-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142 did not have a campaign
- Thread starter SantaC
- Start date
MMaRsu
Banned
Yeah, imagine if they actually put in effort.
I cant believe people are actually clamoring for this. Absolute nutjobs.
EDMIX
Member
I disagree. That doesn't sound like something DICE wants, that sounds like something EA wants, they own the IP and team.
MMaRsu
Agreed. The single player games by them are just horrid, I've never bought a BF for it and I think I only completed 1 of them (BF1) and it was just....average. It was maybe less the average to cause even to say average is to say this shit would stand up as a regular single player release like that Homefront game. Keep in mind, I personally thing Homefront sucks, but shit THATS not what we are getting from a BF campaign or something lol. I like the Mirrors Edge series and I actually like Battlefront 2's single player, they should just have that part of DICE 100% focus on SINGLE PLAYER TITLES if they fucking want them to get better, instead of this half in, half out crap. So if the other half is working on Battlefront 3's single player mode or another Mirror's Edge I personally have nothing against that, simply that it had no real place in Battlefield and I don't see a reason for the community to keep asking for something that has genreally always been poorly received and an afterthought.So respect to EA for even continuing that for so many years, even with Acitivsion was out here getting rid of their single player even though those titles overwhelming have better single player modes. They tried, even with Activision got rid of the mode for a Call Of Duty, we still got a BF with that mode, I don't think people have much of a place to really bitch about this now, when the publisher put in that effort for those who even fucking wanted that mode and for years now, it has been the least played thing in a BF title. When teams worked hard to try to do something to add value to it, it simply wasn't received well almost every time. They spent close to 13 years trying, it was never really liked. I think that is really, really fair. Folks need to just let this shit go. How much fucking fails do we really need and money wasted for a mode not played solely for someone to bitch about it being bad, and then bitch about it being gone lol. I felt this way when folks kept crying about the whole Resistance Fall Of man thing, so shit...5 titles isn't enough? I feel with shit like this, a extremely fair amount of time was given to judge if such a thing should continue.
Killer8
I'd assume so. The fact that the game was delayed so they can work on it more, the fact that its cross gen on like 6 platforms shows they are not skimping out on this one. I don't even know how much that SP mode really set them back tbh.
Last edited:
It would obviously be better if the game had a SP mode. More options, no downside.
News flash: I'm way older than 14 and have played every Battlefield game.
Anyone who claim the game is somehow better without a campaign mode is either trolling or a complete idiot
Sybrix
Member
Your telling me you would have preferred BF2 to have had resources taken away from MP and dedicated to a SP mode?
CuteFaceJay
Member
The people kicking off about no campaign are having a laugh. No one buys Battlefield games for a campaign FACT.
It's a non-issue. Just means their focus is actually going to be on the BATTLEFIELD.
It's a non-issue. Just means their focus is actually going to be on the BATTLEFIELD.
Moonjt9
No Silksong? = Delivering the pain.
I don’t care about no campaign. I care about a $70 price tag with each additional piece of content costing more money. That’s absurd. It’s a free to play game masquerading as a $70 premium standalone experience. If you’re charging that much money up front, you better have a single player, or all the content available, or else what’s the point besides gouging the customers?
those old battlefields were one and done purchases so your argument doesn’t hold water.
those old battlefields were one and done purchases so your argument doesn’t hold water.
Last edited:
secondspace
Member
I've not been a fan of the campaign since BC2 and I'm not even sure going back to that would work. There has been a campaign on consoles since Modern Combat though. That's the same year as BF2. People need to look at the sales and the MP population as well, there's no way everyone that was buying the game from BF3 on was playing the MP, not for any length of time anyway. These games sold more than 10 million copies.
ZywyPL
Banned
They didn't cost 70€ either....
Long story short, I won't give EA a pass for their usual shitty practices just because it's Battlefield.
Although it's not just the lack of SP campaign alone that people have issues with, it's the combination of 70€ (main issue), the lack of MP content given it's a MP-only game and they've put all the effort into it over many years, and EA talking about DLCs already before even showing the game itself. BF fanatics will as always desperately defend the game, just like they did with BF1 and BFV, but as always, the market will verify.
