Should Battlefield SP be more like Arma in order to be gud?

I think they need to do something different with the SP. They need to leave the SP story telling to the Bad Company series. For the main BF series, something like ARMA, or even Operation Flashpoint would suit the main BF franchise well. With the exception of COD4 and the 2010 Medal Of Honor, I haven't really enjoyed the SP in a war game since the departure of WWII.

So we have to pay $60 to wait many months as the extremely mediocre single player can be released in 3 separate parts?

Very disappointing with your response my Friend. We both know the developers had problems and that all arma titles before and indeed OF2 (i.e. CWR2) had oodles of great content. As a fellow enthusiast of the series, I expected better. I really did.

i haven't played it yet but i hear people say that it isn't terrible.

The Operation Flashpoint expansion pack was wonderful in the guerrilla warfare concept. Killing and taking resources from your enemies and those resources carrying over, ever mounting, throughout the entire campaign. Arma 3 obviously attempted this but it's completely inferior in comparison. None the less chumling, a wonderful idea that rewards the player to make everything feel truly connected.

@uninspiredcup: Battlefield's campaign should be more like Titanfall's

Wasdie is actually right. It is bad. At least part (1) is. The sandbox nature full of idea's and concepts is replaced with (near enough) Call Of Duty like scripted events of an npc shouting "follow me" to end up with ("oh my gawd!") event. It's really not very engaging compared to OP/Arma/Arma2. Almost as bad as Operation Flashpoint 2, a terrible console game.

Get rid of singleplayer altogether. Problem solved.

Arma is terrible, Arma is only good because you can modify it but that makes it only as good as the community you are apart of.

they should just get rid of it

and tc too

Battlefield shouldn't have a SP anymore. I would much rather every dollar and effort go into the mode that will be played the most. Instead of giving us badly written, meaningless SP campaigns.

Also, it is far more likely that they're going to get rid of SP in the next game as opposed to trying to reinvent it.

My friends, being an old gamer, I remember Halflife and Halflife 2. Both delivering not only legendary single player. But also legendary multiplayer.

Indeed chumlings, many people who plays both Halflife and Halflife 2, only done so for Counterstrike. Valve, being a superior publishers delivered quality across the board. Indeed. Indeed. Indeed.

Even more recently, The Orange Box, Team Fortress 2, voted by you, the people, the greatest team based FPS in existence, featured Halflife and a brand new IP soon to become legendary, Portal.

Indeed, if we go off from that, Portal 2. Delivering both high quality single player as well as COOP not simply cobbled on but something of equal high quality.

Some people would cite Naughty Dog as another great example. Since these developers make shitty movie games, I wont be using them as example to illustrate a point.

It seems to me my fellows, you have become so use to mediocrity (primarily due to Call Of Duty) that you accept it as a standard practice. It's deeply saddening, it truly is.

dont choke on the diarrhea coming out of your mouth

I actually agree with the getting rid of single player crowd. People don't buy these games for the story, so why are they spending so much money on it?

Can we stop pretending that every game needs to be made with a mind for people who don't have internet? I adore single player games, but for most FPSes the campaign is just something folks skip over to get at what they will eventually pay a total of $120 to play.I say let Cod and BF be what they are, a yearly subscription to access a multiplayer grindfest.

And there are games that still deliver that. Battlefield and Call of Duty aren't them. These modern military shooters have had mediocre SP campaigns for as long as I can remember. In fact, these SP campaigns have been getting less and less attention because people put most of their time into MP. Vastly more. I see the writing on the wall.

It seems to me that you are the one being unreasonable.

Not going to happen. Look at from the perspective of a greedy publisher, not a gamer.

Bullet points. Every angle possible, increase sales.

Battlefield started out as multiplayer only (unless you count playing MP maps with bots SP) and it should probably go back to it. Modern military shooters have been done to death. Battlefield 4's campaign was okay (WAY better than 3's), but still not good enough for me to think it was justified to exist. Now if they did something with the backstory from BF 2142, I'd be more interested as the loading screen tid-bits were actually kind of cool for a backdrop setting. Or they could make up a new setting altogether. I'm just tired of the unimaginative standard modern day setting.

I would have said No they should focus purely on their MP content... But then I realised that the are currently just releasing map packs where 50% of the maps are remakes of old maps so to be honest I don't care what they do as this Battlefield will probably be the last one I get or maybe I will avoid their "premium" option.

Publishers are the ones that are killing SP to begin with. They know that people buy these games for the MP. EA is going to see the success of Titanfall and they're going to replicate that with the rest of their premium shooters.

Titanfall.

