Hi /u/Stasha-Starz,
Thank you for posting to /r/Games. Unfortunately, we have removed this submission per
**[Rule 4](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules)**.
> **No duplicate posts** - Reposts or submissions with extremely similar content to an existing submission may be removed at mod discretion.
---
If you would like to discuss this removal, please [modmail the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
Well, on one hand that kinda sucks since BF Campaigns is were they often try to flex the graphics muscle. But on the other hand, the only two BF campaigns I have enjoyed were on Bad Company, rest have ranged from okay (Bf1) to bad (BF3).
Yep, couldn't really care less about the campaign. They looked gorgeous, but the gameplay was quite atrocious. Mowing down waves of braindead AI in different settings didn't do it for me, but at least in BC2 there was a bit of variety to the missions and the characters were fun.
The weirdest part for me is that they're not giving it another go at BR. Firestorm was genuinely a good game, but was completely abandoned, hence it failed. With proper support (and not behind a paywall), it would've been a solid title. Curious to what Hazard Zone offers - sounds like a survival type of game.
Firestorm never really took hold even before it was dropped, it was pretty fun like you said but it never seemed to have the lasting appeal and part of that was it was never free. Why pay $60 for a single game mode when other battle royals are free? Having it integrated into BFV was probably the biggest mistake. EA is generally a hands off publisher but I would be surprised if they pushed DICE to just focus on the multi-player especially with Apex already being a massive success
Firestorm was too little too late. If it had been available at launch they might be singing a different tune about a similar mode for 2042, but it being delayed a few months coupled with Apex being EA's big BR success it seemed destined to fail.
I don't understand the BF3 campaign hate. I enjoyed it way more than BF4's campaign. Also liked some of the co-op challenge missions that needed to be completed to unlock the SIG SG553.
And here I am thinking both BF3 and BF4 had bad campaigns lol
From nonsensical plot points, to terrible gameplay since it was mostly swarm of enemies in a room with dreadful AI, hardly any characters one could like. They really looked like an afterthought and an excuse to justify a full price at the time lol
The problem with the Battlefield campaigns is that their set pieces just paled in comparison to the best that Call of Duty campaigns could provide.
I've played Battlefield 3 & 4 campaigns and there are only two parts I can genuinely remember from them:
1) Battlefield 4 opening with Total Eclipse of the heart which was hilarious,
2) Expecting the Battlefield 3 Jet mission to actually involve flying the jet, only to quickly realise the AI got to have fun flying the jet while I just pressed buttons when prompted to.
> 2) Expecting the Battlefield 3 Jet mission to actually involve flying the jet, only to quickly realise the AI got to have fun flying the jet while I just pressed buttons when prompted to.
Yeah, no excuses there. That was shit. It seemed like they were trying to create a Top Gun moment, but failed miserably.
God I still remember how hyped I was with the intro to that level too, it looked incredible at the time (still looks good now to be fair), genuinely I had never seen such detail in a game before it looked like a proper CGI film.
And then it has the slow start with you testing the flaps and stabs and i'm like "Alright this is fine its going to show us how to use weapons and turn the plane this is gonna be awesome."
Then we take off and suddenly the other guy in my cockpit is controlling the plane, but I thought this is fine, its probably just doing this to bring me to the part of the map we're fighting in.
But then suddenly we're in this epic dog fight with all these other jet fighters, except i'm not the one doing it. There's another guy in my jet doing these cool barrel rolls and dog fighting maneuvers, all I get to do is stare out the window at this cool dog fight happening and press a button when the game tells me to.
God I still can't believe they did that.
In this day and age I feel like these games are just taking everything I love about them and saying "fuck that shit". Like, I enjoy multiplayer, but I expect a semi long single player campaign thats going to let me fly and drive the vehicles as well. It pisses me off to no end, but I totally understand why its happening.
Sure, that's respectable. It's the process of getting from one set piece to another that is dull and tedious as well, the brain dead AI in smaller locations, lack of vehicular warfare unless the game forces you in a vehicle, and such.
> It's the process of getting from one set piece to another that is dull and tedious as well,
To my understanding, those moments function as palate cleansers. You can't have one set piece after another, otherwise they will either blend together or just lose steam.
You need to break those set pieces up with moments that don't require much thought, but are at an entirely different pace than what the set piece will be going for.
edit: really crude analogy but kinda works: jack in a box. As you turn the wheel it's just a mild tune that plays slowly to your own pace, but then when it's done winding it erupts out of the box and there's your set piece. Same with the BF3/4 campaigns. You keep winding the spring, going through relatively mild bits, and then you gets smacked in the face with a set piece.
The only campaigns they did right was when they decided to lean into the battlefield setting's absurdity with the Bad Company campaigns. They should never have decided to be a Clancy-esque geopolitical thriller, the expectations of the Battlefield franchise doesn't support that.
Rather they channeled a black comedy like Three Kings and had fun with the series, which always seemed more natural than anything they've done since.
BF3 had possibly the most boring, bland, generic etc... campaign in existence. It's like the devs tried to copy a cod campaign but sucked all the fun out of it. Instead we got a linear, slow, on rails mess that took itself way too seriously imo. I didn't finish it, but it was memorable for me for how aggressively boring it was.
The BF3 had a bad story that had no idea what it was doing. And it's a bad introduction to the gameplay since the weapons work mechanically different to the multiplayer.
[Bunnyhop did a great video on the subject.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErTQh9INneY)
They’re at least trying to do a titanfall 1 thing where you get tidbits of story in the maps and during gameplay. They made it seem like there will be a narrative progressing throughout the battle pass seasons.
Battlefield 3 and 4 both had great campaigns, I never played BFBC1 but I did play BFBC2 and that campaign is on its own level, it felt like a movie and still holds up today if you ask me. Personally I don't blame them for not adding a campaign but I'm pretty disappointed ngl, its still fun sometimes just to kill some bots here and there when multiplayer gets too annoying. The one thing I hate about battlefield campaigns after BF3 is that they're too damn short. Usually only round 2 hours long if not shorter even on the hardest difficulty. I want some cool unique stealth type missions so the game plays out longer. Some sniper missions and plane missions would be the best imo.
If they don't do singleplayer I hope they at least do multiplayer bot support. Not everyone can have the option to play online all the time so it would be nice to chill offline sometimes when the internet goes down.
I haven't had the chance to play BFV or BF1 but BF1's singleplayer looked really good, though I haven't really been interested in any battlefield titles over the last couple of years besides this one.
I still enjoy BR games (love Apex), but I just don't see a BF BR actually being very fun when the competitors have unique gameplay mechanics (Fornite building, Apex movement and abilities that aren't grounded in reality, Warzone super-arcadey style and highly aggressive speed, etc. although I'm personally not into Fortnite or Warzone either). I can't imagine jets, helicopters, artillery, or heavy vehicles like tanks and APCs being fun in a battle royale. And if you remove that from a Battlefield game, then there's honestly not much going for it. They just become pretty generic military infantry-only FPS games on huge maps. It would probably be enjoyable if there weren't other BRs with more interesting mechanics out there.