I personally see absolutely zero reason for both SP- and MP-only games to cost 70€, give me the full package, then we'll talk, half the package, half the price, fair and simple. Especially for MP games when they'll milk the shit out of it through DLCs and MTX anyway. At 40€ they would already have 10M pre-orders, but they shot themselves with the foot with that price tag.
Long story short, I won't give EA a pass for their usual shitty practices just because it's Battlefield.
Although it's not just the lack of SP campaign alone that people have issues with, it's the combination of 70€ (main issue), the lack of MP content given it's a MP-only game and they've put all the effort into it over many years, and EA talking about DLCs already before even showing the game itself. BF fanatics will as always desperately defend the game, just like they did with BF1 and BFV, but as always, the market will verify.
I personally see absolutely zero reason for both SP- and MP-only games to cost 70€, give me the full package, then we'll talk, half the package, half the price, fair and simple. Especially for MP games when they'll milk the shit out of it through DLCs and MTX anyway. At 40€ they would already have 10M pre-orders, but they shot themselves with the foot with that price tag.
VN1X
Banned
That's some very reasonable argumentation there.
STARSBarry
Gold Member
Ah yes battlefield 1942 never had any singleplayer so it's good to see EA putting all there effort into the multiplayer....
Wait 7 maps? Didn't 1942 have 17 at launch and patch up to over 30 for free even before the paid exspantion's?
Do you think EA are going to give out free maps or are they going to be part of the "Seasons" splitting the community?
This just sounds like there supplying the same amount of content as BF3 or 4 at launch (yes I know both 3 and 4 launched with more than 7 maps), charging more and supplying less... that's why people are complaining, because it just dousent add up, yes there skipping singleplayer... but what are they adding to the consumer for that additional £20 they are charging instead of it?
So far the answer is nothing, its early days but the only thing this whining can result in is more content for consumers, so why are people irritated about the complaints? Unless you enjoy getting less for more.
Wait 7 maps? Didn't 1942 have 17 at launch and patch up to over 30 for free even before the paid exspantion's?
Do you think EA are going to give out free maps or are they going to be part of the "Seasons" splitting the community?
This just sounds like there supplying the same amount of content as BF3 or 4 at launch (yes I know both 3 and 4 launched with more than 7 maps), charging more and supplying less... that's why people are complaining, because it just dousent add up, yes there skipping singleplayer... but what are they adding to the consumer for that additional £20 they are charging instead of it?
So far the answer is nothing, its early days but the only thing this whining can result in is more content for consumers, so why are people irritated about the complaints? Unless you enjoy getting less for more.
Last edited:
Altares13th
Member
Yes, the only BF I didn't play.
EDMIX
Member
The maps are free.....
Those old Battlefields also had PAID expansion packs bud, calling it DLC based on the distribution doesn't fucking change that it was content proved for a price after the fact. On disk or digital is irrelevant, those where as much "one and done purchases" as this one is. You didn't need to fucking buy those packs for 1942 or BF2 etc, you don't need to buy any of the cosmetic shit in BF2024....
Again....the maps are FREE for BF 2042, so I'll take getting free maps any day, I don't buy any of that cosmetic shit, thus don't care. Its a non-issue and nothing to cry over.
STARSBarry
"Do you think EA are going to give out free maps" Well yes, they did for BFV, Battlefront 2, BF4, almost every BF title btw got a series of free maps.... I don't think 1 got zero free maps, so......yes. I expect it to be like what they've done in the past in regards to factually giving out free maps. Let me guess, you never looked any of this up and ran on the whole "EA bad" idea instead of actually looking it up or asking those who play this series? 
