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 is all about the MP! And that's going to be ultra-awesome!
couldn't agree more.
I don't even think singleplayer when it comes to Battlefield 3. Not at all. Which might lead to a pleasant surprise if its really good. Its all about the MP for me man. If it didn't have singleplayer I wouldn't even care. But that's just me.
“We’d rather 6 hours of awesome than 12 hours of ‘meh’” Assuming that the 6 hours are "awesome".
still is too short, 8 to 10 hours should be the established length for most games
That is too short IF you're looking for Single player, me however...I don't give a f**k. Multiplayer goty
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.
Yea i only play MP anyway so it dont bother me If I wanted the game for single player I would want way more than just 6hrs
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 12 hours of good pacing. something that bad company 2 and every cod game completely lack. @Kleptic he must mean with the cut scenes. I think my 2nd play through was around 6.5 hours (not counting cut scenes).
How about 12 hours of awesome?
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?
Whats with the disagrees to everyone liking the MP of battlefield 3. ?? oh i get it its call of duty. hey you got your game we gott ours!
I'd rather ten minutes of fellatio.
Remember when everybody complained about 6-hour campaigns was too short, but all of a sudden it is overwhelmingly fine....
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.
I disagree. 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.
Most BF games have been MP only. Don't like it, leave. Go play CoD lol.
NarooN: COD campaign is rubbish.
That's like asking for a CS:S campaign, some games are just better as MP
@Marked dude... that was seriously uncalled for.
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.
I thought Marked hit the nail on the head. Too many easily offended bores on here.
@Naroon That didn't make sense.. He was talking about how BF3 should have a good campaign. What does COD got to do with this?
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.
@kingdoms Haha, they should get over it. and if people want a good campaign, play the uncharted games.
You can also have 12 hours of awesome.
For significantly longer development time and budget!
Awesome vs. Meh! 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
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!
Lol at all the disagree fairies. Its true though multiplayer is where its at in the BF franchise.
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.
SP mode is as expected. Nothing new learned here.
The Single player in battlefield games have always been average at best. The multiplayer has always been fun though.
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.
"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?
"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...
Didn't you know? They only care about these things when their preferred game is unaffected. 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...
here is the link, it says the campaign is 12 hours long http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
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.
I agree with ya man but they still lied about the SP.
So is it 6 hours or 12 hours? He said it's slighty longer than MW3. How long is MW3? Anyway I'd rather have 12 hours of awesome instead of 6.
I'd rather have all correct details on the table instead of hype and lies from DICE. *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?
i dont understand what they mean by after 100 play throughs you can level the battlefield.
but 12 is hours awesome and 6 is meh.... get it? w/e that 6 hours of missing SP time will be added to my MP time
Why can't we have 12 hours of awesome?
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.
Rather they added offline multiplayer with bots than the campaign
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 think he meant on PC. Earlier BF games campaigns were basically the same as multiplayer but with bots.
I was referring to playing alone against the PC.
this makes me happy i hate long campaign is realistic shooters with meh story lines
Not a biggie it felt like a chore to finish Crysis 2.
That game dragged. I thought I'd finished it and then suddenly there was hours more to go. I was ready to say fuck this shit and drop my controller XD
Me too, I found that game weak from the start. It was really slow paced. Kicking cars into people online is the only part I loved.
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.
COD didn't start out as a multiplayer game though, it always had great single player campaigns, BF did not.
@Bumnut. 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.