Battlefield 3 single-player: “We’d rather 6 hours of awesome than 12 hours of ‘meh’”
DICE have revealed the length of the single-player campaign in Battlefield 3 will be “slightly longer” than Modern Warfare 2′s – but they’d “rather have six hours of awesome than 12 hours of “meh”.
(Battlefield 3, Dice, EA, PC, PS3, Xbox 360)
I just hope they have large levels to free roam in Like Bad Company 1. It's just not as fun being funneled down a linear path. I hate to say it but they probably won't.
yeah multiplayer will be awesome, but this is about the single player so how is this relevant? It's embarrassing they cant even put in a days work (average 8 hours) into a single player campaign claiming it will be "awesome". How can you drive an awesome story in 6 hours, at best it will be cut short with an abrupt ending or even worse a weak developed plot and characters to justify an 'awesome' single player experience. Awesome is 20 hours of Metal Gear Solid 4, so no excuses of six hours to attempt to impress single player fans.
dude I love MGS4 as much as anyone...but seriously...how did it take you 20 hours to play through that?...My very first go at it on the hardest setting available still was around 12 hours...and that was being just about as cautious as possible, and exploring EVERYTHING...
I don't really care either way...BF3 could have no single player campaign and i'd still be all over it...and while I do think 6 hours isn't quite long enough...its better than nothing i guess...
can't wait to see what reviewers say though...for some reason i'm assuming 6 hours in BF3 will be ok, where as earlier this year it was FAR from ok in killzone 3...
I'd rather have 12 hours of awesome, it wouldn't be the first time! Hell, I'd rather have 6 hours of meh, followed by 6 hours of awesome; I don't mind if a game/movie starts off slow!
Why the insinuation that it must be meh, if it's 12 hours?
And with the footage of the scripted moment of dragging an injured soldier that we've seen a million times, the slow movement across a roof-top, and the wasteland tank gameplay.....I have my doubts that the 6 hours (thanks for letting that cat out of the bag) will be "awesome"
BF3 SP footage has been looking as exciting as being forced to change your car's windshield fluid in a racing game, using a motion peripheral. After driving your virtual vehicle to the store to buy some.
@gamingdroid So long as it's a big sexy over-advertised brand name! Plus, haters of a certain insanely popular series are willing to overlook any problems with the magical realistic modern warfare game that will "save" us from realistic modern warfare games.
This is why I'm not buying BF3. The should make it co-op through the campaign story 1st. 2nd, they need to concentrate on making a good Single Player game, something they've never done.
Single Player & campaign co-op are the main reasons I would buy a game like this.
You do realise the majority of Battlefield games (not Bad company spinoffs) were multiplayer-only - it is a multiplayer game. They surprised most of the gaming community saying that there would be a proper campaign with a story in BF3.
The Battlefield games have historically been nearly entirely multiplayer focused. They may have had short little scripted missions for when your Internet is down, but the series didn't have a story campaign until Bad Company 1.
If you want a big campaign, you're playing the wrong game.
PS3 fanboys see COD and BF3 as console badges and or flags. He was offended that some one attacked PS3 by insulting BF3 due to PS3 fans falsely trying to paint BF3 as a PS3 prefered console of choice for battlefield. PS3 fans think BF3 is the COD of the 360 when it comes to identity and console association. Half of them try to own this game in the name of ps3 because the graphics are too good to let the 360 have the upper hand, they did this with Crysis 2.
Alright now I want a good clean fi- OMG awesome is beating the crap out meh!!!! oh sh** hey take it easy man I think he's had eno- OOOOoooo thats goin on facebook!
i dont know if you guys realize but bf3 has turned in what mw was at start.
a wise dude ones said, if a game is good it will get popular fast by itself if its not they will spend shitloads of cash on pruberhype machine zombiefy ppl into loving the game before release and only after playing it for a while they will realize it suck but some maybe be forever zombies.
as big fan of bf games except bc2 I will stay subjective until i play it.
Well gamers that like single player more deserve the same quality experience as the gamers that like multi player more. & Some people on here don't have to act like total douchebags!
I played bfbc2 campaing 1 time on easy for trophies and it had cool funny characters. It gets back to a point I made awhile ago, I wish companieslike dice and infinity ward would simply put 100% of their time and focus in mp, whether co-op modes or competitive and if someone wants to create a jaw dropping single player mixer military campaign put all their time and money into that. Im sure it affects sales somehow or how ppl percieve getting their moneys worth but it makes alot more sense.
What happened to the "12 hour" campaign mode then DICE? I'd rather 6 hours of awesome than 12 hours of meh too but don't claim the game has such a long SP in the first place when it's only half that length.
