Comments (232)
« 1 2 3 4 »
123pol  +   831d ago
FFS ! im i the only one that thinks Singleplayer is the main reason you buy a game amd Multiplayer is just a bonus ?
McScroggz  +   831d ago
For some games that simply isn't the case. Their are games that balance it well like Halo and Gears of War, but it's intellectually dishonest to suggest that a game like Call of Duty has a multiplayer as a bonus. It IS why the vast majority of people buy the game. Clearly Battlefield has become that sort of game too.

That doesn't excuse a bad single player or a short one, but it does diminish its impact considering the much more important multiplayer component.

And this is coming from somebody who doesn't play much multiplayer and greatly prefers single player experiences.
theXtReMe1  +   831d ago
Preorder cancelled. Gamefly confirmed. I play single player only. Definitely not worth $60 @ 4 hours. 10, yes... Maybe even an awesome 8... but 4 is just lazy.
Pandamobile  +   831d ago
You were actually planning on buying BF4 strictly to play the campaign?

Are you a unicorn?
theXtReMe1  +   831d ago
Hahaha. This made me laugh. They have been building the single player up, via videos, to be something quite spectacular... And it may still be, but $60 for a game thats barely longer than Titanic or Scarface.... Not worth it, for something Ill play once and never again.

Ill rent it and enjoy it.
Pandamobile  +   831d ago
More power to you. 99% of the value of a Battlefield game is in the multiplayer. Even as a hardcore Battlefield fan, I could never justify spending $60 on it just to play the campaign. It's merely there to ease players into the multiplayer and provide a visual spectacle to show off the capabilities of their engine.
Intentions  +   831d ago
Finished the Bf4 campaign just now, it only has 7 missions.

I didn't play it all in one sitting.
LEOPARD1030  +   831d ago
DICE should sold only the MP for 30 bucks. 4 hours..... are they serious?

Shadow fall will last almost 12 hours, other games like Halo Reach can be completed in 10 hours, The Last of Us 18 hours ( in survivor mode), Mass effect 3 30 hours ( insane mode and with the side missions), GTA V 50 hours. A lot of people criticized Mercenary because was short, I completed it 6 hours in hard mode and in my opinion is a great game with a stunning MP, but it's too short.

Battlefield 3 has an amazing MP, but a good and long campaign is necessary because the game is expensive ( 60 bucks) and with premium (100).

Now, I have serious doubts of preorder B4
RaptgamersUnited  +   831d ago
Hello watch the PC Live stream your missing it
#35 (Edited 831d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
first1NFANTRY  +   831d ago
Absolutely laughable if true. Devs really need to start making SP and MP separately so we don't have to waste precious money on such a short SP.

Im not very fond of multiplayer games so looks like it's Killzone for me next gen.
GadgetGooch  +   831d ago
If u dnt like multiplayer games then stop commenting on Battlefield threads....
first1NFANTRY  +   831d ago
i like some multiplayer games BUT my MAIN POINT is to make sp and mp separately. Both component shouldn't be more than $20 each.
Activemessiah  +   831d ago
And people wonder why i advocate SP games... i'll be sure to buy this used.
1nsomniac  +   831d ago
People who say the single play doesn't matter in a full priced game are idiots plain & simple!!

Yes, most of the time you spend on it is multiplayer but you pay for a product based on what was put into it not what you make out of it!!

To release something that comes with 10 multiplayer levels for £60 & be happy about it is crazy!!

