Support NeoGAF

[Gamer @ Heart]

Removed is the wrong mentality.

Patriots may have had a SP, but Seige was not designed that way and there is nothing wrong with that. Same with battlefront, the decision was made not to make one. Nothing was removed. While it may change the value proposition for you, its their perogitive to decide if that means they can devote more resources to delivering their vision rather than check a box on the back of the box.

 

[Nipo]

Battlefront 1 and 2 didn't have actual campaigns either, and considering how bad Battlefield 3 and 4's were I'm perfectly fine with the fact that DICE decided to not do a campaign. Why does a game need a "full fledged single player experience" to be a full game?

Galactic conquest was close enough to a campaign and should have been included. I enjoyed picking my faction and trying to take over the galaxy even if itwas really just instant action modes in a set order.

 

[misses bull]

I never really played the original Battlefront games, but I personally would simply have loved SOMETHING of a single player campaign in Battlefront with the look and feel that that game has. Even if it was simply a loosely tied together set of missions, that maybe followed the order of the original trilogy. Have a level where you're escaping the Death Star as Luke, Han and Leia, followed by a death star run level where you destroy it...then the hoth level...then an asteroid belt...escape from cloud city...darth vader duel....etc... Even if there weren't cutscenes in between, just something a single person could enjoy.

Everything about Battlefront feels rushed to me, like they focused on the graphics and presentation so much, but really didn't have time to make a lot of content.

Dice has NEVER made a single player mode for a multiplayer focused game worth a damn. The game already has a content problem as it is. Would a shitty singleplayer mode that you most likely wouldn't finish make the game any better

 

[Crossing Eden]

I am aware, and that is a pretty scummy thing for EA to do. The game actually lists it can be played 1 player on the back.

Because you technically can. Funny thing is this isn't very different from what you'd be doing in a "full fledged" battlefront campaign.

 

[crinale]

To be fair though, the number of people who actually finishes the story is most of the time very low.

I think trophies / achievements give pubs crystal clear image of what are good investments and what are not. The statistics gives much more information than internet forums. This is just my guess but pubs must be seeing single player campaigns as not worthwhile investment.

If there's a issue within this trend the minority (in this case people finish single player campaigns on multiplayer focused games) gets easily ignored for the sake of profitability.

 

[VincentMatts]

Its a vicious circle. The only SP games really worth playing these days are open world ones. When they do linear games like BO3 or even Halo that have really no replay value, its hard to justify all that work in the end. Especially if you dont enjoy the campaign.

I love SP games but i can see why its happening. People are impossible to please, so why even put that effort when you can put it in MP and get some $ back through DLC and shit.

I think there needs to be innovation in the SP department. Thats really the problem. Like for example, one thing i really like about Forza6 SP is that i train my drivatar to race when im not there and my friends do too. So when people race my drivatar, they get some sort of co-op MP aspect just with a simple AI based on me.

If they could incorporate some of that Drivatar AI tech in shooters for example, or a coop campaign where my AI friendlies would have a "drivatar" AI to them based on my friends, it would be fucking amazing. I would totally play more SP if something like that was incorporated into SP games.

Innovate for fuck sakes.

 

[Dangansona]

Dice has NEVER made a single player mode for a multiplayer focused game worth a damn. The game already has a content problem as it is. Would a shitty singleplayer mode that you most likely wouldn't finish make the game any better

Bad Company 2 had a good campaign. And you are right. It has a content problem. What is their excuse then for making a MP-only game?

 

[kinoki]

Different games for different kinds of players. If a publisher/developer aims for a stable group of 50.000 players and decide to make it online only they know when they've met their expectations. They might not get 100.000 players but they knew that going in. The cost to attract twice the audience wasn't worth the risk plus that would it out it in another type of market where it'd be judged by a different standard. So, they actively don't want the potential 50.000 players because they don't want the risk. For example. Figures all made up.

 

[Noray]

I wish Battlefront had a campaign. It's so gorgeous and it plays well but I found the multiplayer beta totally shallow and awfully balanced. I'd play a good 6-hour campaign filled with cool shootout setpieces and vehicle bits tho. It doesn't even need a strong story, just something like "you're a grunt in the war, go do stuff."

 

[krang]

Because you technically can. Funny thing is this isn't very different from what you'd be doing in a "full fledged" battlefront campaign.

That video is reaching hard, lol.

 

[Cirdan]

For those who are still complaining about Battlefront not having a campaign......WHEN have single player campaigns from DICE EVER been worth even the time it takes to play them?

Bad Company 1 had a pretty fun one. Then again I've only played Mirror's Edge and that one from DICE so I'm not the best person to ask what their SP campaign quality is.


If you go multiplayer only it should be clearly indicated and show on the price tag. It probably won't though. Who wants to be upfront about your game not having something?

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Removed is the wrong mentality.

Patriots may have had a SP, but Seige was not designed that way and there is nothing wrong with that. Same with battlefront, the decision was made not to make one. Nothing was removed. While it may change the value proposition for you, its their perogitive to decide if that means they can devote more resources to delivering their vision rather than check a box on the back of the box.

Sorry, but what the hell are you talking about? Devs are not devoting more resources on their MP games when they remove SP. You get less for the same price. Just compare Battlefield 4 and Star Wars Battlefront.

For those who are still complaining about Battlefront not having a campaign......WHEN have single player campaigns from DICE EVER been worth even the time it takes to play them?

Gameplay wise those campaigns are solid, it's just the writing which is bad. But they can fix this. Why do people have so low standards? Demand more, not less.

 

[Seventy_X_Seven]

Also wanted to point out this,

I think my least favourite trend of 2015 is the whole 'we're focussing on multiplayer, there's no campaign. $60 please!"

Rainbow 6 and Star Wars Battlefront are the two this year that I know of, and I find it annoying, because they're both games I would have interest in if they had a campaign of some sort. Multiplayer only though? GTFO.
I rarely play multiplayer. Sometimes I do, but I like to play games at my own pace. I find a lot of multiplayer games make me play at a different 'style' than the campaingns do.

Anyone else that just flat out refuses to buy a multiplayer only game? The publishers seem to think that we're a small minority. Maybe that's true, but I want campaigns back.

Congratulations, multiplayer only games aren't for you! Fear not, because there are plenty of high quality single player campaigns out there as well! No need to force every game to fit to your personal preferences.

 

[MilkyJoe]

I'm with you OP. I don't think I've ever felt justified for all the multiplayer-only games that I bought --- not even L4D that I bought super cheap on sale.

It's not multiplayer only though, you can do all the levels with AI

I'm wondering if Evolve and now even Star Wars low sales might get them to wake up a bit.

 

[Warxard]

"removing" makes it sound like they had designed, built, playtested, polished, and QAed an entire single player mode and said, "...nah tho".

More realistic situation is they decided to focus on the multiplayer, because its a multiplayer game. You might not like that. That is ok. Not all games are made for you. Get over it.

Good post.

 

[kiguel182]

Maybe does games aren't for you.

They aren't removing anything. They are simply making a multiplayer only game because that's their goal.

A game doesn't have to have something for everyone. Plenty of single player games that you can play.

 

[JumpJeff84]

Dice has NEVER made a single player mode for a multiplayer focused game worth a damn. The game already has a content problem as it is. Would a shitty singleplayer mode that you most likely wouldn't finish make the game any better

The Bad Company campaigns were great

 

[Dangansona]

Also wanted to point out this,


Congratulations, multiplayer only games aren't for you! Fear not, because there are plenty of high quality single player campaigns out there as well! No need to force every game to fit to your personal preferences.

I don't think its fair to be that dismissive. What if the dude just likes Star Wars and previously loved Rainbox Six Campaigns? Which is what he is saying. It's not like he is seeing a new IP like Evolve and being pissed he can't play it SP.

 

[diffusionx]

I don't think its fair to be that dismissive. What if the dude just likes Star Wars and previously loved Rainbox Six Campaigns? Which is what he is saying. It's not like he is seeing a new IP like Evolve and being pissed he can't play it SP.

We can't always get everything we want.

We know for a fact that EA is developing single player Star Wars, so my recommendation to OP is to hold tight.

 

[misses bull]

Bad Company 2 had a good campaign. And you are right. It has a content problem. What is their excuse then for making a MP-only game?

In terms of what the single player is for those types of games than yea I guess its alright. I'm not defending dice's content problem because its clearly a problem but tacking on a bad single player mode in exchange for more
Dev time that could have been spent somewhere else is not a good idea

 

[KurtSloane]

Data from games with both components has most likely pointed out how little most people play the single player and go straight to multi.

This trend of late is a reflection of this, it is a reflection of market trends, blame gamers not companies tailoring resources to match market trends.

 

[Wasp]

It has become a worrying trend.

The problem is with the price. If publishers are selling half a game they should be charging half the price. $30.

Or at the very least have a lot of multiplayer content. CoD games cost $60 but have a story campaign plus zombies/spec-ops mode plus typically 15-16 multiplayer maps. Games with multiplayer only cost $60 and typically have 11-16 maps so it's not like we're getting more maps to offset the lack of campaign, if anything we're getting even less.

