Titanfall devs too small to make single-player campaign

Why is Titanfall online-only? Why isn't the studio creating a campaign to go along with its multiplayer component?


Titanfall was one of our favorite games from E3. Its satisfying multiplayer battles are polished with slick presentation usually reserved for single-player adventures. But, why is Titanfall online-only? Why isn't the studio creating a campaign to go along with its multiplayer component?

Respawn co-founder Vince Zampella explained that his studio is simply too small to make one. "For us, we're a small startup studio," Zampella said. "We're 60-some developers... For us it was really helpful to focus on the core game and what's fun. It's scoped more adequately to what we have the power to do as a start-up studio."

The size of his team also explains why Respawn is "focusing" on Xbox platforms.

A single-player campaign would require much more time from a much larger team, Zampella points out. "We make these single-player missions that take up all the focus of the studio, that take a huge team six months to make, and players run through it in 8 minutes," Zampella told GI.biz. "And how many people finish the single-player game? It's a small percentage... People spend hundreds of hours in the multiplayer experience versus 'as little time as possible rushing to the end' [in single-player]."

Ultimately, he argues that it makes sense to focus on multiplayer, as that's what gamers will be spending their time on.

From The Chatty
  • reply
    June 21, 2013 2:05 PM

    Andrew Yoon posted a new article, Titanfall devs too small to make single-player campaign.

    Why is Titanfall online-only? Why isn't the studio creating a campaign to go along with its multiplayer component?

    • reply
      June 21, 2013 2:10 PM

      Because they know no one plays their games for the single player?

    • reply
      June 21, 2013 2:56 PM

      if only dice would stop wasting time on sp :(

      • reply
        June 21, 2013 3:07 PM

        Fuck no, I really enjoyed the BF3 single player, if not for the gameplay, for the fact that it was a fucking amazing graphical showcase for the engine.

      • reply
        June 21, 2013 3:09 PM

        Then they couldn't compete feature for feature with Call of Duty, which has been EA's goal with the franchise since BF3 was in development.

        I'd much rather have all effort put towards the MP like the old games. If they have to do SP would prefer something more unscripted and less linear and fitting of the Battlefield name, along with full squad coop. They'd rather keep trying to replicate the CoD campaign formula. Flashy but soulless and frankly, not fun at all. It's a waste to you and me but still something that sells these games to the masses.

      • reply
        June 21, 2013 3:11 PM

        Word son. Multi player plenty of room to roam do anything, single player run through chute. No thank you, if it cost extrafor sp I'd keep that money.

      • reply
        June 21, 2013 7:34 PM

        I'd be fine with the mainline Battlefields were like the classic games and MP only while Bad Company could pickup the SP slack with a good and goofy story with plenty of humor like the first BC with an open world to run amok in.

      • reply
        June 21, 2013 11:26 PM


    • reply
      June 21, 2013 3:18 PM

      60 devs isnt really a small startup by any means imo.

      • reply
        June 21, 2013 6:49 PM

        It is very small for AAA game production. I am sure they working with nearly as many contractors for outsourced content production and EA for QA/marketing, but a core dev team of only 60 people is lean by today's standards.

    • reply
      June 21, 2013 3:26 PM

      At least a bot mode would be nice.

    • reply
      June 21, 2013 3:34 PM

      This is disappointing to hear because it's the exact polar opposite of my own mentality when it comes to games. I don't spend "as little time as possible rushing to the end" in singleplayer games, and I'll always see a singleplayer experience all the way to the end - so long as it's engrossing.

      I guess I'm in a bit of a minority though =\ I get some enjoyment out of competitive multiplayer games, but I ultimately find them to be repetitive and a bit boring over the long-term versus a good singleplayer story. This is only my own experience though - I recognize there are a lot of good multiplayer games out there (and I've had a good amount of fun with BF3), but singleplayer / co-op games are much more to my taste. I dislike the sweeping assumption that there's nobody out there who feels this way.

    • reply
      June 21, 2013 7:40 PM

      This is fine. Now if we can get more games with useless MP to just skip it.

    • reply
      June 22, 2013 5:47 AM


    • reply
      June 24, 2013 8:27 AM

      Takes large bag of money from MS: "We're too small to handle multiple platforms."

      Doesn't use bag of money to hire enough people to facilitate SP campaign: "We don't have enough people to make a SP campaign!"

      I don't really care about Titanfall, looks like a lot of derivative concepts running at 60fps, and I expect there to realistically be a $30-$40 game in a $60 package that they then charge $15-$20 per map pack to get it up to a size that would actually justify a full priced product.

      Also, I really don't like Zampella. He comes across as a video game snake oil salesman. In that regard, he's well suited under Activision.

    • reply
      June 24, 2013 1:24 PM

      Does this mean the price of the game will be severely reduced too?

Hello, Meet Lola