-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Battlefield 2042 won't have a single player campaign
- Thread starter Kolx
- Start date
Mostly everyone here keep forgetting that their direct competitor has both MP, SP and co-op. They deliver it every year(excluding BO4) and yet DICE who's one of the biggest developers in the world, with a publisher who's worth more then 40 billion USD and earns billions is incapable to deliver on a complete package with more development time then a yearly Call of Duty game.
DICE has multiple studios helping them and yet they still need the resources to develop only the MP portion when COD studios are in the same position yet keep delivering every(almost) year.
DICE has multiple studios helping them and yet they still need the resources to develop only the MP portion when COD studios are in the same position yet keep delivering every(almost) year.
BF Games usually nail cinematic story moments, im betting they will have some exicting intro and map changing stories like they did in V
This is for sure gonna crush my dad. He looks forward to the battlefield campaigns each time since he can't keep up in multiplayer (he's been gaming for so many years but still can only move and look in one direction. He's gotta stop to turn and look haha). Damn. Hopefully they try campaigns again sometime, there's definitely a chunk of people that enjoy it.
Perhaps playing against AIs may be a good fit for him? Or is he more after cinematic / scripted experiences?
Nice just watched. Hope its good!
people complaining about no SP are mind boggling. This game has never had good SP
I know Era heavily skews single-player, probably due to it being a Sony leaning site, but come on.
Why does not having a campaign mean you can't charge full price? MP only games have to be cheaper or F2P?
Battlefield is the very definition of AAA next gen experience. If any MP only game can ask for full price, it's Battlefield.
Why does not having a campaign mean you can't charge full price? MP only games have to be cheaper or F2P?
Battlefield is the very definition of AAA next gen experience. If any MP only game can ask for full price, it's Battlefield.
Where you're wrong is that by your logic any campaign being included is an added value. For me and obviously most Battlefield fans, these are a waste of resources that could have gone toward making MP better. So yeah, I am really glad that they decided to drop the SP
i'm reading here it also only has seven maps at launch, lmao. if that is true then god damn they are ballsy
I think he prefers the cinematic and scripted bits, but if fighting against AI is an option in this then that might actually be a good fit!
Didn't care for their campaigns so I can't say this was a big loss. Had a little fun with B4, but the rest was disappointing story-wise.
Agreed with the bolded. Seems so weird that Multiplayer only games have this weird stigma of being somehow of less value because it doesn't have a single player mode. See it on twitter too not just on ERA.
Also I much rather have a battle pass than locking maps behind DLC. Makes it less likely to segment players by who owns what map dlc.
As someone who knows what Killer Commando is, it's weird to me that there's a negative response to this at all. This is what BF1942 and BF2 were.
But I guess Battlefield has evolved in a bunch of directions throughout the years, and there being a SP campaign is one of them.
For those who valued that, it's absolutely fair to dislike this decision.
I certainly think it's the right one though. 99%. The 1% being the possibility of Bad Company 3.
I've been encouraging this sort of thing for at least a lot of years.
Bots is always a good idea, at least in theory. We'll see how advanced they are. BF1942 and BF2 had gouranga bots.
Don't think bots have appeared in a Battlefield since, so it's cool to see them return.
But I guess Battlefield has evolved in a bunch of directions throughout the years, and there being a SP campaign is one of them.
For those who valued that, it's absolutely fair to dislike this decision.
I certainly think it's the right one though. 99%. The 1% being the possibility of Bad Company 3.
I've been encouraging this sort of thing for at least a lot of years.
Bots is always a good idea, at least in theory. We'll see how advanced they are. BF1942 and BF2 had gouranga bots.
Don't think bots have appeared in a Battlefield since, so it's cool to see them return.
It's been like this since Titanfall. How dare a game be multiplayer only and cost $60? Now let me go back to my 5 hour single player game.
Like you said, multiplayer games offer potential +100 hours of play and will have huge budgets just like other top games. Are we going to argue Battlefield isn't going to be one of the most expensive to produce games this year?
Most single player games offers a constructed way to play through set pieces, multiplayer games are open season in terms of interaction with friends and randoms. They have relative equal value for being full price.
What free to play games are you talking about? Do they look as good as battlefield? Have as many maps at launch? Give examples
Oh yeah, they really messed up big time by not channeling tons of resources towards some short forgettable campaign at the expense of the mode that gets the vast majority of the players and their playtime
I mean it depends on how you define less game. They putt an extra year of work into this and had the most teams ever work on it. They even pushed NfS back
so they get more people working on it. If everything works out right, you could also say it has more game in it then the other Battlefields.
Thats not less game to me.
Ah got it, I was hoping for like a joint task force or something like that. The whole U.S. v. Russia thing is getting a bit boring.
It's fucking ridiculous and annoying a 5 to 8 hour campaign that will be done in a weekend is a deal breaker for fucking battlefield a series that started without a single player.
A little off topic I'm still pissed Bethesda brought back Wolfenstein one of my favorite multiplayer games ever a d made it single player only.
Or the last of us 2 launching without factions and it still looks like it won't be here even a year after launch. Naughty Dog finally makes a good mu,tiplayer game after 2 missteps. IMO with uncharted they nail it with Last of us and then drop it from the sequel smh.
Multiplayer is just as valid as single player and it's annoying this forum constant obsession with dismissing mu,tiplayer.
no kidding. Im really happy with this return. If ppl want they can still play bots only and still get progresssion
Only because the quality of the campaign's have seen a decline. If they just made a better campaign, more people would play, complete and appreciate it.
For example, I actually quite enjoyed Battlefield 4's campaign, I remember it was a visual and audio spectacle too. Clearly many agreed, since according to online trophy data, 39% of people completed the campaign, whilst 37% of people reached rank 25 in multiplayer.
only scanned the first 5 pages or so but i'm surprised so many people care. after BF4 the campaigns were downright abysmal (and BF4's campaign was pretty meh as is, but i had fun i guess)
that said i never played any BF pre- BF4 so i guess there's hope held out for some former glory returned, i wouldn't know
that said i never played any BF pre- BF4 so i guess there's hope held out for some former glory returned, i wouldn't know
User Warned - Lazy Dev Rhetoric
What's impressive about that? DICE are most likely procedurally generating a fuck ton of those maps anyway. But yeah anything to justify a full price tag for 7 maps LMAO marketing BS as it's finest.
God damn, just call the developers lazy and eat the ban at this point.
Ok well that's promising news. I'm definitely a lot more interested now, thanks.
Lame.
I've been playing through Battlefield 4 on gamepass and the campaign is a lot better than I anticipated.
I've been playing through Battlefield 4 on gamepass and the campaign is a lot better than I anticipated.
"Procedurally Generated". Man, I had no idea you worked at DICE on the map! You should really get verified by the staff so we know ahead of time! /s
How long to beat has it 6 hours, or 7 hours for all styles of play. But I take your point and agree lol. Unfortunately there's no lower rank trophy, but either way, seems like many still played the campaign too.
If you're able to "procedurally generate" high-quality multiplayer maps then every big publisher in the world is going to pay you BIG bucks. If not then you're talking shit.
Overwatch is also a direct competitor and is purely MP. Overwatch also is higher rated on MC than any COD game made in the last decade, cost $60 and has provided players with hundreds of hours of value.
but I suppose it must be a shit game because it doesn't have SP.
I'm okay with this. Multiplayer first franchises like Battlefield are MUUUCH better off focusing on mp
Somewhere, a level designer just broke their keyboard reading this.
On BF1 and BFV, on average it took about 6 to 9 months of work by about 10 people with about 2000 hours of combined playtesting time per map for iteration (to get a map to good quality).
Believe me, it would be a dream to click the Generate Map button and move on with life, but things are a little bit trickier than that. :)