"the premium tier will apparently only offer cosmetic items and never maps. "
Battlefield 2042 Battle Pass Explained, Free Vs. Premium
There are two Battle Pass options for Battlefield 2042, but what does that actually mean? Let's dive in.
www.gameinformer.com
"That means all players get the same maps, the same Specialists, the same weapons, the same everything"
So....either actually read on the facts regarding free maps by the publisher or proceed to goal post, as clearly what your are saying is factually wrong. At one point, EA had all the maps to BF4 for free, BF1 launched with free maps that came a few months after launch, every BF has has a series of free maps man it up before saying this shit, many love this whole "EA bad" thing and proceed to just make shit up. I have no issue if someone has something against any publisher, developer etc, except make it factual, provide evidence and make it make sense.
This just sounds like people looking for shit to complain about.
Last edited:
Silent Viper
Banned
Low life trolls who grew up playing COD MW 1 and beyond complaining about it.
I request mods anyone bitching about 70$ price tag and SP should be banned. 70$ is new norm thanks to Sony and its here to stay and we should accept it
packy34
Member
Except there is a theoretical downside - on one hand, DICE could spend a lot of time and resources on a 4 - 6 hour campaign that most people will forget or not play at all, or they could scrap that entirely and put those resources into the part of the game people actually play and make it that much better.
balls of snow
Member
They need more maps really. 7 gigantic maps and a handful of ordinary bf maps with the weather shit on. New modes can go cancel yourself because all I want is conquest.
nightmare-slain
Member
i remember playing a lot of Battlefield 2 vs bots. i loved that game. the only Battlefield campaign i somewhat enjoyed was BF3. the rest i either rushed through or ignored. DICE should just stick to what they do best and make great multiplayer games. i'm glad they ditched the campaign.
Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
Did those games retail for $70 with announced plans for MTX and paid battle passes?
GamesDontSuck
Member
I would be the same. I enjoyed BF3 / 4 campaign but didn't quite feel the same about BF1 or BF5. The short stories thing did nothing for me.
I guess we shall all find out if the lack of a campaign is a good thing or a bad thing. Should BF2042 be an amazing MP game that also harks back to BF3/4 then clearly the lack of a campaign was resources better spent. Should the game be mediocre or lacking, then the absence of a campaign was a bad choice. Less bang for your buck. We will find out in October.
Last edited:
Revolutionary
Member
Those three games had the worst single player component in the Battlefield series, yes. That's why they started to go in a different direction with Bad Company, because people WANTED a proper campaign. Problem is, DICE has never been good at it and now they're giving up on it. You're basically applauding them for giving up on making a good campaign
tvdaXD
Member
On top of that, they only see the number of maps and not the size and have already decided that's not good enough without having seen any of it... Maps will be added for free for sure too, and the price, well, that's normal in my book. Everything gets more and more expensive, games have been staying at €60,- for a long time. So another €10 on top just means one visit less to the McDonalds.
ZywyPL
Banned
Not everyone will like every map, as always, that why people complain. A mere 7 maps mean you'll probably absolutely love just 1 map, like another 1 or 2, and you'll be skipping all the rest which you won't find attractive to play. And by playing just 2-3 maps over and over again you'll burn out really quickly. So as always, the more the better, the bigger chance for more maps that you'll enjoy.
MaximusPayne
Member
Maybe people are just upset that they will be getting charged $70 for a 7 map multiplayer game. I mean the past years have introduced more for a lower price. Just a thought.
SaturnSaturn
Member
1942 was not fully priced, also 1942 is a dope game, i still play it to this day, the new battlefield will probably be buggy unfinished trash as always, that they expect you to pay out of your nose for.
Last edited:
ResilientBanana
Member
(7) 128 player maps with air, land and sea vehicles along with mountains of customization
SantaC
Gold Member
The maps in bf2042 is three times larger than past games
MiguelItUp
Member
Yuuup. Vietnam as well, and they all sold really, really well. Enough to have various expansion packs, etc.
When 1942 first launched it was $50 and multiplayer only, which was HUGE back thing because internet still wasn't readily available for everyone. So, folks didn't like the idea of it all together. But they DID have the ability to play multiplayer with bots, so people still enjoyed it in the long run. The tech and experience was also super wild at the time, so the response was incredibly positive.
