BF4Central - All about Battlefield 4

Singleplayer is important in Battlefield 4, says DICE

Battlefield is no longer a "multiplayer-only" series, says DICE.

Let’s face it, most hardcore Battlefield 4 players won’t touch the singleplayer campaign. Battlefield started out and became known as a multiplayer-only franchise. And it remained so until the series arrived on consoles, where singleplayer was added.

BF3 shipped with a singleplayer campaign which was universally panned as the worst part of the game. DICE acknowledged this in a recent interview, saying that the criticism of the singleplayer campaign “hurt us quite a lot”. Battlefield 4 singleplayer producer Tobias Dahl said that they set off to fix what was wrong with the campaign in BF3.

Dahl said in an interview that they don’t want “epic set pieces where you sit down and relax and put the controller away” in Battlefield 4. DICE is putting extra focus on the singleplayer campaign this time around, which is why Battlefield 4 won’t feature co-op — DICE opted to spend the resources making a better campaign instead.

He added that while the series is known for its multiplayer, the singleplayer has become an important part of the series. Dahl says that Battlefield 4 singleplayer will be equally important, because not everyone likes the competitiveness of the multiplayer. And the series is certainly known for its competitive, but rewarding multiplayer experience. A few months ago, we had the first Battlefield 4 petition, where a player wants DICE to add bots to the multiplayer.

Battlefield 4 was unveiled last week with a 17-minute singleplayer gameplay video, which DICE claims was a pre-alpha version. While most hardcore players will probably avoid the campaign altogether, at least it looks like Battlefield 4 singleplayer will be a big improvement from last time.

Battlefield 4 singleplayer

Sharing is caring!


  1. MP should be prioritized
    March 31st, 2013 at 10:28 am

    I like single player, but if a bad campaign means a great MP, and a good single player means an average MP, please prioritize the MP, but it is still nice to have a good campaign to back it up.

  2. N-Shifter
    March 31st, 2013 at 10:29 am

    I’ll be one of the “hardcore” Battlefield players that WILL be playing the campaign. Any Battlefield game that has had a campaign, I have always played it before venturing online.

  3. Battlefield vet
    March 31st, 2013 at 11:10 am

    Battlefield started out great known as an mp only game and pc exclusive game.

    scrap the singleplayer, having triggered events where a rocket narrowly misses your head or a plane explode above you is nowhere near as fun or excited as a the spontaneous randomness of what can happen in multiplayer.
    example.. type “battlefield 3” into youtube i doubt you will find 1 called “bf3 epic singleplayer moment”

    March 31st, 2013 at 12:32 pm

    The campaign needs to be in BF4, not for the sake of it, but for the people who don’t play online. That’s why it needs to be good. If someone is willing to spend $60 for BF4 just for the campaign it needs to be good. It shouldn’t be “epic” but fun. I want a game with good missions and not a good storyline. If I want storyline I will watch a movie or read a book. I want to be the character! That is why we have video games. Take out the the QuickTime events and the computer assistance (IE the chopper in the trailer. It shouldn’t completely level an area clear of enemies, but assist you). The game needs more freedom. In BFBC1 you could play the game anyway you want. There were vehicles that you could use if you didn’t want to get in a fire fight or you can bypass those and fight the enemies.

    • I Agree
      April 9th, 2013 at 2:42 pm

      i cryed with bfbc2 and bf3 campign because it’s like your watching a movie that plays slightly different each time but bfbc1 has a multplayer like singleplayer and include some witty banter like in bfbc1 i stoped just to listen to hagger’s tanks on a golf course comment

  5. Singelplayer should be as important as in Battlefield 2
    March 31st, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    The campaign is a forced feature in the series to cash in on more people.
    There is nothing inovative or interesting about it but the action that happens in it.

    Or saying it simple:
    Think back to the Battlefield 3 campaign, do you even remember the story of it in detail or what names the main characters had?