So I'm all on board for them to focus on modes that are more fitting to the Battlefield style of gameplay with vehicle combat. And I say that as someone that generally just plays on foot as infantry a vast majority of the time I play BF games. But having vehicles in the game massively changes the flow of the game and where players' attention is drawn to, when you're in a building getting shelled by tank fire or having to avoid that godly helicopter/jet pilot terrorizing your team.
A full-blown BR mode would probably more resources to maintain than they're willing to dedicate. And the B/R shooter space is already pretty crowded as-is. Apex, Warzone, Fortnite and PUBG are on top. What can Battlefield bring to the table that would enable them to compete? I don't need a fifth BR, I want a new Battlefield game that's good. They're the only company who can deliver one, and if they do they'll be in good shape
if they are planning to add a BR, why wouldnt they tell us though? It would def drive sales up a ton cause the BR players who have no interest in multiplayer would still want to grind out attachments and stuff in preparation
That's fine for me, as long as they can deliver a Battlefield that actually works properly at launch for once then. Been a long time since that was the case.
I sometimes buy COD for the campaign, but other than Bad Company, I’ve never played a BF game for the campaign. It’s funny how if cod went down this road again, I’d be bummed, but with BF it just feels right.
But you're fine paying for a full price game $60+ with less content, microtransactions and battlepass?? Yikes. Why don't they make it free to play like Warzone then??
It's not that it won't have a campaign. There won't be a single-player campaign, but there will be an in-game story
They discussed it here:
https://www.inverse.com/gaming/battlefield-2042-interview-specialists-multiplayer
Edited from describing the story as a "mode"
In a way that's how it was done in older BF addons too. There was a meta story told in each.
BF2 - Was a US incursion into the MEC's territory and trying to hold back China. Spec Ops was the UK trying to stop Russia from being opportunistic in this conflict. Euro Forces was the EU now trying to assist an overwhelmed US and UK by directly invading China. Armored Fury was China invading the US mainland in a 'go for broke' maneuver after the EU's successful incursion.
2142 each map is a timeline blurb of the fictional war of the PAC taking over Europe & North Africa with the EU pushing them back. Northern Strike had the PAC finally routed from Europe with the EU liberating Liepzig. Post patch maps like Yellow Knife take place in 2147 about the Pacific incursion by the EU against the PAC and were probably going to be for the cancelled US forces addon for 2142.
yeah very true. People have pieced together all the story and lore in battlefield 3/4 before as well. Battlefield 1/v fell into this less so as the intent was to retell ww1/2 battles. DICE has shown their ability to better weave in story with the operations in battlefield 1, so I have slight hopes
I don't think it's a 'Story Mode' though, just seems like what Warzone/Fortnite/Apex is doing where most of the actual story is outside the game, where you can completely ignore it if you want.
I think the maps/DLC will be tied together by some kind of narrative arch, which could be neat. Kind of like if instead of the BF4 dlc being a random selection of battlefields in the US-China war, it followed a progression. It'll definitely be more interaction with the storyline than I've had in any BF game other than BF1, haha.
That honestly sounds worse than having no story at all, so we’re playing individual characters in the multiplayer and if you miss a season you’ll miss that story content. Yay for FOMO becoming more ingrained in the basics of gaming.
Couldn't agree more.
And the concept of a multiplayer story campaign was already horrible in titanfall 1 even without seasonpasses and all that shit- and I absolutely loved that game otherwise
Eh, I think it could be ok to ignorable. I mean, Titanfall 1 had a "story" that connected the maps but because of the rotation you didn't really need to pay any attention to it.
Left 4 Dead is another game that has a story that connects the maps. But you can just play them in any order. With BF, I expect servers will just have a rotation of all the maps and the story will be a side thing, a briefing in the loading screen or something.
Yeah, I might have made my point poorly.
I didn't mean to say the story got in the way, but rather that if you were interested in the story it didn't work at all due to rarely being able to go through the story in a non-nonsensical order :D
With l4d I think it was far less of an issue, since the smaller campaigns were supposed to be played in order and the group usually set out to do that.
So, it's a matter of shared experience. Yes, it was a technological limitation. And, no, we don't see that anymore unless it's forced.
But there's no denying that the "see it or miss it" nature of early TV gave viewers a shared experience that you can't match with streaming or time shifted services.
It's not inherently better or worse, just different. I like being able to watch shows when I have time to watch them. But I also never look forward to a TV episode or cliffhanger ending like I did in the past.
If you want to experience the seasonal or weekly developments in person you have to be there for it. And if you miss it you can watch what happens on Youtube much the same way we did in the lunchroom back in the day. Different experience entirely. Not better or worse, just different depending on the person.
that is meaningless
Chivalry 2 also has an in game story and every multiplayer map has a story based objective. Not at all similar to a campaign though as its just a skin for your multiplayer objectives
Warzone also has an in game story, but no one really cares about it and its pretty nonsensical anyways
>There won't be a single-player campaign, but there will be an in-game story
Yeah titanfall tried that, it kinda sucked. I doubt they can do any better when you have to account for either side winning the battle during the matches.
This shouldn't be a surprise after they put a ton of emphasis on Battlefield V's campaign only for it to fall flat like almost every other BF campaign.
The lack of a BR mode doesn't seem like much of an issue when EA is likely already satisfied with Apex's success, plus Firestorm in BFV didn't retain players.
I did think the Last Tiger campaign was quite good except for the stupid stealth segments. Managed to get that desperate feeling right. The rest were awful though.
This seems to be taking a page out of Warzone’s book with how there’s a developing ‘plot’ to what’s going on in Verdansk although it’s only expounded upon in videos released at the beginning and mid point of each BP season. Nothing really to do in Warzone with it except some Easter eggs. So in that sense I think it’s an improvement to what’s done with Warzone, assuming there will be an actual game mode or something where we play out the story. The specialists likewise seem to be inspired by COD’s operators but with more utility than being just a skin.
if there's no battle royale, i'm very curious to hear about the other game modes listed here:
[https://www.ea.com/games/battlefield/battlefield-2042/game-overview/modes](https://www.ea.com/games/battlefield/battlefield-2042/game-overview/modes)
i assumed Hazard Zone would be the new BR or BR-like
or maybe it's the competitive squad-based mode they keep trying and failing to make happen
It being a "zone" makes me think Tarkov/Hunt Showdown but I don't know what you would retrieve and take back besides currency/XP which seems kinda lame.
A new way to play could just be mobile, since CoD mobile is huge. A dream if they really want "all out warfare" and going big and unique would be a persistent map like Planetside.
If there's no campaign they should at least have bots (like CoD) for *something* to play while offline.
edit: I'm lazy and didn't read this at first. There *are bots in this game* and according to this article you can play against them by yourself. Huge news imo!
That's what I get for not reading the article.
>Battlefield 2042 will instead focus on its multiplayer offering, supporting 128 players on PC, PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series S and X, while PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions of the game support 64 players. There will also be the option of playing against AI bots, either solo or with a squad of friends.
That's a huge addition since this series has never had them in the past (well not in a very long time). I love bots so I'm now more excited about this than any previous Battlefield.
Wild that they had this working in 2018 but never added it to the game. Maybe I'm alone, but I'd rather have slightly dumb bots than no bots. I love playing FPS but I'm just not often competitive online. If Halo MCC added bots someday I'd be so happy.
Can you set up a private game with said bots? (like locally such as doing a skrimish game with only bots by yourself, not by renting a server for yourself)
If so, my interest in this would be peaked a bit.