 

[Crossing Eden]

That video is reaching hard, lol.

The SP seems to consist of all the set pieces that would go in between the constant hallways of shooting galleries, and "story." I'm much interested in what their plans are for the SP focused title.

It has become a worrying trend.

The problem is with the price. If publishers are only selling half a game they should be charging half the price. $30.

Or at the very least have a lot of multiplayer content. CoD games cost $60 but have a story campaign plus zombies/spec-ops mode plus typically 16 multiplayer maps. Games with multiplayer only cost $60 and typically have 11-16 maps so it's not like we're getting more maps to offset the lack of campaign, if anything we're getting even less.

It's not half the game if the other half doesn't exist. That's like saying SP focused titles are "half the game."

 

[CadetMahoney]

I'm saving a good deal more money this gen because of it.

I loled at this more than I should have.

 

[VariantX]

"removing" makes it sound like they had designed, built, playtested, polished, and QAed an entire single player mode and said, "...nah tho".

More realistic situation is they decided to focus on the multiplayer, because its a multiplayer game. You might not like that. That is ok. Not all games are made for you. Get over it.

Couldnt agree more with the second paragraph. People shoud calm down and quit framing things as if someone was taking stuff from you when it was never offered to you in the first place. It just means go find the game that offers you the gameplay experience you want.

 

[Brazil]

:lol

Oh, that damn EA removing the campaign from a series that has never had a campaign.

If you don't want to play a multiplayer-focused game, don't buy a multiplayer-focused game. Lots and lots of single-player-focused games out there. Go out and have a blast with 'em.

 

[Dr. Buni]

If the multiplayer is fun, I really don't mind it. Though to be honest, for $60 I am not buying a game with or without single player nowadays.

 

[blastprocessor]

The thing is gamers have become mug punters paying $60 for a multi player game. I don't quite get the appeal especially if it's a shooter.

I think the increasing trend in more multi player games that's the problem for me. Unless there's a quality single player game in the package l am not interested.

 

[Nere]

I understand the idea of not making a mode to spend the resources on other modes and make them better but lately we have seen removing a mode but the other modes still are left lacklaster. For example battlefront no campaign mode but few maps and multiplayer modes.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Also wanted to point out this,

Congratulations, multiplayer only games aren't for you!

That's what he said, congratulations for figuring that out.

Fear not, because there are plenty of high quality single player campaigns out there as well! No need to force every game to fit to your personal preferences.

I am really trying to understand this mindset. I really do. So just imagine DICE had created an additional SP campaign to Star Wars Battlefront. And you are an MP only gamer. How would this have hurt you? Would DICE have made the MP with even less content because of this? I don't think so. Would this game have suddenly become more expensive? Nope. So why are you fine with getting less content? I don't understand it.

 

[Bartholomuse]

People say that games like Battlefront and Rainbow six would need significant development resources allocated to their campaigns in order for them to be worth a shit, and while that's true, I can never see the excuse for not having at least full bot support.

I've spent so many lazy afternoons just going through bot matches non stop in Unreal, Battlefield 2 and Red orchestra. There's times when you want to get a taste of the gameplay you want without the additional stress of playing online "for real"

And lets not forget the GOAT bot game, Perfect Dark. It took it's bot features to a whole new damn level. Timesplitters was a great game to just whack bots as well. Even PDZ was a hoot with 32 player bots matches with all spawns set to Rocket Launchers.

God I miss bots...they're obviously no replacement for a full campaign, but I think their a great compromise that scratches that "no preassure" , single player itch.

 

[Seventy_X_Seven]

Sorry, but what the hell are you talking about? Devs are not devoting more resources on their MP games when they remove SP. You get less for the same price. Just compare Battlefield 4 and Star Wars Battlefront.



Gameplay wise those campaigns are solid, it's just the writing which is bad. But they can fix this. Why do people have so low standards? Demand more, not less.

They are absolutely devoting more resources. Can you imagine if DICE worked on a single player campaign for Battlefront, where would those workers come from? They don't just magically appear, and it's not like they're sitting on their rear all day otherwise.

Personally I find Battlefront to be a very high quality multiplayer experience. Very well designed maps made to fit the modes instead of shoehorning every mode to the same maps, very authentic locations, nearly bug free, wide variety of load out options to fit nearly every play style.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

And you just like to act as if everyone is as informed and enlightened as you? No where on the front of Star Wars Battlefront does it imply that it's a online only experience.

