I only played BFront2 but I loved it's conquest and campaign. The narration was very solid and the levels were amazing. I loved playing that game and never even touched online. I always loved just doing my own story/play my own way.
Honestly don't care about single player. It's like when people b*tched about Titanfall not having a single player. You can cut the single player out of 95% of fps shooters with a multiplayer focus and not lose anything. I rarely every actually care about the single player in these (though Bad Company 2 was phucking awesome).
I have faith in DICEs ability to make an amazing multiplayer experience, and thats all that matters to me. This game will thrive for years off that alone.
The difference is Titanfall was a new Ip that always had that in mind. Battlefront is a series in which the single player was very important and loved by it's fanbase. It was never the kind of game battlefield is
Having blind faith in DICE is pretty hilarious considering Battlefield 4 was unplayable garbage for like three months and Hardline is just regular garbage.
Personally, I don't give a single **** about AT-AT's being on rails, as they've always basically been on rails. I don't care about lack of space battles either because the space battles in BF2 weren't real space battles anyway. My biggest worry is whether they're going to make the game in the style of "real" Battlefield or along the lines of Hardline, which was basically nothing more than a half-assed attempt to swipe market share from Call of Duty.
I want fully destructible environments, levolutions, clearly established "fronts" and for vehicles to play a critical role. I do not want to sprint in circles around a maze of a level with terrible lines of sight, getting shit on by campers and shot in the back over and over and over again while vehicles are mostly relegated to farming infantry and having no real impact on the battle. I do not want my guns to have gritty realistic physics, they should feel like ****ing badass laser guns.
For the love of god, EA. Do not force DICE to turn this into "Call of Duty in Spaaaaaaaaaaaaace... with some vehicles".
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Last edited by Tzeentch on Apr 22nd, 2015 at 12:28 AM
Gender: Male Location: In Luna's mane, chasing STAAARS!
So you're saying recreating the battle of Endor going from blowing up the shield generator and then going to the Death Star or if failing to protect the generator on Hoth and going to space protecting escape shuttles from enemy players in maps of such massive scale wouldn't tickle any nostalgic person's fancy? Have you even seen the alpha builds? They're amazing.
Judging by all these articles lately, DICE probably aborted that because it required work and they need to keep most of their reserves for the yet to be announced Battlefield 5.
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
That game didn't turn out to suck because of the lack of single player. It turned out to such because the multiplayer wasn't deep enough. Gameplay was on point, but it never changed and got stale. You think a single player would have changed that?
Battlefield on the other hand, along with every Call of Duty, can cut out the single player all-together and still be great. The single player in these kind of games are usually pointless, single-playthrough endeavors people have to push through to unlock a weapon they want in multi. or they never touch it. It's stupid. People buy these games for the multiplayer. I've always wanted DICE to cut out single player and devote all funds and manpower to perfecting the online. Now they're doing this (not for Battlefield, unfortunately), and its great.
For all of you saying "this isn't Battlefield", Battlefront has always been compared to Battlefield. This is another game that survives thanks to its online. The campaign in the first one sucked and could have been cut out all together. The second was actually pretty cool, but it doesn't change the fact that the meat of the experience was in multiplayer.
I understand some of you guys prefer single player experiences, but for those of us who actually like online multiplayer shooters, this is great news.
Cod, yes. I'm a sucker for zombies mode though. Battlefield, on the other hand, is great whether you think it is or not. This IS a general consensus, so way to be the wrong minority.
Never said why people buy them.
Ya, partly, but that's not why it survives (1 had a boring campaign, and 2 was cool but tedious after a while). You could cut these out and still have a fun multiplayer. Maybe even an even better multiplayer since all the focus would be on multiplayer alone.
And anyone and their mom that owned a ps2 had these games. You're not special for having played them. Literally every kid I knew back then that had a ps2 had Battlefront. Now I wouldn't call myself a fan (always hated the movies except for the original 3, and even they don't compare to Star Trek), but I owned and played them just like everyone else.
I don't know about any other possible criticisms since I rarely check this thread, but my original post was to defend the lack of single player, as was every following post. Don't push arguments on me I never made.
__________________
PWNT
Last edited by Arachnid1 on Apr 22nd, 2015 at 11:33 PM
It's upfront that there will not be a campaign. There is an offline mode (not sure what it entails) but there are plenty of examples of MP only games as while as SP only games.
As long as the game has enough content, I will be happy (and good as well...haha)
BF2 didn't survive on consoles because of the online, because when it came out the online was few and far between unless you were on PC.
It had so much to do that didn't need online, that it was very, very replayable.
I don't think it's unreasonable to want more of the same, or to want a single player option for all of the people that were still willing to buy the game even without wanting to play it online.
Sure it's not unreasonable, but its far from game killing. There are people that proclaimed this dead in the water the second that was put out, which I don't agree with. DICE knows how to make some ridiculously fun online multiplayer. They're the developers of the greatest online FPS series on the market. Battlefront is in great hands with them, at least in that respect.
I don't know, just some positive contrast to all the negativity so far
If they make good online, then that can only be a good thing. Given the issues with previous Battlefields though, I think there's reason to be worried even about that. Hopefully it's a much smoother release this time.
It's just sad how much the single player people are getting ignored, especially how the previous games in the series had so much for single players, or two people on one machine playing together.
The worry that this is going to be a reskinned Battlefront is a fair one, imo, but I hope it turns out to be unfounded.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 21st, 2015 09:19 PM