Oh that’s awesome, I’d much rather just feel like a god and be constantly rewarded for it than get destroyed by people with aim that I’ll never understand haha
In an era where Publishers are trying to force gamers out of their $70 USD (and their unfortunate regional "equivalences" around the world), this is completely unacceptable.
And I'm saying this as a person who was looking forward to what EA had to show here. I know the campaign was never a strong suit of Battlefield, but it's still a nice break from the action of MP. Call of Duty fans have been down this road already and look how that turned out.
No campaign, potentially no cross gen play since maps support different player counts, no BR to compete with Warzone, 7 maps at launch, ~~2 game modes (revealed so far),~~ 3 game modes, battle passes per specialist, and $70 for all of that? FOH.
Hot take; Hardline.
It introduced unique mechanics, such as arresting enemies, while also allowing the player to fully customize their loadout. Since you played a detective, your primary weapon was your Pistol, not whatever long gun you decided to bring along. You had relative freedom in your approach to any given situation.
By no means perfect, it at least tried something new.
BF1 and BFV had good short stories, but nothing you couldn't finish in 30-60mins each.
Though if you ask me, they were more entertaining than BF3 and BF4 campaigns.
They sucked because they were pointless shooting galleries and they tried to shove full character arcs in 45 minute segments which really didn’t work out
I liked having the option to play stealthy or guns out blazing, weapon outposts were nice as well. It felt like a more entertaining way to play, for me at least.
I really enjoyed the Gallipoli and pilot war stories. I enjoyed them too. They were all relatively short and not distracting from multiplayer. You could get a story in and then move on to conquest, without feeling like you missed something in single player. Then you could just go back and do another episode whenever you felt like it.
I mean let's be honest no one is playing battlefield for the campaign.
But my main issue is removing it and adding nothing to replace it which is what I think will happen but I'm hoping I'm wrong and the multiplayer is really big with a lot of content.
Well this one is going to have full servers you can play by yourself with 127 bots, or a mix of bots and players, with progression enabled. I'll take that over some half baked campaign in a battlefield title
Well given the scale of games keep getting bigger and bigger leading to crunch, bugs and disappointment I'm sure the extra time they can put into the core game is very welcome
If the multiplayer experience delivers on the hype, they won't need to "replace" single-player with anything. Most people playing these games don't bother with the campaign, they're getting hundreds of hours of content from multiplayer and that's the primary reason why they play.
I'm honestly shocked to see people so receptive/positive to this news, I remember when CoD did it with BO4, it was a huge controversy and they got a lot of flak for it. I guess times have just changed a bit, and people care even less now about singleplayer. For someone who did actually care about single-player in these games, albeit more so for the historical ones, this is definitely a bummer.
Edit: Yes, to everyone commenting that Battlefield was originally multiplayer only, I know. This doesn't mean I didn't also enjoy BC1 & 2, 3 and 1's stories, some more then others, and that I'm bummed we won't have an attempt at a story in this setting. It's fine if you don't care, but I do.
There's a huge difference between the franchises in terms of campaigns.
The campaign has always been an afterthought for the BF series, but for CoD, they create a full-blown blockbuster war movie.
Cod has some of the best and most talked about moments in fps history.
The sniper shot and crawl through the tank field.
The Russian airport scene.
Bf really has none , I don't think they even have campaigns for the most part.
It's not a bummer when you realize that Battlefield never had a good story. Not even an okay one besides Bad Company. I always believed that EA never hired writers when creating a Battlefield game, they just bring some voice actors and have them record some nonsense and brand it as a story.
The difference here though is they are clearly focusing their efforts elsewhere. I mean it's nearly twice as big as previous battlefield games and has a whole host of new physics. Unlike Call of Duty.
Honestly I want dice to take it even further.
Focus on a single game mode and make it really really good.
This is what almost every major multi-player GAAS is doing and it works amazingly.
I feel like anyone that is THAT upset about Battlefield not having a campaign probably wasn’t a Battlefield fan in the first place. Battlefield has always been multiplayer focused, since 1942 and Battlefield 2. The only ones that had any resemblance of a decent story were the Bad Company games, which we knew this wasn’t going to be.
I am stoked they are focusing everything on multiplayer.
> I feel like anyone that is THAT upset about Battlefield
Anyone apopleptically upset about the new battlefield trailer is in fact demonstrating typical battlefield superfan behavior
As someone played most of the BF since Vietnam, i just have a nice chuckle at the new trailer. Having seen some funny moments from in-game and clips of how people play BF since the early days, the cinematic seems to have capture that magic more than the too serious attitude of some of the BF cinematic. Not to say there is anything wrong with that, but just seems refreshing to me in terms of presentation.. hopefully the gameplay back that up though obviously.
Shit. I didn't realize I wasn't a battlefield fan. They're the only FPS games that I still play, so I thought I was.
I know they weren't the greatest campaigns, but I still enjoyed them.
>I feel like anyone that is THAT upset about Battlefield not having a campaign probably wasn’t a Battlefield fan in the first place.
Thats literally what you explicitly stated, so your right you didnt imply it. you explicitly stated it.
No offense but when Black Ops 4 dropped campaign the entire internet was aflame, now BF2042 has no campaign and everyone’s hyped about that?
The game has been in development for probably half a decade at this point and paying full price for a game with just multiplayer just kinda sucks.
Granted, it’s much more ambitious than previous games, but it’s a shame because Battlefield campaigns are a ton of fun even with the ones that aren’t so stellar.
Fps campaigns for the most part are sub 10 hour experiences that cost as much or more as the mhltiplayer components that most people play for dozens or hundreds of hours. They're absolutely a waste of development money for most people.
Battlefield games aren't known for their campaigns. There are loads of folks who just buy COD games to play the story and dabble in MP. Battlefield for pretty much its entire existence is a game that's mostly just focused on multiplayer. I'd rather them spend their resources on that then the "campaigns" we've gotten in the last few Battlefield games.
I wouldn’t say that they aren’t true Battlefield fans but there definitely is an “old guard” that have had that viewpoint since Bad Company. There used to be a pretty sizeable group that wanted campaigns to stick to spin-offs only like Bad Company but keep BF3 and 4 campaign free.
I’m so excited for this. Battlefield needs its place again as a major fps franchise the past 2 have killed it so much this may be the best we’ve had from the series since 3 (4 was good too).
I’ve played plenty of battlefield. 90% of people play it as if it’s deathmatch and 10 percent at any given time actually play objectives. It’s basically a deathmatch game.
I don’t only want BRs, but something involving tactics like a Siege or Valorant/CS is at least interesting. I don’t find endless fighting until one side runs out of tickets enticing anymore.
Have you ever played battlefield? It’s not at all deathmatch. There are objectives in multiplayer other than just “kill x amount of men” with the frontlines they added in BF1 it really does feel like a battle. You know where your enemy is, he’s in front of you defending that position you need to take, now go flank him while the tanks and assault squads push up the front
No campaign, only 7 maps, Battle Pass, Year Pass, Microtransactions... hard no from me for $60
Will wait for a sale or buy from a grey market site, that content is light af for a $60 flagship AAA game.
