Star Wars Battlefront III

I agree that there should of been a SP campaign. I actually liked BF campaigns but a lot of peeps didn't.

But I don't agree the comparison between BF and Titanfall. It wasn't the lack of campaign that hurt Titanfall, it was that there wasn't much to the MP. It didn't have any lasting value. Basically, if Titanfall was an extensive SP game (and I would be totally interested in that), the MP would still be empty a year later.

Also, best comparison is BF1942. The grand daddy, which didn't have any SP at all. Battlefront has missions and stuff but BF1942, you could play MP with bots (which were incredibly dumb). It did well considering....and nobody had issues with the idea of getting a MP only game.

The difference is Battlefront isn't the first game in a new franchise, it's part of an existing franchise where all the rest of the games had SP campaigns. Furthermore, SW attracts a very different audience then just FPS fans and has always been very story driven. Heck, they are creating a Battlefront novel...

👆

Originally posted by ares834
The difference is Battlefront isn't the first game in a new franchise, it's part of an existing franchise where all the rest of the games had SP campaigns. Furthermore, SW attracts a very different audience then just FPS fans and has always been very story driven. Heck, they are creating a Battlefront novel...

So?

Battlefront 2 came out 10 years ago. Times change. Rainbow Six Siege does the same thing.

I wish there was a SP campaign but it is what it is. Don't buy it.

But who knows how many people will play the SP campaign....(and yes, I know you will) But I assume EA has the data that suggest most Battlefield players haven't touched the campaigns.

They would probably be right that most people haven't touched the Battlefield campaigns.

The hilarity stems from the cause- EA sees that people don't play BF SP and thinks "well I guess we might as well not even bother", ignoring the very likely possibility that the reason why people don't play the campaigns is because they're dog-shit.

Battlefield, like every other "gritty realistic FPS" in the vein of BF/CoD etc has fallen into the trap of having 5 hour long Tom Clancy abortions consisting of you running through a corridor playing pop-the-weasel on brown and russian NPC's with a bag of QTE's and scripted events thrown in to to "mix things up". They're shit, and made with zero creativity. I'd be willing to bet you that the numbers of people who complete the campaigns for Halo, or Crysis or Farcry are vastly higher than what EA/Activision sees for their shitty campaigns, and that's because the developers of those games actually make a ****ing campaign that's meant to be enjoyed (or at least try to), rather than simply being tacked on for the sake of tradition.

EA Games doesn't get a pass for no one playing their shitty SP because the situation they've found themselves in is entirely of their own design. Bioshock: Infinite and Borderlands 2 sold 11+ million copies each. Obviously the market and demand is there, if you're willing to put the effort into it.

Originally posted by Smasandian
So?

Battlefront 2 came out 10 years ago. Times change. Rainbow Six Siege does the same thing.

I wish there was a SP campaign but it is what it is. Don't buy it.

But who knows how many people will play the SP campaign....(and yes, I know you will) But I assume EA has the data that suggest most Battlefield players haven't touched the campaigns.

Let me relieve you of a false notion, Battlefront is not Battlefield.

And I don't find "times change" as an adequate excuse for reducing the features of a game.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
They would probably be right that most people haven't touched the Battlefield campaigns.

The hilarity stems from the cause- EA sees that people don't play BF SP and thinks "well I guess we might as well not even bother", ignoring the very likely possibility that the reason why people don't play the campaigns is because they're dog-shit.

Battlefield, like every other "gritty realistic FPS" in the vein of BF/CoD etc has fallen into the trap of having 5 hour long Tom Clancy abortions consisting of you running through a corridor playing pop-the-weasel on brown and russian NPC's with a bag of QTE's and scripted events thrown in to to "mix things up". They're shit, and made with zero creativity. I'd be willing to bet you that the numbers of people who complete the campaigns for Halo, or Crysis or Farcry are vastly higher than what EA/Activision sees for their shitty campaigns, and that's because the developers of those games actually make a ****ing campaign that's meant to be enjoyed (or at least try to), rather than simply being tacked on for the sake of tradition.

