If you don't want single player in Battlefield, just play Battlefield Play4Free or Battlefield Heros. These are both free to play and only have multiplayer components. No single player at all.
Battlefield Unlikely To Go Multiplayer Only
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
I didn't mind the single player even if it was abit short, my main problem is the friendly npc's are annoying, yes there all very tactical in there movements but they won't compensate for you being in there path, they either push you along or push you out of the way.
Also the fact that you don't actually get to fly in the single player, yes you get to go in a fighter jet but still, you aint actually flying.
Also the fact that you don't actually get to fly in the single player, yes you get to go in a fighter jet but still, you aint actually flying.
I can agree with you, I got in early originally played 1942, so i suppose i was pretty lucky, i can see that it would be a huge barrier to entry, which would be a problem if they want to go up against Cod. but it isnt the only game series that does it, Eve online is one such game, and games like Counter strike rely completely on skill to the point that i can't play them because i'm simply not good enough to not be detrimental to my team, at least in battlefield even if you can't be a pilot you can contribute.Tin Man said:We weren't arguing at all, but you know how these things can develop =p.Airsoftslayer93 said:Ohh sorry, didn't realise that we were argueing
I am a battlefield fan, but i wouldnt call myself elitist, I'm terrible at flying jets or planes, Im an ok helicopter pilot but never get to fly because there are always people better, I can tank, but again don't get to often. I like a bit of a shoot up, i enjoy games where people are on equal footing (halo is a personal favorite). But i do like to be able to play as part of a cohesive team, everyone playing their part is just another style of game, I'm not elitist because i often just fill in an infantry role, Im ok at everthing but unfortunatly i don't exceed in any one ascpect, something that battlefield kind of demands... odd. Well i must say talking through this has been very enlightening, thankyou very much
Good day sir
I must say, I may have read you inaccurately. However I don't think it is a positive to refuse to introduce mechanics and guidance in the name of making people pro at certain roles, simply because learning them takes so much effort you can only really get any good at one. That seems like a barrier to entry to me, and a lame one, and if it is their design ethos then fair enough. I've never bought one of their games anyway, so I'm not really going to be bothered by it =p
Again, sorry if i'm pestering with replys, it's just something that interests me
Well, Look at it this way, Battlefield encourages learning to play a certain difficult but effective if picked up right skill, through going through the hard yards and the misguided criticisms of others, so only the strong survive. Whereas "another nameless game" basically does the learning curve for you and puts a "Win all" button as a little cherry on top of the 25 kills that you essentially just legally Hax'd to get.Tin Man said:We weren't arguing at all, but you know how these things can develop =p.Airsoftslayer93 said:Ohh sorry, didn't realise that we were argueing
I am a battlefield fan, but i wouldnt call myself elitist, I'm terrible at flying jets or planes, Im an ok helicopter pilot but never get to fly because there are always people better, I can tank, but again don't get to often. I like a bit of a shoot up, i enjoy games where people are on equal footing (halo is a personal favorite). But i do like to be able to play as part of a cohesive team, everyone playing their part is just another style of game, I'm not elitist because i often just fill in an infantry role, Im ok at everthing but unfortunatly i don't exceed in any one ascpect, something that battlefield kind of demands... odd. Well i must say talking through this has been very enlightening, thankyou very much
Good day sir
I must say, I may have read you inaccurately. However I don't think it is a positive to refuse to introduce mechanics and guidance in the name of making people pro at certain roles, simply because learning them takes so much effort you can only really get any good at one. That seems like a barrier to entry to me, and a lame one, and if it is their design ethos then fair enough. I've never bought one of their games anyway, so I'm not really going to be bothered by it =p
Ah ha ha ha oh ho ho...wait, what? You're serious?DannyJBeckett said:
Oh dear.