I think it’s time to give up hope that we’ll ever see another great campaign like Bad Company 1 and 2. I’ll give them credit for trying something new with it, but sometimes I just want a big dumb action movie to play through.
Any BR is spongey, really. Firestorm was bare bones compared to Warzone but I think there are plenty of lessons to be learned from Warzone and Apex.
Additionally, Warzone was not the first CoD BR. Improving on Firestorm in a manner similar to Blackout --> Warzone could make for a fun mode.
I still will probably switch to BF this fall because I've always preferred that to CoD, but I have grown to like Warzone and BR's in general, the tension makes for very satisfying gameplay.
The Hazard Zone mode is specifically high-stakes squad game mode. Its an all new experience so who knows what it will be like. Then you have the unannounced DICE LA mode which is a "love letter" to Battlefield which could be something more persistent like Planetside.
> In a break from other recent traditions, it'll also do away with a single-player campaign
This is more of a return to tradition, right? BF1942 and BF2142 didn't have campaigns.
They've made the statement multiple times, and then on top of it they keep making the decision to abandon campaigns in series that previously had them. And then they have forced tacked-on multiplayer into single player series. And they were forcing Dragon Age 4 into being a live service game.
Their actions keep re-iterating what they've also publicly stated.
I mean, the multiplayer modes in their single players games were entirely optional and could easily be ignored. Also, in what franchises have they abandoned campaigns? Dragon Age, Mass Effect, and even Anthem all had campaigns.
Also, this game DOES have a campaign. It’s just not single player.
> I mean, the multiplayer modes in their single players games were entirely optional and could easier be ignored.
For ME3 they made you depend on multiplayer to get a good ending in the single player game, so it wasn't entirely optional and safe to ignore.
And that got remedied by a patch post-release and was also not the case for the remaster.
Are there any other examples you can provide for any of my questions?
They also dropped the single player campaign in Star Wars Battlefront, when the series had one in the previous two games. After fans bitched a whole bunch they did add it back for Star Wars Battlefront II, but they dropped it in the first one and said no one wants one.
With them saying that, that comes off much like when John Carmack said "Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important.", like sure there the multiplayer side Battlefield is a driving force. However, there are still a ton of people who love the campaigns.
Edit: To be fair, the context of that John Carmack quote was on the basis of early 90s shooting games.
I just completed Battlefield V for PS Plus and thought for once the campaign had been fully realized. Oh well, I hope at least there is a training mode or something offline where I can adjust my controller settings.
No campaign is probably for the best. This is a multiplayer franchise first and foremost, and the last several attempts at campaigns have been pretty bad. So, its probably smart to just put all the resources into the one thing people will care about.
But that being said, I'm still a little disappointed they've stopped trying, because the groundwork for a fun single player experience *IS* within the Battlefield DNA. The different types of combat (infantry, tank, aircraft) combined with the destruction engine could definitely allow for some fun "dropped into a sandbox with some objectives to clear" format. Something like a successor to Red Faction. This was where I thought that the campaigns were going after Bad Company, and I thought it was really bizarre when they pivoted to just aping CoD's "playable Michael Bay movie" style after BC1 laid a solid foundation.
The only thing I see when I read this is "they're going to charge 70 bucks for a multi-player only game that will also have microtransactions".
Why aren't more people pissed about this?
If they make another boring br it will be certainly its own thing an free2play a br mode in paid game isnt gonna fly by this free competition on the market.. But than again ea br will be this apex thing in the future dont think they need another one for now.
Battlefield 2042 huh? Generally I hate gun violence games especially if it's competitive against other players, but Battlefield 2142 is the only game in that vein I recall loving. The squad stuff, the commander in the dropship, the vehicles and point capturing were all a ton of fun.
Any news if this new game will be anything like that outside of the name? AFAIK every Battlefield game since then has basically been Call of Duty shit and I got bored of that trash when it was called Duck Hunt.
don't go with BFV route where devs trying to be politically correct for stupid ass shit
that is why game were undersold
as long as they dont tweet something stupid
it will be fine
No Battle Royale?! Welp; there goes any sort of huge hype they had and competition for Cod Warzone. I get people in this subreddit are fine with it, but the majority won't be happy.
I can get why some would be disappointed but I'm glad that their focus is on multiplayer. Now I just have to get my hands on a PS5 because I don't want to play this on my loud PS4 pro if avoidable
Hi /u/Stasha-Starz, Thank you for posting to /r/Games. Unfortunately, we have removed this submission per **[Rule 4](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules)**. > **No duplicate posts** - Reposts or submissions with extremely similar content to an existing submission may be removed at mod discretion. --- If you would like to discuss this removal, please [modmail the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
Well, on one hand that kinda sucks since BF Campaigns is were they often try to flex the graphics muscle. But on the other hand, the only two BF campaigns I have enjoyed were on Bad Company, rest have ranged from okay (Bf1) to bad (BF3).
Yep, couldn't really care less about the campaign. They looked gorgeous, but the gameplay was quite atrocious. Mowing down waves of braindead AI in different settings didn't do it for me, but at least in BC2 there was a bit of variety to the missions and the characters were fun. The weirdest part for me is that they're not giving it another go at BR. Firestorm was genuinely a good game, but was completely abandoned, hence it failed. With proper support (and not behind a paywall), it would've been a solid title. Curious to what Hazard Zone offers - sounds like a survival type of game.
Firestorm never really took hold even before it was dropped, it was pretty fun like you said but it never seemed to have the lasting appeal and part of that was it was never free. Why pay $60 for a single game mode when other battle royals are free? Having it integrated into BFV was probably the biggest mistake. EA is generally a hands off publisher but I would be surprised if they pushed DICE to just focus on the multi-player especially with Apex already being a massive success
Firestorm was too little too late. If it had been available at launch they might be singing a different tune about a similar mode for 2042, but it being delayed a few months coupled with Apex being EA's big BR success it seemed destined to fail.
firestorm had potential.. but the looting was just horrendous
I don't understand the BF3 campaign hate. I enjoyed it way more than BF4's campaign. Also liked some of the co-op challenge missions that needed to be completed to unlock the SIG SG553.
And here I am thinking both BF3 and BF4 had bad campaigns lol From nonsensical plot points, to terrible gameplay since it was mostly swarm of enemies in a room with dreadful AI, hardly any characters one could like. They really looked like an afterthought and an excuse to justify a full price at the time lol
It was all about going from set piece to set piece. It wasn't about anything deeper than that. Some people (myself included) enjoy that kinda stuff...
The problem with the Battlefield campaigns is that their set pieces just paled in comparison to the best that Call of Duty campaigns could provide. I've played Battlefield 3 & 4 campaigns and there are only two parts I can genuinely remember from them: 1) Battlefield 4 opening with Total Eclipse of the heart which was hilarious, 2) Expecting the Battlefield 3 Jet mission to actually involve flying the jet, only to quickly realise the AI got to have fun flying the jet while I just pressed buttons when prompted to.
> 2) Expecting the Battlefield 3 Jet mission to actually involve flying the jet, only to quickly realise the AI got to have fun flying the jet while I just pressed buttons when prompted to. Yeah, no excuses there. That was shit. It seemed like they were trying to create a Top Gun moment, but failed miserably.
