DICE: Battlefield 4 Will Give Single Player More Freedom

[Karloff]

DICE: Battlefield 4 Will Give Single Player More Freedom

"Players want to feel smart," says Lars Gustavsson.

"We got a lot of feedback from the Battlefield 3 singleplayer, and based on what we intended to deliver the team did a great job," says DICE's Lars Gustavsson, "but given that it's a Battlefield product there were a lot of expectations that it would be more open." DICE's single player really didn't work that well last time [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/9206-Battlefield-3-Review], particularly when compared to the strength of its multiplayer, but DICE has learnt its lesson, Gustavsson claims. DICE wants to infuse the single player campaign with multiplayer elements; that's the way to beat the single player issues.

"The future will tell, but where we come from we do single player because we want to and we've learned a lot while doing it," says Gustavsson, "and I think we have a great story to tell." You'll be able to command your squad in single player, giving you some tactical options. But the bigger issue, DICE feels, is encounters, which need to be more open. In the previous Battlefield your tactical options were limited to 'pick up this and do that' which, Gustavsson admits, isn't the most exciting way to get things done. Opening up the encounter system, providing you with more choice as to how to tackle any given encounter, should do a lot to spice up the single player campaign.

"Players want to feel smart doing what they're doing," says Gustavsson, and DICE hopes that crossbreeding its single player campaign with multiplayer elements will do just that. This FPS is due on PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 October 29th; slightly later, for next generation consoles.

Source: CVG [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/432817/battlefield-4-will-address-problems-with-predecessors-single-player-campaign-says-dice/]


Permalink

 

[Bindal]

"Giving more freedom" means we got a 3.5 meter wide corridor to follow instead of 2.5 meter and get 12 seconds to "return to the battlefield" (aka going back in the corridor) instead of 10?

 

[fix-the-spade]

Well, Battlefield 3's campaign was at it's best in the levels that contained as few scripted events as possible, particularly the two levels centered around the arms dealer which boiled down to you, a couple of npcs and a small army of bad guys (and playing chicken with an attack jet, which was the best sequence in a military shooter for years). Those bits were fun, I could play a lot of those levels and be happy.

But developers have a history of saying anything to make themselves sound good, the single player trailers so far just look like more of scriptedcorridorquicktimefield, so we'll see when the game comes out Lars, we'll see.

I'm far more concerned about getting my hands on a PAK-FA anyway...

 

[Mromson]

So in other words, the single player will be just as atrociously bad as it was in Battlefield 3. Good to know! Totally didn't see that coming. -_-' Certainly won't be picking up Battlefield 4 after the pile of garbage that Battlefield 3 was - a notion that was reinforced after trying the Battlefield 4 open beta.

I miss Battlefield Bad Company 2 - why can't they make a great game like that? Instead of this pile of shit.

 

[Drummodino]

I watched about 30 minutes of Battlefield 3's single player at a friends. It was some of the worst video game footage I've ever seen. My friend even turned it off saying how boring it was (and he loved shooters at that time). They say the team did a great job with that? God help us for whatever crud they churn out next.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

"Giving more freedom" means we got a 3.5 meter wide corridor to follow instead of 2.5 meter and get 12 seconds to "return to the battlefield" (aka going back in the corridor) instead of 10?

Whoa, steady on there mate!

That much innovation would be too much to handle!

Back on topic: Well, at least EA is trying to make the single player experience in their games less shite(what with BF4, Mirror's Edge 2 being designed as a sandbox and DA:III having open areas),freedom is appreciated.

So don't fuck it up EA.

 

[james.sponge]

What they mean by giving you more freedom is that now you will be able to fly a jet and not be a passenger. Rejoice!

Story driven campaigns in BF games are one of the biggest design mistakes they've made. Why bother when the game is so obviously centered around multiplayer? Lots of people skip single player and just go straight into multiplayer where the actual fun is.

Well yeah many people say 'it prepares you for the MP experience' except neither BC2 nor BF3 had any good vehicle sections or maps that could prepare you for anything. MP maps with bots seems to be only valid option in a game like this.

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

I watched about 30 minutes of Battlefield 3's single player at a friends. It was some of the worst video game footage I've ever seen. My friend even turned it off saying how boring it was (and he loved shooters at that time). They say the team did a great job with that? God help us for whatever crud they churn out next.

Keep in mind his full quote: "based on what we intended to deliver the team did a great job... but given that it's a Battlefield product there were a lot of expectations that it would be more open."

They had a goal and they met it, but that doesn't mean that people liked their goal. They even recognize that.

Still, just because they acknowledged that they screwed up doesn't mean they won't again -_-

 

[the doom cannon]

What they mean by giving you more freedom is that now you will be able to fly a jet and not be a passenger. Rejoice!