EA Games doesn't get a pass for no one playing their shitty SP because the situation they've found themselves in is entirely of their own design. Bioshock: Infinite and Borderlands 2 sold 11+ million copies each. Obviously the market and demand is there, if you're willing to put the effort into it.

👆

And as much as people seem to like Siege, I can guarantee pretty much everyone would have rather had Rainbow Six: Patriots for Xbox One/PS4 than Siege.

Originally posted by ares834
Let me relieve you of a false notion, Battlefront is not Battlefield.

And I don't find "times change" as an adequate excuse for reducing the features of a game.

👆

Ten years ago, yes. But DICE/EA is making the game, it's probably going to play like Battlefield.

I'm not making an excuse for them. I'm just saying that the idea of MP only game is not new. There should be a campaign but there isn't, no point of complaining anymore. Don't buy it.

Originally posted by KingD19
And as much as people seem to like Siege, I can guarantee pretty much everyone would have rather had Rainbow Six: Patriots for Xbox One/PS4 than Siege.

I agree. I wish they continued with Patriots.

Originally posted by Smasandian
There should be a campaign but there isn't, no point of complaining anymore.

We had this exact conversation when it was announced that the Xbone was moving to a digital-only format with no disks- you claimed that there was no point in being negative about it because "that's just the way it is", and then a few months later, after enough people bitched about it, Microsoft relented and implemented disk support.

1. Do you realize that the people who are complacent and take the industry's butt-****ing with silence are 100% responsible for the ****ing occurring in the first place?

2. Do you realize that this is a discussion board, and its entire existence centers around its members sharing feelings and opinions on a variety of topics? I'm sure there are some Battlefront 3 fan-pages you can hang out on if you're looking for an echo-chamber where nobody's opinion on the matter differs from yours.

3. Have you considered that perhaps your annoyance at all this negativity should be directed at EA games and their bullshit policies, instead of at the gamers who are watching their beloved franchises get shit on for the sake of nothing but greed? We all know that the real reason for why there's no SP for this stems largely from the fact that EA hates single-player in general. It's much easier to combat piracy and peddle DLC like map-packs through multiplayer modes then single-player ones.

1. Don't buy the ****ing game. That will show them. But we all know that's not the case. ***** and moan and then when it comes out, they ****ing buy it. Look at MGS Ground Zeroes, every ****ing CoD game, and hell, I remember MW2 for the PC was announced and they took out dedicated servers out of the game, people bitched and moaned and when released, it was number 1 played game on Steam.

2.That's a bullshit statement. Your basically saying, "if you don't agree with the populist opinion, **** you and get out of this thread". It's not a discussion board then, it's a circle jerk.

3. Maybe you are right. Doesn't matter. Either I buy the game or not. If it doesn't turn out well (and it might considering BF4 horrible launch) then I won't ****ing buy it.

My opinion isn't that we should all take dick from EA. My opinion is that the game should include a SP campaign and that will influence my decision to buy the ****ing thing. Think about an election for prime minister....I don't agree with the policies of one candidate, instead of yelling at him/her to change it, I won't ****ing vote for him. That's how you get your point across.

Let's see if this scenario is true.

"We want campaign" - fans
"Well, there isn't one because people don't play it" - EA
"**** you EA" - fans
"I would like to purchase Battlefront 3" - fan sto EB employee
"Well I knew they would purchase it" - EA

Originally posted by Tzeentch
They would probably be right that most people haven't touched the Battlefield campaigns.

The hilarity stems from the cause- EA sees that people don't play BF SP and thinks "well I guess we might as well not even bother", ignoring the very likely possibility that the reason why people don't play the campaigns is because they're dog-shit.

The Battlefield 3 campaign was lame but but the others are good. Battlefield 4 had a good single player experience even if it was too short and The Bad company campaigns were both great.