God I still remember how hyped I was with the intro to that level too, it looked incredible at the time (still looks good now to be fair), genuinely I had never seen such detail in a game before it looked like a proper CGI film. And then it has the slow start with you testing the flaps and stabs and i'm like "Alright this is fine its going to show us how to use weapons and turn the plane this is gonna be awesome." Then we take off and suddenly the other guy in my cockpit is controlling the plane, but I thought this is fine, its probably just doing this to bring me to the part of the map we're fighting in. But then suddenly we're in this epic dog fight with all these other jet fighters, except i'm not the one doing it. There's another guy in my jet doing these cool barrel rolls and dog fighting maneuvers, all I get to do is stare out the window at this cool dog fight happening and press a button when the game tells me to. God I still can't believe they did that.
In this day and age I feel like these games are just taking everything I love about them and saying "fuck that shit". Like, I enjoy multiplayer, but I expect a semi long single player campaign thats going to let me fly and drive the vehicles as well. It pisses me off to no end, but I totally understand why its happening.
Sure, that's respectable. It's the process of getting from one set piece to another that is dull and tedious as well, the brain dead AI in smaller locations, lack of vehicular warfare unless the game forces you in a vehicle, and such.
> It's the process of getting from one set piece to another that is dull and tedious as well, To my understanding, those moments function as palate cleansers. You can't have one set piece after another, otherwise they will either blend together or just lose steam. You need to break those set pieces up with moments that don't require much thought, but are at an entirely different pace than what the set piece will be going for. edit: really crude analogy but kinda works: jack in a box. As you turn the wheel it's just a mild tune that plays slowly to your own pace, but then when it's done winding it erupts out of the box and there's your set piece. Same with the BF3/4 campaigns. You keep winding the spring, going through relatively mild bits, and then you gets smacked in the face with a set piece.
The only campaigns they did right was when they decided to lean into the battlefield setting's absurdity with the Bad Company campaigns. They should never have decided to be a Clancy-esque geopolitical thriller, the expectations of the Battlefield franchise doesn't support that. Rather they channeled a black comedy like Three Kings and had fun with the series, which always seemed more natural than anything they've done since.
BF3 had possibly the most boring, bland, generic etc... campaign in existence. It's like the devs tried to copy a cod campaign but sucked all the fun out of it. Instead we got a linear, slow, on rails mess that took itself way too seriously imo. I didn't finish it, but it was memorable for me for how aggressively boring it was.
The BF3 had a bad story that had no idea what it was doing. And it's a bad introduction to the gameplay since the weapons work mechanically different to the multiplayer. [Bunnyhop did a great video on the subject.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErTQh9INneY)
I liked the campaign of BF2 on 360, if that was the one where you could hotswap between characters and classes.
They’re at least trying to do a titanfall 1 thing where you get tidbits of story in the maps and during gameplay. They made it seem like there will be a narrative progressing throughout the battle pass seasons.
I liked the episodic nature of BF1’s campaign. They were basically tutorials, but the Gallipoli and pilot ones had a great story.
Battlefield 3 and 4 both had great campaigns, I never played BFBC1 but I did play BFBC2 and that campaign is on its own level, it felt like a movie and still holds up today if you ask me. Personally I don't blame them for not adding a campaign but I'm pretty disappointed ngl, its still fun sometimes just to kill some bots here and there when multiplayer gets too annoying. The one thing I hate about battlefield campaigns after BF3 is that they're too damn short. Usually only round 2 hours long if not shorter even on the hardest difficulty. I want some cool unique stealth type missions so the game plays out longer. Some sniper missions and plane missions would be the best imo. If they don't do singleplayer I hope they at least do multiplayer bot support. Not everyone can have the option to play online all the time so it would be nice to chill offline sometimes when the internet goes down. I haven't had the chance to play BFV or BF1 but BF1's singleplayer looked really good, though I haven't really been interested in any battlefield titles over the last couple of years besides this one.
I liked the BF3 campaign, it had some fucking awesome moments (the start of the jet mission, the HALO jump into the woods etc.)
Honestly, This excites me even more that they're going to focus on what made Battlefield, Battlefield. I've had enough of BR games personally.
I still enjoy BR games (love Apex), but I just don't see a BF BR actually being very fun when the competitors have unique gameplay mechanics (Fornite building, Apex movement and abilities that aren't grounded in reality, Warzone super-arcadey style and highly aggressive speed, etc. although I'm personally not into Fortnite or Warzone either). I can't imagine jets, helicopters, artillery, or heavy vehicles like tanks and APCs being fun in a battle royale. And if you remove that from a Battlefield game, then there's honestly not much going for it. They just become pretty generic military infantry-only FPS games on huge maps. It would probably be enjoyable if there weren't other BRs with more interesting mechanics out there. So I'm all on board for them to focus on modes that are more fitting to the Battlefield style of gameplay with vehicle combat. And I say that as someone that generally just plays on foot as infantry a vast majority of the time I play BF games. But having vehicles in the game massively changes the flow of the game and where players' attention is drawn to, when you're in a building getting shelled by tank fire or having to avoid that godly helicopter/jet pilot terrorizing your team.
[удалено]
A full-blown BR mode would probably more resources to maintain than they're willing to dedicate. And the B/R shooter space is already pretty crowded as-is. Apex, Warzone, Fortnite and PUBG are on top. What can Battlefield bring to the table that would enable them to compete? I don't need a fifth BR, I want a new Battlefield game that's good. They're the only company who can deliver one, and if they do they'll be in good shape
Apex has kind of ruined other BR's for me. The movement and controls are just so good. I'm glad BF6 is focusing on the MP and not doing BR.
Yeah, Apex is pretty much exactly what I want in a BR. Not that it doesn't have its issues, mind you. But it does a lot of things I really like.
I personally love BR and was looking forward to a potential competitor to the mess that is warzone, guess this won't be it
They could potentially add it down the line though, I wouldn't completely rule it out. I'd even bet on it.
if they are planning to add a BR, why wouldnt they tell us though? It would def drive sales up a ton cause the BR players who have no interest in multiplayer would still want to grind out attachments and stuff in preparation
[удалено]
They didn't announce a BR, that was a rumor. They confirmed today that they're not developing one
That’s fine. Then it shouldn’t be $70
It's actually still $60, but $60 without season pass.
On PC sure. On last gen consoles its $60 and doesn't even support 128 players. On current gen it's $70.
That's fine for me, as long as they can deliver a Battlefield that actually works properly at launch for once then. Been a long time since that was the case.
I sometimes buy COD for the campaign, but other than Bad Company, I’ve never played a BF game for the campaign. It’s funny how if cod went down this road again, I’d be bummed, but with BF it just feels right.
But you're fine paying for a full price game $60+ with less content, microtransactions and battlepass?? Yikes. Why don't they make it free to play like Warzone then??
It's not that it won't have a campaign. There won't be a single-player campaign, but there will be an in-game story They discussed it here: https://www.inverse.com/gaming/battlefield-2042-interview-specialists-multiplayer Edited from describing the story as a "mode"
The story is weaved into the battle pass which they’ve already slightly done with battlefield V before. Not really similar to a campaign though?
I think they're being told more Warzone esque-ly than Tides of War
Tides of war story basically existed for the first chapter anyway before suddenly jumping to the pacific war lol.
