Battlefield 1 single player campaign details leaked, only contains six missions

"Details About Story Mode Of Upcoming Battlefield Game Leaked."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Crazyglues1111d ago (Edited 1111d ago )

LMAO.... you gotta be kidding..

_-EDMIX-_1110d ago

You were expecting Bioshock?

Buddy, as a huge BF fan.....I don't care for their single players. As to why this is a shock to you, is beyond me. Did you ever know the BF or COD single players to be good?

I'm fine with 6 missions as we don't even know how long they are or what they are about and I'd rather they have something short and good, vs long and boring.

The team isn't known for making amazing single player games as much as they are known for making amazing MP titles.

NarooN1110d ago

Not sure why people are flipping about this. Makes sense. BF was never about the campaign. This brief campaign most likely just serves as a glorified tutorial for the multiplayer. Don't see the problem here. Of course this site loves to make a massive deal out of literally everything, especially things they don't comprehend, so there's that.

badz1491110d ago


"Did you ever know the BF or COD single players to be good?"

CoD2 was great, CoD4 was amazing, BFBC was enjoyable and BFBC2 was kinda good too! so...there

Kleptic1110d ago (Edited 1110d ago )

Sorry wrong reply; @badz149...CoD4 was amazing at the time, but was hardly a long and involving campaign...was the only criticism the game had overall; its sp was easily beatable around 5 hours.

Somewhat agree with others...BF is not, and never will be, a single player focused franchise imo...or at least shouldn't be...I get that BC1 and especially BC2 broke this trend, but those were also spin offs...and I think BC2's success manipulated BF3 and BF4 into being a PC and console blended situation...and it hasn't paid off all that well...both games tried to do too much, especially BF4...BF3's sp was a decent enough time waster while they fixed the mp around release...BF4's campaign was far more awful, and the mp didn't work for a longer period of time...but, the best part, even the single player crashed....................... .............................. . .....

Either way...I'm not planning on touching BF1 until late 2017 or so...don't care about anything single player related to begin with...But have not bought an EA product in its release window since BF4...the message was loud and clear: Don't purchase until they put the fire out...

starchild1110d ago


Yep, people are jumping the gun as usual. We don't know how long these 6 "missions" are. For all we know it could be 6 large areas, in different WW1 regions, with multiple goals to achieve in each one. DICE have said that the campaign would have wide open levels. You'll probably have different missions within each of those regions. But we really don't know. It's best if we just wait for more information.

SolidStoner1110d ago

I know some of you like Single player.. but battlefield is all about the multiplayer in the end (it started with MP only after all, and this is not a bad company... so...) .. If the maximum effort is going into multiplayer and its good enough with good support, then Im all into it!

_-EDMIX-_1110d ago

@badz- I don't even disagree with you in fact those are the four games I would mention from both of those series but most of the entries had pretty bad single players enough to say I wouldn'the really purchase them for that purpose. consider Call of Duty 4 had in my personal opinion the best campaign out of that entire franchise history that doesn't mean I'm going to purchase the next games for their single players that merely means 2 games out of that franchise were good in terms of single-player the same for Battlefield but even battlefields great single player for Bad Company 1 , 2 isn't good enough for me to go into every Battlefield with an excitement to play its single-player those are exceptions not the norm.

Testfire1110d ago

Agreed Crazyglues. I'm the type that will enjoy the single player and occasionally hop on mp. This bugs the crap out of me. It's the same lazy approach as Battlefront. It's going to be small missions, not a full fledged campaign.

@EDMIX, Instead of making half-assed campaigns they should just release a mp only game and sell it for $40. Why shoehorn these missions and call them a campaign when it's not?