And yes, while everyone on gaf might have the knowledge to understand this, when I worked at retail, you would be surprised at the number of people who DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT GAMES. They buy based on cover art alone. We informed gamers are the minority, and the games that sell bank and millions of copies sell mostly to the uninformed masses.

Well, buyer beware.

 

[diffusionx]

The thing is gamers have become mug punters paying $60 for a multi player game. I don't quite get the appeal especially if it's a shooter.

This is nothing new. I bought Starsiege Tribes, Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, etc. ~15 years ago. The fact that Battlefield games shipped with campaigns is a new development.

I am really trying to understand this mindset. I really do. So just imagine DICE had created an additional SP campaign to Star Wars Battlefront. And you are an MP only gamer. How would this have hurt you? Would DICE have made the MP with even less content because of this? I don't think so. Would this game have suddenly become more expensive? Nope. So why are you fine with getting less content? I don't understand it.

Single player campaigns are not free to make. They do take resources. Whether or not that detracts from the MP is an open question. But I think it's also the wrong question. DICE made the game they chose to make. They will live or die in the market based on those decisions.

 

[VincentMatts]

Data from games with both components has most likely pointed out how little most people play the single player and go straight to multi.

This trend of late is a reflection of this, it is a reflection of market trends, blame gamers not companies tailoring resources to match market trends.

No way, they just know that they can shove DLC down your throat with MP and cant do that as much with most SP games unless its called fallout. Theres more money for them in anything with online. That doesnt change the fact that there is a demand for SP games. Just because a lot of them are shit, doesnt mean people dont wanna play a good SP game. Again, fallout.

MP is easier. Just look at battlefront. Just make maps, sounds and guns that look like Star wars and everyone is happy. But make a shit campaign, and you never hear the end of it. Or look at BO3, i heard more criticisms about the story being shit than the previous gen one not having a SP at all.

 

[Eggbok]

There aren't enough battles in the original trilogy for them to make an entire campaign from.
The game is based on the battles in the movies and the only battles that really take place between the Empire and the Rebel Alliance would be Endor and Hoth.

People keep saying there should have been a campaign but what would it be about exactly? They can't exactly just add some random generic character and force his way into the original trilogy.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

They are absolutely devoting more resources.

Battlefront has considerably less content than Battlefield 4. Where are they devoting more resources?

Can you imagine if DICE worked on a single player campaign for Battlefront, where would those workers come from? They don't just magically appear, and it's not like they're sitting on their rear all day otherwise.

DICE has multiple projects. And I assume they can adjust their team sizes accordingly.

Personally I find Battlefront to be a very high quality multiplayer experience. Very well designed maps made to fit the modes instead of shoehorning every mode to the same maps, very authentic locations, nearly bug free, wide variety of load out options to fit nearly every play style.

I don't see how this proves in any way that they have devoted the same resources into Battlefront's MP as they did into BF4 SP and MP.

Single player campaigns are not free to make. They do take resources. Whether or not that detracts from the MP is an open question. But I think it's also the wrong question. DICE made the game they chose to make. They will live or die in the market based on those decisions.

And they won't die. It was a clever strategy. They knew Star Wars is such a strong IP, that's why they can get away with this.

 

[chrislowe]

Multiplayer only means less coding = more profit.

 

[Seventy_X_Seven]

I don't think its fair to be that dismissive. What if the dude just likes Star Wars and previously loved Rainbox Six Campaigns? Which is what he is saying. It's not like he is seeing a new IP like Evolve and being pissed he can't play it SP.

Star Wars will be getting single player games though. I'd rather not have DICE waste resources on a half ass attempt at one. Can't speak for Rainbow, but that IP in general isn't very unique and I imagine there are also similar style games focused on single player.

Battlefront has considerably less content than Battlefield 4. Where are they devoting more resources?

Because map count and number of guns is now directly relatable to content and resources? Again, if no resources would of been taken away from the multiplayer then where do the resources for the single player come from?

 

[ambar_hitman]

Just the way things seem to be going. As disappointing as it is, I'm saving a good deal more money this gen because of it. Pretty much write off anything that is Multi or Online Only.

This. I am only buying SP focused games this gen.

 

[Grover Cleveland]

I don't like multiplayer only games and it's a big part of why I haven't bought Battlefront, but I understand that's what the market is dictating. There are still too many games out there with great single player experiences for me to spend my time whining about the ones that don't.

That's what he said, congratulations for figuring that out.



I am really trying to understand this mindset. I really do. So just imagine DICE had created an additional SP campaign to Star Wars Battlefront. And you are an MP only gamer. How would this have hurt you? Would DICE made the MP with even less content because of this? I don't think so. Would this game have suddenly become more expensive? Nope. So why are you fine with getting less content? I don't understand it.

