Explosion.com's Dave Walsh looks at the worth - or lack thereof - of single player campaigns in games like Battlefield 4 and why it is becoming a waste of everyone's time and money in a market where multiplayer is the main seller.
I wouldn't even have played Battlefield 3 if it wasn't for single player. With MW3, I don't think I even touched the online. I've played all the Halo's (but 4, I'll get around to it) and only ever taken them online a handful of times, I'm a fan of Gears of War but never touched the online component. Multiplayer isn't why I buy these games. I realize I'm in the minority, but there's enough of us out there that the industry ignores us at their own peril.
In my opinion Battlefield 4 needs to either stop wasting resources with single player or make a signle player that is actually decent and fun. For the most part Battlefield 3 single player was generic, boring, and uneventful. While the bad company series did a profoundly better job with single player I feel that it is in a place where they need to either go big or go home.
I'm with you... no single player equals no sale.
Well, going only multiplayer likely means losing me as a customer all together. Guess I"m in a dwindling part of the market.
One who plays bland campaigns? SP, good. Bad SP, not good.
I was all against the SP especially coming from BF2 with it's PURE MP only but I do appreciate a good SP mode especially since EA is gonna pump out DLC every other month trying to MILK BF4 so YES Dice needs to maintain a SP mode. .......and where the F is Bad Company 3? I'm still amazed how good looking BC2 PC looked.
I don't get it, what would Bad Company 3 accomplish that BF3 hasn't in terms of gameplay? also I'm pushing for DICE to make 2143 next.
Time to bring it back to pc standards!!! This should not be a console game. sold enough on pc.. Also this will stop it from being like COD which will sell way more on console anyway..
I want BF to stay PC-only as well, but EA wants more money lol. I would like consoles to play this as well as it is an amazing multiplayer game, but also want them to focus on the PC version more, PC to console port is what I want them to do.
Don't know why, BF broke into the console market to expand it's overall value. Not all players have the internet or are comfortable playing online. Single player makes it playable for offline users. However, they don't know what they are missing. I buy games like COD, Halo and KillZone only for their SP experience.
lol funny I always brought those games for Multiplayer, as it just a mindless shooting game as imo those games sp are mostly shit or the developer doesn't put any effort with it. If I were to look for SP, I would go for adventure or third-person shooting (if I want shooting game that involved shooting with great sp experienced)
I think you are right. I love single player games (prefer them to multiplayer) but DICE is seriously inept when it comes to making a single player movie style story. They struck gold with BC and they should have gone with that direction but BF3 single player was a mess. Everything about it was wrong except for the way it looked
"They struck gold with BC" Was that pun intended? haha
Yeah, but when these guys are charging $70 for games, I expect the price to include a full package. If BF4 was MP-only, I'd expect it to be maximum $40. I'm surprised people aren't asking the same of Titanfall.
I agree with you. I think it should be $40 even if it had another awful single player mode. It was a joke what they made. The can bump up the price for $60 for just multiplayer if they offer more than anyone else. Much more weapons, maps, vehicles, accessories......
@HammadTheBeast Go back to trolling xbox articles its what your "good" at. If there is $60 worth of work put into the multiplayer like, BF4, Titanfall, and most MMO's then they will sell. If the games do not have a $60 value then they will not sell. What really offends me is tacked on multiplayer, the last of us, bioshock 2, tomb raider, and so many more. NO just NO! If you need to tack that crap on then just add more to the story. DOWN WITH TACKED ON MULTIPLAYER!
@mwjw696 if you haven't played the last of us mp then don't comment on it. tacked on lol
They could stil sell for regular price and give you 3x the maps and polish. ....but we all know EA will save as much dlc as possible.
Yes I totally agree with you $40 for the game, and then they can charge there dumb season passes for the extra $20-30 to make up for the loss in price. That would at least give the person options imo.
Well I can't say that we shouldn't have any more single player. I mean there are gamers out there that just don't get into the multiplayer aspect of it all. I enjoy single player experience as well as multiplayer. to take that option away really isn't a very good idea IMO. At any rate, I am excited about seeing battlefield on the might PS4. What a great time to be a Playstation gamer.
I agree to the fact that Bad Company 1 had the best single player mode of all. Huge maps, free roaming and exploration, different vehicles to drive, tactics to do, the story was brilliant and the characters were amazing. Personally, if it weren't for the iffy controls, it would beat Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 together by a landslide. Of all the Battlefield games, I dare to say it, Bad Company 1 was the most complete package of all and probably the best one.
At least BF4 single player looks to be written better so far.
Dice has taken some of the multiplayer elements and put them into the single player.
No I want single player -_-
Really? Why? Not trolling, I'm genuinely interested in this. Most people I know don't even touch single player anymore.
I like the action experiences that most of the time you can only experience in single player.
The retards who play online and exploit the game.
I love single player experiences but bf3 was so bad ! They might as well just do mp only since the campaign sucked
don't you think that more people would touch the single player campaign more, and not be considered a "waste of everyone's time and money" if they poured more resources into that part of the game? i really don't get how people think that repeating the exact same thing every 10 - 20 minutes is somehow better than a single player story campaign.
Unless you play a game like COD, who buys a game and doesn't play singleplayer?
I want another silly bad company story they took out alot of the silly in the second one. I didnt like that at all why did they change it.
I don't know what the push is with single player either. I'm fine with a single player game that has a good story, but THIS particular game just doesn't need it, as most shooters don't have memorable campaigns. It's usually the shooters that are single player only, that are worth the time. Battlefield is really all about the multiplayer. The campaign worked in Bad Company because the characters had character, but even then, it's not something that really leaves its mark over the years.
Yeah exactly. People seem to have forgotten that Battlefield 2 didn't have a single player mode and that game is heralded by many as the best in the series. The reason why the single player is necessary is simply because of the game's release on consoles, I believe. But hey, DICE have hopefully learnt their lesson with Battlefield 3. The gameplay demo sure looked amazing for BF4's single player. Well so did battlefield 3's when they first showed it off. I watched that trailer over and over again. Let's hope the campaign plays better this time.
I would love for battlefield 4 to have bot support
BF2 did have SP. It had bots and AI.
Bots and AI don't constitute a single player mode now do they?
I enjoyed BF3's single player, mainly because of how I think DICE nailed what an invasion of Iran would look like. The atmosphere throughout the game was pretty tense, and I kept thinking about how I would never want to be in that situation. BF4's single player campaign looks to be equally intense, and I'm shocked that the game will center around invading China. When I watched the E3 footage where you are on an American Aircraft Carrier that has just been sunk by the Chinese, I was blown away. Battlefield has become very provocative to say the least.
I played 30 mins of single player on BF3 . That was enough for me . Even more so when I found out that the auto save messed up my main game and couldn't get online again . I had re install everything !! .
uh............ no. if anything, more resources should be allocated to the single player campaign.
Not if the majority of total player hours are spent in multiplayer...
DICE is a huge studio, not only that they have DICE LA and EA's big ass budget to back them up. If you want to talk about how DICE is wasting resources with the single-player, then also include on how they wasting resources with Mirror's Edge and Battlefront 3.
I don't understand the analogy or comparison. Those are entire games.
And yet they still want to charge $60.
Then its time to stop wasting our money. we only get half a game, we should only pay half the price.
exactly, well said
MP =/= half a game. They could increase the amount of mp content usually found, for example 18 maps instead of the measly 8 that has become somehow standard these days. But.... This is EA so that would never happen
It would happen, but you'll have to buy them later.
The amount they increase will be DLC.
What and listen to thousands of people bitch about another online only game? Yeah I'm sure DICE really really wants to hear everyone on their coat tails about that.
Hear hear. Battlefield 4 should be MP only and priced as such (£29-£35), with singleplayer offered as dlc down the line. To clarify: BAD COMPANY singleplayer offered as DLC down the line. Not the boring MW knock-off campaign that DICE put into BF3.
Im iranian and you like how they show iranian invasion !? And i say all of them was big lie except milad tower . All iranian gamers were happy when it banned in my country.
No, it isn't. Unbelievably, a worthy % of gamers like playing games alone. For every person saying "I know so many people who never play single-player campaigns", there's someone who knows people who do. It's a circular argument. Moreover, SP is useful prep for multiplayer. Unless you're naturally good at first-person shooters, the rule of thumb is those who skip SP often have a rougher ride in MP than those who took the time to play SP, and learn the basics of the game. BF3 lost nothing from having a SP mode. BF4 will be no different.
"SP is useful prep for multiplayer." I think that is what went wrong with BF3. The team had a direction to have it as a 5-6 hour tutorial and string it together with a flimsy story. I would like a single player story if they do it properly (look at BC) and get rid of this crap notion that SP is a good multiplayer tutorial.
You have mistakenly overlooked my "moreover". I didn't say SP's sole purpose was to prep people for MP; it is an additional benefit. I understand that you were dissatisfied with BF3's SP - and that's cool; you're entitled to your opinion, after all. However, your praising of the Bad Company games' campaigns prove you do, in fact, value SP experiences in first-person shooters, which contradicts your agreeing with the author of this piece. I don't really get what all the fuss is about, frankly. Okay, some thought BF3's SP wasn't all that, but some really enjoyed it. If DICE axed SP completely, they'd have been snubbing the % of gamers that like playing alone (which is larger than you'd think). Why would a developer want to alienate a significant proportion of its consumer base? The bottom line (again) is BF3 lost nothing from having a SP mode - albeit a sub-par one, as you see it. Its MP is hailed as one of the best this generation has seen, so what's the issue?
Exactly, I played BF3 campaign the day it launched and after finishing I hopped into multiplayer and found myself prepared. And the set pieces don't hurt either
well BF3 single player sucked so no wonder why.
think about why the single player campaign "sucked", and then read what this idiotic article suggests again.
if dice just made a mp bf4 could u imagine what it would be like.. the world wouldn't be ready for that kinda epicness as the mp is the finest out there by miles.. fps wise.. 3rd person the crown goes to the last of us..
Just because you cannot make a decent single player campaign doesnt mean the other devs should stop. Story is one of the most important aspects within a game ffs
Yes and no. "Wasting," which I agree that they are doing, should be avoided, but I DON'T believe they should abandon what's commonly referred to as the "single player experience" altogether. They need to do something with all the networking capabilities, raw power and their own ingenuity to reinvigorate the "offline" experience, whether that means adding cooperative components, more diverse gameplay experiences, you name it. They just need to find a new stride in that arena. Otherwise, yes, abort and put that money into multiplayer additions, or make the "online only" game cheaper.