Battlefield Should Drop Singleplayer

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Battlefield Should Drop Singleplayer

It's time for the series to go back to its roots.

Read Full Article

I agree.

And this is coming from someone who has never played any of the Battlefield games, but is surrounded by friends who do. None of them see the point of the campaign in this series, and all of them just focus on multi-player.

All hail Tank Ninja!

Ahhh....I...Uhhh...I don't know how I feel to be honest. I actually...really like the Campaigns. Even Battlefield 3. However, I do notice a lack of enthusiasm in it. At this point, if they just aren't willing to put a dedicated team at least interested in making a great single player campaign, then I guess I don't see the real problem making battlefield strictly multiplayer. The multiplayer is very solid, and that's what most people flock to when buying the game.

I honestly don't see a point for many FPSs to have single player campaigns. Every company seems to be more focused on the multiplayer aspects of FPS games anyways, and treat the single player mode as a begrudging obligation more than anything else. Battlefield to me was great as it was just being a multiplayer game.

sounds about right; it's the same thing with Call of Duty as well. Hardly anyone plays the campaigns so why bother putting them in, especially when they take away resources from the multiplayer?

hmm learn something new every day.. i didnt realise battlefield games had single player elements these days, its always been a multiplayer series to me

Battlefield players eject out of their planes, blow up an enemy fighter with their launchers during free-fall and then jump back into their vehicle and fly it back off

Source video in case someone hasn't seen it done before.

Aiddon:
sounds about right; it's the same thing with Call of Duty as well. Hardly anyone plays the campaigns so why bother putting them in, especially when they take away resources from the multiplayer?

A lot of people play the campaigns of the call of duty games. They are actually quite good if on the short side. My friends and I always buy the yearly call of duty to continue the stories in them (Except ghost because fuck a 40 gb download).

After playing the Bad Company 1/2 campaigns, I really, really want the rest of the Battlefield campaigns to be good. Unfortunately, there's just something about the way they make them these days that kills the experience. It's like they stopped making fun of Call of Duty and instead tried to be exactly like them.
The worst part is, I liked the story of Battlefield 3. It was a good idea, having the missions of a Russian and an American converge and diverge as the player learns about a plot to start a world war, losing friends and killing commanders in the process. Unfortunately, most of what I just described only works for me because I have a good imagination. I can see what they were trying to do. They just didn't pull it off.

The only reason I ever consider getting a Cod or a Battlefield is to check out single player. Contextless death matches bore me to tears. Most times their stories are nonsense but they're pretty much the only game in town even looking at a modern military setting (That's worth paying attention to).

On the other hand, I absolutely understand that I am not the target audience for these games, so maybe my take on it doesnt count for much.

No CoD players show off by bouncing a throwing a knife off of a killstreak to kill the guy using it.

VoidOfOne:
I agree.

And this is coming from someone who has never played any of the Battlefield games, but is surrounded by friends who do. None of them see the point of the campaign in this series, and all of them just focus on multi-player.

All hail Tank Ninja!

I find myself in the exact same situation. Not one of my friends spends any time with the singleplayer campaign. Now that I think about it, a great deal of my time, that could be spent actually playing games, is spent watching people play Battlefield. Huh.

Mcoffey:
The only reason I ever consider getting a Cod or a Battlefield is to check out single player. Contextless death matches bore me to tears. Most times their stories are nonsense but they're pretty much the only game in town even looking at a modern military setting (That's worth paying attention to).

On the other hand, I absolutely understand that I am not the target audience for these games, so maybe my take on it doesnt count for much.

I'm in the same boat... this "Multi-player" only business holds no interest to me... none of my friends play the same games as me or have the time for contextless multiplayer matches. I have even LESS time to spend playing contextless deathmatches with people I don't know... and there's that goddamn learning curve... Spawn... die... spawn... die... spawn... die... maybe eventually I'll live more than five seconds so I can actually see what multiplayer has to offer. Bah! I've never gotten the appeal... the only multiplayer game I've put ANY time into is Left 4 Dead 2, which I do love, but which is also a primarily co-operative game.

Kumagawa Misogi:
No CoD players show off by bouncing a throwing a knife off of a killstreak to kill the guy using it.

True, though I always thought these had more of an air of happenstance to them than being deliberate. Zooking is something Battlefield players are actively attempting to do, whereas tossing your knife at the end of a match and it just happened to be caught on the final death cam as it bounced off a supply drop and killed someone was just blind luck. Though maybe I just haven't seen anyone showing off like that on a routine basis.