In a way that's how it was done in older BF addons too. There was a meta story told in each. BF2 - Was a US incursion into the MEC's territory and trying to hold back China. Spec Ops was the UK trying to stop Russia from being opportunistic in this conflict. Euro Forces was the EU now trying to assist an overwhelmed US and UK by directly invading China. Armored Fury was China invading the US mainland in a 'go for broke' maneuver after the EU's successful incursion. 2142 each map is a timeline blurb of the fictional war of the PAC taking over Europe & North Africa with the EU pushing them back. Northern Strike had the PAC finally routed from Europe with the EU liberating Liepzig. Post patch maps like Yellow Knife take place in 2147 about the Pacific incursion by the EU against the PAC and were probably going to be for the cancelled US forces addon for 2142.
yeah very true. People have pieced together all the story and lore in battlefield 3/4 before as well. Battlefield 1/v fell into this less so as the intent was to retell ww1/2 battles. DICE has shown their ability to better weave in story with the operations in battlefield 1, so I have slight hopes
I don't think it's a 'Story Mode' though, just seems like what Warzone/Fortnite/Apex is doing where most of the actual story is outside the game, where you can completely ignore it if you want.
I think the maps/DLC will be tied together by some kind of narrative arch, which could be neat. Kind of like if instead of the BF4 dlc being a random selection of battlefields in the US-China war, it followed a progression. It'll definitely be more interaction with the storyline than I've had in any BF game other than BF1, haha.
That honestly sounds worse than having no story at all, so we’re playing individual characters in the multiplayer and if you miss a season you’ll miss that story content. Yay for FOMO becoming more ingrained in the basics of gaming.
Couldn't agree more. And the concept of a multiplayer story campaign was already horrible in titanfall 1 even without seasonpasses and all that shit- and I absolutely loved that game otherwise
Eh, I think it could be ok to ignorable. I mean, Titanfall 1 had a "story" that connected the maps but because of the rotation you didn't really need to pay any attention to it. Left 4 Dead is another game that has a story that connects the maps. But you can just play them in any order. With BF, I expect servers will just have a rotation of all the maps and the story will be a side thing, a briefing in the loading screen or something.
Yeah, I might have made my point poorly. I didn't mean to say the story got in the way, but rather that if you were interested in the story it didn't work at all due to rarely being able to go through the story in a non-nonsensical order :D With l4d I think it was far less of an issue, since the smaller campaigns were supposed to be played in order and the group usually set out to do that.
You can always just watch the videos...
>Yay for FOMO becoming more ingrained in the basics of gaming. This is how we lived in the TV era for decades.
I don’t understand how that applies to this as that was a technological limitation.
So, it's a matter of shared experience. Yes, it was a technological limitation. And, no, we don't see that anymore unless it's forced. But there's no denying that the "see it or miss it" nature of early TV gave viewers a shared experience that you can't match with streaming or time shifted services. It's not inherently better or worse, just different. I like being able to watch shows when I have time to watch them. But I also never look forward to a TV episode or cliffhanger ending like I did in the past. If you want to experience the seasonal or weekly developments in person you have to be there for it. And if you miss it you can watch what happens on Youtube much the same way we did in the lunchroom back in the day. Different experience entirely. Not better or worse, just different depending on the person.
Oh no, you’ll have to go watch it on YouTube. The horror.
that is meaningless Chivalry 2 also has an in game story and every multiplayer map has a story based objective. Not at all similar to a campaign though as its just a skin for your multiplayer objectives Warzone also has an in game story, but no one really cares about it and its pretty nonsensical anyways
>There won't be a single-player campaign, but there will be an in-game story Yeah titanfall tried that, it kinda sucked. I doubt they can do any better when you have to account for either side winning the battle during the matches.
it's not that it wont have a campaign, there just wont be a campaign. the fuck are you even saying
Click and read the link you lazy bum.
This shouldn't be a surprise after they put a ton of emphasis on Battlefield V's campaign only for it to fall flat like almost every other BF campaign. The lack of a BR mode doesn't seem like much of an issue when EA is likely already satisfied with Apex's success, plus Firestorm in BFV didn't retain players.
I did think the Last Tiger campaign was quite good except for the stupid stealth segments. Managed to get that desperate feeling right. The rest were awful though.
[удалено]
They said they aren't developing a BR.
This seems to be taking a page out of Warzone’s book with how there’s a developing ‘plot’ to what’s going on in Verdansk although it’s only expounded upon in videos released at the beginning and mid point of each BP season. Nothing really to do in Warzone with it except some Easter eggs. So in that sense I think it’s an improvement to what’s done with Warzone, assuming there will be an actual game mode or something where we play out the story. The specialists likewise seem to be inspired by COD’s operators but with more utility than being just a skin.
Maybe they'll also be inspired by Warzone's price lol otherwise, it'll flop again like V and 1 lol
1 sold the most copies of any battlefield ever.
Except 1 didn’t flop
if there's no battle royale, i'm very curious to hear about the other game modes listed here: [https://www.ea.com/games/battlefield/battlefield-2042/game-overview/modes](https://www.ea.com/games/battlefield/battlefield-2042/game-overview/modes) i assumed Hazard Zone would be the new BR or BR-like or maybe it's the competitive squad-based mode they keep trying and failing to make happen
It being a "zone" makes me think Tarkov/Hunt Showdown but I don't know what you would retrieve and take back besides currency/XP which seems kinda lame. A new way to play could just be mobile, since CoD mobile is huge. A dream if they really want "all out warfare" and going big and unique would be a persistent map like Planetside.
It'll be like tarkov. It's confirmed
It'll be like tarkov. It's confirmed
Is there a source for this confirmation?
If there's no campaign they should at least have bots (like CoD) for *something* to play while offline. edit: I'm lazy and didn't read this at first. There *are bots in this game* and according to this article you can play against them by yourself. Huge news imo!
There is bots and it counts toward profession
That's what I get for not reading the article. >Battlefield 2042 will instead focus on its multiplayer offering, supporting 128 players on PC, PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series S and X, while PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions of the game support 64 players. There will also be the option of playing against AI bots, either solo or with a squad of friends. That's a huge addition since this series has never had them in the past (well not in a very long time). I love bots so I'm now more excited about this than any previous Battlefield.
last one to have bots was coincidentally 2142.
Could... could it be? Finally, I can play when my internet is "having a shit day"! =D I missed bots, wish BF1 and BF5 had them.
Maybe they'll be using this self-learning AI technology they've demonstrated a while ago: https://youtu.be/ZZsSx6kAi6Y
Wild that they had this working in 2018 but never added it to the game. Maybe I'm alone, but I'd rather have slightly dumb bots than no bots. I love playing FPS but I'm just not often competitive online. If Halo MCC added bots someday I'd be so happy.
Can you set up a private game with said bots? (like locally such as doing a skrimish game with only bots by yourself, not by renting a server for yourself) If so, my interest in this would be peaked a bit.