I'd rather they had zero hours of 'meh' and just put all their resources into multiplayer. The campaign looks so tired and cliched, been done already and done better. Maybe we wouldn't have to put up with a measly 24 players in the majority of game modes.
"I'd rather they had zero hours of 'meh' and just put all their resources into multiplayer."
Agreed. The campaigns in the Bad Company games, while neat, shouldn't have been in there. They should have put more focus into what most people really want, the multiplayer. BC2 didn't had like what, 8 maps? I'd rather have them add like 4 or 5 new maps and a few vehicles/weapons/features than tack on an unnecessary single player campaign.
yeah this guys are trolling... they told they gonna make 12 hrs. single player campaign, and now it's gonna be 6? I bet EA cut half the game to release DLC's down the line...
wow indeed! i know its all about the hardcore multiplayer and so on but it is strange to say the least that the SP lost 50% of its length in a few weeks!
Well SP is 6 hours and then Co-op is an entirely different story, so essentially the story between both will be 10-12+ hours.
Either way I don't see it as a big problem, BF3 is all about the MP and the SP is just there as a tutorial(at least in my eyes). I didn't even touch BC2's SP.
I remember reading an article on N4G some time ago that touted a nice long SP campaign. I'm surprised to see a lot of people here are happy to hear that its a 6 hour campaign when many people complain about the short lengths of most SP campaigns these days...
I'd kind of like to know myself Nate. I look forward to the mutiplayer but if they said 10 hours of SP and lied then i'm kind of wondering what else they lied about. I read 10 to 12 SP
From DICE's track record of single player it should read six hours of meh and unlimited hours of mp goodness. We all know BF is a multiplayer game with the single player tagged on. It might change this year but they are one of those developers that haven't go the single player nailed but have got the multiplayer nailed.
Probably be a long time after the game releases that I even get round to the SP. It'll probably take an internet outage to get me off MP or co-op anyway.
Having to render the entire Battlefield 2, 3, or 4 times at once would degrade the visuals to hell. Plus split-screen BF just isn't a good idea at all.
I don't really have an opinion on this, but isn't this what the COD campaign's get criticized for? Although good, they were loathed for being too short.
Yeah, but since COD4, it was all about the MP. Yet, year after year, people on this site bash it for a short single player while BF is getting a free pass? My buddy has never played a single chapter in COD since COD4, it's all about the MP for him.
It's just so much hypocrisy on this site it's disgusting. The same people will bash COD for it's short campaign and then say that's perfect for BF. Funny thing is, COD said the same thing BF is saying in that they want to story to run itself and feel complete, not just stretch it along so you can get 10-12+ hours out of it. COD gets bashed yet it's a brilliant though for BF.
This site is becoming more and more of a joke every day.
Im glad games aint 10 hours++ anymore, love games but it feels like a chore to finish some of them...most I dont even bother as it get so repetetive and boring I rather do the dishes.
IF you pay 60 bucks for a game you want more then 10 hours of play time for any game. If you think all games are repetive after 10 hours you need to stop gameing and start collecting ball cards or something.
So a game has to last as long as possible regardles of story and content?
Dumbest I have read in a while...what are you a child?
And I wrote "some of them"...not to be mistaken for "all games" as your brain somehow made it out to be.
I have been gaming for 25 years now, started when I was 8. You could say I have seen it all...played it all and as it is today there is so much crap out there.
And as Dice say, "rather 6 hours of awesome than 12 hours of meh".
Wow. So, let me get this straight, DICE is now saying that that the campaign is about 6 hours? They said that the Co-Op is 30% shorter, so that's what 4 hours?
Where are the folks who were bashing MW2 for it's 6 hour campaign? Suddenly, Multiplayer will make up for it? Suddenly, it's OK, because it's DICE?
I'm not pretending here, I'm disappointed. Not because I really care all that much about the campaign length persay, but because it's looking like they (EA/DICE) are really just a bunch of hypocrites now. Constantly going after IW, yet doing the same thing now.
If by some miracle the player count of MW3 multi has been upped to 32 players and has dedicated servers (GIGANTIC IF), the victor the war between MW3 and BF3 will not be as clean cut as it has the past few weeks, and there are going to be a lot of sour folks on this site.
They choose not to add vehicles, they focus on infantry combat which is amazing. I personally do prefer vehicles in FPS. I don't know what IW has in store for MW3, we only have a few days to wait and see.
Second, what makes you think the majority of FPS gamers WANT vehicles in their MP FPS's? I hated the maps in WaW that had tanks and dislike the BF series for the very same reason, though I love the rush and conquest modes.