I feel it's not a lack of passion that single player campaigns has dwindled in quality; rather a lack of focus. The companies know people buy FPS for multiplayer. People literally boot up the game and jump right into death matches. Single player is almost treated like a tutorial for the game's mechanics, and as such is ignored. I mean isn't that what the game manual is for? So the single player is like the paper on a cupcake; it's in the way of your delicious treat. So few people regard the single campaign and lavish praise on the multiplayer segments. The amount of work and effort on one grows while the other shrinks. It's not for a lack of trying, just the realization that it will be get less attention than their other work. But honestly is there any comparison to facing AI vs facing a human character? How often does the AI sneak up behind you to knife you? Most single players boil down to an on rail shooter; Enter a room and enemies pile in through the door or they're already waiting for you. Kill them all then move to the next room. That can't compete with jumping out of the room as a grenade goes off killing the guy that threw said grenade with only a sliver of your health remaining.

Or bring back Bad Company. BF3's and BF4's single player were terrible because they took themselves too seriously. You really can't be serious if the writing is terrible. Bad Company was silly enough to get away with bad writing.

Other than that, fuck it. Spend the Single Player effort on making sure the netcode isn't a fucking mess. I used to joke that BF3 had a terrible netcode, but BF4's is so bad, it's ridiculous. If the game wasn't fun as all hell, I would've ragequitted on day one.

Actually I don't really agree.

Not entirely.

Battlefield can be single player, but it's single player needs to capture the things that make multiplayer so special, the freedom, scale and the simple joy of blowing shit up, and blowing lots of shit up.

The Bad Company games did a great job of capturing that with fun characters, simple plot lines, big vibrant levels with a lot of stuff to destory, particularly the first one that was just a series of sandboxxes with toys for you to play with.

Battlefield multiplayer though is full of only in battlefield moments. That glorious moment where you drop a helo pilot with a grenade launcher potshot and get 4 kills and vehicle destory. Or when a landmine triggers a chain reaction of things exploding, like a glorious symphony of metallic carnage.

Or the simple satisfaction of rolling a tank over a quadbike.

I kind of have to agree. Battlefield will always be a multiplayer series to me. Although, they have kinda tried to force you into the campaign with Battlefield 4, since some guns are unlocked for multiplayer by completing it.

I'm down with battlefield 5 having a campaign, but only if they ditch this whole US suddenly the underdog motif that BF and COD are trying to create. For me it comes across as being just too ignorant of current events for me to get into. The Russians invading in MW2 isn't going to happen, but it's plausible enough for me to immerse myself in the story. In ghosts and BF4 the idea of the US being crippled and taking on the underdog persona just reeks of trying to reclaim revolutionary war era patriotism, which I can't get behind considering how many countries we've bombed and spied on in the last decade. I just feel that all the plot lines have MERICA stamped all over them, mainly because [!US!Patriotism!] stands out way more than any recent attempts at a subtle story arcs or character development.

I will buy two copies of any next gen shooter that lets me play as a bad guy. Far as FPS are concerned, I've been wrapped in an American flag for so long that my ass is starting to chaff seven shades of red, white, and blue. For once I want to play as a guy who is invading some nation and just !@#@ing cannot catch one little squad of do gooders reeking havoc on my army.

Picture a campaign of being the guy responsible for catching those ass hats in Bad Company.

I heard somewhere (can't remember the source) that there has to be a single player campaign on these games if they plan on releasing it on consoles other than the PC. Anyway, I personally thought BF4's single player wasn't that bad. Plus the addition of unlocking dogtags and extra weapons for the multiplayer was a nice touch.

Thanks for reminding me why I need to reinstall Bad Company.

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.

VoidOfOne:
All hail Tank Ninja!

"Do you think Battlefield should return to strictly multiplayer?"

Yes

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.

The single player campaign sucks.
It's like a shooting gallery. Just go from point to point and shoot the same little army guys popping their heads up.

And the story is terrible. In the first mission you have a helicopter that is supposed to EVAC you provide airsupport. At one point it's 20 feet above the ground in an open field with zero enemies around. The logical thing would be to land it right then and there, get your ass on the thing, and get out of there.

At other points the game encourages you to be stealthy, and then puts you in a situation where stealth is not an option.

Not only this but I think my single player campaign save is gone. After getting to the paracel storm part of the campaign or whatnot, some 4-5 hours in. Started it up again and back to fricken baku

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.

OldFogeyGamer:
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.

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.

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.

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.

Yea I agree the bad compony games had great single player games really odd now I think of it... did they fire those guys or something?

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.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here