By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theshonen8899 on 16 March 2014
Edit Thread
fps_d0minat0r said:
theshonen8899 said:
I'm going to argue the exact opposite. More games should be multiplayer only. I paid $50 for Battlefield 2 back in the day and that game was rich and full of content. The fact that EA has seen fit to add a garbage single-player campaign to BF3 and BF4 instead of using those resources to add maps or more importantly POLISH THE GAME makes me furious.

I've paid for BF2, MAG, and many other multiplayer only games and I enjoyed them til the very end. It crushes me to see some of these go but I'd rather have a fleeting but better multiplayer experience than have a horrible, tacked on single-player addition.


The only problem is that by ditching the SP, resources will not be allocated to MP.

You are still only going to have the same number of maps. All it means is that there will be a yearly release and more DLC packs.

Its not a negotiation of any sort.


So you're saying that out of all the things they pulled from BF3 like commander mode, titan mode, air supriority, command rose, mods, bots, etc., there wouldn't be a single thing they could have brought back? Even though they eventually brought some features back for BF4 which implies BF3 either lacked resources or time? I have a hard time believing that instead of hiring people to build a single player campaign and distracting executives with single player related problems, they wouldn't hire just one more person or devote even a single minute more to multiplayer. In fact, they've gone out and said explicitly that the reason bots weren't included was specifically because of the single player campaign.

I don't know if you can tell but I really hate BF's campaigns. If just a little bit more effort could be given to multiplayer for those games instead of the awful campaigns, I would have taken it.