TF3 - The Case For NO SINGLE PLAYER (Vince makes it)

TF1 was my absolute favorite video game of all time. Many complained that it did not have enough content and often mentioned the lack of a single player campaign.

TF2's single player campaign was outstanding, but it's inclusion ruined the multiplayer experience.

Vince Zampella, Respawn's CEO, actually makes this case in a video from 3/4/14 (11 days before TF1 launched).

When asked the question:
"Why did you step away from making a single player campaign to focus on this campaign/multiplayer concept?"

Vince says, and I quote:
"Uh, it's about, looking at where people spend most of their time. You know, generally people will burn through a single campaign, single player campaign as fast as they can. You know, you spend 5, 6 hours and you know 80% of the work goes into that. And then you go spend 100 hours in this thing that gets, you know it's bare bones, it's the minimum you can get away with. You know, for us, it was about pushing the boundaries of what multiplayer is, so we said, let's take all that great single player stuff, build up the world. That world that you're going to spend 100 hours in SHOULD BE THE MOST FULL FEATURED."

You can hear his remarks at around the 5:25 mark:
https://www.gamespot.com/videos/vince-zampella-interview-the-lobby/2300-6417517/

The evidence is unmistakable. TF1 has beautifully designed large maps and a very alive battlefield feel to them. TF2 is like a bland cartoon on small maps.

And he understates the 100 hours. For me, I am probably approaching 3000 hours on TF1.

Spending 80% of your time on something people are going to spend 5 to 10 hours in is rediculous, especially when it makes the area people will be spending 100's to 1000's of hours in suffer.

For TF3, please don't listen to those who said TF1 lacked content by not having a single player campaign. You made the case yourself Vince and you were 1000% correct. Leave the single player campaign out and focus on multiplayer where we spend hours day in and day out for years. The thing that gets played once or twice on a rainy Saturday should not take up even 5% of the resources, much less 80%. And, it's not being there being used as a lack of content argument is rediculous!

 

Thank you Rott! I very much appreciate your kind words. It really means a lot.

I don't mind the disagreement. I enjoy the debate. I fully expected a lot of pushback on this one, but I believe Vince actually makes a very good case and explains it very well.

As I said:

and I am glad it is there, but I do believe the multiplayer suffered for it and I believe Vince explains why. My preference would be to have the entire Respawn team focussing on the Multiplayer, bringing the Single Player elements into the Multiplayer to make it a much richer experience like TF1 was. And, also include a Single Player Campaign, but not use any Respawn resources on it. Outsource it to another game shop and just tack it onto the multiplayer game. They are completely independant anyway. It doesn't have to be Respawn making it. Why not give an up and coming game maker a crack at it, who would probably be willing to do it cheaply because they are just glad to have an opportunity to make a name for themselves. They may bring some really fresh new creative ideas into it that never would have happened if all of the thinking only came from in-house. That way would we get the best of both worlds. We would be guaranteed to have a rock solid, rich Multiplayer experience with plenty of maps where we will be spending most of our time (100s to 1000s of hours). And, we will also have a Single Player Campaign, which might also be awesome, because it is being created by an up and comer who really wants to make a name for themselves.

Very good stuff Rott! You are right, everyone here does deserve a pat on the back and especially you my friend. Glad you are enjoying the games and thanks again for your kind words.

 

I agree with you. In a perfect world, I would like both, but since 10 hours are spent in the Single Player Campaign and 100s to 1000s are spent in the Multiplayer environment, the way it was handled in TF1 was much better. They actually incorporated a lot of the detail and depth and richness and quality design time into the Multiplayer environment and maps.

Like I said, I would like to have both, but since the Single Player is so insignificant as far as the quantity of hours it will be played (10 vs. 100+), I truly think this would be a great approach:

I actually just thought of what I believe is a good analogy for this. Let's say you were able to afford a reasonable house and also afford a timeshare where you could vacation once a year. If your budget is $100,000, would it really make sense to spend $80,000 on the timeshare where you are only going to go once per year and only $20,000 on the house you are going to live in day in and day out for years. No! That would be rediculous! This is the same thing. We live in Multiplayer and we only visit Single Player. To spend 80% of your resources on Single Player is foolish. I'm saying spend $80,000 on the house and $20,000 on the timeshare. In other words, spend 80% of your budget on the Multiplayer where we will live every day and only 20% on the Single Player where we will only visit. What I am actually saying is spend 90% of your budget on the Multiplayer and only spend 10% of your budget by paying a young up and coming game shop who really wants to get their name out there to do it, because they would be more than happy to for the recognition. And they would probably do an amazing job because they know it is their big chance and their future depends on it. This way it is a WIN-WIN-WIN-WIN. We have a beautiful house where we are going to live every day (Multiplayer). We have a probably awesome timeshare for the money (Single Player). Respawn got to provide both without any extra budget dollars. The up and coming shop got to get their name out there. And, even if they failed, it only hurt the place we visit, not the place we live.

