Should the Battlefield series move away from incorporating a single player campaign?

Comments

  • LordVader666
    249 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I think this thread illustrates the problem with Dice listening to the community however good that idea may be in principle. On almost every matter you have a divide as to what’s wrong with the game or what “we” want.

    Here we’ve got people saying we need SP (and co-op) and others saying it’s a waste of time - the same for the Premium Pass etc.

    Personally all I want from BF is MP
  • DCSTomcat
    1055 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Yes, I would say don't bother with SP simply because Dice is simply incapable of making epic story campaigns like Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway.
  • Hawxxeye
    5183 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 7
    They should move away from making boring uninteresting stories where they try to make us care about random people and go back to making epic single player moments like these

    .
    Instead of 3 infantry of focused stories and 1with 2/3 tanking, BFV should had sad 1 infantry, 1 plane and 1 tank storyline.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1765 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I play BF for the multiplayer, not sub standard SP modes that i may play through once. If you want awesome SP then BF is not the game for you.
  • Hawxxeye
    5183 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I play BF for the multiplayer, not sub standard SP modes that i may play through once. If you want awesome SP then BF is not the game for you.
    but bf3...
  • Major_Pungspark
    1389 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I don´t know anyone that playes Battlefield for sp, if the time spent for singleplayer would be put into five more maps I would be very happy. Actually I don´t know that many that bought Bf5, but no one has ever commented about the single player so...
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1765 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    I play BF for the multiplayer, not sub standard SP modes that i may play through once. If you want awesome SP then BF is not the game for you.
    but bf3...

    bf3 is the one i missed between my PC becoming too old and me buying a console
  • VincentNZ
    2578 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    I play BF for the multiplayer, not sub standard SP modes that i may play through once. If you want awesome SP then BF is not the game for you.
    but bf3...

    I mean the story was ridiculous as well and the gameplay was nothing spectacular either, but it was fun for the 5 hours it took. BF3 had also incorporated Coop with a side storyline, which I played maybe 15 hours for the unlocks, which was also not magnificent. BF3 singleplayer just worked and was alright. That is the threshold we are looking at nowadays.
    In a time where everything needs to have an MP though, the relevance of SP is dwindling, and EA simply did not adopt. Maybe DICE thought they had an educational mandate to fulfill, because of the setting, similar to BF1. Which I think is correct and hard to implement into a multiplayer experience.
    I have not played the BFV singleplayer, but I've only heard and seen that the gameplay is pretty bland, while the stories range from alright and important to bland or inaccurate.
  • spartanx169x
    694 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I think a great 4 person coop campaign that’s about 12 hrs would actually add value. But along with that they need to make the story great and they need to put effort into the marketing to show it off.
  • Loqtrall
    12020 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Lmao, BF went nearly a decade without featuring a single player campaign at all. I feel it'd benefit significantly from axing the sp campaign altogether and focus on the meat and potatoes multiplayer that most of the playerbase is here for.

    The whole SP thing only started when the franchise made the move to consoles anyway, which just so happened to be the same time dice was cramming multiplayer with overly casualized features and mechanics.
  • StingX71
    812 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I'd rather they spend the resources to crank out another 10+ maps. Plenty of other games that offer a better SP experience.
  • Stahlmach
    1156 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 7
    Its sad how people jump immidiatly on EA lies about the Singleplayer being the reason for the bad sales numbers. The Single player stories of the Battlefield games before werent masterpieces at all but they gave a nice introduction into the setting. And the Carrier mission from BF 3 was awesome in its presentation.
    " The last Tiger " in BF V was good too, there is no connection between that and Dice being lazy to make interesting maps or new maps at all. Same with the balance when it comes to Tank gameplay.
    No people were angry about all that approach of unknown battles and than Dice just rewrote historical events like in Nordly.
    But in general. the failure of BF V has nothing to do with the singleplayer. But " New Dice " decision for multiplayer and their general lazyness.
    And of course that horrible political correctness campaign that just backfired. But this wasnt mentioned in the statement. And now too many of you guys jump on thet " Its the Singleplayer! " train....
  • prisoner_519362
    22 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Get rid of war stories and do a “REAL” campaign and if it’s co-op that’s a bonus.
  • Major_Pungspark
    1389 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    Its sad how people jump immidiatly on EA lies about the Singleplayer being the reason for the bad sales numbers. The Single player stories of the Battlefield games before werent masterpieces at all but they gave a nice introduction into the setting. And the Carrier mission from BF 3 was awesome in its presentation.
    " The last Tiger " in BF V was good too, there is no connection between that and Dice being lazy to make interesting maps or new maps at all. Same with the balance when it comes to Tank gameplay.
    No people were angry about all that approach of unknown battles and than Dice just rewrote historical events like in Nordly.
    But in general. the failure of BF V has nothing to do with the singleplayer. But " New Dice " decision for multiplayer and their general lazyness.
    And of course that horrible political correctness campaign that just backfired. But this wasnt mentioned in the statement. And now too many of you guys jump on thet " Its the Singleplayer! " train....