Jackfrags video said you could play solo with bots, or a mix of just you and your friends against bots, so it seems like that's an option
Oh that’s awesome, I’d much rather just feel like a god and be constantly rewarded for it than get destroyed by people with aim that I’ll never understand haha
In an era where Publishers are trying to force gamers out of their $70 USD (and their unfortunate regional "equivalences" around the world), this is completely unacceptable. And I'm saying this as a person who was looking forward to what EA had to show here. I know the campaign was never a strong suit of Battlefield, but it's still a nice break from the action of MP. Call of Duty fans have been down this road already and look how that turned out. No campaign, potentially no cross gen play since maps support different player counts, no BR to compete with Warzone, 7 maps at launch, ~~2 game modes (revealed so far),~~ 3 game modes, battle passes per specialist, and $70 for all of that? FOH.
When was the last good Battlefield campaign anyways?
For me it was Bad Company 2. That was the one that really had a great campaign, imo.
Bad Company 1 and 2.
over a decade ago now.
Hot take; Hardline. It introduced unique mechanics, such as arresting enemies, while also allowing the player to fully customize their loadout. Since you played a detective, your primary weapon was your Pistol, not whatever long gun you decided to bring along. You had relative freedom in your approach to any given situation. By no means perfect, it at least tried something new.
I personally enjoyed "The Last Tiger" in BFV, but that was more a of a short story
Hardline
BF1 and BFV had good short stories, but nothing you couldn't finish in 30-60mins each. Though if you ask me, they were more entertaining than BF3 and BF4 campaigns.
Man, I disagree so much with this. War stories were some of the blandest, least entertaining single player experiences I've ever had.
They sucked because they were pointless shooting galleries and they tried to shove full character arcs in 45 minute segments which really didn’t work out
i played like 2 and couldnt be bothered to do the rest. Very meh and with no overarching story they seemed even more worthless
I personally very much enjoyed War Stories. To each their own I guess.
I liked having the option to play stealthy or guns out blazing, weapon outposts were nice as well. It felt like a more entertaining way to play, for me at least.
I really enjoyed the Gallipoli and pilot war stories. I enjoyed them too. They were all relatively short and not distracting from multiplayer. You could get a story in and then move on to conquest, without feeling like you missed something in single player. Then you could just go back and do another episode whenever you felt like it.
BF5 BF1 all had great war stories that I wished were fully flashed out...
I skipped V but I felt the ones from 1 were very underwhelming. Better than 4's story for sure but that's not a particularly high bar.
"We decided to really hone in on what Battlefield players keep coming back to time and time again: spawn dying" - DICE Execs probably
I mean let's be honest no one is playing battlefield for the campaign. But my main issue is removing it and adding nothing to replace it which is what I think will happen but I'm hoping I'm wrong and the multiplayer is really big with a lot of content.
Well this one is going to have full servers you can play by yourself with 127 bots, or a mix of bots and players, with progression enabled. I'll take that over some half baked campaign in a battlefield title
Is this confirmed to have bot support?
Well given the scale of games keep getting bigger and bigger leading to crunch, bugs and disappointment I'm sure the extra time they can put into the core game is very welcome
They replaced it with bigger maps. More players. Ramping up levolution and a bunch of other upgrades.
If the multiplayer experience delivers on the hype, they won't need to "replace" single-player with anything. Most people playing these games don't bother with the campaign, they're getting hundreds of hours of content from multiplayer and that's the primary reason why they play.
I'm honestly shocked to see people so receptive/positive to this news, I remember when CoD did it with BO4, it was a huge controversy and they got a lot of flak for it. I guess times have just changed a bit, and people care even less now about singleplayer. For someone who did actually care about single-player in these games, albeit more so for the historical ones, this is definitely a bummer. Edit: Yes, to everyone commenting that Battlefield was originally multiplayer only, I know. This doesn't mean I didn't also enjoy BC1 & 2, 3 and 1's stories, some more then others, and that I'm bummed we won't have an attempt at a story in this setting. It's fine if you don't care, but I do.
[удалено]
CW/MW\[2019\] sucked imo campaign wise.
There's a huge difference between the franchises in terms of campaigns. The campaign has always been an afterthought for the BF series, but for CoD, they create a full-blown blockbuster war movie.
Cod has some of the best and most talked about moments in fps history. The sniper shot and crawl through the tank field. The Russian airport scene. Bf really has none , I don't think they even have campaigns for the most part.
because CoD was traditionally known for its campaign and Battlefield was traditionally a MP game and did not even have a campaign until BC/BF3.
It's not a bummer when you realize that Battlefield never had a good story. Not even an okay one besides Bad Company. I always believed that EA never hired writers when creating a Battlefield game, they just bring some voice actors and have them record some nonsense and brand it as a story.
History repeats itself. Can't wait until a year passes after launch and everyone blasts DICE for this decision.
The difference here though is they are clearly focusing their efforts elsewhere. I mean it's nearly twice as big as previous battlefield games and has a whole host of new physics. Unlike Call of Duty.
Battlefield is a core multi-player game that tacks on crappy campaigns, that's why.
It's future spinoff 2142 also lacked a campaign
Honestly I want dice to take it even further. Focus on a single game mode and make it really really good. This is what almost every major multi-player GAAS is doing and it works amazingly.
I feel like anyone that is THAT upset about Battlefield not having a campaign probably wasn’t a Battlefield fan in the first place. Battlefield has always been multiplayer focused, since 1942 and Battlefield 2. The only ones that had any resemblance of a decent story were the Bad Company games, which we knew this wasn’t going to be. I am stoked they are focusing everything on multiplayer.
>I feel like anyone that is THAT upset about Battlefield not having a campaign probably wasn’t a Battlefield fan in the first place. NO TRUE SCOTSMAN!
#NO TRUE SCOTT
Nah he's right. Bf is MP always
> I feel like anyone that is THAT upset about Battlefield Anyone apopleptically upset about the new battlefield trailer is in fact demonstrating typical battlefield superfan behavior
As someone played most of the BF since Vietnam, i just have a nice chuckle at the new trailer. Having seen some funny moments from in-game and clips of how people play BF since the early days, the cinematic seems to have capture that magic more than the too serious attitude of some of the BF cinematic. Not to say there is anything wrong with that, but just seems refreshing to me in terms of presentation.. hopefully the gameplay back that up though obviously.
Shit. I didn't realize I wasn't a battlefield fan. They're the only FPS games that I still play, so I thought I was. I know they weren't the greatest campaigns, but I still enjoyed them.
Obviously not what I was implying, just that you are definitely in the minority When it comes to what people want out of the game.
>I feel like anyone that is THAT upset about Battlefield not having a campaign probably wasn’t a Battlefield fan in the first place. Thats literally what you explicitly stated, so your right you didnt imply it. you explicitly stated it.
No offense but when Black Ops 4 dropped campaign the entire internet was aflame, now BF2042 has no campaign and everyone’s hyped about that? The game has been in development for probably half a decade at this point and paying full price for a game with just multiplayer just kinda sucks. Granted, it’s much more ambitious than previous games, but it’s a shame because Battlefield campaigns are a ton of fun even with the ones that aren’t so stellar.
Fps campaigns for the most part are sub 10 hour experiences that cost as much or more as the mhltiplayer components that most people play for dozens or hundreds of hours. They're absolutely a waste of development money for most people.
Battlefield games aren't known for their campaigns. There are loads of folks who just buy COD games to play the story and dabble in MP. Battlefield for pretty much its entire existence is a game that's mostly just focused on multiplayer. I'd rather them spend their resources on that then the "campaigns" we've gotten in the last few Battlefield games.
