon to see what your retention rate is on that game.

You have to look at games like Borderlands 2, Call of Duty, Halo. There is huge huge huge money made off the DLC map packs/characters etc.

Then you have games like Tomb Raider or some shit which tries to have DLC map packs etc and probably doesn't sell a fraction of what is sold by those other games.
 
I'm gonna just leave this here.

A high quality single player game trumps hundreds of hours of multiplayer gaming any day of the week, including MMO's.

I'll tell you why. When you play a high quality single player game, you tend to remember the moments that made you feel like you were playing a game that sucked you into the experience. You sort of allow the experience to consume you, you don't want to shut off your computer or your console (not gonna discriminate on platform here, as the basic principle applies across platforms). You don't measure your gaming experience in hours, but in progress. Every time you hit a milestone or a "checkpoint" in the game that makes you feel like you're making good progress in the game, it's encouraging and it sort of pushes you to finish the game.

In that high quality single player experience, there is often a good story (think Elder Scrolls), or good gameplay (think Dark Souls), that motivates you to progress through the game from start to finish. While some of those games may have a few quirks, the general feeling is that if you enjoy the story of a high quality single player game, it's great motivation to achieve that feeling of finishing the game, it's the culmination of your efforts, and it's really hard to beat a satisfying conclusion from a personal standpoint of investing yourself so much in the experience that you feel like you accomplished something when you beat the game.

I'm not saying that multiplayer games can't offer dozens, if not hundreds of hours of enjoyment, but the feeling isn't quite the same as a good single player experience. I believe there is a lot to be said for the feeling of immersion that occurs when it's just you and the game, and it's just YOU versus the game, and there's no other outside factors affecting your gaming experience. It's entirely up to you what happens inside the game within the constraints of the game creators and your own skill.

So I think single player gaming will never die out so long as we demand it.
 
Fail said:
A high quality single player game trumps hundreds of hours of multiplayer gaming any day of the week, including MMO's.

I'll tell you why. When you play a high quality single player game, you tend to remember the moments that made you feel like you were playing a game that sucked you into the experience. You sort of allow the experience to consume you, you don't want to shut off your computer or your console (not gonna discriminate on platform here, as the basic principle applies across platforms). You don't measure your gaming experience in hours, but in progress. Every time you hit a milestone or a "checkpoint" in the game that makes you feel like you're making good progress in the game, it's encouraging and it sort of pushes you to finish the game.

In that high quality single player experience, there is often a good story (think Elder Scrolls), or good gameplay (think Dark Souls), that motivates you to progress through the game from start to finish. While some of those games may have a few quirks, the general feeling is that if you enjoy the story of a high quality single player game, it's great motivation to achieve that feeling of finishing the game, it's the culmination of your efforts, and it's really hard to beat a satisfying conclusion from a personal standpoint of investing yourself so much in the experience that you feel like you accomplished something when you beat the game.

I'm not saying that multiplayer games can't offer dozens, if not hundreds of hours of enjoyment, but the feeling isn't quite the same as a good single player experience. I believe there is a lot to be said for the feeling of immersion that occurs when it's just you and the game, and it's just YOU versus the game, and there's no other outside factors affecting your gaming experience. It's entirely up to you what happens inside the game within the constraints of the game creators and your own skill.
Click to expand...

I agree with some points, but disagree with others. SP games have always felt more like an experience with the storyline/plot and gameplay combined together to make something unforgettable. To this day, I still say Myth: The Fallen Lords, Myth II: Soulblighter and Homeworld have had the absolute best storylines that have compelled me to replay a single mission a dozen times to minimize casualties because I felt so much for the game.

However, I've felt more satisfaction from killing a raid boss in WoW as a milestone than I ever have say from, beating a SP level/chapter or boss. I'd say that level of satisfaction of killing Nefarian the first time was on par with beating the aforementioned SP games.
 
The ultimate deciding factor for me when buying a game is if it includes multiplayer (unless its under $10 on Steam - instant buy :D) I used to love playing single player, story driven games (still do really). Unfortunately, I just don't have the time to enjoy a full game. I will sometimes dedicate a weekend or so to a game, but even an open weekend is scare for me now.

I am completely content with a multiplayer only game. Can never get enough of random human interaction and team-play tactics. If it includes a sweet narrative/story while playing said MP, that is even better!

Cube said:
They made crap of duty do not expect much from them.
Click to expand...

What in the world?! You never even enjoyed COD1 or COD2?!
 
chameleoneel said:
Bad Company 1 might be the best FPS single player this generation.
Click to expand...

I can agree. It's a shame that EA decided to invest in a CoD clone with MoH rather than putting forth a BFBC3. Even BF3's SP wasn't as good as BC. It did things better. It allowed some form of options to the missions, vehicles felt right and not the "on-rails" of the CoD campaign. Destruction and humor were great. I got a kick out of their Gears of War-esque Mad World commercial. If EA would have taken their Medal of Honor franchise and mixed it with the feel/play of games like Brothers in Arms (the squad/open-map feel) and Bad Company, they may have etched a notch in the market to sustain the series. Heck, give us ripped-from-real-life missions .. the player doesn't need a scripted narrative to be thrilled. History has given us plenty of missions to go off of - British SAS raids in WW2, SEALs hostage rescue in Panama, SEALs/DF raid on Grenada airport, and so fourth.



Going forward, I hope more MP-centric games adopt a blend of the two. You literally could have an SP campaign that serves to train for multiplayer. Use all the maps of MP (certain spots, etc.), and tie the campaign together somehow. The map objectives for each mission could be as simple as "defend" and retreat, to stealth, to vehicles, to you-name-it. You just need strong AI (read: not scripted). It'd serve to familiarize the player with the maps and be way cheaper to produce. Much like Havoc specializes in physics plugins, there's other companies that specialize in just AI. Use those.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top