BF4Central - All about Battlefield 4

DICE: singleplayer in BF3 was too linear and too controlling

20
The singleplayer portion will be improved in Battlefield 4, and will "prepare players for multiplayer", says DICE

DICE had taken a lot of flack for the singleplayer part of BF3, and they’re looking for fix that in Battlefield 4. According to an interview with DICE’s Karl-Magnus Troedsson, the singleplayer in BF3 was “too linear and too controlling of the player”. Previously, DICE said that Battlefield is no longer a multiplayer-only series, and that singleplayer is an important part of the game now.

This time with Battlefield 4, Troedsson says that DICE is taking “signature parts” of the multiplayer and bringing it into singleplayer. They plan to bring some of the “multiplayer sandbox” gameplay into the singleplayer, where the player can chose how to attack a certain objective. DICE is putting all focus into multiplayer and singleplayer, which is why there is no co-op in Battlefield 4.



Battlefield 4 singleplayerHowever, despite Troedsson’s promises, the 17-minute Battlefield 4 singleplayer demo looked quite a bit scripted — some have even parodied the countless cut-scenes and quicktime events.

Despite the Battlefield series being known as for its deep multiplayer, some players do appreciate the singleplayer part. Troedsson said that singleplayer is a great introduction for the multiplayer part, where controls and the weapons are the same. Which is a good idea for beginners, as multiplayer is very competitive in Battlefield. As Troedsson puts it “we prepare them for multiplayer”.

The Bad Company series did a lot better then it came to singleplayer, as players simply got an objective and were tasked to find the solution — they had a choice on how to attack, from what angle etc. In BF3, this was a lot more linear and scripted in order to serve the “cinematic story”, which took players out of the game. DICE is looking to add more freedom to the Battlefield 4 singleplayer.

Check out the full Battlefield 4 video interview below:

20 COMMENTS & TRACKBACKS

  1. WOOT FTW
    April 13th, 2013 at 4:11 pm

    I’m glad they admitted to that. BFBC1 had the most freedom. IN BFBC1 you could choose between taking a tank to get to the next objective or a light fast vehicle. Would you rather have strength over speed or vise versa. There were also bases in between the real, main objective. You could either get out and fight and have some fun there or bypass them and move onto the main objective. That most prepared the player for multiplayer because you got to use all the vehicles in the game. You also learned evasive maneuvers to avoid choppers.

  2. whatever
    April 13th, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    Hahaha, that’s a good one, DICE! You just keep talkin’ shit.

  3. TheHell..Really
    April 13th, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    I don’t get it:
    Who cares if they swap one-way tunnel levels with “open areas”?

    -The singleplayer plot is generic and forgetable
    -The allied and enemy AI is stupid
    -The difficulty is low (not counting awesome quicktime events aka “Press F to cut leg before enemy spot and shoot you!”)
    -Plot is totally seperated from Bad Company, BF3’s plot and all multiplayer universes, except BF4’s own multiplayer maps. Therefore the plot has no Impact to the BF frenchise whatsoever and will be completely replaced with BF5’s plot (of cutting someone’s Hand off)

    • schmectite
      April 14th, 2013 at 9:38 pm

      1-3: Really? I was unaware that you had played the BF4 singleplayer campaign already…

      4: If you’d actually watched the interview, you’d know that BF4 is set in the same universe as BF3. There will even be some recurring characters.

  4. killswitch
    April 13th, 2013 at 11:20 pm

    Everyones so quick to judge… cry babies.

    • Cheeseburger
      April 14th, 2013 at 3:14 am

      They probably care more about multiplayer then the singleplayer campain because Battlefield is a multiplayer only game, right?

      The singleplayer is a trap to get in more CoD-noobs.
      I believe you are on of those? :D

      Or no, your not:

      You care about the deep emotional story that Battlefield provides and will play it more then multiplayer? :D

      Well, choose, but you will look like a idiot either way, nobody cares about the tech demo campaign \o/

      • WOOT FTW
        April 14th, 2013 at 1:23 pm

        No. The single player is in there for the people who don’t have an Internet connection. They want to make as much money as possible from this game so they market it to everyone. It’s not about bringing in more COD people. Do you really think people will completely switch from COD to BF4 because it has a single player? They both have a single player campaign.

        EVERYONE STOP USING COD IN YOUR COMMENTS! They’re the next chuck Norris jokes. They were alright for the first month or so but two years latter and people are still going “COD sucks because BF4 is better!” It’s like a child describing their favorite super hero. I play both because they’re both great games. And here comes the hate toward me. “How can your play both? OMG you must be a noob from COD! Don’t ruin our game! Go away and play your stupid ‘copy and pasted’ MW4!” It’s nice being open minded when it comes to games and not following the clique of hate toward COD.

        • Cheeseburger
          April 14th, 2013 at 3:10 pm

          Wait, there are people who play Battlefield only for it’s singleplayer?

          Complaining about Battlefield becoming more and more CoD-oriented is not childish, that’s a logical marketing decision from EA.
          You WILL get more CoD-players into Battlefield when it has what they want.