Now, yeah, times HAVE changed a LOT. Being 37 and playing video games since I was 4/5, I'm well aware lmao. But the core changes revolve around the tech and hardware involved, internet being more common these days, and the price of AAA games have gone up. That's really it without getting into the nitty gritty.
PC game prices are still cheaper than anything else ATM, especially since very sites undercut MSRP. So I don't really feel bothered by the pricing at all since I primarily play on PC. But I understand the woes of next-gen players, it DOES suck. Returnal on PS5 being a rogue-like/rogue-lite and $70 was enough for me to say, "Nah, I'll wait." Because I've played some of the best games in that or similar genres (IMO) for $20-$30, lmao.
I think people just REALLY want to hate EA/DICE, which I can understand, but it truly is a shame. Because with what it LOOKS and SOUNDS like they're doing with 2042 sounds like some of the best stuff they've done in a bit with the Battlefield series. The worst part is the pricing, which isn't their fault, as they've always been a AAA dev and pub.
The game is multiplayer only, yes. But the seasons, and their content, is all free. So that's weapons, maps, specialists, etc. Y'know, game related things. Battle passes ARE paid for, but they've said they're nothing but cosmetics. So that means this Battlefield will be a single flat price with content that, if their roadmap is planned well, will last 2 years (or however long it's gonna be) until the next iteration. You want dumb icons, cards, and skins? Pay for them. That's it...
Also, people keep mentioning the 7 map thing, but it's already been stated that one of the maps is as big as PUBG's map. They take that one map and break it off into sections that act as different maps. All while looking and feeling like Battlefield maps. So, 7 of those is.... Actually quite a bit if they're about the same size as they say.
But people have gone on to say...
- No campaign? BAD!
- No BR? BAD!
- Not F2P? BAD!
We haven't even seen gameplay yet, lmao.
Sure, some could say, "WELL IT COULD'VE BEEN F2P!" but the thing is in order for it to be a F2P title, its development has to revolve around that. But why not pull a COD and do both?
Which is what it sounds like they're doing. They've said there WILL be a F2P component in the game, as well as cross-play, but that they'd be discussing it at a later date. All they've said is that there isn't a BR and they have no plans for a BR. Which I wholeheartedly respect.
While I'm onboard, I'm still hesitant about a number of things, like specialists not classes, etc. But I'll wait until I see it in actual motion.
When 1942 first launched it was $50 and multiplayer only, which was HUGE back thing because internet still wasn't readily available for everyone. So, folks didn't like the idea of it all together. But they DID have the ability to play multiplayer with bots, so people still enjoyed it in the long run. The tech and experience was also super wild at the time, so the response was incredibly positive.
Now, yeah, times HAVE changed a LOT. Being 37 and playing video games since I was 4/5, I'm well aware lmao. But the core changes revolve around the tech and hardware involved, internet being more common these days, and the price of AAA games have gone up. That's really it without getting into the nitty gritty.
PC game prices are still cheaper than anything else ATM, especially since very sites undercut MSRP. So I don't really feel bothered by the pricing at all since I primarily play on PC. But I understand the woes of next-gen players, it DOES suck. Returnal on PS5 being a rogue-like/rogue-lite and $70 was enough for me to say, "Nah, I'll wait." Because I've played some of the best games in that or similar genres (IMO) for $20-$30, lmao.
I think people just REALLY want to hate EA/DICE, which I can understand, but it truly is a shame. Because with what it LOOKS and SOUNDS like they're doing with 2042 sounds like some of the best stuff they've done in a bit with the Battlefield series. The worst part is the pricing, which isn't their fault, as they've always been a AAA dev and pub.
The game is multiplayer only, yes. But the seasons, and their content, is all free. So that's weapons, maps, specialists, etc. Y'know, game related things. Battle passes ARE paid for, but they've said they're nothing but cosmetics. So that means this Battlefield will be a single flat price with content that, if their roadmap is planned well, will last 2 years (or however long it's gonna be) until the next iteration. You want dumb icons, cards, and skins? Pay for them. That's it...
Also, people keep mentioning the 7 map thing, but it's already been stated that one of the maps is as big as PUBG's map. They take that one map and break it off into sections that act as different maps. All while looking and feeling like Battlefield maps. So, 7 of those is.... Actually quite a bit if they're about the same size as they say.