Between COD 4 Remaster being hidden behind the paywall of IW and this I'm very disappointed for this fall's fps offerings.

zeuanimals1110d ago (Edited 1110d ago )


You guys really should get some perspective, the games that set the multiplayer benchmarks back in the day didn't even have campaigns, just bot modes. This includes the older Battlefield games. Some modern games, like Overwatch, take after this too and I don't see people complaining. Not every game needs a campaign or a multiplayer mode, sometimes it benefits when the devs focus all of their efforts on one aspect rather than adding various modes and half-assing some of them. I personally never had any fun with the COD or Battlefield campaigns and they all felt like they had half-assed level and enemy encounter designs as well as terrible AI. They could improve on this stuff and make the campaigns better, but I doubt they ever will and so it doesn't bother me at all that they're focusing less on it. Meanwhile, the multiplayer portions tend to be consistently enjoyable, for the most part.

badz1491109d ago


"Instead of making half-assed campaigns they should just release a mp only game and sell it for $40. Why shoehorn these missions and call them a campaign when it's not?"

dude, you have short term memory or something? They just released SWBF - a MP only game last year for $60 and there was a $50 Season Pass on top of that too! What made you think they will make an KP only BF for $40? For EA, those days are over!

Az1mov1109d ago

This baffles me, people either forget and or don't do enough research, to know that DICE were mainly known for their expertise in MP, on a massive scale. they never pretended to master the art of SP campaigns. if anything, it has always been an extra value for your buck and also to stay competitive or appealing to new audiences. cause more market share/consumers = more money = more investment/bigger budgets = successful products = business prosperity. simple economics.

Realms1109d ago


This is the type of mentality that allows publishers and developers to keep making games that are a huge let down. Star Wars Battle Front could have been so much more the Division could have been better Destiny what do all these games have in common they are all online only games that once the community is gone you have a terrible experience and could have benefited from having a story mode. These kinds of games use to have before they got greedy and said well people will buy them even if we remove the story.

Your entitled to your opinion but this practice has not made games better it has only helped the bottomline to focus on multiplayer component that when the community is gone makes them irrelevant.

hardcorehenry1109d ago (Edited 1109d ago )


wait a tick, BF4 had 7 campaign levels. If you're playing these games for SP then you are a waste of valuable breathable oxygen.

NarooN1109d ago

Hmm. I get twice as many disagrees for stating the truth. See another guy further down who calls comments like mine "making excuses". The people flipping out about this are clearly, without a doubt people who were never gonna buy this game anyway, let alone play the campaign on it. BF has literally NEVER been about the campaign. The first game in the series to even get a campaign was BF2 and it was literally nothing more than a series of bot matches with no story a la Quake 3: Arena.

But apparently because the status quo has never changed in that regard, it's a bad thing now and all the hipsters who love complaining about things they have no experience with appear. Great site lol. You guys are posers to the extreme.

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 1109d ago
seanpitt231110d ago (Edited 1110d ago )

I wouldn't be shocked if this game did have only 6 missions I mean dice has worked on 3 projects and all released within a year I don't know how big dice are but with all they have had to do there resources can only spread so far. They said in the reveal interview that they have been working on this game 2 years.

So who knows but this game is all about the MP for me I wouldn't be bothered if they spent all resources on the MP side and just have a 5 hour campaign.

bmf73641110d ago

Battlefield has always been a multiplayer-focused shooter. Campaign means nothing to me and it shouldn't mean anything to any person looking for a decent SP experience. At the very least it should be something for newcomers to learn game mechanics like BF4's single player.

_-EDMIX-_1110d ago

"I wouldn't be shocked if this game did have only 6 missions I mean dice has worked on 3 projects and all released within a year" May not be as relevant as you think. They are also part of a team that is the size of like 800 plus staff too.

They don't do single players that well and 6 missions isn't really a shock. They might be spending less based on MOST are not buying it to play that portion of the game.

Also we don't even know how vast or how long those 6 missions are to even question what this could mean.

its not like "mission" is a exact unit of measurement in gaming lol

"this game is all about the MP for me I wouldn't be bothered if they spent all resources on the MP side and just have a 5 hour campaign" could not agree more.

JackStraw1110d ago

lol @ all the people making excuses.

Fin_The_Human1110d ago

For all we know those 6 missions can span over 6 to 8 hours which is the same length of the COD campaign.

People forget that Battlefield 1 is more open world than a linear shooter.

Nitrowolf21110d ago (Edited 1110d ago )

I don't think any forgets that the Battlefield in general is more open world, buts that's mostly mp. All their sp have been big open areas, but in a linear structure.