The majority of the people i have encountered on, Call of Duty and Battlefield don't play the campaigns and they all say it's because they bought the game only for the multiplayer because they don't like playing single player.

I actually enjoyed most DICE SP campaigns. I never played Bad Company 1 but I remember liking the second game campaign.

I enjoyed both BF3 and BF4 campaign. Maybe it was the destructibility...

And I totally forgot BF2 does not have one as well.

But in the end, they should of done one for this game.

Originally posted by Smasandian
[B]1. Don't buy the ****ing game.

2.That's a bullshit statement. Your basically saying, "if you don't agree with the populist opinion, **** you and get out of this thread".

3. Maybe you are right. Doesn't matter. Either I buy the game or not. If it doesn't turn out well (and it might considering BF4 horrible launch) then I won't ****ing buy it.

My opinion isn't that we should all take dick from EA. My opinion is that the game should include a SP campaign and that will influence my decision to buy the ****ing thing. Think about an election for prime minister....I don't agree with the policies of one candidate, instead of yelling at him/her to change it, I won't ****ing vote for him. That's how you get your point across.

Let's see if this scenario is true.

"We want campaign" - fans
"Well, there isn't one because people don't play it" - EA
"**** you EA" - fans
"I would like to purchase Battlefront 3" - fan sto EB employee
"Well I knew they would purchase it" - EA

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
The Battlefield 3 campaign was lame but but the others are good. Battlefield 4 had a good single player experience even if it was too short and The Bad company campaigns were both great.

The majority of the people i have encountered on, Call of Duty and Battlefield don't play the campaigns and they all say it's because they bought the game only for the multiplayer because they don't like playing single player.

Actually, I haven't bought a CoD since the third one, and that was a year after release when it was like 20 bucks.

... because CoD's MP is now shit as well.

Originally posted by Smasandian
So?

Battlefront 2 came out 10 years ago. Times change. Rainbow Six Siege does the same thing.

I wish there was a SP campaign but it is what it is. Don't buy it.

But who knows how many people will play the SP campaign....(and yes, I know you will) But I assume EA has the data that suggest most Battlefield players haven't touched the campaigns.

I think we'll have to wait until we can play the game to see if it was worth excluding a single player campaign. I think it was a wasted opportunity because as someone else mentioned, i too believe that a SP campaign would bring in a large audience that aren't very interested in multiplayer. Other than the previous Battlefront games, nearly every Star Wars game has been a SP experience. Considering that episode 7 is releasing a month after, Battlefront, i think, from a business perspective, they should have done everything they can in order to cater to every demographic and type of gamer.

I dont know how much difference a SP campaign would have made in sales, i'm sure it wouldn't be a very significant one but it wouldn't have hurt and could have possibly introduced new gamers to multiplayer. As long as the game is actually finished and has substance i personally won't care much about the absence of a SP campaign. I'm sure we are going to have more SW games than we can tolerate soon enough.

For me... I have no problem admitting I'm not an elite gamer. When it comes to shooters, I'm not the best player on the field.

Yet when I used to play Battlefront, be it in instant action or galactic conquest, I used to get to try out all of the Jedi. I used to be able to try out the various vehicles and to actually get a decent amount of enjoyment out of trying them. I played the BF2 beta, and while it wasn't bad, it just didn't compare to split screen or the story mode for me.

Plus, the modding in BF2 was amazing.

I just don't see myself having as much fun in this game as I did in the others. I still have memories of being shot in the back by idiots wanting the banshee, who then proceeded to fly up about twenty feet before nose-diving in to the ground because they couldn't ****ing fly it.

A year ago, this was a must buy for me. Now, I'll probably just youtube it or something. It's more saddening than anything, imo.

I know I've said the game looks like shit and I'm certainly not going to buy it. 👆

Playing the Xbox One beta now, liking it so far.

I never played Battlefront but it doesn't feel like Battlefield too much. In fact, I kept on hitting the R key to reload!

On the PC, the graphics are very impressive. Very clear.