Not to insult those that like them, but come on, it's a SHOOTER for crying out loud. How hard is it for you guys to aim a gun and get a kill or defend the base? Get out of the jet/chopper/tank and fire a damn rifle/pistol/smg.
How do you feel good because you beat a guy using an AR and you're using a tank? But hey, what do I know, I play FPS's to shoot guns...
I never played the single player in the Bad Company games. Hell, never played the single player in the CoD games for that matter. Bought them solely for Multiplayer.
Whats the bet that if you play it on hardcore it will be closer to 8-9 hours. But in all fairness i woudve been happy with 7 hours really, Ill just rush through the campaign to get to the MP anyways!
Hahaha I wanna impregnate her myself! Her name is Lights. She's this GREAT synth-pop artist. Not only is she hot, but her music is amazing! Check it out!
And also, I love me puns!! :D
Oh, I was waiting for someone to ask me who my pic was haha
They have a point though. I beat MW2 in literally 4 hours but that was some of the best 4 hours I spent in a FPS game on the SP. DICE realizes that keeping the game short and action-packed will garner more positive feedback than 12 hours of "set piece followed by slogging through filler levels just to make the game longer." That's how it felt for Crysis 2 and Medal of Honor.
I guess it will depend on the value of the MP content versus the single player content. I also would love some co-op opportunities against bots with different types of matches also. I still play BFBC2 and in the back of my mind I wonder if I am playing with cheaters and that really kills the mood in MP.
I really hate games that have 6 hours of non stop action. After playing COD for a while you just feel numb after all the constant action, i'd prefer some down time so I could appreciate the exciting moments a lot more.
I don't even know why anyone bothers to give games like this SP in the first damned place, most of the people I know just tear it open and jump into MP anyway, and rarely finish any SP campaign. They should just focus on MP, instead of having "tacked on" single player.
Wait WTF i read it was at least 10 hours now it's 6. There was crap posted about it. Wow yea i mean mutiplayer is still cool but yea thats a problem being i pitched the game to my wife saying it was 10 hours long months ago. She'll know she's not stupid.
Glad we get R3 and UC3 for the SP. But 6 hours is a bit of a let down, no doubt about it. Question is, how much story can you create in a modern day military shooter. Flat as hell, anyway.
I personally don't care as B:BC2 was the first game EVER for me to skip SP and go straight into MP and it felt so great. I'm getting so bored of most FPS stories in SP, they all feel pretty much the same after you've played a lot of them. Playing against humans is always more dynamic than AI.
I recall a recent interview with DICE head honcho saying SP was roughly 10 hrs, not sure where the hell u foools are pulling 6 hrs out of and if even if it was it can't be any worse than Wack Ops's convoluted, Castro killing, acid flashback filled mess.
I think im one of the few that actually want bf3 sp and mp the story from the fault line trailer looked awesome and i cant wait to play the story. Ill finish that first and then move onto the multiplayer
80°
60°
230°
50°
Ad 
50°
10°
10°
10°
30°
30°
... Battlefield is all about the MP! And that's going to be ultra-awesome!
Its all about the MP for me man. If it didn't have singleplayer I wouldn't even care.
But that's just me.
Assuming that the 6 hours are "awesome".
so it dont bother me
If I wanted the game for single player I would want way more than just 6hrs
I don't really care either way...BF3 could have no single player campaign and i'd still be all over it...and while I do think 6 hours isn't quite long enough...its better than nothing i guess...
can't wait to see what reviewers say though...for some reason i'm assuming 6 hours in BF3 will be ok, where as earlier this year it was FAR from ok in killzone 3...
@Kleptic he must mean with the cut scenes. I think my 2nd play through was around 6.5 hours (not counting cut scenes).
Why the insinuation that it must be meh, if it's 12 hours?
?? oh i get it its call of duty. hey you got your game we gott ours!
BF3 SP footage has been looking as exciting as being forced to change your car's windshield fluid in a racing game, using a motion peripheral. After driving your virtual vehicle to the store to buy some.
@gamingdroid
So long as it's a big sexy over-advertised brand name! Plus, haters of a certain insanely popular series are willing to overlook any problems with the magical realistic modern warfare game that will "save" us from realistic modern warfare games.
This is why I'm not buying BF3. The should make it co-op through the campaign story 1st. 2nd, they need to concentrate on making a good Single Player game, something they've never done.
Single Player & campaign co-op are the main reasons I would buy a game like this.
If you want a big campaign, you're playing the wrong game.
That didn't make sense.. He was talking about how BF3 should have a good campaign. What does COD got to do with this?
Haha, they should get over it. and if people want a good campaign, play the uncharted games.
