DICE wants more freedom in Battlefield 4's singleplayer, as they feel BF3 singleplayer was "too linear and too controlling".
why'd they put it in then :-/
Because a lot folks still play it...
and you know this how? a lot of people aren't just your friends list either just so ya know but if so,who cares,it is primarily an online multiplayer game and it seems Dice thinks their own sp addition wasn't a worthy addition to BF3. all i said was why was it added if Dice thought that of their own work,seems odd.
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but don't most 'multiplayer-only' titles do pretty terrible sales wise?
BF3 had a single player campaign? I played the game for 500 hours and never knew that. Hmm learn something new everyday.
@xc7x The next time you're playing battlefield 3, find your opponent or teammate's tag and go check their achievements. I'll guarantee you'll find those people have played at least a part of and 90% of them have finished the campaign completely. A lot of people aren't just your friends list either just so ya know.
@SideShort no thankyou,sounds like tedious time consuming activity,go for it though yourself to prove to the mp crowd that it matters to you sp gamers that it's just as important,i personally don't think it is a high percentage.
And it sucked MP was great but sinle player was lacking ans just boring and dull
Well, they now realized it WAS a mistake, right? This is what improvement is all about.
Take all the resources making the single player campaign and put it into multiplayer and I'll be happy...
As much as I dig bf 3 mp, I want a new bad company game. It's campaign was especially awesome (the first one).
Based on the trailer they showed for BF4, they've pretty much done the same thing again.
there were a few parts they left out of the gameplay trailer. Who knows what the game really plays like.
At least they realize it, bring back the sandbox gameplay plz. But seeing the B4 trailer, it seems pretty much the same. I hope there's more to it.
I LOVE single player war games but Dice Fudged BF3 Single Player, It was decent but not great at all. Story was basic, Boring and very short Very Linear It seems like Devs at least with war games NEVER get them right. I cant remember when I played a great War story driven game. In my opinion Developers need to have separate teams. 1 team for Multi 1 team for Single I know devs are taking less chances & the cost is high but we need devs that will take more chances with next gen
That didn't work out very well for Medal of Honor.
One attempt failed, doing it again might be a success.
@Rettom Have I ever told you the definition of insanity?
I'll take bot-support and fleshed-out local-play suites like split-screen over what looks to be another mediocre SP package. I'd like to be able to set up a 64p LAN-server at parties or a nice 4p split-screen vs. bots Rush game in the dorms.
Now that the battlefield series has been shot to hell with all this single player fuss whats the point of the bad company series now?.
Hopefully dice take more time to figure out the dynamic lighting properly... BF3 single player had a lot of light sources coming from no where. In fact that problem bled into the multiplayer as well. A noticeably bad area for this is in RU spawn on caspian boarder... Go into the building that the chopper is facing(if you get into a freshly spawned chopper you'll be looking at the building I'm talking about) the first thing you'll notice is a blank light source shinning on the table and lockers in front of you... if you look over the doorway you just walked in you'll cringe. It's as if they didn't even bother to check the lighting in that building... and to add even more insult to it, if you go out the back door there's another random light source shining by the door on the outside. I don't get why some of the light sources can be destroyed completely while others either dim slightly or have no change at all... Try shooting out all the lights on Operation metro and you'll get what I'm talking about.
before release they claimed it was the best thing ever.. bunch of liars
I personally wish they would scrap single player and just go balls out with the multi. More levels, guns, unlockables, vehichles and such. Just cram mp to the brim.
Skip the single player and just put all efforts in the multiplayer that where its at and people spend most of their lives playing
And yet they put a bunch of cut-scenes, qte's and rail sections in BF4.
Drop single player and just add bots...
Battlefield never should have done single players and just stuck to the PC, that way it wouldn't be th watered down restricted experience it is now.
If dice/EA only brought their games to the pc (BF3) they would be bankrupt very quickly it would not be viable for them. It costs to make a game like bf3 100+ millions of dollars and then marketing add another 100 million they need to make it on consoles that's where they get all their money from.
http://www.vgchartz.com/gam... Pc sold 2.3 million so they would probably of made $35 - 40million on sales at most Game cost 150 to 200m oops we have lost 200m
AND CoD SINGLE PLAYER WASN'T LINEAR?????!??! hell it the same freakin thing... cut scenes, explosions, more cut scenes... CoD single player did the EXACT same thing as BF3 single player, but because the CoD fanboy sites like IGN said it was great, everyone bought into that lame line of thinking.
"DICE: singleplayer in BF3 was too linear and too controlling" That's funny when it was being criticized at the time they said "Freeroaming games were overrated".
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.