The root of this problem is the DVD, and Microsoft's stranglehold on the hard drives you can and can't use for the 360. While the PC uses DVD's, it is generally understood a PC user is going to have a ton of hard drive space. You can get a 1TB hard drive for around $60. Meanwhile for the 360 you're having to shell out $100 or something ridiculous for 120 gigs.
Battlefield was a large install on the PC, sure. But after you install it, you can use your two discs as frisbees for all it cares. As per my understanding of the 360 and PS3, you still need the disc in the disc drive to play. Installs are necessary due to hardware limitations, which is why when even games that don't require installs but have them optional, when you do install them, you get shorter load times and other positive effects.
Battlefield 3 was developed first and foremost for the PC, as it damn well should've been. The secondary development was the PS3, and tertiary was the 360. Due to the 360's hardware constraints. Out of the 3 listed, it's easily the weakest. And-wait, why am I even typing this? One of your biggest problems is they tried to make it easier on the 360's hardware, but at the cost of some convenience, and it's not even the system you'd get it on.
Well, if that's the case then, due to your moral standing you can't ever get the following games: Halo 2 (bad PC port), Rage (hardly even functioning on the PC out of the box), Fallout 3 (DLC timed exclusive for one console), New Vegas (same as Fallout 3 but with the addition of being crazy buggy), Black Ops (A 10ish year old engine and computers that could run Cyrsis could hardly run it, apparently Treyarch had never heard the word 'optimization'), Dead Rising 2 (straight up exclusive DLC for one system, not even timed) and many, many more!
Edit: And where did you get the information that the HD textures weren't on the disc? They most certainly are. 3 seconds of googling led me to this information. But who has time for that when there are disingenuous assertions to be made?
Didn't play a lot of Modern Warfare 2 and such myself, but my old roommates did and I saw some dirty tricks for nukes as a result. An example would be have a friend join a free-for-all match with you, and just find an out-of-the-way counter where one of you can just kill the other. My roommate couldn't figure out how this guy was getting a nuke every round til I pointed it out on the kill feed.Tin Man said:
I haven't played Battlefield 3, but I did play every Battlefield up til 2, and although tanks can give you an advantage, you have to use them properly or they'll just be wasted. A tank isn't much good if another team has a really well planned anti-tank attack from multiple angles. Not to mention things like choppers and planes provide air cover. Hell, I remember in Battlefield 1942 you could fill a jeep with explosive charges and mines and suicide ram tanks for an insta-kill haha. Battlefield's always been more about tactical use of equipment and teamwork rather then anything that gives a single player too much of an advantage.
Single player acts as a good introduction to the game. Jumping into a multiplayer with never having seen how the game works? Good luck with that. It's one of the reasons I never got into TF2, jumping amidst pros who've been playing for years, not knowing a damn thing myself, was never much fun.
Also, the reviewers are merely complaining that the campaign is short (granted, not a good thing, but as this is primarily a multiplayer title, it's not like all you paid for was the singleplayer) and that it is not spectacular - not that it's not good. I'm finding the story enjoyable to a point so far and it's certainly had it's shining moments.
QTE parts are a bit annoying, but not too much so as they're never long and they just serve to give a little interactiveness to jumping around a train rather than turning it into a cutscene. Again, not a fan, but whatever, they didn't lessen my enjoyment of the game, which is good enough for someone who hates QTEs as much as I do.
I loved the bit with jet flying. Granted, aiming the aimed rockets at the last plane was infuriatingly difficult (heads up DICE, just because I'm looking from the seat of a jet doesn't mean the metallic part of the cabin window (the rim) should interrupt my missile lock on, I ain't aiming with my helmet for fucks sake. Especially not when you let an AI control the plane and spin around like he's on a fucking air show despite him being the pursuer, not getting pursued himself. But I guess it might've just been my fault, I missed the fact you could just gun him down with the main guns when the pilot aligns the plane.