But people have gone on to say...
- No campaign? BAD!
- No BR? BAD!
- Not F2P? BAD!
We haven't even seen gameplay yet, lmao.
Sure, some could say, "WELL IT COULD'VE BEEN F2P!" but the thing is in order for it to be a F2P title, its development has to revolve around that. But why not pull a COD and do both?
Which is what it sounds like they're doing. They've said there WILL be a F2P component in the game, as well as cross-play, but that they'd be discussing it at a later date. All they've said is that there isn't a BR and they have no plans for a BR. Which I wholeheartedly respect.
While I'm onboard, I'm still hesitant about a number of things, like specialists not classes, etc. But I'll wait until I see it in actual motion.
Last edited:
SCB3
Member
The thing is, I've never talked to anyone or seen people discussing the SP of any BF game, it started as a MP game and I've always considered it so, I mean the apparently tried with V and 1, but those were apparently some over the top, woke bullshit set in WW1 and 2, so who knows
Anyway, that trailer looked fun, can't wait to see more, not really touched a BF game since 1 and 1943 before that, but lots of fond memories of 1942 and the Bad Company series
Anyway, that trailer looked fun, can't wait to see more, not really touched a BF game since 1 and 1943 before that, but lots of fond memories of 1942 and the Bad Company series
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
People shocked that a £70 game has no campaign (something that's been included in the series since Bad Company 2008) = Complete Idiots/Trolls/15 year olds, haven't experienced BF before BF1...?
People defending a £70 game with no Compaign = ?
I think you have your peoples mixed up
Last edited:
Mediocre Arachno-Lad
Member
Oh man, remember when y'all used this exact argument about the barebones Black Ops 4?
Yeah, those "resources" are totally gonna get used for the greater good and not just gonna get pocketed by EA execs while we get the same MP portion that we'd get either way.
Swear on me mum.
3 modes. 7 maps. Playercounts lower than F2P Warzone. Nothing groundbreaking was shown at their big reveal trailer.
What part of this screams big effort to you people?
Some will say "but we've not seen the good stuff yet". Well, why didn't they show good stuff at the world premier trailer which they spent months hyping up, then?
We don't have a standard feature that our direct competitors do because were too shit to do it, were going to charge full price anyway.
Pretty bad excuse. BC2, still their best game since migrating off pc had a decent single player, DICE just sucks now. Beyond all that EA is a scum fuck company and if this sells well they will take it as an excuse to lower investment in future releases yet charge ever more.
Pretty bad excuse. BC2, still their best game since migrating off pc had a decent single player, DICE just sucks now. Beyond all that EA is a scum fuck company and if this sells well they will take it as an excuse to lower investment in future releases yet charge ever more.
Joshmyersbv
Member
If you look at what Activision is doing with Call of Duty and compare it to what Battlefield has to offer and its not even close. With Call of Duty you get zombies, a full length campaign, multiplayer and Warzone that ties in the new CoD with a battle pass.
With Battlefield you get multiplayer with a battle pass that gives you a story somewhat. Considering how most people on here say Battlefield campaigns suck, I'm not holding my breath. All for $70...... Good luck selling that EA lol.
With Battlefield you get multiplayer with a battle pass that gives you a story somewhat. Considering how most people on here say Battlefield campaigns suck, I'm not holding my breath. All for $70...... Good luck selling that EA lol.
packy34
Member
EA has their own show in July. This is literally how they've always shown new Battlefield games.
I'm not even going to acknowledge the Black Ops 4 whataboutism. There has always been a considerable difference in quality + effort between DICE and Activision's studios (apart from BFV, sure. They fucked that one up).
But still - you haven't explained why a short, forgettable single player campaign would make the game a better value - even if we assume DICE does absolutely nothing with the extra resources from cutting it (which they will). Why would this suddenly make the price tag more palatable? I legitimately do not understand.