    No. And even if you do, what does it matter, they will create a new story with the next battlefield that has no connection to the old one.

    There is no real “Battlefield Universe” in which you see what the war is about in detail or what consequences your actions of winning it will be, as it will just reset to another setting and story.

  6. Johnny Neat
    March 31st, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    Why we need to beg DICE for features that are no brainers or standard at this point in the FPS genre is beyond me. I feel bots are a no brainer must have feature along with things like being able to back out of a match, easier ways to connect with other gamers and all maps on official servers (not developer selected one).

    • Yeah..right?
      March 31st, 2013 at 6:10 pm

      I believe that’s because they need to cover a lot of other tasks which the gamers didn’t ask for:

      -Origin support (aka no ingame voice chat, awesome online achievements, stats sharing and other features to justify these online features that no one asked for)

      -Tons of DLC: As mods are not allowed (because no profit), DICE needs to plan more content for upcoming DLC packs, even though the game itself isn’t even out yet

      -For the sake of efficient working, cancel out functions and features that are of no use for beeing sold as DLC or aren’t interesting for the casual group which is the new primary target of Battlefield, for example:

      -Bots, as there will be awesome singleplayer
      -Complicated command structures which whould be to difficult for Gamers who just want to jump right into the game (same for squad leaders who can gives orders or get leader-exclusive functions like spawn beacons etc.)
      -No mod tools, because that whould allow the community to create own content = competition for own DLC is not wanted
      -No need for a commo rose anymore as there will be now command structure arround it to be necessary

  7. roflsunriz
    April 1st, 2013 at 2:14 am

    Just put “Offline Multiplay with Bot mode” on BF4 !!

  8. Mrfixitt
    April 1st, 2013 at 12:16 pm

    I have purchased every battlefield franchise for pc since it first came out. Used to love it until the greed of corp. ownership got its hands on it(EA). Now greed has taken control. Just like many other things. Forget the single player mode and put the budget into puting a stop to the cheats. And maybe a little into continued support for previous titles. I’m sure a lot of you remember the long unsupported games like BF2142, BFBC and so on that don’t even get consideration let alone very much server space any more. BF3 will be no different once BF4 comes out. Try something new for a change. Take greed out of the equation. Make a great fair game. You’ll still make billions and you’ll have millions of happy fans out there.

  9. Ray
    June 11th, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    is The Game very exciting for me which has a multiplayer mode. i think its an improvement from the BF3 PC Series which has no Multiplayer in default. its good, most players stop playing BF3 when they did the campaign mode cuz no multiplayer mode available. Good Work DICE! LAN Multiplayer reminds me the Battlefield 2 🙂

    • Offline BOT Multiplay!!
      June 11th, 2013 at 5:04 pm

      Yeah… People bored when they finished the campaign storyline! You dont even think about…. Difficult Mode is just a crap? i mean, when you finished the game in easy mode, you need to improve and start the higher level? no! we need the offline multiplay such as Counter-Strike. its why that game still played by thousand people in the whole world.

  10. Lucas80
    June 19th, 2013 at 6:23 am

    I played Battlefield 2 for over 6 years (which had no campaign mode)
    I played Battlefield 3 for about 1 week… enough said

    former DICE fan

  11. gabriel
    August 30th, 2013 at 6:46 am

    battlefield need to play multiplayer offline. cpu and my chose battlefield 2.for practice.and most people dont have online.

  12. Heey
    November 8th, 2013 at 8:54 am

    Hey! Why would you take away the offline multiplayer mode?! Thats why i bought BF. I loved BF2 but think about how cool the game would be with the features from BF3 where you could blow up buildings and such. Add offline multiplayer and develope that together with the online multiplayer and i would start to buy your games again.

  13. antonioq
    December 17th, 2013 at 9:51 am

    Battlefield 2, the greatest shooter of all time. it had ZERO Singleplayer campaign. Why has everything been ruined since bf1942?!?!?! WHY dice, bring me back to the BATTLEFIELD- that’s all i want!

