After the 17-minute "Fishing in Baku" trailer was released, Jeff from Holygrenade wonders why DICE even included a campaign when the game doesn't need it.
The trailer looked great, but honestly... I kind of wish they would just focus on multi-player only. (This coming form someone who rarely plays online.) BF4 is most definitely at its best during online battles. The inclusion of single-player only takes away from development time that could have been used for the multi-player portion of the game.
When that question start getting asked, i start wondering are we losing sight of what makes games great.
Do not get me wrong. I am EXTREMELY pro single-player games. I would MUCH rather have an amazing single-player campaign than a multi-player portion. However with Battlefield, it's the opposite. The single-player has never really been that good, but the multi-player is amazing.
@JoGam Thank you for asking that question.
Playing skirmishes with bots need to come back...
JoGam, "When that question start getting asked, i start wondering are we losing sight of what makes games great." Well in the case of Battlefield it's actually the multiplayer. It is the area most gamers prefer. A game like Bioshock is the opposite. Some games are much better for it's single player campaign while others are for the multiplayer. Some can do both well. SOCOM is another example of a game that doesn't really need a single player campaign. I think the reason why they add it is to justify the $60 price tag. When you have a game that is solely multiplayer like MAG it's harder to convince gamers to pay full price even though that is where gamers will migrate to. So what they should do is sell each portion of the game separately.
Bf3 campaign wasn't the best nor the worst but multiplayer was amazing, I do agree with you that bf is a multiplayer game but single player never hurts
I honestly felt like killing myself when playing BF3 single player on hard mode. The campaign is ridiculously repetitive and has little to no good script writing. In all honesty, the Black Ops campaign is easily beats BF3's campaign in a heartbeat without any doubt in my mind. This is very apparent in many reviews that "actually" played the single player mode, for example, Angry Joe's review of BF3 in which he goes in-depth as to how the campaign sucked.
This is pretty much the way I feel. The SP in BF3 was forgettable, however at least worth playing through once. A lot of people don't realize the BF franchise was built on MP only. However the move to console's make the inclusion of SP absolutely necessary. While most of home console owners have access to the internet, there are still a goodly number of people who lack an internet connection. And Dice is thinking about these people who wouldn't have access to the MP. And lets not forget the people who would actually care (or even prefer in some cases) to play a game Single Player. Sure, you can throw out that other games on consoles in the past have been MP only, such as MAG, Socom: Confrontation and ShadowRun. However we all know how prominent those games are. While a game like Battlefield might be better as simply a Multiplayer only title, it just doesn't make sense for 'most' games on consoles. So developers and publishers play it safe, and release them with SP as well. Also, Dice have proved themselves with SP games in the past with titles like Bad Company and Mirrors Edge. So, I personally wouldn't judge before you play BF4's SP.
Just because the SP hasn't been good before doesn't mean it can't get better later. And besides, DICE already hired a new story writer. Also, this notion that the multiplayer suffers due to the team working on single player (or vice versa) is utter nonsense. There is no evidence to suggest that that is true.
I agree I'd prefer more maps in mp to sp campaign which will be borring.The only bf campaign that was kind of good was bc1 because it was diffrent, instead of saving the world you're just trying to get rich and steal that precious gold.
because it does
Its so people that dont have internet or very poor ocnnections can still play and purchase the game id asume.
Yeah, the typical "let's please everyone" approach. I understand why businesses do it, but the product itself usually suffers...
Why does the dark Knight Rises have story? Why not just give us 2-3 hours of batman fighting.
haha thats funny, but battlefield started as a online only game, it would be awesome if all they did was develop MP maps for the game, but knowing EA, they would milk the hell out of it :(
Single Player shooters for me, have been the biggest snore fests around. Stupid enemy Ai, tons and tons of the same enemy's, and the new trend in rolercoaster animation sit downs doesn't change anything. Multiplayer is what Battlefield is about, its a shame Dice isn't using their full team on it. I think the single player FPS is made for new players who fresh for skilled online play.
Coming from someone who plays shooters for their campaigns (ikr, who plays games for their stories?! Pfft /s) I dont see the need for this to have a campaign. COD and BF merely dismiss their campaigns as tutorials anyways, and it is pointless as it offers nothing aside from portraying pro-america, anti-foreign propaganda in terms of its "story" Military shooters are a joke. Sci-Fi or Horror shooters have much better campaigns due to the developers focusing alot about giving the gamer a compelling story and provide unique and varied gameplay, which can then be applied to the Multi-Player portion
Battlefield doesn't need single player. And we didn't need another Battlefiend. We needed another Bad Company.
why the fuck not ? I mostly play the multiplayer yes but i still enjoy a good campaign once in a while. As long that the multiplayer is their main focus i have no issue with a couple hours campaign to showcase the engine and get more sales and possible new multiplayer gamers.
IllPeople need to realize that this is a business. If Dice Wants to take over and appeal to all FPS players then they will need to have all elements of a game. Whether or not the "dedicated players" don't want it. They want to sell as much as COD. Why settle for less just because SOME gamers don't want you to make the game how they want it. It's a good addition. Great even. Online is where it's at of course they know that but, the MILLIONS will play the story and enjoy it. Just like they did Close Quarters after that was hatred on so bad.
Some of you guys on here are..... nvm. Anyway for $60 I want all I can get. The only reason I'm planning to get bf4 is for the single player, not for the slow paced mp. If bf4 was mp only, sales would drop by a great amount. Not every gamer has internet or plays mp.
Some people (myself included) enjoy playing the campaign on games to enjoy the story..
Imagine if the SP was like the MP, open world - like MOH: Airborne - with the company of one's squad. Not the scripted junk! That would be a true BF SP experience.
Big publishers want big budget games, DICE won't get the funding if they don't make expensive single-player campaigns. May sound idiotic, but it's how it currently works.
I feel DICE puts in a single-player portion so they can showcase their Frostbite engine. That way when playing single-player, you can see things like Battlefield's detailed facial animation. I for one like Battlefield's single-player. But then again, I wouldn't be bothered if they removed it.
Personally, I like BF3's sp, it was pretty decent, and I am really looking forward to this one, the story looks interesting to me. I would be pretty upset if they ditched the SP portion.
The facial animation in single player are nice but in the multyplayer they look crapy.Why they can't be same?
This is a moron question TBH..
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.