Story driven campaigns in BF games are one of the biggest design mistakes they've made. Why bother when the game is so obviously centered around multiplayer? Lots of people skip single player and just go straight into multiplayer where the actual fun is.

Well yeah many people say 'it prepares you for the MP experience' except neither BC2 nor BF3 had any good vehicle sections or maps that could prepare you for anything. MP maps with bots seems to be only valid option in a game like this.

100% agree. The older battlefield games (1942, 2, 2142) had singleplayer that was just multiplayer against bots. I think they got the "must have singleplayer!" idea from the success of bc1 and bc2, whose singleplayer was decent i suppose.

If they deliver on vehicle balancing, they can have my money.

 

[Drummodino]

I watched about 30 minutes of Battlefield 3's single player at a friends. It was some of the worst video game footage I've ever seen. My friend even turned it off saying how boring it was (and he loved shooters at that time). They say the team did a great job with that? God help us for whatever crud they churn out next.

Keep in mind his full quote: "based on what we intended to deliver the team did a great job... but given that it's a Battlefield product there were a lot of expectations that it would be more open."

They had a goal and they met it, but that doesn't mean that people liked their goal. They even recognize that.

Still, just because they acknowledged that they screwed up doesn't mean they won't again -_-

I find it highly unlikely they intended to deliver a steaming turd. Still at least they're aiming for improvement, that is a step in the right direction.

Although I am also skeptical they won't balls it up again.

 

[Rad Party God]

Well, Battlefield 3's campaign was at it's best in the levels that contained as few scripted events as possible, particularly the two levels centered around the arms dealer which boiled down to you, a couple of npcs and a small army of bad guys (and playing chicken with an attack jet, which was the best sequence in a military shooter for years). Those bits were fun, I could play a lot of those levels and be happy.

I agree, BF3's SP campaign was at it's best when you were not controlling a generic US marine, the levels with the russians felt more natural in comparison, just as you said, they didn't have as many scripted events as the previous levels. Also, graphically speaking, they were more compelling due to their use of *gasp!* more colors.

OT: Well, I hope they learnt their lesson, I don't expect something on the lines of Crysis 2, much less of Deus Ex or Crysis 1, but at least, make the levels less scripted and for the love of god, PLEASE, get rid of the annoying blue marker constantly nagging and telling you where to go or whom to follow >.<' (and less QTEs of course).

 

[Grach]

I still don't understand why give it a half-assed campaign instead of improvements to the multiplayer.

 

[DTWolfwood]

All they have to do is put bots into Multiplayer maps and add a few more objectives here and there. A narrated story during disguised load screens to tie each map together via ANY GENERIC MILITARY STORY.

Just doing this will be leaps and bound better than "Choose 1 of 3 Linear paths to follow;" which mark my words will be exactly what it'll be and is meant by "more freedom"

 

[XMark]

They should actually trust us to frickin' fly a plane this time around instead of just sitting in the back seat and getting bored while you accomplish your missions by simply clicking on the exact things that the game tells you to click.

God, that was a horribly boring mission. Looked nice, though.

While they're at it, they need to include a helicopter mission in single-player so noobs like me have a way to practice flying the damn things without killing a bunch of multiplayer teammates in the process.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

But... but giving the player agency and choice means they might miss one of your meticulously-planned setpieces! And then what's the point in playing the game?!

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

You know what would give players a good single player experience similar to multiplayer? Bots! Give us bots and don't spend all that money on single player. No one buys BF for single player anyway.

 

[ShakerSilver]

"Players want to feel smart doing what they're doing,"

Just like how Bioshock Infinite was a game for "smart people", right? Yeah, nah. I really don't expect intelligence from any modern average AAA corridor shooter.

 

[chadachada123]

So in other words, the single player will be just as atrociously bad as it was in Battlefield 3. Good to know! Totally didn't see that coming. -_-' Certainly won't be picking up Battlefield 4 after the pile of garbage that Battlefield 3 was - a notion that was reinforced after trying the Battlefield 4 open beta.

I miss Battlefield Bad Company 2 - why can't they make a great game like that? Instead of this pile of shit.

Honestly, I like the BF4 beta well enough. I mean, the optimization on the PC version is terrible, and the map itself quickly gets old because it isn't designed particularly well, but the gunplay feels like a pretty decent balance between BC2 and BF3. Individual parts of the map are pretty good, but the overall flow of it is terrible when combined with the ability to spawn basically everywhere.

I do wish that it was MORE like BC2, but at least it will be a lot more like it than BF3 was. I'm very interested in what the other maps will look like, though.