DICE on BF4 Solo Play Improvements [Oct 08, 2013, 08:54 am ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
ComputerAndVideoGames hears from DICE's Lars Gustavsson about Battlefield 4,
as the creative director of the military shooter series tells them they are
working on improving the single-player campaign in BF4 over the exceedingly
brief, QTE-filled solo portion of Battlefield 3.
"We got a lot of feedback from the Battlefield 3 singleplayer, and based on what we intended to deliver the team did a great job, but given that it's a Battlefield product there were a lot of expectations that it would be more open.
"What we promised ourselves [with Battlefield 4] was to unify the product more, so we infused a lot of the things from multiplayer - from being able to use your squad - into multiplayer, so now you can use them in single player to engage enemies. First and foremost we're opening up the encounters more to give you the freedom to decide how to tackle them, whereas in Battlefield 3 it was more 'pick up that one and kill that one', which I can agree is not the most exciting way. Players want to feel smart doing what they're doing."
Julio wrote on Oct 8, 2013, 16:57:maddog wrote on Oct 8, 2013, 10:50:
I am fine with no SP. Just give me MP modes with bots.
Agreed as well, I would buy BF4 if it had bots. Bots don't use hacks/cheats like a lot of the BF3 players do.
I might buy it if it had bots. I like to learn the maps and basic gameplay with bots before starting in on the MP public servers, no matter what the game. This also means I can help my team more when I do start MP, since I have some idea of what I'm doing.
The only game where bots didn't help me at all was Tribes 2 - I can't ski and/or aim a mortar in that one for the life of me. And the only game where I didn't use bots to practise was GW2, since it doesn't have any - and ya that was kind of a steep learning curve.
Kittens!
maddog wrote on Oct 8, 2013, 10:50:
I am fine with no SP. Just give me MP modes with bots.
Agreed as well, I would buy BF4 if it had bots. Bots don't use hacks/cheats like a lot of the BF3 players do.
Flak wrote on Oct 8, 2013, 14:08:
...really? BF3 single player was probably flat-out the worst single player experience I can remember of the last 5-10 years.
I thought it was fun
Not perfect, but definitely not "the the worst single player experience I can remember". That's basically saying BF3's singleplayer was worse than A:CM, a sentiment which I find incredibly hard to agree with.
Flak wrote on Oct 8, 2013, 14:08:
"based on what we intended to deliver the team did a great job"
...really? BF3 single player was probably flat-out the worst single player experience I can remember of the last 5-10 years.
Yeah, keep making beyond mediocre single player while the multiplayer, which isn't half-bad when it manages to function as intended, doesn't get the full attention it needs to be worth the $60 price tag.
Sorry DICE, this isn't 2011, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, call me a console gamer
Err.. Hyperbole much? BF3 single wasn't that bad. Just short. It had cool sequences and some fun times. Better than the recent Medal of Honor, that's for sure.
Regardless, Battlefield has never been known for singleplayer. BF3 was the first main sequence BF game that even had it.
"based on what we intended to deliver the team did a great job"
...really? BF3 single player was probably flat-out the worst single player experience I can remember of the last 5-10 years.
Yeah, keep making beyond mediocre single player while the multiplayer, which isn't half-bad when it manages to function as intended, doesn't get the full attention it needs to be worth the $60 price tag.
Sorry DICE, this isn't 2011, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, call me a console gamer
...really? BF3 single player was probably flat-out the worst single player experience I can remember of the last 5-10 years.
Yeah, keep making beyond mediocre single player while the multiplayer, which isn't half-bad when it manages to function as intended, doesn't get the full attention it needs to be worth the $60 price tag.
Sorry DICE, this isn't 2011, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, call me a console gamer
"What we promised ourselves [with Battlefield 4] was to unify the product more, so we infused a lot of the things from multiplayer - from being able to use your squad - into multiplayer, so now you can use them in single player to engage enemies. First and foremost we're opening up the encounters more to give you the freedom to decide how to tackle them, whereas in Battlefield 3 it was more 'pick up that one and kill that one', which I can agree is not the most exciting way. Players want to feel smart doing what they're doing."
So give us Rogue Spear with Frostbite 3.
Nurgel wrote on Oct 8, 2013, 12:41:
I don't see the problem with having a SP campaign as long as it doesn't detract from the development of the multiplayer segment of the game; really if its basically a freebie (games all cost $60 these days anyways) then whats the big deal?
I don't either, I'd rather an actual single player story than just fucking deathmath with bots ffs.
Prez wrote on Oct 8, 2013, 13:20:
With how badly I suck at competitive MP games (no it is not just a matter of practicing more - I really just SUCK) the only way I can enjoy a BF game is coop/sp against bots. So yeah, I'll take bots.
There are filters for everything in the server searches; just filter hour search for servers with bots disabled if you don't want them.
