Battlefield Unlikely To Go Multiplayer Only

[BoredDragon]

To be quite honest, if BF3 didn't have a singleplayer I wouldn't even bother renting it. The combined experience from both Bad Company games and the multiplayer beta for this game have shown me that the multiplayer of Battlefield and me don't get along... at all. I'm actually tired of the whole realistic shooter thing.

I can't wait for Saints Row, Skyrim, and Serious Sam 3

edit:

Also, the only two games that I can remember that don't have a single player is Team Fortress 2 and Shadowrun.

 

[BoredDragon]

I'm a little worried about developers viewing SP as "training for multiplayer" instead of what it used to be... The game. Multiplayer was a little distraction you played for a day or 2 when you had nothing else to do, I'm a little worried about where this is going...

That is a really good point, this has happened in a lot of games in recent years. Although it's not just that they are viewing sinlgeplayer as "just training", it's also bothers me that a lot of developers are starting to focus only on making the multiplayer good and leaving the singleplayer in the dust.

You could look at Gears of War 3 for something like this, but I think a better example that has stuck with me is Halo: Reach. The point of having both a singleplayer and multiplayer is having two different experiences in a game so that if someone doesn't like one part they can go to the other part and hopefully getting more enjoyment. With Reach, I wasn't a fan of the multiplayer so I focused more on the singleplayer which, to me, sucked. So, to me, the entire game sucked. If they had spent more time on improving the sinlgeplayer, people like me would have had a better opinion of the game.

I hope this trend starts to fade away from the shooter genre

 

[INF1NIT3 D00M]

I get that Battlefield is more orientated toward multiplayer as a game, but I don't think any game should be multiplayer only.

What.

Team Fortress 2.
Counter Strike.
World of Warcraft.
I think I've said everything I need to say here.

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

I think our only gripe here is that there isn't training for the helicopters and jets, I was fine with jets the first time but the helicopter is still an ungainly beast.

Before Bad company 2 they stated that the reason they didnt ant to have a helicopter mission was so that being a pilot was a specialised role, you had to put the time into becoming one, I'm sure they will have the same philosophy here.

 

[zehydra]

Regen health works much better in multiplayer.

Regen Health doesn't work anywhere.There are alot of good shooters,that aren't aimed at 12 year old kids with attention deficit disorder.Also it removes all realism and suspence in the game.

it's not THAT bad. When it comes down to it, I like how Battlefield does it compared to other type of regen health.

Though ultimately, I'd prefer no health-packs + no regen health + medic class.

 

[GameMaNiAC]

I kinda expected that the singleplayer campaign shall be uninteresting for BF3.

While on the other hand, Modern Warfare's campaigns always blow me away on my first playthrough.

Singleplayer is pretty important to me, and seeing how BF3 doesn't really deliver, I'm not so sure I'll be getting it now. Maybe sometime in 2012, when I get bored. We shall see.

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

Before Bad company 2 they stated that the reason they didnt ant to have a helicopter mission was so that being a pilot was a specialised role, you had to put the time into becoming one, I'm sure they will have the same philosophy here.

They actually said that? Thats horrible reasoning, what a bunch of knobs! I could make a shooter where the only difficulty option is called 'bleeding bumhole' and is the hardest thing that's ever been made, and turn around and say some tosh like: This game is for the elite. You have to put the effort into getting good at THIS game. But then I'd have made the equivalent of Dark Souls but for a shooter and people would probably be lining up to give me money ¬_¬

But if you look it has been their philosophy throughout their games, limit roles by difficulty meaning you only get the best doing those roles. Battlefield 2 was the same with everything, plus the commander role which was very difficult to do perfectly. It's something that has carried on into the modding community, Both Forgotten Hope 2 and Project reality focus on intense multiplayer where everyone has a role, not only within the infantry, but within the team as a whole, something which has far less emphasis in the latest games so that theyre more accesable.

 

[Smooth Operator]

And a lot of fans just enjoy having that single player experience. So I think you have to have both.

Yet, most every post I've seen on these forums have been either people calling the single player terrible or laughing saying that no one buys Battlefield for the single player. I'd like to see his source for a 'lot of fans'.

Well he is right a lot of people do enjoy a SP experience, just not this fat lumbering quick time event horse shit they delivered in BF3.

 

[Srkkl]

I don't get what was wrong with the singleplayer. The gameplay was rather samey but I liked the story (thought it was rushed but what fps story isn't nowadays) with a lot of memorable moments.

Spoiler

seriously, dodging a fucking rocket and then pulling a guy out of a helicopter after shotgunning through a cliff villa?

Those are some pretty awesome moments but no game that costs 60 bucks should be multiplayer only.

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

But if you look it has been their philosophy throughout their games, limit roles by difficulty meaning you only get the best doing those roles. Battlefield 2 was the same with everything, plus the commander role which was very difficult to do perfectly. It's something that has carried on into the modding community, Both Forgotten Hope 2 and Project reality focus on intense multiplayer where everyone has a role, not only within the infantry, but within the team as a whole, something which has far less emphasis in the latest games so that theyre more accesable.

I respect your view, but I must say, the above view puts you across as somewhat of an elitist. i.e, a lot of Battlefield fans. That view is as valid as any, but I don't think we're ever gonna see eye to eye on this one...

Have a good day =]

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

 

[Vampire cat]

What this game NEEDS is an oportunity to pracice flying helicopters and airplanes for example, or drive other things...

Feel like an idiot trying to learn in-game and wasting our assets...

 

[mcattack92]

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.

 

[devotedsniper]

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.

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

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

We weren't arguing at all, but you know how these things can develop =p.

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

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.

Again, sorry if i'm pestering with replys, it's just something that interests me

 

[Something Amyss]

If it's a serious part, they need to take it seriously.

 

[5t3v0]

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

We weren't arguing at all, but you know how these things can develop =p.

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

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.

 

[5t3v0]

gah, double post... damn forum software...

 

[Frostbite3789]

let alone one as capable as the XBox 360

Ah ha ha ha oh ho ho...wait, what? You're serious?

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?

 

[DVS Storm]

I actually like the singleplayer. It's not the best ever but it's entertaining. The MP is just pure awesomeness even though there are those server problems but they're gonna be fixed soon anyway(hopefully).

 

[Blind Sight]

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.

The nuke was a horrible idea, and I'm ambivilent when it comes to cod as a whole, but I have never come across a single occasion or even story of an a noob getting 25 kills in a row without dying. Thats a lot.

Besides, BF3 has tanks, I've not played it but surely being in a tank is an ENOURMOUS advantage?

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.

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.