Titanfall creator explains lack of single player

Titanfall is a multiplayer-only experience. Respawn Entertainment co-founder Vince Zampella told GamesIndustry International that keeping the focus on multiplayer battles was a deliberate response to player habits and studio size.

Respawn comprises about 60 developers, and devoting months of their work to single-player missions most players blow through in minutes just doesn't make sense, Zampella said.

"And how many people finish the single-player game? It's a small percentage. It's like, everyone plays through the first level, but 5 percent of people finish the game," he said. "Really, you split the team. They're two different games. They're balanced differently, they're scoped differently. But people spend hundreds of hours in the multiplayer experience versus as little time as possible rushing to the end [in single-player]. So why do all the resources go there? To us it made sense to put it here. Now everybody sees all those resources, and multiplayer is better. For us it made sense."

The franchise that Zampella helped create at Infinity Ward looks ready to continue with both a cinematic, expensive campaign and expansive multiplayer in Call of Duty: Ghosts. Zampella doesn't see his new game as a direct competitor.

"Honestly, we're not shipping the same time as them," Zampella said. "We're going for something different. We're not gunning for Call of Duty. We're doing our thing. The important thing is to make sure what we're doing is fun. I'm OK with Call of Duty being big. I helped create it, so I'm proud to see it's something so big that it goes beyond me."

Here's that E3 debut video, in case you missed it.


  • brad-mcpherson - June 22, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    You're all confused. He didn't mean 'no one plays SP', he meant very few people do. those of you upset by the fact that you like playing single player, know this, you are part of a minority. Also, they wanted to spend most of their time more efficiently on the MP of this game, rather than splitting up the studio into two teams, and producing a half hearted result. That way, they are able to put ALL their focus and energy onto MP. Plus, they have AI in the MP to bring in the feel and glory of those Single Player moments. Note these fellow AI companions are not mindless bots with aim bot, etc. Also, to the people 'praising' Black Ops 2 for either its Single Player or Multiplayer, I truly feel sorry for you, you are so naive. Treyarch are the weakest link in COD, and have mostly built off ideas by Infinity Ward. Just a bunch of newbie copycats. Zombies have always been their saving grace. The multiplayer has always been below average in performance, and a host of other attributes. Also, FUCK the casual players. They ruined COD for everyone. This game isn't intended for the average FPS player, it's designed for the elite ;) If the casual player wants to play casually and thrive, then let him play COD. Or if he wants to play this because he likes it, then he better persevere and learn how to become better. Don't worry, I don't think this game is made for campers anyway.
  • JimmyCooldaddy - June 22, 2013 12:01 a.m.

    no single player?! lost interest...
  • Danomeon - June 21, 2013 9:20 p.m.

    I feel like more shooters need to just acknowledge that they are designed for multiplayer and choose to leave out a single player campaign. Single player campaigns are great fun, but if a game truly cares about its multiplayer it may benefit from putting all of its energy into making a worthwhile multiplayer component. Imagine if Battlefield 3's single player team in its entirety was tasked with making new maps for multiplayer? The game would be a massive value! More of the content that is incredibly replayable by nature. i'm happy to see titanfall's development studio putting so much energy into multiplayer, but I hope this is a means for enhancement rather than an excuse. I want to see this game's multiplayer look like it had a single-player-campaign level of additional effort put into it. 20 maps or wouldn't be too unreasonable considering multiplayer is all in the game, right?
  • BladedFalcon - June 20, 2013 7:33 p.m.

    Welp, now I really don't mind if it stays a Xbone exclusive:P I gotta respect them for sticking to their visions though. Better to have no single player than to have something half-assed, like Battlefield 3 had.
  • Shinn - June 21, 2013 2:55 a.m.

    It's coming to PC as well, so it's only a pretend exclusive. I agree with you, if there's a single player mode missing, but the multiplayer is better off for it, I think it's the right decision. (Selling the game for $50 wouldn't hurt too).
  • Mr.YumYums - June 21, 2013 11:20 a.m.

    I've started to notice lately that when Microsoft says it's an exclussive it means a Microsoft exclussive, as in not just an Xbox One exclussive. (Windows being part of Microsoft and the PCs OS). And I do feel it's the right decision as well, I won't mind paying $50 if the multi is good enough. (Which seems to be as they are putting all of their focus on it, and from videos has me quiet interested)
  • Primey0 - June 21, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    Except it's not a Xbone exclusive. It's coming out on Xbone, PC and 360.
  • ZeeCaptain - June 20, 2013 7 p.m.

    Why does the creator feel he needs to explain why there isn't a single player, there's plenty of games that are online multiplayer only, sure it's a little annoying and maybe this game and other multiplayer only games could use a more tailored experience with single player in mind, but it doesn't mean those games are really losing anything, besides people who don't want to play online.
  • jubabowling - June 20, 2013 3:58 p.m.

    It might be difficult to put the world in context this way, but who knows until we play it.
  • Shinn - June 21, 2013 2:57 a.m.

    Yeah, but judging by the stories I've heard various journalists telling on podcasts and in interviews, the multiplayer seems to feel more like a big co op campaign as opposed to a competitive death match. Certainly looking forward to seeing how this turns out.
  • winner2 - June 20, 2013 3:10 p.m.

    I literally could not give a single deer poop about this game not having single player, I'll play the fuck out of the mp if it's as good as it looks.
  • PatHan-bHai - June 21, 2013 4:15 a.m.

    You can give deer poops?! :O
  • Mr.YumYums - June 21, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    Exactly my thoughts. Besides the deer poop.
  • GOD - June 20, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    Constantly people are upset with "tacked on" multiplayer with their typically single player games, and then they say people don't care about the single player as much as multiplayer? People may spend more time in multiplayer but that's often only after experiencing a great single player. The only game I think their stats about 5% of people finishing the game would apply to would be Battlefield 3. Don't tell us you think people don't play single player and that's why you're not making one. Just be honest and say it was a business decision in terms of your budget or you literally couldn't think of a good narrative.
  • Bloodstorm - June 20, 2013 3:01 p.m.

    I'm sure he is speaking of his experience with CoD, a franchise that I full and well believe that a mere 5% finish the single player. I know many people who never even played through CoD4, it is a multiplayer franchise in all reality. I can see why they'd decide to just target that larger set of people that would be going into Titanfall with expectation of what they got from CoD.
  • GOD - June 20, 2013 3:06 p.m.

    I have no interest in COD single or multiplayer but I'm so used to hearing about how much people like the COD single player, at least compared to Battlefield's. I feel like this is a missed opportunity for them though, because set ups like this one where you can craft lore and original stories have far more potential than record of military combat number 37.
  • PatHan-bHai - June 21, 2013 4:27 a.m.

    Y'know, you actually got a point there :)
  • Plague - June 21, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    they got that info from achievement statistics.
  • GOD - June 21, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    There's got to be something weird affecting that number. There are so many people who beat every single game they own, that this means there would have to be people who don't beat any of the games they own to offset it that much and have it that low. Maybe it's game rentals or something of that nature where they play for a few hours, it sets up their achievement/trophy list, and then they bring the game back. The majority of games I purchase I beat, and the only ones I don't get around too are some of the PS+ ones that I got for free that I didn't find as fun. Still the only reason I don't end up finishing certain games, is not because I don't have the time, otherwise I'd eventually get around to them. It's because they're not fun that I don't finish certain ones.

Showing 1-20 of 28 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000