Battlefield Should Drop Singleplayer
- Thread starter Slycne
- Start date
I think that they should at least consider this possibility; Battlefield and by extension many of the modern military shooter entries aren't being buoyed by their storyline so much as they are by multiplayer and horde modes, and at least those it knows how to do with some competency. Instead of sinking funds into trying to build setpieces that are ultimately forgotten, just paring it all down to its strongest aspects might be the way to go.
Not that all modern military FPSes have to have no singleplayer, but very few games have both a campaign and a multiplayer that hold up on their own legs; let singleplayer games worry about being good singleplayer games, and let multiplayer games worry about being good multiplayer games.
Not that all modern military FPSes have to have no singleplayer, but very few games have both a campaign and a multiplayer that hold up on their own legs; let singleplayer games worry about being good singleplayer games, and let multiplayer games worry about being good multiplayer games.
I am happy they dropped co-op, disappointed that they tied unlocks to the campaign, and quite pleased at the lack of QTEs. I wish they didn't waste money on a campaign though Battlefield isn't a single player game. Anyone know why EA didn't get Michael K. Williams to record the EA "It's in the game" message? Seems like a missed opportunity to me.
It's a sad state of affairs when the suggestion isn't to improve the quality of a feature, but drop it altogether. I guess that fits into the "do it right or don't do it at all" school of thought, so I suppose it's not entirely without merit.
So - you are saying you would pay the same amount for something less? Okay. If the price were reduced by some I could agree with the idea. But the real world would still charge the same amount despite xx hours less of work not being put into it.
A better solution would be to (shock) improve the single player experience, rather than to drop it. This is a AAA game, triage for aspects of a game that is trying to be generic, isn't really a good option, otherwise you just revert into something so limited there is no selling points other than a name.
A better solution would be to (shock) improve the single player experience, rather than to drop it. This is a AAA game, triage for aspects of a game that is trying to be generic, isn't really a good option, otherwise you just revert into something so limited there is no selling points other than a name.
I half-agree/half-disagree.
I think games like Battlefield benefit from single player options, I just would prefer if they shifted focus away from story-driven campaigns and more into sandbox-style battles with decent AI bots (Also: Coop).
I've personally enjoyed playing many maps of the original BF1942 and its mods (like Desert Combat) on my own. When the map design and bot AI come together, there can be some really epic moments comparable to the best multiplayer experiences.
I also think that decent AI bots are a great way to complement human players in a game where not everyone is willing to adopt a support position. The Omaha beach map was memorable, for example, due to bots manning the ships and turrets and giving the map that extra feel of warfare mayhem.
But no, story driven campaigns are what's IN, so they focus on that, even when all work towards decent AI and map/mission design would also apply to multiplayer. Oh well, one can dream.
I think games like Battlefield benefit from single player options, I just would prefer if they shifted focus away from story-driven campaigns and more into sandbox-style battles with decent AI bots (Also: Coop).
I've personally enjoyed playing many maps of the original BF1942 and its mods (like Desert Combat) on my own. When the map design and bot AI come together, there can be some really epic moments comparable to the best multiplayer experiences.
I also think that decent AI bots are a great way to complement human players in a game where not everyone is willing to adopt a support position. The Omaha beach map was memorable, for example, due to bots manning the ships and turrets and giving the map that extra feel of warfare mayhem.
But no, story driven campaigns are what's IN, so they focus on that, even when all work towards decent AI and map/mission design would also apply to multiplayer. Oh well, one can dream.
To be fair though the early battlefield games didn't need single player campaigns and they were excellent. For a game like that the more focus on the multiplayer the better I think, given thats what most people buy it for.OldFogeyGamer said:
I could never quite shake the feeling that the singleplayer in BF3 and 4 is there only because CoD has a singleplayer. I would wish the manhours they spent making singlplayer maps and assets went towards making more multiplayer maps, for added variety and fun! BF4 clearly wants you to play the singleplayer though, it even gives you weapon unlocks to use in the multiplayer for finishing it. Too bad its frankly boring to play much of the time, and even when something kinda cool does happen they crank that terrible wobwobified version of the BF theme to the max and rub your face in it screaming "LOOOOOOK" into our ears. We get it guys, its something cool, now could we have some character progression please?
agreed. the campaign in BF3 was just stupid and forgettable and from the sounds of it, BF4 is the same. the is MP what makes this game and once when my damn pc is fixed and DICE has fixed these problems BF4 has, i will get it eventually.