Lets face it, anybody who actually develops/creates levels for games in the PC world knows you can knock 1 up in a day pretty easy. The only difficult part of creating a game is the single player & to have it attached on as quick after thought is disgusting if your still going to charge full price.
#38 (Edited 831d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
TBONEJF  +   831d ago
Only 4 hrs? That's a wast for a 60$ game.
smoothop  +   831d ago
Roll on the next Rainbow six game I say, tactical shooter with cover mechanics can't beat that.
quenomamen  +   831d ago
Seems they just get shorter every year. 4 hours ? I've taken dumps that lasted longer, c'mon DICE.
Xristo  +   831d ago
I may only speak for a select few but I could not care less. My time spent in BF is multiplayer. I am not saying that this is acceptable, as some look forward SP campaigns in BF and 4 hours is pathetic. Just not me. They could grey out the SP start button on Battlelog for all I care.
DJ  +   831d ago
That's not much longer than Journey. $15 game.
GadgetGooch  +   831d ago
Xristo  +   831d ago
How many hours you have logged in Journey's multiplayer? Honest question. I have never played it.
#43.2 (Edited 831d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Supermax  +   831d ago
Grow a pair and play multiplayer.single player is for kids.
Applejack  +   831d ago | Well said
You sound like one of those kids who just started playing games this generation. A REAL gamer would never say such nonsense.
GadgetGooch  +   831d ago
Battlefield is a fucking multiplayer game...stop being retards and just be happy they even put a single player campaign in there....are ya seriously that assed about it? I'm gonna be spending 200 hours fighting online not trying to find every avcheivement in single player....COD's the same...its good that it has a single player aspect but would we really be assed if it wasn't there? If u want an awesome first person shooter with depth in single player then try BioShock Inifinte, games that are actually based around single player...I think the only game that has it right in both departments is Halo...Welcome to channel X, go fuck ur self :)
dillhole  +   831d ago
I played BF3's campaign for about half an hour before I realised it's only there for when my internet goes down.
MoonWheel  +   831d ago
Looks like killzone shadow fall will be the fps to go to for single player.
SITH  +   831d ago
Unless there is some multiplayer benifit for playing single player, I do not even bother.
kidhero99  +   831d ago
jay2  +   831d ago
F that.
Ashunderfire86  +   831d ago
Damn shorter than Call of Duty LOL probably shorter than Ghost.
Oblivious334  +   831d ago
What Campaign-
aLiEnViSiToR  +   831d ago
EximiusNebula  +   831d ago
Damn, I just had to preorder it. The trailer they showed got me hyped for single player.

Off Topic: Wish they would make BC3. The ending on BC2 was a cliff hanger.
Plagasx  +   831d ago
So it's SHORTER than BF3's Campaign??? O_O Dafuq DICE?
Pandamobile  +   831d ago
This is only one person's experience so far. He said he clocked his time at 4.25 hours on normal difficulty. Being an active member of Reddit's BF community, it's probably a reasonable assumption that this guy is quite good at the game already. I wouldn't be surprised if the average play time was still in the 5-6 hour range like in BF3.

In any case, I'm sure most of us would rather have a good short campaign than an iffy longer campaign. And that seems to be the impression that I'm getting from people that have played it so far.
bunfighterii  +   831d ago
For battlefield I think a 4 hour campaign is about right - you can knock it out in an afternoon as a teaser to the multiplayer. TBH I didn't even play the single player in bf3 and if I remember correctly bf2 and 1942 didn't even have single player (that wasn't bots on the normal maps)?
Tzuno  +   831d ago
Single player counts to me very much. This is just lame. if this is next gen then...
Pandamobile  +   831d ago
Get ready for disappointment!

Single player games are getting shorter and shorter due to increase production costs.
Ashunderfire86  +   831d ago
True but when you have games like Crysis 2(11 hour campaign FPS longest in a while) and Last of Us that has longer single player, with a full multiplayer, There is really no excuse. Its has the Call of Duty Syndrome. Ghost will beat this game in campaign length with its new Extinction mode to add to it.
McScroggz  +   831d ago
I'm sure the campaign is short, and indeed the importance of Battlefield's campaign is fairly insignificant to the overall product; however, four hours just seem TOO short. My guess is this person rushed through the game. Now, I don't know what other side objectives/collectables the game may have - and if it doesn't have any "distractions" then there isn't any real way to lengthen playtime.

The Uncharted series does have a lot of collectables, for instance, and there are some people who beat those games in 6-7 hours. But that's not how long the game REALLY is if you truly want to get the most out of the game. Even the Gears of War franchise had cogtags/collectables an Halo had skulls/terminals.

If Battlefield 4 offers nothing other than a streamlined campaign that clocks in at 4-5 hours that's a shame. Still, I hope that reviewers understand that the meat of the game is in its online play and, conversely, I hope fans understand that not only are most reviewers not capable of being longtime veterans of the online component due to their job, but also that there is only so much they can glean from playing matches in developer controlled environments or against others of their ilk.
#58 (Edited 831d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
CaptCalvin  +   831d ago
I'd take bot practice mode over half baked singleplayer any day.
bromtown  +   831d ago
Absolutely horrendous! They shouldn't be allowed to charge the full $60 for it if 4 hours of campaign is your lot. Just get rid of it altogether if they're not going to make an effort.
Pandamobile  +   831d ago
Wow, it's almost like BF4 is a multiplayer game.
« 1 2 3 4 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login