Can DICE’s Star Wars: Battlefront Escape the Same Sad Fate as Titanfall?

GamesRadar - A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, a loose alliance of developers and pundits pooled their intellectual resources, struck dramatic poses and declared that single player gaming as we knew it was at death’s door. This was and remains a bloody stupid idea, but the evidence back then (OK, it was only a few years ago) seemed decisive. “I have not green lit one game to be developed as a singleplayer experience,” observed EA’s Frank Gibeau, in a legendary boast from 2012.

[nicksetzer1]

Over 4 million copies sold to date across 2 platforms is a "sad fate?" I think me and the author have completely different opinions on what a "sad fate" is.

That said, I don't think Battlefront will suffer in sale, regardless of the end products quality. I would however say, I have an aching suspicion it will be low on content based on all the info we have so far.

[BecauseImBatman]

I know right plus the rights to the franchise were scooped up after the release by EA and already have plans for a sequel that is early in development which will likely include a PS4 version, which will mean even more sales... hardly a "sad fate".

[deadpoolio316]

2 platforms I believe you mean THREE and its barely 4 million..You must have gotten your numbers from VG Chartz...Although I'd probably want to forget PC also since it barely sold anything on PC

[nicksetzer1]

I was including only consoles not PC as sales data is rarely accurate for PC.

Xb360 and xb1 combined sold over 4 mil. Not sure what else you are looking for really. Other than going on a really pointless rant. Are you saying that the fact it sold potentially around 5 million on 3 platforms is bad? If so, that seems pretty stupid. If not, what is the point of your comment?

[_-EDMIX-_]

Agreed. I think someone must be on crack to think 4 million units is "sad". I don't care for the game, but by no damn means did that game fail....it sold really, really well. Do people just that that 45 million is the norm of game sales?

The slowness....

The author must be young, I don't get how they are not factoring that many online only games exist. Mind you, the game will have solo and co-op missions that can be played.....OFFLINE! Sooooooo

and TF was across 3, including 360. SW BF will be fine, its by a developer that years ago only did MP only titles....

BF's legacy is on MP only titles. Last gen is even when they started adding Single player modes to their games.

[Gilgamesh15]

There is a very large percentage of players that completely ignore the campaign and jump into mp. If I owned a game studio I would start to seriously question the huge amount of man hours invested In Single player.

[Crimzon]

I find it strange that so many people on N4G praise games for being singleplayer-only, while at the same time complaining about games being multiplayer-only. It seems pretty contradictory and also bizarre given that singleplayer-only experiences are prime rental candidates, whereas games that focus on offering a multiplayer experience offer a lot of replayability.

I'm quite pleased that there's games such as Evolve and Titanfall that aren't afraid to ditch the singleplayer campaigns to focus on the core experience. Two of the best games I've ever played had the exact same philosophy, they were called Unreal Tournament and Quake 3.

[-Foxtrot]

"I find it strange that so many people on N4G praise games for being singleplayer-only, while at the same time complaining about games being multiplayer-only"

When you have a single player only game like Fallout or Mass Effect 2 or even a linear one like Uncharted (first game) or Alan Wake the reason why they are better then multiplayer only games is because you have the story, the collectibles, the second/third playthroughs, higher difficulty etc...and even the long list of trophies or achievements people like to hunt down

However with a multiplayer only game all you are doing is playing the same game modes, maps and matches over and over creating your own replay value and fun.

You could have someone play a single player game like Fallout for example and another playing Titanfall. After several hours playing straight the Titanfall player might have played through every map and experienced most modes while the Fallout play might be half way in the main story missions depending on his difficulty or play style.

After a 4-5 hours the Titanfall player will of played almost everything while the Fallout player would of either finished it or is at the end.

While the Titanfall player has experienced anything in the game all he now has is to keep playing the game stuff over and over to unlock bits and bobs while the Fallout player has the side quests, the undiscovered locations, the achievements to hunt, unique weapons/armour etc....or if was a linear game like Alan Wake they might want to collect other stuff and fully look at every nook and cranny...hell play it on a higher difficulty.

[Crimzon]

You raise a valid point there, but I was talking more specifically about action-oriented games. You're right though with what you said about RPGs.

For me however, things like collectibles/trophies aren't a substitute for the replayability that you get from multiplayer. I mean for me, if you compare a single multiplayer map against a single level from a singleplayer game, most action games will have you experience that one level in the exact same way every time because of how linear and scripted it is, there's no variance to the experience the second or third time through. With a multiplayer map however there will always be a different experience each time because of your opponents, where things happen and what happens etc. since human opponents always offer so much unpredictability when compared to AI opponents.