Yep yep yep yep yep. As a rule I judge a game based on its campaign rather than multiplayer as I've always preferred a bit of story with my gaming but in the same way I sometimes get irritated at games that lever in multiplayer for no reason I don't see why a developer would bother taking the time to make a whole new set of mechanics, characters and plots for what will essentially be considered an optional minigame. Battlefield 3 is absolutely one of those games. I clocked dozens of hours on mulitplayer before I so much as looked at the campaign. By contrast I've only played a couple of hours into the campaign and it's just felt like a total chore to the point that I may just not bother finishing it (which I am typically loathe to do with a campaign, if only to see the end of the story).
That said it could do with something to introduce new players to the multiplayer better because it took several hours to get to know the gear, maps, classes, and vehicles (_especially_ vehicles). This could just be playing against bots only or it could be a very short (1 hour max.) SP mission that gives you an introduction to all the basics as long as it's totally optional and doesn't take too much away from the multiplayer.
That said it could do with something to introduce new players to the multiplayer better because it took several hours to get to know the gear, maps, classes, and vehicles (_especially_ vehicles). This could just be playing against bots only or it could be a very short (1 hour max.) SP mission that gives you an introduction to all the basics as long as it's totally optional and doesn't take too much away from the multiplayer.
I would really prefer just an intro explaining the conflict at hand and bots to train yourself on the vehicles. The campaign in BF3 tries to have some pretentions at good storytelling, but falls flat hilariously. That effort could've been used to improve some glaring balancing issues in the multiplayer.
Well, given that nothing in Battlefield singleplayer has ever been good nor been expected to be good and seems to be included more as a formality, I don't really see any point to it. Just use those dev-dollars for the content of your game that people are actually going to play, look to enjoy and have expectations of.
Just make the single-player the multi-player with bots, like Battlefield 2. I got hours of enjoyment out of that and it's far less time/resource consuming to do.
It's not just Battlefield, it's every single SpunkGargleWeeWee game in the genre that needs to just cut out singleplayer and put a big fat "multiplayer only" sticker on the cover.
Honestly the worst offender of all was Homefront, they went out of their way to market this kickass setting of an invasion on home soil, and then they gave us a 4 hour campaign that didn't do much but jack the setpieces and shitty instakill scripting up to 11.
Honestly the worst offender of all was Homefront, they went out of their way to market this kickass setting of an invasion on home soil, and then they gave us a 4 hour campaign that didn't do much but jack the setpieces and shitty instakill scripting up to 11.
BF doesn't really need single player these days, in fact it's probably just a resource pit that doesn't even affect sales.
Back in the day, the BF campaign was just a series of bot matches, I preferred that, it gave us the chance to get some practice in without having to go online. They should just go back to that, heck, I played with bots in BF2 a helluva lot more than I played online. Or a LAN game with bots, that would be fun. I've bought BF3 on 2 systems now and never once bothered with the single player campaign, I did do the co-op missions though, they weren't too bad.
Back in the day, the BF campaign was just a series of bot matches, I preferred that, it gave us the chance to get some practice in without having to go online. They should just go back to that, heck, I played with bots in BF2 a helluva lot more than I played online. Or a LAN game with bots, that would be fun. I've bought BF3 on 2 systems now and never once bothered with the single player campaign, I did do the co-op missions though, they weren't too bad.
Keep it. If you don't it will usher in an era of darkness and evil where every game drops their crappy campaign just for multilayer seeing how the big dog Battlefield made so much money off of it. Game companies that try to make story driven games are in dept and laughed at....all because you wanted a multiplayer game.....you had the chance to stop it. Why didn't you?