Mediocre Arachno-Lad
Member
They've always shown new Battlefield games by demonstrating new jaw-dropping tech. Which is nowhere to be seen in the new BF trailer. Just self-fellation via re-enacting old BF gameplay highlights.
This is literally the most different BF trailer they've ever done. And by different I mean the most desperate, unremarkable and boring.
Wow, some poorly animated guy parachutes, some gate falls down, some dudes fight in a shipping container, some jets flying around, also a tornado.
If not for BF title card, I'd assume it was some Chinese F2P shooter.
Calling past experiences that are still fresh in memory "whataboutism" is so retarded, I can't even.
DICE has been in the business of selling minimal viable product at full price for the last 2 installments of BF series. Now that they've axed even more content we're supposed to believe we, the players, are the ones benefitting from it?
What do you base these assertions on?
Other than blind faith in EA's (of all fucking people) ethical practices.
Do you have a precedent for big studios scrapping large chunks of content to end up with a more complete game in the end by repurposing these newly freed up "resources"?
Titanfall 1? Overwatch? Dragon Age 2? Stalker? Destiny? W3 Reforged? Maybe MGS5?
Don't let me catch you crying about lack of content for your $70 when I'm inevitably gonna end up right.
Last edited:
Relativ9
Member
Depends on the multiplayer I guess, 128 player games on super detailed and dense maps with a sandbox amount of options and tools to play with, enviromental destruction and evolving level layout (levolution), ect is theoretically way more than most other multiplayer modes ever do (if they get it right) so it's not like an equivalent amount of work isn't going into it.
TheAssist
Member
I really dont need a SP mode in a BF game.
However, I think there are ways to make a good and quite unique SP experience with the BF formula. Its just that they converted their very open multiplayer system to a strictly linear experience.
I mean just put the player on one of these maps, put some decent number of bots in it and fill the map with somewhat interesting objectives that the player can achieve in various different and creative ways. Think of it as the Hitman of shooters.
For example: They've shown this big stadium. Maybe in the single player campaign thats is a strategic target because some people use it as a weapons storage area or some such McGuffin.
So how do you destroy it? The fuck who cares, its Battlefield. Drive in with a tank and destroy the support pillars. Go in on foot and have some close quarter shoot outs and set up some bombs. Steal a frigging bomber from a highly secured air base and drop some bombs on it. Take a big transport helicopter, fill it up with buggies with loads of TNT on them, drop the buggies from the helicopter into the stadium and let the TNT explode. This obviously wont work, so you ram the whole helicopter into the stadium, at which point everyone and their mother knows youre there and you start improvising. And by improvising I mean you call an artillery strike that turns the whole area to smithereens and you have to get the hell out of there BF2142 Titan style.
There are ways to make a good Battlefield campaign, but I dont think DICE really have it in them to make it happen. So I rather have them focus on what they are competent at, so they dont waste time and money on something unnecessary.
However, I think there are ways to make a good and quite unique SP experience with the BF formula. Its just that they converted their very open multiplayer system to a strictly linear experience.
I mean just put the player on one of these maps, put some decent number of bots in it and fill the map with somewhat interesting objectives that the player can achieve in various different and creative ways. Think of it as the Hitman of shooters.
For example: They've shown this big stadium. Maybe in the single player campaign thats is a strategic target because some people use it as a weapons storage area or some such McGuffin.
So how do you destroy it? The fuck who cares, its Battlefield. Drive in with a tank and destroy the support pillars. Go in on foot and have some close quarter shoot outs and set up some bombs. Steal a frigging bomber from a highly secured air base and drop some bombs on it. Take a big transport helicopter, fill it up with buggies with loads of TNT on them, drop the buggies from the helicopter into the stadium and let the TNT explode. This obviously wont work, so you ram the whole helicopter into the stadium, at which point everyone and their mother knows youre there and you start improvising. And by improvising I mean you call an artillery strike that turns the whole area to smithereens and you have to get the hell out of there BF2142 Titan style.
There are ways to make a good Battlefield campaign, but I dont think DICE really have it in them to make it happen. So I rather have them focus on what they are competent at, so they dont waste time and money on something unnecessary.