Battlefield Should Drop Singleplayer
- Thread starter Slycne
- Start date
Ahhh....I...Uhhh...I don't know how I feel to be honest. I actually...really like the Campaigns. Even Battlefield 3. However, I do notice a lack of enthusiasm in it. At this point, if they just aren't willing to put a dedicated team at least interested in making a great single player campaign, then I guess I don't see the real problem making battlefield strictly multiplayer. The multiplayer is very solid, and that's what most people flock to when buying the game.
I honestly don't see a point for many FPSs to have single player campaigns. Every company seems to be more focused on the multiplayer aspects of FPS games anyways, and treat the single player mode as a begrudging obligation more than anything else. Battlefield to me was great as it was just being a multiplayer game.
sounds about right; it's the same thing with Call of Duty as well. Hardly anyone plays the campaigns so why bother putting them in, especially when they take away resources from the multiplayer?
Source video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5Y6hO1H1tw] in case someone hasn't seen it done before.
After playing the Bad Company 1/2 campaigns, I really, really want the rest of the Battlefield campaigns to be good. Unfortunately, there's just something about the way they make them these days that kills the experience. It's like they stopped making fun of Call of Duty and instead tried to be exactly like them.
The worst part is, I liked the story of Battlefield 3. It was a good idea, having the missions of a Russian and an American converge and diverge as the player learns about a plot to start a world war, losing friends and killing commanders in the process. Unfortunately, most of what I just described only works for me because I have a good imagination. I can see what they were trying to do. They just didn't pull it off.
The worst part is, I liked the story of Battlefield 3. It was a good idea, having the missions of a Russian and an American converge and diverge as the player learns about a plot to start a world war, losing friends and killing commanders in the process. Unfortunately, most of what I just described only works for me because I have a good imagination. I can see what they were trying to do. They just didn't pull it off.
I find myself in the exact same situation. Not one of my friends spends any time with the singleplayer campaign. Now that I think about it, a great deal of my time, that could be spent actually playing games, is spent watching people play Battlefield. Huh.VoidOfOne said:
I'm in the same boat... this "Multi-player" only business holds no interest to me... none of my friends play the same games as me or have the time for contextless multiplayer matches. I have even LESS time to spend playing contextless deathmatches with people I don't know... and there's that goddamn learning curve... Spawn... die... spawn... die... spawn... die... maybe eventually I'll live more than five seconds so I can actually see what multiplayer has to offer. Bah! I've never gotten the appeal... the only multiplayer game I've put ANY time into is Left 4 Dead 2, which I do love, but which is also a primarily co-operative game.Mcoffey said:
True, though I always thought these had more of an air of happenstance to them than being deliberate. Zooking is something Battlefield players are actively attempting to do, whereas tossing your knife at the end of a match and it just happened to be caught on the final death cam as it bounced off a supply drop and killed someone was just blind luck. Though maybe I just haven't seen anyone showing off like that on a routine basis.Kumagawa Misogi said:
I feel it's not a lack of passion that single player campaigns has dwindled in quality; rather a lack of focus. The companies know people buy FPS for multiplayer. People literally boot up the game and jump right into death matches. Single player is almost treated like a tutorial for the game's mechanics, and as such is ignored. I mean isn't that what the game manual is for? So the single player is like the paper on a cupcake; it's in the way of your delicious treat. So few people regard the single campaign and lavish praise on the multiplayer segments. The amount of work and effort on one grows while the other shrinks. It's not for a lack of trying, just the realization that it will be get less attention than their other work. But honestly is there any comparison to facing AI vs facing a human character? How often does the AI sneak up behind you to knife you? Most single players boil down to an on rail shooter; Enter a room and enemies pile in through the door or they're already waiting for you. Kill them all then move to the next room. That can't compete with jumping out of the room as a grenade goes off killing the guy that threw said grenade with only a sliver of your health remaining.
