'The Campaign' in MP Games

[Monte Carlo]

Hi,

 

I've just read somewhere that the co-op campaign / story mode in Titanfall might be "a couple of hours long."

 

Now, Titanfall is like a XBoxOne / PC exclusive AAA title, right?

 

I accept many people will buy this game and jump straight into the MP aspect and possibly not even boot up the campaign. But what do you think? As a non-FPS player it makes me even less likely to buy (and I was getting hyped about this title) as (1) I like the campaign mode and (2) it's how I expect to learn the game.

 

RTS games seldom give such scant regard to this aspect - even SC2 (which many pros will jump into without even knowing there's a campaign game) has a fully fleshed-out campaign. So do the Warhammer / CoH franchises from Relic.

 

I know RTS and FPS are different beasts, but I ask the question anyway --- as a player picking up an AAA FPS title would you rather have (a) a full campaign or (b) additional content for the MP experience? Maps, maybe, or more modes, skins, weapons?

 

To move it on further, will be see campaign modes for MP games become bolt-on DLC? You buy your game and jump into multiplayer - if you want that story stuff pay another fifty bucks.

 

I don't have a settled view, what do you think?

Edited March 5, 2014 by Monte Carlo

[Hurlshort]

Honestly I could care less about a campaign when I buy a game like Battlefield.  In fact I prefer that they put as little resources as possible into that sort of thing.

 

 

I don't really play RTS games, but I think there is a lot more to learn in an RTS game, so having a single player component is good for slowly familiarizing the player with the functions of the game.  I don't need to shoot a bunch of NPC's in order to prepare to shoot real players.

[ShadySands]

I thought it was going to be multi-player only so even a puny campaign is good news to me. I realize that I'm in the minority as a weirdo who doesn't want to play Online with Friends™

 

I won't buy for full price but I will buy it eventually

Edited March 5, 2014 by ShadySands

[Monte Carlo]

Interesting, two sides of the coin there. Like I say, I see both of them equally.

 

I liked the story mode of the Battlefield game I played. I booted it up and expected to be in FPSistan but no! I was on a Pacific atoll in 1943 looking for a Japanese sonic super-weapon. It was so unexpected and impactive, I really enjoyed it.

 

Maybe one day campaign modes will genuinely be bolt-on DLC, but mebbe with a twist. I could live with that.

[ManifestedISO]

Isn't this the crux of that upcoming Destiny game ... a sort of persistent-world FPS story campaign, online with ... friends. Bungie touted it as a literal game-changer, but I can't imagine any thing or game making me want to leave the weirdo minority of people who don't like online players, or people in general.  

[213374U]

I know RTS and FPS are different beasts, but I ask the question anyway --- as a player picking up an AAA FPS title would you rather have (a) a full campaign or (b) additional content for the MP experience? Maps, maybe, or more modes, skins, weapons?

 

To move it on further, will be see campaign modes for MP games become bolt-on DLC? You buy your game and jump into multiplayer - if you want that story stuff pay another fifty bucks.

 

I don't have a settled view, what do you think?

 

Ideally, I'd like a full-length campaign that also supports MP (à la Borderlands). Not every FPS is Battlefield. But for games that are designed and balanced around the MP, a lack of a campaign is no biggie for me. I know what I'm getting into, after all.

 

The DLC campaign idea is terrible. Please do not go work for EA!

[Nonek]

If true I will most probably not pick up Titanfall, one has little to no interest in online games and (apart from an occassional skirmish in the original but heavily modded Dawn of War) very rarely even play the multiplayer side of games, even against bots.

 

I do think that for mainly multiplayer games your campaign dlc idea is unfortunately something that is probably being touted at the very moment, and will most likely be implemented at some point.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I usually stay away from multiplayer only games. Quake 3 is an example of a game I didn't like while enjoying the others in the series due to their single player campaigns. I don't mind a game having both single and multiplayer options but not at the expense of the single player campaign. I don't see myself picking up this game.