Tbf, I don't think DICE even cares so much about the sp. Even if these missions were long, just by looking at their last three games, they just don't seem to focus on it because it's a multiplayer game. Bf3 campaign was a mess, battlefront didn't have one, and Hardline I'm not so sure of

Mega241109d ago


Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142 didn't have campaigns. Those games were strictly multiplayer, but they also had a singleplayer, where you could play all maps against AI.

Deadpooled1109d ago


And Battlefield 4 campaign was terrible, couldn't force myself to finish it

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1109d ago
Haru1110d ago

And this is why I prefer CoD over BF, DICE just doesn't care for the single player campaign anymore, BF3 and 4's campaign were plain awful where I always enjoy CoD single player

_-EDMIX-_1110d ago

I'm sorry but neither have a long-standing history of doing lots of great single player if Call of Duty released those games as single player by themselves and never have multiplayer I can assure you they would not be moving 20 million units you and I both know that bud.

No single player from a Call of Duty game or even from a battlefield the game is going to be getting Bioshock like Praises or Half-Life 2 like Fame

Even the best of those series like Call of Duty 4 or Bad Company 2 I'm pretty sure they're single players will not be remembered in the same vein as Bioshock or Half-Life 2 I couldn't even tell you the name of the main character in either of those games lol.

Mind you I actually really liked the single player in Call of Duty 4 but only based on it not being entirely a terrible campaign if that game had no multiplayer it would be a once-over and it would be rated way way below the top first person shooters released last generation.

I'm sorry but even as a fan of Call of Duty 4 I could never say it's single player is above Killzone series or Bioshock or even Halo.

I like both series for different reasons but let's please not try to exaggerate their single players.

Ashlen1109d ago (Edited 1109d ago )

Why are you guys even surprised?

After Battlefront and Titanfall sold without even having a single player of course it's super short. It's an EA game, by now you should know their production goal is make the absolute cheapest game people will buy.

If your looking to EA to push the industry forward by creating excellent consumer value you're looking to the wrong place. heck EA's M.O. has been buy companies who make high value games and force them to make EA style high profit low value games till they shut them down.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1109d ago
1110d ago Replies(3)
Majin-vegeta1111d ago

Cant wait for people to jump the gun over this and look dumb when it releases :)

SourtreeDing1111d ago

actually this looks legit... cant wait for all that hate to start up after they confirm this

HarrietPerkins1109d ago

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last friday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $97 per hour. I work through this link, Go to tech tab for work detail...

USMC_POLICE1110d ago

My friends and I have never bought a battlefield for single player, I assume we are not the only ones. I could care less on single player length.

Oschino19071110d ago (Edited 1110d ago )

I agree, haven't beaten or really even tried much of their single player modes Since BFBC:2, which I beat multiple times.

I have a feeling though these missions could be very fun though, lots of possibilities. I would love a more open world feel like the first BFBC.

cyberwaffles1110d ago

exactly. and although COD has had a few good campaigns throughout their series, they're mostly bought for the MP and co-op just like battlefield. watch by release time nobody makes a big issue out of it as the MP will be good enough to hold its own.

USMC_POLICE1110d ago

Also if you read it they are called episodes there are six episodes, that could mean there is 2-5 parts to each episode so we don't know anything yet.

morganfell1110d ago

You mean jumping the gun like people already praising this game like it is the second coming?

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1109d ago
Psychotica1111d ago

It doesn't say how long the missions are though. Six long missions are just as good as 12 short ones.

TwoForce1111d ago

Well, it's Dice. They're good at multiplayer, not single player.

NarooN1110d ago

BFBC1 & 2 had good campaigns.

Valenka1110d ago

Well, they're doing a bang-up job of Mirror's Edge Catalyst, so I disagree with you.

dcbronco1109d ago

The reality is we don't know how long the missions are as Pyschotica said. It could be six overarching themes with several objectives each for eighteen actual missions. And if it last eight to ten hours it falls in line with what most are doing. There are some single player only games with only ten or twelve hours. The key for Battlefield is MP. Ten hours of SP is gravy.

Erik73571110d ago

I mean its campaign is always bad so why would we want it to be more than six missions again?

Overload1111d ago

I really don't care too much, this is my multiplayer game. It will be nice if the missions have co-op though.