Just opened battlefield 3 and i noticed it was on two discs and disc 1 was multiplayer and disc 2 was singleplayer. Has gaming really gone to a point were that the campaign is treated like an extra mode rather than the meat of it?
multiplayer first?
- Thread starter legend of duty
- Start date
It could be quite helpful for people with 2 of the same consoles in one house. Person A gets to play the best part, campaign, while person B gets to play multiplayer. In this case I think that since the maps are so big and the content diverse it requires two discs for both parts.
And what, exactly, is wrong with that? Some people find multiplayer more fun which, you know, is the point of the "game." There are still plenty of excellent singleplayer games being developed by indie and big-money publishers, alike.legend of duty said:
Have you ever considered that multiplayer is the primary reason lots of people buy the game? Thus, yeah, that's kind of their focus?
Totally missing the point there man, his point is that the multiplayer disc is "disc 1" coming first and relegating single player to "disc 2" whereas I do for the most part enjoy multiplayer more than singleplayer I do think that this is rather absurd as singleplayer should still 'come first'ChromaticWolfen said:
It has pretty much been going this way since Bungie cut the Halo 2 campaign's resources to improve their multiplayer, making a lot of fans rage at the shoddy corner cutting. Unfortunately they got away with it and COD 4 MW did the same thing, and created a rather short, unremarkable campaign (apart from that one cutscene, you know the one.) Which due to it's success was copied as the standard for the next generation of FPS campaigns. Although some games are remaining singleplayer experiences (Skyrim) The singleplayer sections of FPS's are degrading rapidly into something you can complete in an afternoon, and never be bothered to play again, some games have now began cutting the content of their singleplayer campaigns for used games, so you have to pay again to get the full experience ( RAGE [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.306536-Rage-Cuts-Single-Player-When-You-Buy-It-Used#12333220])
I'm just dreading the day that you have to pay extra to unlock the singleplayer campaigns altogether on a new game.
I'm just dreading the day that you have to pay extra to unlock the singleplayer campaigns altogether on a new game.
Thanks for pointing that out. In that case then yes, it is a bit annoying. The single player should be the focus not the extra bit on the side. The multiplayer should be extra, that bit on the side, the mistress you never tell anyone about.Eadd said:
Well we are dealing with an Engine that kicks so much ass it permanently smells of farts.
Dead Space 2 did the exact same thing.
Games are becoming much larger with better graphics, it'll require more disc space, and thus the Xbox needs the extra disc. Nothing really wrong with it, its a minor nuisance but it definitly does not harm a games quality.
Dead Space 2 did the exact same thing.
Games are becoming much larger with better graphics, it'll require more disc space, and thus the Xbox needs the extra disc. Nothing really wrong with it, its a minor nuisance but it definitly does not harm a games quality.
to OP: no, it hasn't BUT BF3 is a FPS, the focus IS the multi-player most people don't actually play them for single player, >.> be surprised if any major portion of the fan base KNOWS there's a single player
>.>, PFF!!! any Mistress worth having is worth bragging about, takes skill to use a whip right ya know XD!!ChromaticWolfen said:
What? No it bloody shouldn't! In a single-player game, fine, but Battlefield 3 is not a single-player game. The BF3 campaign is just... dressing. It's not even the icing on the cake, it's the sprinkles that decorate the icing. Anybody who bought the game primarily for its single-player must have a few screws loose.ChromaticWolfen said:
This thing has been about the multiplayer from the get-go, and I think it's a good sign that the multiplayer disc has been placed in front of the single-player disc, as it shows that the developers had their priorities straight.
I can only assume the OP has never played any other BF game, or he would know this.
... so one game does something and you're going to go off on a rant about the whole industry? Don't get me wrong here, I'm not looking to defend Battlefield 3 or anything like that. But it's probably worth remembering that long before videogames, people played game games with OTHER PEOPLE! Is it really so strange that the industry has begun to shift towards that? For a lot of people, playing with someone else is what they bought the game for. Like with COD or Halo games, the multiplayer was one of the biggest selling points for Battlefield 3. It shouldn't come as that much of a surprise then, that they put it first.