  14. Davy jones
    December 30th, 2013 at 4:00 pm

    Dice has become EA’s little bitch so just forget about it. They won’t change anything…. they have obviously begun to ignore their fanbase.

  15. Ahmad
    January 13th, 2014 at 9:30 pm

    I swear if they add bots, I’ll buy the game and the premium for my ps4.

  16. Ahmad Ahmad
    January 13th, 2014 at 9:31 pm

    I swear if they add bots, I’ll buy the game and the premium for my ps4 straight away.

  17. Former Fan
    January 27th, 2014 at 12:33 am

    Battlefield 4 is rubbish. I overpaid for a stupid campaign. Where are my bots? Where is my open world maps? Where is BATTLEFIELD?? This crap is just a call of duty clone. I hate dice now. EA’s little bitch.

  18. BF2 Forever Dude
    April 15th, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    I loved BF2 and got every expansion and would have been happy if they just updated the graphics and added the destructible environments but no. EA removed one of the best features ever for this type of game: Single player offline coop with bots.

    My friends and I would crank up the bots to over 128 and the tickets to over 2000 and just have an awesome free for all. Don’t you get it EA? A single player scripted campaign has zero replay value. I played BF2 for years but have no interest in these new games since you basically took all the fun out of the series. It’s a crying shame.

  19. lEAzy
    June 15th, 2014 at 11:12 pm

    Why do all that work to code good AI that makes the game accessible to everyone when they can just take a huge shortcut and sub real players instead while charging them to play online? If BF had offline MP then how could EA force us into buying their sequels? Executive logic at it’s worst when greed meets laziness, a partnership made in hell.

    How about scrapping the tacked on single player and allocate those resources into coding quality AI bots for offline MP that can actually be useful for training purposes to prepare for online. Offline bots are a much better compliment to the MP than some forgetable campaign with NO replay value!

    If Dice don’t include offline bots in their upcoming Battlefront game then we need to send EA/DICE a strong message. Yes, I’m talking boycott.

  20. Whis7le Boy
    June 16th, 2014 at 2:50 am

    Why would DICE/EA go out of their way to code good AI to make the multiplayer experience free and accessible when they can just skip the hard part and substitute AI for human players while charging them for it? Leaving out bots is not only easier for the devs but benefits the publishers agenda to keep the replay value of the game behind a paywall. It’s intended to be a failsafe to usher the consumer to buy into their next product. Because if Battlefield had offline bots then what is to force the player to buy the next game when the servers get shut down? EA’s take on this is if you want to keep having “fun” then you have to keep paying. Bots would be giving fun to us for free and that is sacrilidge to greedy corporate execs. It’s the perfect marriage of greed and lazyness, a match made in hell.

    In order to get offline bots into BF4 the devs would have to sacrifice two things, the single player campaign and destructible environments. The latter because bots can’t pathfind on the fly when programmed routes are cut off via destruction. Do you think DICE/EA are willing to make that sacrifice to Battlefield? They obviously aren’t, not at this point in the game anyway… for Battlefield, but what about Battlefront? I see SWBF as a new hope for DICE/EA or at least a new chance to prove to their critics and fans that they are capable and willing to make a departure from the opportunistic formula that has plagued BF and deliver that classic fun SWBF experience online and OFF. That is why I hope to god that SWBF DOESN”T have destruction because destruction and bots cannot co-exist with current tech.

  21. me
    December 8th, 2014 at 5:56 am

    If EA and Dice was smart they would cut out SP campaigns which suck anyways. Also saves them time and money in development to focus more on both multiplayer and single player (with AI bot support) as not everyone has internet 24/7 to multiplay on during those offline down times. I think most BF fans would agree with me on that. Also dont they see that the top selling games are open world? Gamers are getting away from the old linear (stuck on a track ride) for the free roam styles . They got it right with the Red Dead and GTA series so why not do it with BF ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *