Comments (232)
« 1 2 3 4 »
Neonridr  +   323d ago
4 hours? really? Wow, even CoD's campaigns take double that...

I realize that the MP is the big draw, but I actually like to play the Single Player Campaigns for both BF and CoD. A little disappointed to see that it ends that quickly.
lordstark  +   323d ago
Multiplayer or not a 4 hour campaign is unacceptable.If thats the case then along with titanfall the games should be priced at $39.99....Killzone here I come lol.
lifeordeath617  +   323d ago
i mean seriously. who actually plays the story mode on these army games? its the same corny story over and over. These games are mainly made for Online Multiplayer.
PS4FEVER  +   323d ago
i blame it on the fkd up generation of people who play too much online shooters and won't even bother to finish single player modes.
Spore_777  +   323d ago
It would be nice if FPS games gave decent offline campaign hours worth of gameplay. Every so often after many a JRPG, an FPS does not hurt but when it is 4 hours and (like most of Africa where I live), Internet is a problem, it is a bad investment to make. I guess this is a win for series fans who have decent net for multiplayer... I won't buy this game but a rental might not be out of place
urwifeminder  +   323d ago
Kind of glad they should not even bother putting in single player imo leave that for the bad company series would rather mods than single any day.
WickedLester  +   323d ago
For those of you saying "it's all about the multiplayer anyway" why does it have to be either/or? Is it too damn much to ask for a complete package? Halo does it. Killzone does it. The Last of Us did it. I cannot understand why developers suddenly think SP isn't important. I like muliplayer but I also like SP campains as well. No excuse for not delivering on both! 4 hours is a joke!
#97 (Edited 323d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Getowned  +   323d ago
I wish they wouldn't make these games so expensive X_X especially if its MP focused.
AD705  +   323d ago
They both look really good and barely any difference. Seriously guys are you all going to spend hours on end arguing over which version looks slightly better than the other? You won't notice it anyway.
buynit  +   322d ago
Well what else are they going to do? Play the game?! S/
Supermax  +   323d ago
It's the same if less then the 360 to ps3 bf3 versions and no body complains about that get off of Sonys crotch and grow a pair of your own.
Fishermenofwar  +   323d ago
Not impressed..Oh well..

Was it 4 detailed hours...Or run and gun not doing everything 4 hours?
GentlemenRUs  +   323d ago
So the Story will be the Tutorial for Online? Urgh...

"Homefront" did this(nobody here remember that game? I'm not surprised...).
#102 (Edited 323d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
wannabe gamer  +   323d ago
good i can have a 4 hour wild ride and then get to MP that much quicker all in one night.
rammstein91  +   323d ago
generic fps are mp focused with short campain,like bf4.this year's most profound fps game is bioshock infinite imo
RedSoakedSponge  +   323d ago
well, considering i wouldnt have cared if they left it out all together. this doesnt bother me at all lol.
plaZeHD  +   323d ago
Well then it shouldn't cost 60 fuckin dollars. No Battlefield 4 for me.
Kidmyst  +   322d ago
For a $60.00 game the SP should be longer than 4 hours, atleast 6 as long as it has a big robust MP like BF4 does. After the issues with the PC version of the BF3 and the crappy EA support, I'm waiting to see how BF4 issues pan out before buying.
devilhunterx  +   322d ago
What? Ran out of foreign guys to shoot?
buynit  +   322d ago
Why even bother with a campaign?
KiLLeRCLaM  +   322d ago
Who cares about single player..BF is multiplayer first,, want single player go play COD or whatever other crap out there...
KillerPwned  +   322d ago
One of the reasons why I'm waiting till black Friday to get this for $30. I will fly through the story quick. Then its all multiplayer for me. I feel that is what we all pay for anymore. Not that I'm surprised or disappointed because Battlefield has always delivered in terms of amazing multiplayer for me.
saber00005  +   322d ago
Yeah, on the easiest setting. On average, it's 7 hours. Even still.. BF is suppose to be a Multiplayer game.
Dfooster  +   322d ago
When somebody bothers to make a war game where it's single player first and foremost and multiplayer second then wake me up.

When I'm gaming I want to be playing not staring at matchmaking screens and countdown clocks for 10 minutes to have a few minutes of action.

I'm sure a lot of people now have had enough of call of duty and battlefield multiplayer and would love to sink their teeth into a decent campaign without feeling you've just been mugged when the credits pop up after 3-4 hours.

At least offer both as worthy of the price tag like gta v did and stop alienating people who may like war games but who don't want to play against some obnoxious kid whose voice has just broke and thinks he's freakin Rambo.
LetoAtreides82  +   322d ago
It took Gametrailers 7 hours to beat it, so it'd probably take me around that amount of time.
_FantasmA_  +   322d ago
Judging by the beta, BF4 just feels like a really big map pack for BF3. Even the graphics seem to stay the same. Oh and no I'm not a COD fanboy just in case you guys wanted to tell me to go back to my COD.
DOOMZ  +   322d ago
PASS!
FlyingFoxy  +   322d ago
it really depends on the type of game it is, as to whether its best played single or multiplayer..

for instance, Left 4 Dead 2 is a great co-op game, playing it by yourself is extremely boring.. playing it online is extremely fun. So most of the time i'm guessing nobody would bother with the single player for that type of game anyway.

Then again, you can have a good single player & multiplayer at the same time.. really it depends if you like playing online more than offline, to me though playing online extends the life of the game greatly to the point you can play as much as you want, with little chance of being bored.
Dfooster  +   322d ago
Don't like multiplayer. It's far too unrealistic with everyone running about the map in all directions. I'm pretty sure this isn't how war is played out in real life.

That's why I like to stick to the single player experience for a more authentic experience. Obviously I don't play call of duty or battlefield for that but the early ghost recon games were pretty good.

It's a shame nobody feels like making these games anymore and all we get is multiplayer bore fests and Michael Bay single player for an hour before it's over.
Sn0wGl0be  +   321d ago
That's a turn-off, I was expecting a much better/longer campaign after the trailers. I'll still buy it, but looks like I'll be waiting a year for the Premium edition (which includes all DLC) before I fork over the full $60.

And idk why so many ppl are so against the campaign, MP is great for what it does but the campaign delivers a completely different experience which you wouldn't be able to get in MP, and vice versa. Even in a game like BF where MP is the main focus, that doesnt mean its good to cut out SP completely.

Take Killzone for example, alot of ppl play it for the campaign and others for multiplayer, but both game modes are still unique from any other MP/SP game out there, playing for example Halo's story and multiplayer wont deliver the same experience, even if they are both FPS. Removing SP or MP completely from the game means we wont be able to experience what its like to play the Killzone universe through a good story about the ISA/Helghan war, or online with friends with all the different vehicles, objectives, etc. Same thing goes with BF.
#119 (Edited 321d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
« 1 2 3 4 »

Add comment

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