          So:
          -Make social features simple and optional so the game is easy to excess
          -Simplified gameplay like no friendly fire, small maps, simplified vehicle controls

          Make a singleplayer campaign because CoD had one too. I’m not joking, why else should a multiplayer-only game now suddenly need a campaign? Did the community ask for it? I don’t know but they did not ask for battlelog if I remember correctly.

          They even created a spinoff with Bad Company to try campaigns (with better results then BF3), so why now in BF3/4?

          Battlefield has no real “universe” in which you could tell a story, there are no recognisable characters who will stay till the next Battlefield, the plot is B-Movie-standards.

          Don’t get me wrong, I like Battlefield and will probably buy BF4 sometime after release, but it hurts to see how many ressources they kill just to build a small campaign which you will play for 4 hours and then never again, instead of using those ressources to polish and test multiplayer.

          • WOOT FTW
            April 14th, 2013 at 4:53 pm

            I got BFBC1 before I had an Xbox live account. I played the crap out of COD 2 but I wanted a more modern shooter. Since I knew that my parents would not let me get MW2 I went for BFBC1 the moment I saw it. So yeah, I’m now a Battlefield fan because of the single player.

          • CopyMan
            April 14th, 2013 at 5:14 pm

            @WOOT FTW:
            BFBC1 is not Battlefield, it’s another series.

            It’s both under the Battlefield banner but don’t you dare comparing BF3’s campaign with Bad Company 1/2.

        • whatever
          April 14th, 2013 at 4:55 pm

          Why stop with the CoD comments? Thanks to EA, DICE is targeting the CoD fanbase in an attempt to dethrone CoD. Everything in BF3 has been simplified and dumbed down in order to appeal to the CoD players (Close Quarters DLC, Operation Métro, Medic class having the best weapons, etc.) and they said they will provide a more ‘streamlined’ experience so that CoD players can transition more easily. All the comments mentioning CoD are very relevant, as slowly, but surely, Battlefield is becoming nothing more than a generic CoD-clone, just like in the Doom days when every FPS game used its engine, but none of them ever managed to dethrone it.

          Why do you think they are trying to introduce more MP elements into the SP? Because they know veteran BF players won’t bother with it as they only care about the MP and already know everything they need to know.

          It’s the CoD people who will need six hours worth of linear tutorials.

          • WOOT FTW
            April 15th, 2013 at 2:33 pm

            @Copyman
            So I can’t compare the newest Battlefield with the first Battlefield game to have a single player? Then how can I compare previous campaigns with the newest campaign? Should i throw my hands into the air and say “Yes! Battlefield 3 was the best because it was the first!”? It was not…

  5. Battlefield 4
    April 14th, 2013 at 4:48 am

    I like the idea for the single player.

  6. XuIIcTeP
    April 14th, 2013 at 10:13 am

    It will be nice to see onslaught mode in BF4)

    • mohammad
      April 14th, 2013 at 12:35 pm

      got that right !

  7. Cheeseburger
    April 14th, 2013 at 11:51 am

    I whould love to get a campaign that whould actually create a “Battlefield Universe” and explain why there is war, why the factions are fighting each other and how the conflict will end or (more likely) continue.

    The campaign of BF3 was just like a normal action movie, you get action and that’s about it.
    But that’s what multiplayer does in a much more awesome way then singleplayer could ever do.
    The campaign should be about the story. An epic story. “Press [F] to cut leg” just doesn’t… cut it to be such a story.

  8. No-lifer
    April 15th, 2013 at 7:38 am

    C’mon DICE! We (at least most of us) don’t care about the 5-10 hours of single player experience. If you really want to do something good, then release a game free from ridiculous bugs, problems like hit reg/detection.

  9. Dylan
    May 11th, 2013 at 6:02 am

    What I would like to see in a MMS like Battlefield and CoD is have a multiple path game (BO2 was beginning to get there) where you choices effect the story. Instant death because you didn’t save a character? How about having the story change completely?

    If they did this and cut all of the gimmicks (press F to cut leg, or press F to blow up building) then we could actually have some decent, memorable campaigns (they would also have to hire better storywriters, saying BF3’s story was emotional and compelling? Try playing Metal Gear Solid for a good story).

  10. Dylan
    May 11th, 2013 at 6:02 am

    What I would like to see in a MMS like Battlefield and CoD is have a multiple path game (BO2 was beginning to get there) where you choices effect the story. Instant death because you didn’t save a character? How about having the story change completely?

    If they did this and cut all of the gimmicks (press F to cut leg, or press F to blow up building) then we could actually have some decent, memorable campaigns (they would also have to hire better storywriters, saying BF3’s story was emotional and compelling? Try playing Metal Gear Solid for a good story).

  11. hepary
    July 4th, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    Well I DO care about the singleplayer mode. And I am happy to hear that they admitted their faults in the last BF3, because I have become sick of Call of Duty franchise since MW2.

    No improvements on whatsoever. I really pray that BF4 puts an end to CoD series. Perhaps then Activision will see that they need something newer than all that.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>