I notice that you mention both Titanfall and collectibles a lot in your comment so I'm quite curious now, do you honestly think that Titanfall would be a better game if the developers just sprinkled a bunch of pointless collectible objects around levels in the exact same way that you see in singleplayer games?

It just seems to bizarre to me to see double-standards in regards to differentiating singleplayer-only and multiplayer-only games with the argument being that one's okay but the other isn't because one has collectibles strewn about levels.

[marlinfan10]

@foxtrot

But a lot of people don't care about hunting collectables or playing through a game again just to play on a harder difficulty. I know quite a few people who only play video games for the competitive aspect of MP and couldn't care less about SP games. A guy I've been playing cod with since modern warfare literally never touches SP games.

You rarely ever see MP focused gamers bashing sp only games while you'll ALWAYS see SP gamers bashing MP only games.

[Pandamobile]

"After several hours playing straight the Titanfall player might have played through every map and experienced most modes while the Fallout play might be half way in the main story missions depending on his difficulty or play style."

You seem to be missing the entire point of multiplayer gaming. Games like Titanfall don't exist for you to grind through levels and collectibles. They don't exist to deliver a cinematic story. They don't exist for you to experience each map/mode once and be done with it. It's all about competition and mastery. You play them for sport.

"After a 4-5 hours the Titanfall player will of played almost everything while the Fallout player would of either finished it or is at the end."

After 4-5 hours, the Titanfall player will barely know how to play the game properly. You'll know the absolute basics of the game at that point. You need to put in a good 30-50 or so hours before you get a truly good understanding of how the maps work, how to address every situation in an effective manner, and how to bend the game to your play style.

What I love about Titanfall, TF2 and Battlefield is that if you make even the slightest effort to work with your teammates as a unit, you can control the game and feel like a total badass because you're fighting and crushing real people; not just AI.

That's what multiplayer gaming is all about.

[Kleptic]

^also...what modern multiplayer focused game isn't also loaded with 'collectibles' and 'things to do'...even in the multiplayer environment?

take BF4 for example, as it comes from this specific dev (or did, anyway)...had both a single player, and a multiplayer component...over 90% of the in game collectible stuff is only in the multiplayer portion...ribbons, medals, dog tags, assignments, weapons, attachments, gadgets, etc. etc. etc....nearly all of which you can never get just from playing single player...there are players approaching 2,000 hours that haven't finished all that stuff...and the requirements to get some of those things very much involve a 'new experience everytime'...

Personally...i dislike this 'lets give them everything' attitude...I look at battlefront's announced reductions as a great thing...focus on a smaller amount of content, and do it right...rather than an on paper bullet list that looks incredible, yet none of which is properly executed (again...bf4)...albeit, thats assuming EA isn't pushing for this reduction in content because of DLC and micro-transactions...which they're...so w/e...

but the industry needs to get away from trying to please everyone while simultaneously pleasing no one...each individual game is being developed and treated as a disposable product, which is the opposite from where we should be headed...

[remixx116]

Crimzon

I think the reason people accept single player over moltiplayer is because all multiplayer only games are operating on borrowed time as soon as they release....once the servers shut down, dev support stops or community dies out, which is happening pretty fast nowadays, it curtains for the game.

But single player classics are timeless if you let then be. I can go back and enjoy the legend of Zelda ocarina of time as many time as I want and I do revist it right before the release of every new LoZ game......the same goes for FFIX, dark cloud 2, klonoa 2 lutenia's veil, star fox assault, halo 1, ni no kuni, mass effect 2, fallout 3, persona 4, metroid prime and so on...

When it comes to multiplayer only or multiplayer centric games revisiting them is not possible......some of the best games are lost to me, never again will I enjoy socom 2 or warhawk(ps3), cod 4, killzone 2, Mario kart Wii and so on........

It sucks but that is why I can't give MP only games the slack I give SP only games.

[Pandamobile]

@remixx116

Most of those problems you list come from the nature of consoles being locked down platforms.

You can still play COD4 multiplayer on PC. You can still play just about any multiplayer game on PC if it still has an active community.

This is not to say that single player games aren't important; they're just different. Adding a single player campaign to Battlefront would do nothing but hurt it in the long run if it's not absolutely amazing. Think of the budget that went into Battlefield 4's campaign vs. the return on investment that it created. It probably cost more to develop the campaign than the multiplayer, and for what?

A forgettable 6 hours romp through pretty environments and set pieces. For a game like Battlefront, I'm actually really glad that they're not wasting the effort on a lame single player campaign when they can put those resources into better game design on the multiplayer side of things.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@FoxT- "You could have someone play a single player game like Fallout for example and another playing Titanfall"

No...

A MP game many times has way, way too many random variables. You'll rarely have the same experience twice in a MP game as what players actually do won't just be exactly 100% the same.