    You dont realise that a shitload of resources went into the singleplayer?
  • DieHarder55
    79 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Op, I agree with you. I won't touch single player for BFV. I bought it for multiple player/pvp.

    Will check out co-op at some point.
  • JadedJunglist
    381 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    Its sad how people jump immidiatly on EA lies about the Singleplayer being the reason for the bad sales numbers. The Single player stories of the Battlefield games before werent masterpieces at all but they gave a nice introduction into the setting. And the Carrier mission from BF 3 was awesome in its presentation.
    " The last Tiger " in BF V was good too, there is no connection between that and Dice being lazy to make interesting maps or new maps at all. Same with the balance when it comes to Tank gameplay.
    No people were angry about all that approach of unknown battles and than Dice just rewrote historical events like in Nordly.
    But in general. the failure of BF V has nothing to do with the singleplayer. But " New Dice " decision for multiplayer and their general lazyness.
    And of course that horrible political correctness campaign that just backfired. But this wasnt mentioned in the statement. And now too many of you guys jump on thet " Its the Singleplayer! " train....

    You dont realise that a shitload of resources went into the singleplayer?

    do you really believe they will divert those same resources into multiplayer?

    from what i understand when they said they should have focused on their battle royale mode over single player, it came off as one or the other. this game still would have only of had 8 maps on release. that's fewer than at least the last 4 games which all had single player campaigns. battlefield 3 even released with co-op while having more maps.

    people are as in to battle royale as they are single player for this franchise. some people like it, while the majority couldnt care for it. seems like yet another waste of time/resources.

    i firmly believe what they would do is further dilute the content and just release games with even less out of the box. removing content wouldnt add more to another aspect of the game. no. it will just result in getting less for your dollar
  • Stahlmach
    1156 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    Its sad how people jump immidiatly on EA lies about the Singleplayer being the reason for the bad sales numbers. The Single player stories of the Battlefield games before werent masterpieces at all but they gave a nice introduction into the setting. And the Carrier mission from BF 3 was awesome in its presentation.
    " The last Tiger " in BF V was good too, there is no connection between that and Dice being lazy to make interesting maps or new maps at all. Same with the balance when it comes to Tank gameplay.
    No people were angry about all that approach of unknown battles and than Dice just rewrote historical events like in Nordly.
    But in general. the failure of BF V has nothing to do with the singleplayer. But " New Dice " decision for multiplayer and their general lazyness.
    And of course that horrible political correctness campaign that just backfired. But this wasnt mentioned in the statement. And now too many of you guys jump on thet " Its the Singleplayer! " train....

    You dont realise that a shitload of resources went into the singleplayer?

    If they put a so called " shitload " of ressources into that singleplayer they are simply unable to deal with ressources.
    No its a cheap excuse for all the other mistakes and decisions they made and Singleplayer ranks far behind.
  • warslag
    1366 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Lmao, BF went nearly a decade without featuring a single player campaign at all. I feel it'd benefit significantly from axing the sp campaign altogether and focus on the meat and potatoes multiplayer that most of the playerbase is here for.

    The whole SP thing only started when the franchise made the move to consoles anyway, which just so happened to be the same time dice was cramming multiplayer with overly casualized features and mechanics.

    I agree with this.

    Battlefield should be simpler, with much less game modes, just conquest but done really well. A more mature and epic game. Without it being too heavy.
  • xBCxSEALxTEAMx6
    1416 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    You stole my thread idea which I was just typing. Yes, they absolutely should eliminate the campaign, coop, Battle Royale, and the temporary gimmicky gamemodes.

    This way they focus solely on multiplayer design, bug fixes, netcode optimization, and weapon/vehicle balancing. We no longer have to wait months for missing or totally broken features because they're too preoccupied working on a stupid gamemode no one will ever touch.

    Well, a sincere question i would ask, is, if we go back to most...every BF game, was there ever an issue of "quality" to the extent there were sp elements?

    And back then they were annual releases. And folks are gonna tell me, on a two year basis, the reason for these stagnating games...is a two hour sp nothingburger?

    Don't you understand they're LYING to you. They're greedy, and fleecing watering down these games to relatively nothing, as compared to years ago. We're talking craziness here.

    Ofcourse I understand they're lying.

    I don't follow the initial part of your post, maybe I need a coffee. But I'll say that it's not the 2 hour nothingburger SP campaign being the reason specifically. It's the tight development window that's the main reason. If they don't get longer development windows, I'd rather they cut out the crap elements such as single player and focus on what makes Battlefield, Battlefield and that would be multiplayer. Eliminate the excess crap if your greedy two faced superiors won't give you a longer development window.

    It's a two year development window. How much longer should they have? As i said, prior BF games, and the best ones with sp content, had annual releases, but were better games. So i'm not undertstanding this tight development window argument...at all.

    What i do understand, is EA and other companies making excuses, as to water down their games, lowering quality and content, and microtransacting to make a quick buck out of it..albeit with much less content and quality.

    So, there is no issues with SP affecting MP. What is affecting both SP and MP...is greed.
  • suffice_ls
    491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Battlefield should move away from campaign....and away from free DLC.
Sign In or Register to comment.