It only takes one accepted and popular prototype to create a new industry standard. As example: Multiplayer behind a pay wall. Another example would be online passes. Another would be the requirement for any shooter to have an online mode, even hipster trash like Spec Ops The Line. If it is a way to cut costs, boost sales, or make money, and the consumer base accepts it, the trend becomes pervasive enough that a massive backlash is needed to reverse it.

I don't see there being a massive backlash from people who we are eagerly awaiting the next BF or COD single player campaign, but are ruthlessly denied by greedy publishers. While BF5 will likely have an offline campaign, I bet the odds are pretty even right now that BF 6 won't. It all depends on the quality of the next couple of multiplayer only games released for full price. If they are great, no campaign for BF6. If they suck it will be there.

And the way that new 4 vs 1 game is looking, it seems to me that shooters are headed for a multiplayer only future.

They should stop including campaigns in main Battlefield games and leave it for Bad Company . The reason why ArmA 3 SP was released in 3 separate parts was due to shortage of budget . That is not the case with EA . They just include campaign to justify 60+$ price .

It's perfectly fine for you to not like a certain game, but to call MP uninspired is bullshit. But that's typical from you.

What is uninspiring about BF4's multiplayer? No current game does anything like what it's doing.

What about it? Shitty 2 hour campaign.

Technically, EA has vastly, vastly superior resources to BI. with more money to throw around. BI (a 30 man studio) manage to produce 100+ hour SP with multiplayer, COOP, free DLC and extensive modding support. Yet somehow, this is beyond EA. Again, I don't want to insult you fellow gamers (not you personally my friend) but it's just baffling how this is accepted as the norm.

Arma is buggy as ****, utterly true. But so are EA games. Shit my man, Battlefield 4 didn't even work lol.

What's inspired about it? Let's start there, shall we?

I never said it was inspiring. I simply believe calling it uninspired is bullshit. It built very well off of BF3. So yes, calling it uninspired is a load of horseshit.

The campaign is fully multiplayer...

@SNIPER4321: No, it's not CoD with vehicles. It's far bigger and more complicated than that. Weapons behave much more realistically than they do in CoD. As do the characters themselves. Okay, that's fine, that's your opinion, but that doesn't make the game uninspired.

We're talking about modern military shooters, SNIPER. Stay focused. I don't care what you think about other games that aren't modern military shooters.

Which is 2 hours and shitty. Again, so what?

You said SP isn't going away. We used Titanfall as an example of a practice that is trending. Doesn't matter if you think it's shitty or not. That's what we're going to be seeing more of.

Battlefield 5/6/7/8 wont change my friend. Neither will Call Of Duty. Regardless of Titanfall. Which, as mentioned, still manages to have a shitty story campaign.

Indeed, purely looking at it in terms of COOP as you would have it, Portal 2 completely shits on Titanfall. Valve once again, bringing great shame upon EA.

I feel BF4 should be more like BF2. Scrap the SP campaign. Make SP a training ground for the MP by using the MP maps but with bots.

Have any campaigns not been shitty for a modern military shooter? I can't remember the last time one was actually riveting., with the exception of maybe Spec Ops: The Line. What do you honestly think companies would rather do? They save TONS of money doing what Titanfall did. And guess what? They stay true to all the schmucks who want a campaign. I think you're a little delusional if you're expecting things to stay the same.

Apples and oranges. People play Portal 2 for very different reasons than Titanfall. It's not a shame on EA by any means.

Ghost Recon. Operation Flashpoint. Arma. Arma 2: OA.

Of course, what i'm listing here is pc ones. What you are most likely thinking of, are consoles titles that make up most FPS now. . Which are shit. All FPS on consoles are shit, this is a well known fact.

This. I'd rather have no singleplayer than the dreadful experience that was BF3 &4 singleplayer

Bad Company's singleplayer was pretty good though.

A game with equally good mp and sp will have much more time spent in mp.

I would be fine if Dice completely removed the sp altogether, BUT I will say I thought the campaign in 4 was pretty fun overall.

I wud like toi bai a berdurger

I have to agree on both issues

They had a good SP campaign. That was in the first Bad Company. Then they thought that they need more COD and went to shit. BC's campaign was almost a proper Battlefield experience. You had a goal, but how you got there was up to you. Some missions offered a great variety of vehicles and weapons to use and freedom to use them. Of course there was one forced attack helicopter mission, which wasn't good, but mostly I liked that campaign I played it through several times. I hoped they would improve from that, but BC2 was close to COD.

Single player could be good if they just let players make their own memorable moments instead of shoving artificial ones at them.

Nah, I enjoy his ramblings.

Bafflefield should not have singleplayer. Just more multiplayer content.

You're not his friend, jankarop/sniper.