@Crimzon- Thats the thing, I don't think either of those games "ditched" a SP, they where never created with that concept.

Many people keep making it sound as if all games come with this complete package of SP, MP etc.

....no. Thats ok, some games have a concept that is MP, some don't.

For some to ask for a single player in Titan Fall, is legit like asking for a multiplayer in Kingdom Hearts.

Kingdom Hearts doesn't mean MP, you merely need to go play the genre you desire. I tire of folks asking for a game to be something else....except it for what it is.

I don't walk into a live action horror film asking the director why he didn't instead make an Anime...I merely just watch an Anime.

[gangsta_red]

@Fox

"However with a multiplayer only game all you are doing is playing the same game modes, maps and matches over and over creating your own replay value and fun."

This makes no sense, since playing SP you are also going through the same environments, story, dialogue and events with no change at all.

At least in multiplayer the action is always varied and different depending on the level of skill of others you play with. Multiplayer games are rarely the same game twice.

"After a 4-5 hours the Titanfall player will of played almost everything while the Fallout player would of either finished it or is at the end."

Yes, and now after that what will the Fallout player do? While the Titanfall player can keep going back and play matches against people from all over the world.

Your arguments make little sense and really contradict each other.

[MSBAUSTX]

Can Titanfall escape this author's sad fate, one of sensationalized click bait? Titanfall sold millions of copies, was incredible fun, and had awesome DLC with a Co Op mode. Hardly a sad fate.

[LifeInNZ]

I still play it on a weekly basis, easily the best FPS multiplayer so far this gen IMO. I just wish more people would play some of the other modes as I have never been a big fan of team deathmatch (i.e. attrition).

Team deathmatch is just run'n'gun but with less players out to get you. There is nothing really "team" about it.

[MSBAUSTX]

I preffered Hard Point and Frontier Defense. Oh the hours I played Frontier Defense. Smart pistol for the win against AI in Frontier Defense.

[DC777]

Yep TF was great. People love to bash it because of the MS bias I guess. While it's true the user base dropped off quickly at least it worked at launch.

[aviator189]

For a new ip from a new studio, I though titanfall did pretty well.

[EvilWay]

TitanFall's biggest problem was it lacked content, if Battlefront has a lot of content it should do well. It needs a good amount of variety in guns and maps and some sort of customization if it does these things it will be fine. No single player is a downer for me because the Star Wars world is pretty cool and could have been utilized but the bread and butter would have been the multiplayer anyway so it's fine I guess

[Godz Kastro]

Be careful what you wish for. Before titan fall came out I thought it was perfect that a Gane was focusing on mp. Pretty much all I play.

I didn't realiz3 how lacking the experience felt without. Good sp fleshes out a world which in turn makes me care a litte more when playing mp.

[LifeInNZ]

Why is Titanfall always singled out? was not the first MP only game released, i.e. MAG, Warhawk....on that note, where is Warhawk for PS4!

MP only games are fine as long as they excel in providing a great MP experience. For me Titanfall's biggest letdown was the poorly implemented lobby system and lack of clan support. The game could have owned from an eSports perspective!

[mrdxpr2]

Man you right warhawk was my favorite mp on ps3 it offered of great features loved the ability to go from flying to ground and driving great way to team play as well. Hope they bring that to ps4

[OrangePowerz]

Battlefront was always multiplayer first. Those articles are ridiculous, they try to paint a picture of Battlefront 1 or 2 having been focused on singleplayer and having a great campaign.

[millgate1]

You could same the same about the Battlefield series yet there are campaigns (Albeit nothing to praise) for Battlefield 2, 3 , 4 and Hardline.

There are rumors of the development time being short, which may be the reason for the lack of a campaign.

[Wii_nes_007]

I'll never forget the launch of PS4. Waiting in line for my system and knowing it was bundled with a $10 voucher for cross buy games like COD Ghosts and Battlefield 4. The joy was ripped away after Laggerfield 4's 1st 10 months of brokenness. We as gamers so easily forget and don't hold developers accountable for their shear laziness. BF4 was hardly playable the 1st year of the PS4. DICE, you have failed.

[PistolsAtDawn]

Same sad fate as Titanfall? I literally just got done playing Titanfall and all it does is remind me that it's the best PvP this gen by far. It seems to me that 99% of people that talk negatively about Titanfall WANT it to fail and/or really suck at it.

People that are good at PvP and open to giving TF a fair shot almost always seem to love it. Titanfall isn't the thing that is "sad" here.

[GrmpyolGamer]

How is 4 million units sold for a new IP a sad fate? Im sure respawn and EA don't think its a sad fate. Junk article. Just for the record. Titanfall is the best arcade multiplayer shooter to release In a long while. sad fate lol