Battlefield 1 Single-Player Campaign Embraces Series' Open Sandboxes

Battlefield 1's lead designer says the single-player will feature "much more choice and variety than [it's] done before."

[NickAwesome]

Good, let's hope they make it last a good 10-12 hours at least, i hate campaigns that last only 3-4 hours

[WellyUK]

I hate it when people force a SP on a game that shouldn't have one or need one.

[Goldby]

i hate it when people try to force out SP when the game isn't just about MP

[WellyUK]

Um BF is a MP game it always has been... Buying Bf for SP is insanely stupid, especially when the SP is extremely poor and completely pointless.

[EDKICK]

First of all BF is a MP focused game not just a MP game, every game has had SP. If Dice wants to try something different or try to improve the SP why should they not? The "more resources for MP" arguement? Every MP focused game that has cut out SP to focus more on MP and add more content to the MP hasn't actually had more content ie. SW Battlefront, Rainbow Six Siege and Titan fall and all were criticized for being light on content. It's not really about SP in a MP focused game it's about meaningful content, in a MP focused shooter like Battlefield, COD ETC. I want as much meaningful content as possible.

[Hercules189]

If its a lazily put together than yeah Iget your point, but Dice is a huge team and getting a ssingle player iisn'treally too hard. It ddoesn'tneed to be as good as UC or BBioshock, just make it like Bad Company and people will enjoy it. Gears and Halo are both known to have single and multiplayer that can stand on their own and removing a component would upset a huge percentage of the fanbase

[spicelicka]

You have to be freakin kidding me. Its not just an MP game because it has and always had a SP campaign. You clearly haven't existed long enough to realize older battlefield games had great open campaigns.

Whats sad is developers have started to cut costs by making short and shit SP campaigns, which leads people like you to believe they shouldn't be there in the first place.

Battlefield campaign SHOULD be there, and it SHOULD be amazing! This is the genre of the games with complete packages, with both great SP and MP. If you don't like it don't play it, there's no proof that removing SP will make the MP equally bigger.

Just stop with the nonsense, we should be increasing our expectations, not diminishing them.

[WellyUK]

It has not always had a campaign... This just shows that you only started playing Bf from Bad company. Every single one before that was just MP maps with AI bots for SP. BF is 90%+ MP focused, the SP is just not needed in BF.

DICE have yet to make a good SP game so I highly doubt they can do it as after multiple attempts they just can't do it, they are far better at making MP games.

[spicelicka]

Ok point noted, and you are right, SP before Bad company was with bots. But at the same time, why wouldn't you want a complete game with both modes that are both good?? Halo 5 has a deep and awesome campaign which has tons of replayability in co-op, it has warzone, forge, custom games, and matchmaking. It certainly can be done.

I would agree with you if there was a guarantee that removing single player would make the multiplayer that much bigger, but DICE has also shown that without single player they are just charging more for less content, i.e. Battlefront, which should not have been $60.

The way i see it's like paying $60 for a multiplayer only game versus $60 for the same multiplayer + single player. So why the hell wouldn't I want the single player in.

[NickAwesome]

Battlefield Bad company 1 and 2 had good single player content and battlefield 3 campaign was fun, it's not true that the battlefield franchise didn't had single player

[jay2]

G9od. F@@@ mp hate it with a passion a good sp over titenfall 1 any day

[Austin48]

Im only buying it for the single player campaign.