[Monte Carlo]

The reason I think it could fly is because the bolt-on, MP iteration would be slightly cheaper. Being a firm believer that you get what you pay for, this allows for a better campaign mode aimed at people who might not be totally twitch-FPS orientated.

 

I actually find some of those big FPS games quite relaxing and beautiful to look at. I'm not a content tourist, I like mastering the game and doing well. But I'd love a campaign designed to show off the high end bells and whistles of these engines / immerse me without the pressure of being murdered by over-caffeinate teens.

[alanschu]

Titanfall's campaign is still a multiplayer campaign though.

 

There's no single player component to the game in the slightest. Just a flavour way of experiencing the multiplayer.

[Orogun01]

Honestly I could care less about a campaign when I buy a game like Battlefield.  In fact I prefer that they put as little resources as possible into that sort of thing.

 

 

I don't really play RTS games, but I think there is a lot more to learn in an RTS game, so having a single player component is good for slowly familiarizing the player with the functions of the game.  I don't need to shoot a bunch of NPC's in order to prepare to shoot real players.

I think you're missing the point entirely, some people don't like competing against real players they want a experience that has been crafted for enjoyment not competition.

[Monte Carlo]

Titanfall's campaign is still a multiplayer campaign though.

 

There's no single player component to the game in the slightest. Just a flavour way of experiencing the multiplayer.

 

You see, I find that in and of itself quite interesting. That's a pretty new development, isn't it?

[Humanoid]

Even less excuse for it to be short and half-hearted if it's a multiplayer campaign though, since now you'd want it to be much more than a simple tutorial mode and instead have it be a fully-fledged way of playing the game. To be fair though, I'm all about the co-op in multiplayer and don't have a competitive bone in my body.

[alanschu]

Even less excuse for it to be short and half-hearted if it's a multiplayer campaign though, since now you'd want it to be much more than a simple tutorial mode and instead have it be a fully-fledged way of playing the game. To be fair though, I'm all about the co-op in multiplayer and don't have a competitive bone in my body.

I don't know. I'm not sure why it should or should not be a particular length. From what it sounds like, it simply means an additional layer of flavour for why particular missions are happening. It's still going to be team vs. team. I'm not sure if it simply means the IMC gets the mirror of the campaign in multiplayer (since you can go through the campaign on either side). I could see the campaign missions being structured maybe a bit differently, but from the sounds of it they decided add this mode since it didn't require much deviation from the core game that they were creating.

 

 

The thing is, these missions will possibly only be played once (if at all), so it poses a risk to invest a lot into creating it, if the core game is to be a multiplayer game. The only way to really justify it is if you can secure additional funding by providing this game mode, which maybe isn't possible.

Edited March 6, 2014 by alanschu

[Humanoid]

Not saying it's an obligation, but it is somewhat of a cruel carrot to dangle in front of players who might think: "hey, a cool co-op multiplayer mode for this cool multiplayer game I bought" only to find out it's only a teaser. It's one thing to add a token singleplayer element to a game specifically marketed as multiplayer, another to add a multiplayer mode to a multiplayer game, but then go back and say "this isn't the multiplayer we want you to be playing".

 

Then again, it might be a very good DLC opportunity....

 

 

 

(I was trying to come up with a reasonable analogy but the best I got is like having a meat entree to a vegetarian main course - frankly I'd just be left hungry for more meat )

[alanschu]

Not saying it's an obligation, but it is somewhat of a cruel carrot to dangle in front of players who might think: "hey, a cool co-op multiplayer mode for this cool multiplayer game I bought" only to find out it's only a teaser. It's one thing to add a token singleplayer element to a game specifically marketed as multiplayer, another to add a multiplayer mode to a multiplayer game, but then go back and say "this isn't the multiplayer we want you to be playing".

Just to be clear, I'm not getting the impression that the campaign mode is a "co-op multiplayer mode." Have you heard otherwise? I thought it was still going to be human team vs. human team. Just with extra flavour during the missions to help flesh out a new setting.

