Forum Discussion

kregora's avatar
kregora
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago

Re: No campaign, is it a good step?

@JayZirka Should, yes. Will we get one? I don't think so. I always expected Star Wars Battlefront 2 to get a second addition to the story and maybe an US and Japanese War Story in BFV.
But since campaigns or even the stories are a different kind of metier and are rather expensive to build for only a rather short playtime, I don't think we will get a campaign, but are stuck with this specialist background stories.
I think the storytelling on the website is good, but I guess the majority of future players won't even find it there.

8 Replies

  • SirBobdk's avatar
    SirBobdk
    Seasoned Ace
    4 years ago

    Should BF have a campaign, maybe.

    BFV multiplayer was a disaster, so I prefer that they make a good BF2042 multiplayer, and then I do well without a campaign. I have spent very little time on campaigns in the past, but I understand others want it.

  • CyberDyme's avatar
    CyberDyme
    4 years ago

    Maybe we should answer @JayZirka's question ("No campaign, is it a good step?") in a different way?

    From previous BF games it has appeared that approx. 35-40% of the total development budget for a new game release was spent on the single player campaign component.  Yes, some of the campaign components could be recycled and used also in the MP game, like weapons, vehicles, maps.   But still, all of it from the MP game area had to be severely moderated for its use in the single player campaign section.  Hence the huge $-tag to make it happen...

    So do you all still find this great, to spend so much money and R&D time on the Campaign versus the full MP game itself?

    OK, let us go one step further then...

    Since the BF3 game, the number of players completing the single player Campaign mode has been on a drastic decline.  So how many of the total player population completed the Campaign:

    BF3:  Around 30%.

    BF4:  Around 22% 

    BF1:  Around 15%.

    BFV:  Around   9%.

    So I ask again, do you all still find it great to spend so much money and R&D time on the Campaign versus the full MP game itself?

    While I do appreciate some players liked the Campaign component, it is matter of fact not the main reason for the vast majority of players buys and plays the BF game.  Again, with the BF2042 Portal, then you can setup your own 'BF2042 Campaign', exactly to your own liking. 

    I actually think that this is a masterpiece done by the EA/DICE team!   As now with the Portal then all the $ and R&D is no longer wasted on something that less than 10% of all players truly cares about.  But now instead it is an integral part of the full MP environment that benefits everybody!

    Disclaimer:  Yes, I do know that BF2042 is online only, while previous Campaigns could be played offline, but the facts above remain.

  • 4g631g's avatar
    4g631g
    4 years ago

    Your corrwct more time spent on multiplayer abd less resources waisted on campaign. But given the live service model we got in battlefield 5. The premium model was. Millions of times better.  

  • Lancelot_du_Lac's avatar
    Lancelot_du_Lac
    Seasoned Ace
    4 years ago
    @CyberDyme Campaign completion sounds about right, based on my experience.
    Game development budgets are finite, so it makes sense to focus on those areas that give the 'biggest bang for your buck'.
    If the choice is between an off-line campaign or Portal, I think most people would choose Portal.
    My first FPS game was BF2 and, if memory serves me, it did not have a campaign or any off-line content.
  • GRiPSViGiL's avatar
    GRiPSViGiL
    Seasoned Ace
    4 years ago
    @Lancelot_du_Lac There really isn't any need to waste resources on a campaign for a game like BF. I can understand the need for portal but not a campaign.
  • Jesse165's avatar
    Jesse165
    Seasoned Ace
    4 years ago
    @Lancelot_du_Lac Battlefield 2 had the very same thing that Battlefield 2042 will and those are AI Bot Conquest Matches on ALL of the multiplayer maps 🙂

    They even confirmed that for Portal we will be able to have AI Soldiers backfilling all the way up to the 128 limit and we can even change their difficulty levels.

    I will always take this instead of any one and done campaign. Although of course the dream would be to get both.

    Anyways the Portal Bot Matches was enough to get me to pre-order the Ultimate Edition to support them for this 🙂
  • DJPtrak's avatar
    DJPtrak
    4 years ago
    @CyberDyme wrote:

    I actually think that this is a masterpiece done by the EA/DICE team!   As now with the Portal then all the $ and R&D is no longer wasted on something that less than 10% of all players truly cares about.  But now instead it is an integral part of the full MP environment that benefits everybody!

    I wholly agree with CyberDyme's take on this. While there are certainly many players who enjoyed the campaigns of previous titles, the money and resources it takes away from the multiplayer experience and overall game readiness (BF4, 1, and V Launches), and the small percentage of the player base who would actually play it just doesn't make sense in my mind. I would much rather see polished multiplayer maps, assets, and gameplay than subpar unbalanced multiplayer matches for the sake of a single player experience. I'm all for the multiplayer only and launch of Portal.

  • Skill4Reel's avatar
    Skill4Reel
    4 years ago
    @CyberDyme wrote:

    OK, let us go one step further then...

    Since the BF3 game, the number of players completing the single player Campaign mode has been on a drastic decline.  So how many of the total player population completed the Campaign:

    BF3:  Around 30%.

    BF4:  Around 22% 

    BF1:  Around 15%.

    BFV:  Around   9%.

    So I ask again, do you all still find it great to spend so much money and R&D time on the Campaign versus the full MP game itself?

    How this is a squad based multiplayer series but there has never been a co-op campaign in any of it's games is troubling.  I have always argued that the problem with the Battlefield single player campaigns is that they were always only able to be played by one person at a time.  Sure there were the co-op missions in Battlefield 3 and in Battlefield V, but these are hardly as exciting as playing through the entire story line of a game with friends. 

    People playing through the co-op campaign with friends and then bringing that same squad into multiplayer matches would benefit this series tremendously.  It was almost as if the devs for this series were so busy trying to make a single player experience for Battlefield that competed with other FPS games that they failed to tailor it for what Battlefield is. 

    To answer the original question for the topic.  No.  Losing the campaign is not a step in the right direction for this series.  It almost seems like the campaign was given up on because they didn't know what to do with it.  Aren't there more dev teams working on Battlefield 2042 than any other game in the series?  If so there is no excuse for losing content from one game to the next.  There hasn't been anything announced for this game so far that makes me think the campaign should have been sacrificed for it. 

Featured Places

Recent Discussions