Has Battlefield2042 got a campaign mode for single players.

Many thanks to those that replied.     Personally I strongly feel that given the cost of this & similar games & the fact that many, many gamers love being able to play campaigns either exclusively or as a change from multiplayer/online, the opportunity to play solo/campaigns should always be included in said games or maybe market a version with just solo & campaign play, it would sell!

Thanks again.

Nope..they decided to bring out a game with the least amount of content for a large amount of money.

---

@PixieSonOf wrote:

Many thanks to those that replied.     Personally I strongly feel that given the cost of this & similar games & the fact that many, many gamers love being able to play campaigns either exclusively or as a change from multiplayer/online, the opportunity to play solo/campaigns should always be included in said games or maybe market a version with just solo & campaign play, it would sell!

Thanks again.

---

The reality is that many buy franchise games like CoD and BF for the multiplayer element.  ....many who never play the campaigns that are included or perceive them as additional content rather than a main feature. 

Personally, I like the campaigns in these games but the value has always been in the multiplayer aspects.  BF campaigns (like CoD) are story driven and have what I consider an "on rails" approach to gameplay limiting their replayability.  They are also typically way too short for my liking as I will usually finish them within just a couple of days most times.  .....hardly worth the full price of $60 - $70 USD IMO.  A game like the Witcher 3, RDR2, etc. on the other hand has provided weeks of entertainment for me as a single player / campaign gamer.

To be honest, the only reason my friends and I bought BF2042 was for Portal as it had the most potential in our eyes.  Unfortunately, I feel it was dragged down by the failure of BF2042 in general and by the stubbornness of EA / DICE / RE to find a fair, effective way to allow players to progress as originally promised in the marketing material (playing the ay they want to play; co-op, solo, PvP, etc.). 

I would love to see a return of a campaign in the next iteration of BF but if the rest of the game sucks, I won't be purchasing it. The exception might be if they created an open world BF for SP players or focused on replayability.

I sort of agree with you generally.

How about this for Food For Thought,  my father was a good & regular gamer back in the day, ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64........then moved forward to the Xbox, he is nowhere near as fast as he was when younger & says todays games can be too much to take in, complicated & requiring of a nimbleness that he does not now possess, especially multiplayer & online generally.

He still loves gaming but is drawn more to the older games that are well within his capabilities, he can play to a good standard & is rewarded with the enjoyment he still gets.

He maintains that there is a market for just about all todays games to have a version specifically aimed at those gamers aged say 50 & above, these versions could be a bit slower, by degree's chosen by the player, he says there are some that could be less stressful which would help to keep the old heart problems at bay & of course the price could be maintained at the full version price as these older gamers would probably have more disposable cash & would more than likely stump up the said cost.    Actually, multiplayer could possibly be maintained as well but open only to these 50+ gamers by way of some sort of age check.       He says he & many others would have a new lease of life in the gaming world. 

---

@PixieSonOf wrote:

I sort of agree with you generally.

How about this for Food For Thought,  my father was a good & regular gamer back in the day, ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64........then moved forward to the Xbox, he is nowhere near as fast as he was when younger & says todays games can be too much to take in, complicated & requiring of a nimbleness that he does not now possess, especially multiplayer & online generally.

He still loves gaming but is drawn more to the older games that are well within his capabilities, he can play to a good standard & is rewarded with the enjoyment he still gets.

He maintains that there is a market for just about all todays games to have a version specifically aimed at those gamers aged say 50 & above, these versions could be a bit slower, by degree's chosen by the player, he says there are some that could be less stressful which would help to keep the old heart problems at bay & of course the price could be maintained at the full version price as these older gamers would probably have more disposable cash & would more than likely stump up the said cost.    Actually, multiplayer could possibly be maintained as well but open only to these 50+ gamers by way of some sort of age check.       He says he & many others would have a new lease of life in the gaming world. 

---

As a long time gamer well into my 50's, I think I'm in a position to speak to this from personal experience.....

Now, I'll preface this by saying that I don't take offense but I have to say, you kinda paint a bleak picture of us folks (e.g. heart issues, stress challenged, cognitive decline, etc.). lol 😃 Trust me, while everyone slows down with age many of us aren't that frail. 😉

I started off with consoles myself as early as the late 70s / early 80s before PCs became mainstream. I too cut my teeth on a Commodore 64, Amiga and then bought my first "real" PC with a 386SX processor. I spent the next 20 years building my own PCs before switching to "modern" consoles for my gaming needs with the PS3.