 

Yes, I completely agree with that.

To me, this would be fine, because of the part that says "MP is perfect". To me, that is the critical and important part and should be the number one focus. If there is no SP, fine. If there is an SP and it is bad, fine. So long as the MP is as perfect as it can possibly be, let them complain about the SP.

Plus, now having done perhaps the best SP in any game for TF2, Respawn has proven they can do it if they wanted to. There is nothing else to prove there, which is why all of their talent and resources should go back to the place where players will spend their 100s and 1000s of hours, the Multiplayer. Let different up and coming shops take cracks at a Single Player. Respawn has proven they are the best at it if they want to do it. Now quit while you are ahead on the Single Player and go back to make the perfect Multiplayer. Maybe even make it a competition among up and coming shops and have them create demos of what they would do (at their expense) and then the winner gets the job to do the Single Player, but Respawn only pays them 10% of their total budget in order to get the Single Player done.

Yes, this is good and let's hope.

Yeah, I know Trini my boy loves his factions, but I would have loved if they just stuck with IMC and Militia and gone into more depth in each of those rather than spreading the story too thin among too many factions.

 

Well, I have a very strong opinion about why I believe TF1 lost it's user base. There were 2 primary reason: no matchmaking algorithm and no anticheat system.

Just to be clear though, TF1's user base did not really drop off until about 7 to 9 months into the game. During that time frame, I only cared to play Hardpoint Domination and was able to any time I wanted. However, after about 7 to 9 months, that lobby did become pretty dead. In comparison, at least on the PC, the Amped Hardpoint lobby in TF2 was dead in less than 2 months.

Anyway, back to the reason's for why TF1 lost it's user base. By the 7 to 9 months deep period, there were many, many Gen 10s at that point and a lot of relationhsips had been established and you had blocks of friends who were all Gen 10s that would play as a group. They would play that way EVERY SINGLE TIME they played. I know, because initially I was in one of those groups until I realized how stupid and NOT FUN it was. So, here is what would happen:

(6) Gen 10, Level 50s on one side (waiting for 5,10 or 15 minutes or longer to get a game)
eventually, (2), (3) or maybe (4) brand new Gen 1s would end up on the other side

Obviously, the Gen 10 team would crush them, pat themselves on the back for how awesome they thought they were (when really they were just a group of idiot bullies taking advantage of Respawn having NO MATCHMAKING ALGORITHM). I completely bailed on my group of friends who was doing that very quickly, because how in the hell is that fun for anyone? If it was (6) Gen 10s, it would be a much better game and much more fun for everyone involved if you split up and at least give the poor matchmaking the possibility of putting some of you on the other side. But, NOOOOOOO!!! Ugghh!!!! So stupid!!!

Then, because they did absolutely nothing to police it, you also had the people who had no respect for the purity of the game or for other players who would buy a cheater subscription, where they would get unfair advantages on everyone else with things like (unnatural speed to the game, auto aim/lock on, god mode, could see all players with names at all times even through walls, when they got close to you it felt like your feet were stuck in the mud as a pilot or titan, just to name a few). It was probably around the October 2014 time period that some of these hacks had gotten pretty developed and sophisticated.

So now, imagine you are a brand new player just picking up Titanfall any time after say October 15, 2014. How are you going to feel and how long are you going to want to stay if every time you try to play a game, you are faced with either a wall of (6) Gen 10s on the other side, or one or more cheaters on the other side (which you aren't even aware of, but they make you feel worthless), or just games that are always lopsided in numbers and skill levels due to the non-existent matchmaking algorithm? Probably not very long. It probably takes about 2 seconds before you feel like, "Screw this crap!" Heck, I'm a veteran of 3 years in TF1 and one of the best in the world and even I feel that way sometimes, because this same crap still exists. If I feel that way, imagine how a brand new player with no experience felt back in October of 2014.

That's why the user base fell off. It had absolutely nothing to do with not having a single player campaign that people would only play once for 5 to 10 hours anyway.

The real question is, "Why did the TF1 user base survive so long (7 to 9 months) despite those things?". The answer is because of how well designed and how rich of an experience the multiplayer game was, because as Vince said, "That world that you're going to spend 100 hours in SHOULD BE THE MOST FULL FEATURED."

 

Well, thank you for that at least. I get so irritated when people say the game failed or the user base dropped off because of a lack of content and they mention the lack of a single player as part of the reason. The argument makes no sense. Oh, I'm not going to buy the game because it doesn't have this thing in that I could play once for 5 to 10 hours. Or, I'm not going to stick around because again it doesn't have this thing I could play once for 5 to 10 hours. And, this is how really rediculous that argument is. Let's take it to it's ultimate extreme. Let's say that the single player campaign is so awesome that people do play it over and over, because it's just that good. Well, if everyone is in the Single Player campaign, that doesn't help with getting games in any of the Multiplayer modes.