 

That is, I thought it was more "this is the multiplayer we want you to be playing, but here's some extra fluff to help you enjoy the setting more."

[ShadySands]

I guess it's back off my list then

 

I wish I could get a new MechWarrior type game that's not online only (Titanfall, Hawken, MWO)

 

PvP just isn't my jam

Edited March 6, 2014 by ShadySands

[alanschu]

Well, I suppose it'll be clear on whether that is the case before you'd be interested in buying. But yeah, I'd rather you know what the game is about than to plop down some money and go "wow, none of this is for me!!"

[Humanoid]

 

Not saying it's an obligation, but it is somewhat of a cruel carrot to dangle in front of players who might think: "hey, a cool co-op multiplayer mode for this cool multiplayer game I bought" only to find out it's only a teaser. It's one thing to add a token singleplayer element to a game specifically marketed as multiplayer, another to add a multiplayer mode to a multiplayer game, but then go back and say "this isn't the multiplayer we want you to be playing".

Just to be clear, I'm not getting the impression that the campaign mode is a "co-op multiplayer mode." Have you heard otherwise? I thought it was still going to be human team vs. human team. Just with extra flavour during the missions to help flesh out a new setting.

 

That is, I thought it was more "this is the multiplayer we want you to be playing, but here's some extra fluff to help you enjoy the setting more."

 

I don't know anything about the game whatsoever other than it's a shooter - so the co-op part was an assumption on my part based on the context of this thread alone - what with the reference to CoD's single player and all that.

 

I can't get my head around the idea of a scripted PvP campaign though, how would that even work (especially for the losers)? Or is it not really a story campaign and more a strategic map kind of thing where you win and take over "countries" until the whole world is yours?

[alanschu]

 

 

I can't get my head around the idea of a scripted PvP campaign though, how would that even work (especially for the losers)? Or is it not really a story campaign and more a strategic map kind of thing where you win and take over "countries" until the whole world is yours?

 

The classic campaign game already has lightweight story elements, in that the losing team is pushed back and has to evacuate the battleground.  In terms of experience rewards, the losing players are awarded just as many points for a win if they are able to evacuate.

 

I don't think it's a strategic map at all.  But you're right, I am not sure what they mean at all either, so I'm quite curious what exactly they plan to do.

[MacMichael]

From what I understand of Titanfall, they're basically using the campaign idea from Brink.  You have a series of maps that are linked together through a lite story line for why you're there and what you're trying to accomplish.  But unlike Brink's single player mode, which was just multiplayer with bots filling all the player slots, Titanfall is only multiplayer, though still with bots to flesh out the battlefield more since it's just 6v6, or so I'm told.

[Oerwinde]

No single player campaign makes a game a Do Not Want for me. I don't want to play with other people unless I'm in the same room.

[alanschu]

From what I understand of Titanfall, they're basically using the campaign idea from Brink.  You have a series of maps that are linked together through a lite story line for why you're there and what you're trying to accomplish.  But unlike Brink's single player mode, which was just multiplayer with bots filling all the player slots, Titanfall is only multiplayer, though still with bots to flesh out the battlefield more since it's just 6v6, or so I'm told.

Yeah that's sort of what I am expecting as well. I just preloaded and am good to go with a few friends of mine, so I can come back with my findings when I get a chance to play it.

[Monte Carlo]

I'm playing Titanfall and despite my allround suckiness, it's splendid.

 

But the lack of SP is a mistake. The training missions are tiny. For a new FPS person like me the only way to learn is in a real game, with real players, all of whom are ninjas. This is not as much fun as it might be. A relatively short SP game would help players like me get into the game at the shallow end and I think the developers have made a palpable mistake.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I agree. Take COH2 as an example. I was an absolute beginner in the RTS genre, and without the SP campaigns and the theatres of war, I would have stood zero chance when I tried my hand at some MP. Still, after something like 80 hours, I mostly play the great SP campaigns in COH2, and I still consider myself as a noob. That kind of noob hotbed seems sorely needed in a game like Titanfall.