Also like that they made the pilot a female, even if we wouldn't have known any difference unless they told us so. They also admitted not putting in female avatars (talking multiplayer) was a legit issue, so kinda hoping to see some female options too (wouldn't be too hard considering they already have the switch system in cause of the pre-order bonus items and different camo outfits)
Also, the reviewers are merely complaining that the campaign is short (granted, not a good thing, but as this is primarily a multiplayer title, it's not like all you paid for was the singleplayer) and that it is not spectacular - not that it's not good. I'm finding the story enjoyable to a point so far and it's certainly had it's shining moments.
QTE parts are a bit annoying, but not too much so as they're never long and they just serve to give a little interactiveness to jumping around a train rather than turning it into a cutscene. Again, not a fan, but whatever, they didn't lessen my enjoyment of the game, which is good enough for someone who hates QTEs as much as I do.
I loved the bit with jet flying. Granted, aiming the aimed rockets at the last plane was infuriatingly difficult (heads up DICE, just because I'm looking from the seat of a jet doesn't mean the metallic part of the cabin window (the rim) should interrupt my missile lock on, I ain't aiming with my helmet for fucks sake. Especially not when you let an AI control the plane and spin around like he's on a fucking air show despite him being the pursuer, not getting pursued himself. But I guess it might've just been my fault, I missed the fact you could just gun him down with the main guns when the pilot aligns the plane.
Also like that they made the pilot a female, even if we wouldn't have known any difference unless they told us so. They also admitted not putting in female avatars (talking multiplayer) was a legit issue, so kinda hoping to see some female options too (wouldn't be too hard considering they already have the switch system in cause of the pre-order bonus items and different camo outfits)
There are a lot of good/decent arguments for the single player in this thread (people enjoying it, people using it to train for multiplayer, etc) but I wonder if they had decided to just cut the singleplayer portion, then price the game at $40. Wouldn't that sell better? Especially if all the retailers were still offering preorder bonuses, the game would cost like $30. Yeah, some of the xbox 360 owners without xbox live wouldn't get it, but still.
I've never accepted that single player in shooters or any game get's you ready for multiplayer. I've played plenty of shooters single player and it's never stopped me from sucking ass in multiplayer.
Well, from an economic standpoint, the multiplayer is something you can play with your friends for literally thousands of hours which is worth a lot more than $60 in entertainment value. I rent games for their story, unless it's a game like Skyrim or Oblivion that promises over 100 hrs of game time.BoredDragon said:
Yes, Reach's single player was absolutely terrible because there was no character development, the Spartans were all faceless entities and you didn't really care when they died. Battlefield 3 fell into the same trap, with the additional burden of being completely schizophrenic. The jet and tank levels had nothing to do with the main story line, they were just thrown in there because you needed to pilot tanks and jets. The constant flashback narrative seemed unnecessary and contributed to the confusion by hopping back and forth in time.
But I disagree that ALL games are leaving behind single player. Modern Warfare has had a great cinematic single player campaign, with somewhat developed characters. They are clearly putting an effort into it, it's just that they realize that people rent games for a 10 hr single player campaign, and buy games for their multiplayer. I'm afraid the blame rests on the consumer. You can blame me if it makes you feel better, but I'm not shelling out $60 for a ten hour game when I can rent it and beat it for a fraction of the cost. Sorry.
Precisely.Frostbite3789 said:
It's an issue of PC's leaving consoles behind. It is going to happen no matter what due to consoles lacking the ability to be upgraded whereas you can keep a frankenPC top of the line buying one part at a time for a decade or more.
The 360 is a 6 year old hardware package. In PC years, that is decades old and it's trying to run the same software. If Microsoft expects people to believe the 360 (or for that matter, Sony with the Ps3) is going to still be competitively relevant in 3 more years, they are deluding themselves, misleading consumers, and holding back the entire industry by trying to mold game capabilities to the hardware rather than start work on consoles that either can be upgraded down the road to incorporate emerging tech, or release something more current more frequently.
EDIT: Also, I have never regretted putting a 500 gig drive in my PS3 and I am elated that I am able to do so.