Honesty, I can't see the feasibility of targeting 50 and over gamers (specifically) with special modes, etc. but I will say that I do see a market for games that can attract older gamers like myself as well as many others. For me, it’s not that games have become more complicated and I'd even argue the opposite in many cases. What I miss are the more tactical, authentic shooters of old. Franchises like BF didn't start out near as "run & gun" as they are now which is why (until the last iterations) I preferred BF over its competition like CoD.

The problem IMO is the direction many of these AAA game companies have made with their shooters. Seems they have opted for more frantic and chaotic gameplay rather than that which is more thoughtful, tactical and rewards more cohesive team play. Maybe in that sense it is generational but I see it more as a preference for different types of gameplay rather than a lack of understanding or ability to “keep up” per se.

Quite frankly, run & gun nature of some of these games simply gives me a headache. I just find no enjoyment in running unrealistic speeds, sliding around corners, bunny-hopping to avoid being shot, using fantasy powers / abilities / gadgets, unloading a multitude of bullets into an opponent only to have them perform a couple fancy moves and kill me. I prefer games where you can apply real world tactics, that is more realistically lethal, authentic and immersive in that respect.

What gets me is that franchises like Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, Battlefield, etc. used to be a lot more like that. Those earlier games had a good mix of hardcore elements but were still very accessible to all types of players. Some games like BF even included a hardcore mode for folks like me who wanted a more lethal experience, less targeting aids, etc. Unfortunately, EA / DICE have been moving away from those aspects that defined the franchise and adopting a more fanciful spin on the content.  Its’ not that we have grown old, lost our reflexes, can’t relate or otherwise can’t adapt. It’s just that these companies just aren’t making the types of games we want to play anymore.

…..but I think this stretches beyond just the older demographic as companies like Ubisoft and EA / DICE are paying the price for trying to redefine what these long standing IPs mean to their fans. They are experiencing costly failures as a result.

The good news is that there are more and more smaller developers realizing there is a relatively untapped market for more authentic, tactical shooters especially on console. I truly believe this is only the beginning of a renaissance of sorts that will help usher in the types of games a lot of us older gamers can enjoy but also provide something fresh for younger generations that are perhaps looking for something different.

Hi, a quick dip in from PixieFatherOf, firstly I guess I beat you by a few years, I am now nearer 70 than I am 60, scary.  Anyway, yes I had an Amiga & a BBC B I think it was, very good machines for the time. Sorry but I know for a fact that I have slowed down & now I find there are so many controls to remember that I get wiped out, crash etc......     while attempting to remember said controls are activate them & how many times have my memory banks got it wrong, a fair few.  I am not frail or disabled in any way but old age will take its toll in various ways & affect different people in different ways, I totally agree with your comments around "real world tactics", & to a degree thats why I quite like some of the sniper games. But I love returning to the original Doom & thought Half-Life was so well put together, the very early Battlefield's were also to my liking. Must go now nurse is here & then its time for my afternoon nap hahaha.

---

@Kean_1111 wrote:

 Franchises like BF didn't start out near as "run & gun" as they are now which is why (until the last iterations) I preferred BF over its competition like CoD.

The problem IMO is the direction many of these AAA game companies have made with their shooters. Seems they have opted for more frantic and chaotic gameplay rather than that which is more thoughtful, tactical and rewards more cohesive team play. Maybe in that sense it is generational but I see it more as a preference for different types of gameplay rather than a lack of understanding or ability to “keep up” per se.

Quite frankly, run & gun nature of some of these games simply gives me a headache. I just find no enjoyment in running unrealistic speeds, sliding around corners, bunny-hopping to avoid being shot, using fantasy powers / abilities / gadgets, unloading a multitude of bullets into an opponent only to have them perform a couple fancy moves and kill me. I prefer games where you can apply real world tactics, that is more realistically lethal, authentic and immersive in that respect.

---

This ^ is exactly on point. As with you, it is why I preferred BF over CoD. Lessarcade style and more tactical. Less team-based and more individual effort. I long for the days of yore as well. And who doesn't miss a good campaign with a good story? It seems to me storytelling has fallen to the wayside in this rush for microtransactions and the new cool skins.