BF4 campaign kinda sucks

[desura]

I play FPS games for the campaign.

Because FPS allows immersion in a world that other genres cannot match.

BF3's campaign greatly impressed me, because they used it as a showcase for what the engine could do. So like the air combat sequence was very impressive because of the sheer realism of everything. And the tank mission was good too.

The BF4 campaign kinda sucks. The engine has some nice improvements, most noticably better physics and stuff blowing up...but it's kinda generic. There haven't been any real blowout levels that really wow me.

Everything else about the game is good. I like the feel of the guns, I like how they improved animations

 

[Northern Lawn]

It shouldn't even have a campaign, they should spend those resources on the online aspect. Crap, BC2 I have like 2100 hours and I'm not sure I even finished the first level of the campaign.

Shooting against npc's is pretty lame imo.

 

[Markbnj]

It shouldn't even have a campaign, they should spend those resources on the online aspect. Crap, BC2 I have like 2100 hours and I'm not sure I even finished the first level of the campaign.

Shooting against npc's is pretty lame imo.

It's a good way to learn the mechanics and the gameplay, imo. I always play them through once.

 

[alcoholbob]

Better than CoD Ghosts campaign, lol.

 

[LtMikePowelll]

If you want the M249, then play it through the whole thing.

 

[Raduque]

My only real problem with BF4 is that the campaign is way too short. I paid $20 for the game and finished it in maybe 5 hours. It was worth the price I paid, but there's no way in hell I would've spent full retail on this game.

It shouldn't even have a campaign, they should spend those resources on the online aspect. Crap, BC2 I have like 2100 hours and I'm not sure I even finished the first level of the campaign.

Shooting against npc's is pretty lame imo.

People like you are the reason why good single player story lines are dying and everything is online now. Go back to Xbox live, you dudebro.

 

[chimaxi83]

Because FPS allows immersion in a world that other genres cannot match.

Heh that's a really bad joke you just made. I nearly chuckled.

 

[Carfax83]

I play FPS games for the campaign.

Because FPS allows immersion in a world that other genres cannot match.

BF3's campaign greatly impressed me, because they used it as a showcase for what the engine could do. So like the air combat sequence was very impressive because of the sheer realism of everything. And the tank mission was good too.

The BF4 campaign kinda sucks. The engine has some nice improvements, most noticably better physics and stuff blowing up...but it's kinda generic. There haven't been any real blowout levels that really wow me.

Everything else about the game is good. I like the feel of the guns, I like how they improved animations

I mostly agree with you. I bought BF4 (on sale for 20 bucks) only for the single player campaign, because I wanted to get a good look at the Frostbite 3 engine and also because I wanted to see what having a native 64 bit client would bring to the table.

The campaign itself was decent to me, and I liked it better than the BF3 campaign. However, as a showcase for the Frostbite 3 engine, it failed miserably.

First of all, many of the next gen features have been TURNED OFF via patches by Dice. For example, in the Fishing in Baku 17 minute trailer, clothing and gear physics could be seen on all the main characters like Dunn, Irish and Pac and Hannah.

Now, their uniforms and gear stick to them like glue. Also the foliage physics has also been "turned off" which is B.S..

Apparently, Dice had the "brilliant" idea to process the physics for these effects on their servers (which as we all know are rather craptastic) rather than locally, which was fucking stupid. They don't even have any physics setting that you can adjust locally if your computer has the power for it, so now you have to wait for them to re-enable these missing effects in future patches and that's assuming they will even ever get around to doing it.

That's why I hate multiplayer games, so much crap you have to put up with.. I wish Dice would have put more effort into making a solid single player campaign that would not only highlight the full capabilities of their new engine, but duplicate the mayhem, scale and intensity of the large 64 player online battles.

But alas, it wasn't meant to be. I think we're going to have to wait for Dragon Age 3 to see what the Frostbite 3 engine is really capable of.

 

[Lil Frier]

People like you are the reason why good single player story lines are dying and everything is online now. Go back to Xbox live, you dudebro.

Really high-road of you, man. Way to act as if Xbox LIVE users are a specific breed of individual who thinks a certain way. I've played almost exclusively on Xbox LIVE for multiplayer for over a decade, but that doesn't change my love for multiple genres and single-player stuff.

I mean, as someone who has actually BEATEN the Unreal Tournament III campaign, how about the fact that the PC has hosted NUMEROUS games that focus more on online/social aspects than a strong, attention-grabbing story? Unreal? Quake? Team Fortress 2? The "story" of Left 4 Dead and its sequel? The fact that WoW does a terrible job of inviting new players because it is borderline-impossible to get the actual lore of the series nowadays (I started that game over 5 years ago and barely know anything about the lore)?

Don't blame Xbox LIVE "dudebro" people, blame the general interest of gamers. DotA and LoL are PC-exclusives with huge fanbases that can be blamed just as much as anyone on Xbox LIVE.

 

[Carfax83]

People like you are the reason why good single player story lines are dying and everything is online now. Go back to Xbox live, you dudebro.

That's not true. Single player games are picking up steam if anything, with Assassin's Creed IV, Watch Dogs, Crysis 3, Witcher 3, Dragon Age 3, Metro Last Light, Bioshock Infinite etcetera all very high profile single player focused games..

 

[Raduque]

Really high-road of you, man. Way to act as if Xbox LIVE users are a specific breed of individual who thinks a certain way. I've played almost exclusively on Xbox LIVE for multiplayer for over a decade, but that doesn't change my love for multiple genres and single-player stuff.

I mean, as someone who has actually BEATEN the Unreal Tournament III campaign, how about the fact that the PC has hosted NUMEROUS games that focus more on online/social aspects than a strong, attention-grabbing story? Unreal? Quake? Team Fortress 2? The "story" of Left 4 Dead and its sequel? The fact that WoW does a terrible job of inviting new players because it is borderline-impossible to get the actual lore of the series nowadays (I started that game over 5 years ago and barely know anything about the lore)?

Don't blame Xbox LIVE "dudebro" people, blame the general interest of gamers. DotA and LoL are PC-exclusives with huge fanbases that can be blamed just as much as anyone on Xbox LIVE.

I truthfully think it was a MASSIVE mistake for games to have anything more than a token "DM/vs" mode. Just think of the amazing, immersive, atmospheric single player campaign games that could've been developed had studios not focused on "social" and online shit like WoW and Left 4 Dead.

If anything, the only sort of deep online component should be a co-op mode.

Mutliplayer-oriented games, and the trend for a multiplayer/online focus in Single Player games disgust me. I had to buy Diablo III on the Xbox 360 so I could play it without an internet connection, for F's sake.

The "dudebro" comment was a simple insult, lumping people who think all game dev's shouldn't focus on single player (such as Northern Lawn) in the same category as your typical "CoD MADDEN XBOX!" dumbsh.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I agree it is too bad more games dont have good single player campaigns. Lots of people deride COD now, but I fondly remember the great single player campaigns of the original made for PC COD games. Even COD4 MW had a very good campaign. I also only play single player, simply because I enjoy the storyline, and dont really have the skills to compete in online play.

 

[Fire&Blood]

I play FPS games for the campaign.
BF3's campaign greatly impressed me, because they used it as a showcase for what the engine could do. So like the air combat sequence was very impressive because of the sheer realism of everything. And the tank mission was good too.

The BF4 campaign kinda sucks. The engine has some nice improvements, most noticably better physics and stuff blowing up...but it's kinda generic. There haven't been any real blowout levels that really wow me.

For me, both campaigns were bad. Even if DICE tried, they couldn't make them equally bad so one has to be better than the other but overall, both were a waste of assets.

A good single player mode is replayed multiple times and by everyone who owns the games which is definitely not the case with BF series. Some people only played the campaign to unlock a few weapons and openly said they wouldn't have even played it once if it weren't for these unlocks. That is a massive fail on DICE.

It's never going to happen but if it were possible to give the creators of Stalker or Witcher same assets that DICE had, that would be a good single player game.

It's nice that DICE still makes an effort but if we think that BF franchise has good single player modes, we have lowered our standards way too much over the past 5-6 years.

 

[Northern Lawn]

My only real problem with BF4 is that the campaign is way too short. I paid $20 for the game and finished it in maybe 5 hours. It was worth the price I paid, but there's no way in hell I would've spent full retail on this game.



People like you are the reason why good single player story lines are dying and everything is online now. Go back to Xbox live, you dudebro.

I liked Far Cry loved it, I think I went through it 3 or 4 times the last on the highest difficulty level. Far Cry 3 was great as well, mass effect 1 and 2 were great but, you play your 20-80 hours on these games and you're done. Even system shock II only got me for about 100 hours and I freakin loved that game.

I can play a multi player game for hundreds or thousands of hours of game play. There's no comparison.

What I find really lame is Multi-players that throw together a losey campaign because they feel obligated (Because of noobs like you) and pretty good single player games that put out a broken online experience because they feel obligated (and to protect themselves from piracy a bit.)

I think if I was a dev i would focus my energies on one or the other.

 

[Northern Lawn]

.

The "dudebro" comment was a simple insult, lumping people who think all game dev's shouldn't focus on single player (such as Northern Lawn) in the same category as your typical "CoD MADDEN XBOX!" dumbsh.

I only play PC games. What you don't understand is (probably because you're stupid) is that a great single player game is very hard to make and very expensive. There's just not going to be that many of them. Do you think they make bad games on purpose?

 

[balloonshark]

I just wish BF3 and BF4 had offline AI that I could play on all the maps before I get thrown to the wolves in online play. It would teach the importance of cooperation and give us noobs a chance to learn all the maps. It would also help you get used to the speed of the game which I'm currently struggling with.

It's 2014 and we have multi-core PCs with gobs of RAM and great graphics cards yet the AI in today's games are non-existent.

 

[lamedude]

+1
I wasn't too good at BF so I would usually do "coop" against bots.

 

[xSneak]

Funniest thing to me about the campaign was how many situations I thought: "this is impossible, you can't survive that". The character gets transported to the different scenes by getting knocked out so many times.

By far the stupidest part was when they blew the dam with the c4 while they were still on the side of it .

The whole campaign just felt like it was forced by EA so they could take it off a checklist for the game requirements.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Remember Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2's campaign?

 

[imaheadcase]

Games should be single player or multiplayer, that is how it should work. The same with MMOs, they should focus on the multiplayer and not making it a single player game.

These are two of the WORST things about gaming, and it was not always like this. You can not, ever, balance the two in a perfect world.

 

[pong lenis]

FPS games aren't meant to be singleplayer.
If you want immersion play Deus Ex or Fallout 3, where the FPS is just a small part of the experience.

 

[Biggu]

Maby im the odd man out but I wouldnt buy the game if It didnt have single player. Personally I like to do all the single player first so I know the game then jump into multiplayer.

AznAnarchy99 BF1942 was amazing. That was my kinda game!

 

[ProchargeMe]

I enjoy a good single player game here and there, and there have been plenty of games that have a good single player experience as well as a good multiplayer experience. I've always been a fan of Halo's storyline but I find the multiplayer is starting to go overboard with all the new gimmicks and features and I don't enjoy it as much as halo 1,2, or 3's multiplayer. Older COD games also had a pretty good single player experience where I actually got attached to the characters, and I was sad when they died. Nowadays it seems like publishers spend 80% of their resources on MP and throw the SP campaign in there just to say it's there, and the whole game feels like it was rushed, or it has to be patched 6 times for the game to be playable. Unfortunately most of the successful publishers are being swallowed by EA Games now and I'm sure their requirements and/or limitations have something to do with their games being incomplete and downright table-flip rage inducing with glitches and patches, and broken multiplayer experiences. In my opinion video game creativity comes and goes every 5 years or so, and I feel like we're in that slump where nothing really *NEW* is coming out and every game is just a rehash or a sequel. I hope that maybe 2014 will be different with games like Watch Dogs and Thief coming out, I can only hope these won't disappoint me the way games have in the last few years.

 

[Raduque]

FPS games aren't meant to be singleplayer.
If you want immersion play Deus Ex or Fallout 3, where the FPS is just a small part of the experience.

Non-id Software FPS games way back in the early days of PC gamin were always meant to be singleplayer. Wolf3D, Heretic, Duke3d, Shadow Warrior.

Quake 3: Arena was the first FPS that started the downfall of the SP FPS and the upswing of the MP FPS.

I only play PC games. What you don't understand is (probably because you're stupid) is that a great single player game is very hard to make and very expensive. There's just not going to be that many of them. Do you think they make bad games on purpose?

I understand that. Good single player games would easily make their money back if they are good. I think a lot of devs do make bad games on purpose, because the online crowd of idiots don't care about bad SP, they only care about online play.

I liked Far Cry loved it, I think I went through it 3 or 4 times the last on the highest difficulty level. Far Cry 3 was great as well, mass effect 1 and 2 were great but, you play your 20-80 hours on these games and you're done. Even system shock II only got me for about 100 hours and I freakin loved that game.

I can play a multi player game for hundreds or thousands of hours of game play. There's no comparison.

What I find really lame is Multi-players that throw together a losey campaign because they feel obligated (Because of noobs like you) and pretty good single player games that put out a broken online experience because they feel obligated (and to protect themselves from piracy a bit.)

I think if I was a dev i would focus my energies on one or the other.

I can't play a multiplayer game for thousands of hours, I can barely play one for 10 before I get bored of it. Except for the original Unreal Tournament. I put many many hours in that game.

I play games to be told a story. I just don't have any interest in going online and shooting at people with no driving purpose behind it. The only non-story SP games I play are racing games.

I agree with you that devs should focus on one aspect or the other. Either make an amazing single player game and it'll sell well, or make a multiplayer only game that I can ignore.

If BF4 didn't have a campaign, I wouldn't have paid even the $20 I did for it.

edit: Forgot to mention Eve Online, I have played that one off and on for the past 4 years or so, and STO. Those are the only online games I play, and STO is a basically a connected SP game.

 

[skipsneeky2]

BC2 had a enjoyable campaign,BF3 had one that put me to sleep while BF4 personally had me lose interest lol.