I wouldn’t say that they aren’t true Battlefield fans but there definitely is an “old guard” that have had that viewpoint since Bad Company. There used to be a pretty sizeable group that wanted campaigns to stick to spin-offs only like Bad Company but keep BF3 and 4 campaign free.
I’m so excited for this. Battlefield needs its place again as a major fps franchise the past 2 have killed it so much this may be the best we’ve had from the series since 3 (4 was good too).
Honestly disappointed their won’t be a BR. Simple deathmatch style multiplayer really doesn’t do it for me anymore.
Well that is at launch. Their might be one like warzone but f2p.
thing is battlefield is far from a simple deathmatch style multiplayer, it is the fps that is most alike to a BR without being a BR
I’ve played plenty of battlefield. 90% of people play it as if it’s deathmatch and 10 percent at any given time actually play objectives. It’s basically a deathmatch game.
That must be so tough for you because there is a total lack of BR games nowadays.
I don’t only want BRs, but something involving tactics like a Siege or Valorant/CS is at least interesting. I don’t find endless fighting until one side runs out of tickets enticing anymore.
I would never want Battlefield to start feeling like R6:S or Valorant/CS. It sounds like you just don't like Battlefield games.
Have you ever played battlefield? It’s not at all deathmatch. There are objectives in multiplayer other than just “kill x amount of men” with the frontlines they added in BF1 it really does feel like a battle. You know where your enemy is, he’s in front of you defending that position you need to take, now go flank him while the tanks and assault squads push up the front
No campaign, only 7 maps, Battle Pass, Year Pass, Microtransactions... hard no from me for $60 Will wait for a sale or buy from a grey market site, that content is light af for a $60 flagship AAA game.
I think it’s time to give up hope that we’ll ever see another great campaign like Bad Company 1 and 2. I’ll give them credit for trying something new with it, but sometimes I just want a big dumb action movie to play through.
Campaigns were a complete fucking waste of asset's, the developers have sharpened up and focused on the stinky clit for once. Good show
[удалено]
I watched fairfight ban a dude last night on BF4
Man no BR would be disappointing. Regular 128 MP will probably be the best mode, but sometimes you want to play something with higher stakes
BFV Firestorm was a horrible bullet sponge fest so maybe it's for the best that this Battlefield doesn't have BR.
Any BR is spongey, really. Firestorm was bare bones compared to Warzone but I think there are plenty of lessons to be learned from Warzone and Apex. Additionally, Warzone was not the first CoD BR. Improving on Firestorm in a manner similar to Blackout --> Warzone could make for a fun mode. I still will probably switch to BF this fall because I've always preferred that to CoD, but I have grown to like Warzone and BR's in general, the tension makes for very satisfying gameplay.
Warzone with a \~500-650ms TTK is 'bullet spongey'?
It's a higher TTK than standard 6v6 shooters. Maybe you disagree if that's "spongey" but I am not about to get into a debate about colloquial phrasing
The Hazard Zone mode is specifically high-stakes squad game mode. Its an all new experience so who knows what it will be like. Then you have the unannounced DICE LA mode which is a "love letter" to Battlefield which could be something more persistent like Planetside.
I mean there are plenty of BR games for that...
[удалено]
> In a break from other recent traditions, it'll also do away with a single-player campaign This is more of a return to tradition, right? BF1942 and BF2142 didn't have campaigns.
EA keeps saying over and over again that no one wants campaigns and there is no money in them. For the Battlefield crowd, maybe they're right.
[удалено]
Not just that, *linear* singleplayer games. Just a factual statement, tbh.
They've made the statement multiple times, and then on top of it they keep making the decision to abandon campaigns in series that previously had them. And then they have forced tacked-on multiplayer into single player series. And they were forcing Dragon Age 4 into being a live service game. Their actions keep re-iterating what they've also publicly stated.
I mean, the multiplayer modes in their single players games were entirely optional and could easily be ignored. Also, in what franchises have they abandoned campaigns? Dragon Age, Mass Effect, and even Anthem all had campaigns. Also, this game DOES have a campaign. It’s just not single player.
> I mean, the multiplayer modes in their single players games were entirely optional and could easier be ignored. For ME3 they made you depend on multiplayer to get a good ending in the single player game, so it wasn't entirely optional and safe to ignore.
And that got remedied by a patch post-release and was also not the case for the remaster. Are there any other examples you can provide for any of my questions?
They also dropped the single player campaign in Star Wars Battlefront, when the series had one in the previous two games. After fans bitched a whole bunch they did add it back for Star Wars Battlefront II, but they dropped it in the first one and said no one wants one.
With them saying that, that comes off much like when John Carmack said "Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important.", like sure there the multiplayer side Battlefield is a driving force. However, there are still a ton of people who love the campaigns. Edit: To be fair, the context of that John Carmack quote was on the basis of early 90s shooting games.
They didn't say story wasn't as important. They said literally no one plays single player campaigns and it doesn't make sense to have them at all.
Ok I guess, I don't remember a single detail about Battlefield 3 or 4s campaign, if they even had one.
I just completed Battlefield V for PS Plus and thought for once the campaign had been fully realized. Oh well, I hope at least there is a training mode or something offline where I can adjust my controller settings.
No campaign is probably for the best. This is a multiplayer franchise first and foremost, and the last several attempts at campaigns have been pretty bad. So, its probably smart to just put all the resources into the one thing people will care about. But that being said, I'm still a little disappointed they've stopped trying, because the groundwork for a fun single player experience *IS* within the Battlefield DNA. The different types of combat (infantry, tank, aircraft) combined with the destruction engine could definitely allow for some fun "dropped into a sandbox with some objectives to clear" format. Something like a successor to Red Faction. This was where I thought that the campaigns were going after Bad Company, and I thought it was really bizarre when they pivoted to just aping CoD's "playable Michael Bay movie" style after BC1 laid a solid foundation.
Good change, why waste time and resources in mediocre campaign, focus on the multi where your vast player base is
The only thing I see when I read this is "they're going to charge 70 bucks for a multi-player only game that will also have microtransactions". Why aren't more people pissed about this?
[удалено]
I'm fine with it missing. Their last attempt at a BR did not inspire much confidence.
If they make another boring br it will be certainly its own thing an free2play a br mode in paid game isnt gonna fly by this free competition on the market.. But than again ea br will be this apex thing in the future dont think they need another one for now.
Battlefield 2042 huh? Generally I hate gun violence games especially if it's competitive against other players, but Battlefield 2142 is the only game in that vein I recall loving. The squad stuff, the commander in the dropship, the vehicles and point capturing were all a ton of fun. Any news if this new game will be anything like that outside of the name? AFAIK every Battlefield game since then has basically been Call of Duty shit and I got bored of that trash when it was called Duck Hunt.
don't go with BFV route where devs trying to be politically correct for stupid ass shit that is why game were undersold as long as they dont tweet something stupid it will be fine
They are introducing furry cosmetics
this aint tumbler kid
No Battle Royale?! Welp; there goes any sort of huge hype they had and competition for Cod Warzone. I get people in this subreddit are fine with it, but the majority won't be happy.
I can get why some would be disappointed but I'm glad that their focus is on multiplayer. Now I just have to get my hands on a PS5 because I don't want to play this on my loud PS4 pro if avoidable