Or bring back Bad Company. BF3's and BF4's single player were terrible because they took themselves too seriously. You really can't be serious if the writing is terrible. Bad Company was silly enough to get away with bad writing.
Other than that, fuck it. Spend the Single Player effort on making sure the netcode isn't a fucking mess. I used to joke that BF3 had a terrible netcode, but BF4's is so bad, it's ridiculous. If the game wasn't fun as all hell, I would've ragequitted on day one.
Other than that, fuck it. Spend the Single Player effort on making sure the netcode isn't a fucking mess. I used to joke that BF3 had a terrible netcode, but BF4's is so bad, it's ridiculous. If the game wasn't fun as all hell, I would've ragequitted on day one.
Actually I don't really agree.
Not entirely.
Battlefield can be single player, but it's single player needs to capture the things that make multiplayer so special, the freedom, scale and the simple joy of blowing shit up, and blowing lots of shit up.
The Bad Company games did a great job of capturing that with fun characters, simple plot lines, big vibrant levels with a lot of stuff to destory, particularly the first one that was just a series of sandboxxes with toys for you to play with.
Battlefield multiplayer though is full of only in battlefield moments. That glorious moment where you drop a helo pilot with a grenade launcher potshot and get 4 kills and vehicle destory. Or when a landmine triggers a chain reaction of things exploding, like a glorious symphony of metallic carnage.
Or the simple satisfaction of rolling a tank over a quadbike.
Not entirely.
Battlefield can be single player, but it's single player needs to capture the things that make multiplayer so special, the freedom, scale and the simple joy of blowing shit up, and blowing lots of shit up.
The Bad Company games did a great job of capturing that with fun characters, simple plot lines, big vibrant levels with a lot of stuff to destory, particularly the first one that was just a series of sandboxxes with toys for you to play with.
Battlefield multiplayer though is full of only in battlefield moments. That glorious moment where you drop a helo pilot with a grenade launcher potshot and get 4 kills and vehicle destory. Or when a landmine triggers a chain reaction of things exploding, like a glorious symphony of metallic carnage.
Or the simple satisfaction of rolling a tank over a quadbike.
I kind of have to agree. Battlefield will always be a multiplayer series to me. Although, they have kinda tried to force you into the campaign with Battlefield 4, since some guns are unlocked for multiplayer by completing it.
I'm down with battlefield 5 having a campaign, but only if they ditch this whole US suddenly the underdog motif that BF and COD are trying to create. For me it comes across as being just too ignorant of current events for me to get into. The Russians invading in MW2 isn't going to happen, but it's plausible enough for me to immerse myself in the story. In ghosts and BF4 the idea of the US being crippled and taking on the underdog persona just reeks of trying to reclaim revolutionary war era patriotism, which I can't get behind considering how many countries we've bombed and spied on in the last decade. I just feel that all the plot lines have MERICA stamped all over them, mainly because [!US!Patriotism!] stands out way more than any recent attempts at a subtle story arcs or character development.
I will buy two copies of any next gen shooter that lets me play as a bad guy. Far as FPS are concerned, I've been wrapped in an American flag for so long that my ass is starting to chaff seven shades of red, white, and blue. For once I want to play as a guy who is invading some nation and just !@#@ing cannot catch one little squad of do gooders reeking havoc on my army.
Picture a campaign of being the guy responsible for catching those ass hats in Bad Company.
I will buy two copies of any next gen shooter that lets me play as a bad guy. Far as FPS are concerned, I've been wrapped in an American flag for so long that my ass is starting to chaff seven shades of red, white, and blue. For once I want to play as a guy who is invading some nation and just !@#@ing cannot catch one little squad of do gooders reeking havoc on my army.
Picture a campaign of being the guy responsible for catching those ass hats in Bad Company.
I heard somewhere (can't remember the source) that there has to be a single player campaign on these games if they plan on releasing it on consoles other than the PC. Anyway, I personally thought BF4's single player wasn't that bad. Plus the addition of unlocking dogtags and extra weapons for the multiplayer was a nice touch.