Titanfall pits man against machine, Kiefer Sutherland Snakes into Metal Gear Solid V Long have I wondered why franchises such as Battlefield and Call of Duty bother to include a single player entrée aside the multiplayer main course. The solo campaign might provide action set pieces to demo at E3 and subsequently showcase on adverts, but if it was missing would anyone really care? Titanfall EA has decided to …
"The solo campaign might provide action set pieces to demo at E3 and subsequently showcase on adverts, but if it was missing would anyone really care?"
I am old and set in my ways. I expect at least 8 hours of Single player action from a triple A title and only then the mutiplayer mayhem.
That's not to say I'd never buy a multiplayer only game.
But that's probably just me.
..... as a veteran of the original Call of Duty games. I remember when the multiplayer function was a bonus on a good fps or a pure stand-alone such as UT where you had options to host lan games for some 1 on 1 destruction. Now it seems the solo campaigns are just extended training missions. Sometimes I just want a fps that I can play solo on, no co-op, no multiplayer and no stats screen that wants to share my uselessness with the entire social networking world.
That said Titanfall would have been a definite purchase if I had the option of a private match as it is a fun and frenetic game. The private match function has been rumoured to be an update later on but it could be too late, my money may have gone elsewhere by then.
Even on UT the multiplayer wasn't stand alone; they always had a "campaign" mode that was basically a series of bot matches of escalating difficulty and challenge. You could have all the UT fun without ever going online if you really wanted to. As an added bonus you could explore the maps without letting your team down, and opponents of varying skill levels were always a click away regardless of your internet connection.
My biggest disappointment with Titanfall is that their "campaign" didn't go back to this well established method from decades ago. I had high hopes that botmatch functionality was making a comeback with the options in the latest CODs,
... equals "always-on internet connection". Call me a tinfoil-hatter, but that's scarily close to always-on DRM - plus the AAA studios don't have to waste allocate resources on the content and story required by a single player campaign... brilliant!
Now all they need to do is find a way to further monetise... maybe "buy training to use the super-duper rifle in your next game for only £5, or allocate two days training time (during which you cannot play at all)".
... plus I really, really love settling in to play a game I've just spent £60 on, only to be ganked repeatedly by someone who has already been playing for some time within five seconds of starting.
Sod that. Less visuals, more fun please!
So, the big question is, is it worth £30 or closer to £20 if you shop around? Well, that depends exactly how interested you are to see how far one of gaming's premiere franchises has evolved.
Or, wait until the people that felt it was worth the £30 play the 15 hours, and get it used for £10.
Or have the games publishes finally succeeded in killing the second-hand market?
"Long have I wondered why franchises such as Battlefield and Call of Duty bother to include a single player entrée aside the multiplayer main course."
I like single player modes.
1) I can practice the game without disturbing anyone else
2) I don't get continuously ripped by some hyper-adreniline filled teenager probably running cheats.
3) I can close my machine down without interrupting anyone else's game play.
4) I live in a remote area with spotty Internet and my ping rate guarantees I'll lose the game.
5) I can take time to explore the level and usually discover hidden features few others do.
So, the big question is, is it worth £30 or closer to £20 if you shop around?
well i got a good 3 or 4 hours of play out of it. And now the side missions are unlocked, i'll probably get at least that again out of it.
so on a pounds-per-hour-of-entertainment basis, i've spent considerably more in the pub some friday nights. So the game is good value for money in my eyes. AND i don't wake up the following morning with a pounding headache and the room spinning round and round
* I'm an antisocial asshole that hates other people, and I sure as hell don't want to play with them in my games. There's a reason I work on/with computers for a living.
* The homophobic racist sweary little brats haven't come up with anything unique to do to my mother in a long time.
* My internet connection sucks so bad I was banned from Halo because I kept dropping out of games.
* I suck at twitch reflex FPSes and get tired of losing after the first 20 games or so.
just wondering if anyone knows if / how much of a difference there is between the current gen and previous gen version of Titanfall.
I could understand it (just about) if the multiplayer only thing was 360 only, because 'the old hardware can't handle a full campaign' (or more likely as an incentive to sell the new console).
But if they are basically the same game (except for some slightly fancier graphics), I can't help but feel that we gamers are getting ripped off. (or at least I would be getting ripped off, if I had made the mistake of not cancelling my xb-one pre-order)
If my POS PC can handle it, the 360 (and the PS3) should have had no problems. In fact they went out of their way to make sure it would run on older PC's - the audio files are installed uncompressed so that the rig doesn't have to unpack them during the match.
(The full install is 48Gig - roughly half of which is audio!)
I only play multiplayer games these days. Single player is just playing with yourself for your own pleasure, except you never orgasm.
Take Starcraft 2 (I did). Playing against a machine is nowhere near the skill level to play against a human.
If you just play against the machine, you get lazy and slow, because you can be lazy and slow and still beat the machine - you never get better. Play against other people, and they will destroy you - because you are lazy and slow from playing against the machine. You will get better, but only from more playing.
And it is more fun - infinite varieties of fun, not just "oh this level again, I know where the AI is set up, where their weak spot is, and I've got 5 minutes before the map triggers them to even come my way".
Humans are sneakier, more competent and more surprising than a machine, and it's much more fun to play one than an AI.
Seriously? It seems that you treat your gaming as a work out and choose the games accordingly.
Other people may prefer things like atmosphere, storyline, suspense, immersion.
It is similar to music - some people enjoy the art in music, for others it is only a means to induce reflectorial twitching...
I like atmosphere, suspense and immersion as much as the next person, I just prefer it to be provided by real people rather than a machine's script, and I don't play a game so I can get to the next cut-scene.
And yes, I expect that any game I play will require skill, and that playing the game should increase my skill at it, and thus my enjoyment.
A single player game is a must for some people, some people just couldn't give a rats ass about the obscene stupidity, moronic nut jobs, swearing, bunny hopping, dolphin diving and general data hacking scum bags that frequent the forums and servers out there.
Some people hate having to open up fourteen ports and argue with ping because NAT and firewalls sit in the way, but poor game development and none existent QA haven't considered someone might not be a full time IT consultant to troubleshoot for them.
Never mind the fact you have to have permanent internet (Sadly lacking in some areas because virgin or BT are shite)
Of course since EA really are a data rape organisation and openly told you that they would be on their old EULA (mobile phone numbers, xbox profiles and PC details) the new one just says they will sell all your data to a group of select companies but that company changes and the way to find out when it changes is to go to a website on their EULA, they won't and don't tell you. Is it really worth it for everyone to have to sell everything online just to play a game?
Call of duty is regularly played online with the volume off because of the just abuse people scream obscenities at eachother or worse, play really crappy US R&B music. That is when I played Cod MW 3, the new COD Ghosts is Nintendo Gameboy level graphics.
I like a game to entertain, not be an uphill struggle because of scum bags who don't have a job to go to in the day.
If online is the only thing then I don't even look at it. So thanks for the review, I know to ignore and move on from Titanfall.
Shame as it had a nice advert.
No offline play means coding laziness.
I expect an offline game of about 8 solid hours, with a skirmish mode for a variety of gameplay.
I expect to able to play even if my internet is not working or does not exist so i can travel with my machine.
I want a game I can throw into my vintage machine years from now. Not something that turns into useless lump after the server (or EA) goes the way of the Dodo.
I dont like paying to play with people I would avoid in real life. Online poofter bashing is also a factor in why I dont online much.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