I always hear people say this but the bots are often better than the average player in many games. I get why playing vs bots is good for learning some basic mechanics but I always have more fun playing vs people, even when I'm doing poorly there is always some poor schmuck that is way worse. I think you would be surprised at your skill level, CoD reflexes are fine and all but even in FPS there is a lot more to what makes people good players. BF games especially you can just hump around in transports, heal/revive people or whatever. Being a part of a fun MP community is really awesome.
nin wrote on Oct 8, 2013, 12:10:DukeFNukem wrote on Oct 8, 2013, 12:05:
@BigShot
Bots? You sir, need to be waterboarded. Multiplayer with bots becomes boring and less satisfying than defeating a human that you can taunt and humiliate after punishing him for awhile.
Thumbs down for bots. The one thing I especially hated about bots was connecting to a server and "not knowing" whether who was a bot and who wasn't. Very deceptive stuff. How upsetting it was to discover I was playing against bots and not humans in the past.
If you don't like them, don't use them. But that doesn't mean other people wouldn't like them, or that they should be excluded.
With how badly I suck at competitive MP games (no it is not just a matter of practicing more - I really just SUCK) the only way I can enjoy a BF game is coop/sp against bots. So yeah, I'll take bots.
There are filters for everything in the server searches; just filter hour search for servers with bots disabled if you don't want them.
"The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance, is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."
I heard somewhere that there are practice ranges where you can practice with vehicles and fly planes to get the hang of them outside of actual combat. That will be nice. They are also reworking unlocks so you don't start with a jet that can do nothing and get dominated every game trying to unlock the basics like missiles and flares.
Bots are awesome, we need more bots. It's great when you want to play coop with a bunch of friends in a stress free environment with noone yelling at you. You can easily tailor the game to be just hard/easy enough to the amount of people and their skill. Try to get a lan party going with some casuals mixed in and you'll see why playing against real humans is a problem.
Bots, bots, for the love of... the golden age of FPS gaming, give us back our bots! (If DICE is truly listening to feedback... we want modding back too) Some of us would like to actually be able to practice with vehicles (especially aircraft) against live targets without having to worry about the designated l337 cr3w raging about a n00b using "their" chosen vehicle.
Drives me nuts when idiots rail against bots when it would be ridiculously easy to set it up so you know when a server has bots on it, and which ones are bots.
Drives me nuts when idiots rail against bots when it would be ridiculously easy to set it up so you know when a server has bots on it, and which ones are bots.
"Bots? You sir, need to be waterboarded."
...and there it is folks, the next generation of political genious' coming your way. How refreshing...so what's next on your list of ways to punish those who aren't your mirror image...maybe the gas showers?
...moron
I don't see the problem with having a SP campaign as long as it doesn't detract from the development of the multiplayer segment of the game; really if its basically a freebie (games all cost $60 these days anyways) then whats the big deal?
Only at EA do they infuse things from multiplayer into their multiplayer. That's value, folks.
DukeFNukem wrote on Oct 8, 2013, 12:05:
@BigShot
Bots? You sir, need to be waterboarded. Multiplayer with bots becomes boring and less satisfying than defeating a human that you can taunt and humiliate after punishing him for awhile.
Thumbs down for bots. The one thing I especially hated about bots was connecting to a server and "not knowing" whether who was a bot and who wasn't. Very deceptive stuff. How upsetting it was to discover I was playing against bots and not humans in the past.
If you don't like them, don't use them. But that doesn't mean other people wouldn't like them, or that they should be excluded.
@BigShot
Bots? You sir, need to be waterboarded. Multiplayer with bots becomes boring and less satisfying than defeating a human that you can taunt and humiliate after punishing him for awhile.
Thumbs down for bots. The one thing I especially hated about bots was connecting to a server and "not knowing" whether who was a bot and who wasn't. Very deceptive stuff. How upsetting it was to discover I was playing against bots and not humans in the past.
Bots? You sir, need to be waterboarded. Multiplayer with bots becomes boring and less satisfying than defeating a human that you can taunt and humiliate after punishing him for awhile.
Thumbs down for bots. The one thing I especially hated about bots was connecting to a server and "not knowing" whether who was a bot and who wasn't. Very deceptive stuff. How upsetting it was to discover I was playing against bots and not humans in the past.
I'm sorry to inform the general public that vaccines DO NOT bestow upon thee eternal life. If you're around the age of 80 you need to be making your peace with God or the easter bunny. Whichever you believe in.
maddog wrote on Oct 8, 2013, 10:50:
I am fine with no SP. Just give me MP modes with bots.
Agreed 100% - a single player "campaign" for a BF title is simply too far away from it's roots and it's core gameplay mechanics. The SP portion SHOULD always be the Conquest maps from MP with BOTS.
They have simple AI routes and cool maps, why not throw in some Rainbow Six style Terrorist Hunt? I'd love for that gamemode to make a comeback in more modern engines / games.
Copyright © 1996-2025 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2025 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 23 January 2025, 05:55.