Actually yes, to all of those questions. Making a campaign with the kind of production values that people expect out of a 2015 AAA title undeniably takes time and resources away from the multiplayer segment. Whether that loss comes to fruition in the form of less content or lowered overall quality, the multiplayer experience would without a doubt be worse to some degree.

 

[BossDarkseid]

And you just like to act as if everyone is as informed and enlightened as you? No where on the front of Star Wars Battlefront does it imply that it's a online only experience.

And yes, while everyone on gaf might have the knowledge to understand this, when I worked at retail, you would be surprised at the number of people who DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT GAMES. They buy based on cover art alone. We informed gamers are the minority, and the games that sell bank and millions of copies sell mostly to the uninformed masses.

Actually not to be "that guy" but taking a look at the Battlefront box it does say PS Plus required, albeit on the back. I mean yeah, on the back, and as you mention not everyone will know what that means but...I guess some text somewhere could say "MULTIPLAYER ONLY" but I think they assume that a good 15 years or so into the digital age/internet etc people can do a little research.

I appreciate people might not know but it's like...the info is there. Although if this was...say an MMO like WoW and nowhere on the box it says "Online Sub required" etc or "Online only" it'd be shady. When FF11 came out all those years ago, I was young so forgive me, but I mistook players being able to solo some content for the idea there was an online and SP version...

 

[Nirolak]

It has become a worrying trend.

The problem is with the price. If publishers are selling half a game they should be charging half the price. $30.

Or at the very least have a lot of multiplayer content. CoD games cost $60 but have a story campaign plus zombies/spec-ops mode plus typically 15-16 multiplayer maps. Games with multiplayer only cost $60 and typically have 11-16 maps so it's not like we're getting more maps to offset the lack of campaign, if anything we're getting even less.

Well, there were only 108 people making Fallout 4, which is about the same as the number making Titanfall (and about the same development time to boot), so it'd only be fair if they were both $30.

 

[Seventy_X_Seven]

I don't like multiplayer only games and it's a big part of why I haven't bought Battlefront, but I understand that's what the market is dictating. There are still too many games out there with great single player experiences for me to spend my time whining about the ones that don't.



Actually yes, to all of those questions. Making a campaign with the kind of production values that people expect out of a 2015 AAA title undeniably takes time and resources away from the multiplayer segment. Whether that loss comes to fruition in the form of less content or lowered overall quality, the multiplayer experience would without a doubt be worse to some degree.

Thank you. This magical belief that Battlefront multiplayer wouldn't have taken a hit with a single player campaign added is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Orayn]

"Removing" implies it's an essential element of all video games and I completely disagree with that notion.

 

[CadetMahoney]

I would rather games remove multiplayer from more games than vice versa for sure.

But tacking on multiplayer allows devs and fans to block any criticisms about their linear AAA cinematic plot-driven bore-fest lacking "replayability".

 

[KORNdoggy]

This post, especially bolded, is very true. Knowing all the campaigns DICE have put out in the past... they should really stay away from those in the future like they did with Battlefront.

only if they make up for the lack of SP with more MP content.

battlefront managed to not have a single player and have a pathetic offering in terms of maps. i want to say you can't do both things...but looking at the sales, clearly you can. i won't be buying them though.

 

[comshoplesce]

OP: I hear you.

I would buy both games just for having some short 10-15h SP campaign, but no money from me then. I don't like MP games, only like BB or DS help.

 

[Gamer @ Heart]

Sorry, but what the hell are you talking about? Devs are not devoting more resources on their MP games when they remove SP. You get less for the same price. Just compare Battlefield 4 and Star Wars Battlefront.

By virtue of a team not making a single player campaign, would the logic not be that those potentional additional resources are then budgeted to flesh out or build the MP? Or the scope of the project is significantly reduced meaning it comes out faster and or cheaper requiring less return/sales?

Not having a campaign is likely the reason battlefront came out this year at all. The price you pay isnt the fucking point. There is no passing the saving on the consumer, so why bring that up? Its the developers job to make the argument of value to the consumer and that varies widely. A simple star wars skin is enough for some, while others count map/modes as there barameter of value. My point still stands that you can't remove something that wasn't there in the first place.

 

[woxel1]

There aren't enough battles in the original trilogy for them to make an entire campaign from.
The game is based on the battles in the movies and the only battles that really take place between the Empire and the Rebel Alliance would be Endor and Hoth.

People keep saying there should have been a campaign but what would it be about exactly? They can't exactly just add some random generic character and force his way into the original trilogy.

Says who?