Alright now I want a good clean fi- OMG awesome is beating the crap out meh!!!! oh sh** hey take it easy man I think he's had eno- OOOOoooo thats goin on facebook!
Agree or Disagree if you Agree or Disagree
a wise dude ones said, if a game is good it will get popular fast by itself if its not they will spend shitloads of cash on pruberhype machine zombiefy ppl into loving the game before release and only after playing it for a while they will realize it suck but some maybe be forever zombies.
as big fan of bf games except bc2 I will stay subjective until i play it.
Maybe we wouldn't have to put up with a measly 24 players in the majority of game modes.
Or maybe not. How's the SP related to the player count in MP exactly?
Agreed. The campaigns in the Bad Company games, while neat, shouldn't have been in there. They should have put more focus into what most people really want, the multiplayer. BC2 didn't had like what, 8 maps? I'd rather have them add like 4 or 5 new maps and a few vehicles/weapons/features than tack on an unnecessary single player campaign.
i know its all about the hardcore multiplayer and so on but it is strange to say the least that the SP lost 50% of its length in a few weeks!
Either way I don't see it as a big problem, BF3 is all about the MP and the SP is just there as a tutorial(at least in my eyes). I didn't even touch BC2's SP.
As soon as it does it no longer matters...
so funny reading these comments and looking up past post by these guys and the reversal of heart is sad...
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
He said it's slighty longer than MW3. How long is MW3?
Anyway I'd rather have 12 hours of awesome instead of 6.
*Semi-Destruction* Buildings will only take partial damage. After one hundred playthroughs, you can level the battlefield to the ground.
*Long Single-Player campaign* We rather want 6 hours of awesome instead of bla. 12 hours bla.
*Battlefield 3 won't require Origin* Battlefield 3 will indeed require Origin.
What is the next lie DICE?
w/e that 6 hours of missing SP time will be added to my MP time
Kicking cars into people online is the only part I loved.
Yeah, but since COD4, it was all about the MP. Yet, year after year, people on this site bash it for a short single player while BF is getting a free pass? My buddy has never played a single chapter in COD since COD4, it's all about the MP for him.
It's just so much hypocrisy on this site it's disgusting. The same people will bash COD for it's short campaign and then say that's perfect for BF. Funny thing is, COD said the same thing BF is saying in that they want to story to run itself and feel complete, not just stretch it along so you can get 10-12+ hours out of it. COD gets bashed yet it's a brilliant though for BF.
This site is becoming more and more of a joke every day.
Dumbest I have read in a while...what are you a child?
And I wrote "some of them"...not to be mistaken for "all games" as your brain somehow made it out to be.
I have been gaming for 25 years now, started when I was 8. You could say I have seen it all...played it all and as it is today there is so much crap out there.
And as Dice say, "rather 6 hours of awesome than 12 hours of meh".
What kind of ADD causes 10+ hours of gaming to feel like a chore? Perhaps a different hobby is needed.
Where are the folks who were bashing MW2 for it's 6 hour campaign? Suddenly, Multiplayer will make up for it? Suddenly, it's OK, because it's DICE?
I'm not pretending here, I'm disappointed. Not because I really care all that much about the campaign length persay, but because it's looking like they (EA/DICE) are really just a bunch of hypocrites now. Constantly going after IW, yet doing the same thing now.
If by some miracle the player count of MW3 multi has been upped to 32 players and has dedicated servers (GIGANTIC IF), the victor the war between MW3 and BF3 will not be as clean cut as it has the past few weeks, and there are going to be a lot of sour folks on this site.
First, there were tanks in WaW.
Second, what makes you think the majority of FPS gamers WANT vehicles in their MP FPS's? I hated the maps in WaW that had tanks and dislike the BF series for the very same reason, though I love the rush and conquest modes.
Not to insult those that like them, but come on, it's a SHOOTER for crying out loud. How hard is it for you guys to aim a gun and get a kill or defend the base? Get out of the jet/chopper/tank and fire a damn rifle/pistol/smg.
How do you feel good because you beat a guy using an AR and you're using a tank? But hey, what do I know, I play FPS's to shoot guns...
so we can buy it later in form of DLC.
BF2 don't have single player at all and it is one of the best game to play :)
6 hours SP?
I think"little"short.. ..
Oh nice pun btw. I see what you did there :)
And also, I love me puns!! :D
Oh, I was waiting for someone to ask me who my pic was haha
I beat MW2 in literally 4 hours but that was some of the best 4 hours I spent in a FPS game on the SP. DICE realizes that keeping the game short and action-packed will garner more positive feedback than 12 hours of "set piece followed by slogging through filler levels just to make the game longer." That's how it felt for Crysis 2 and Medal of Honor.