Your opinion about single player in Battlefield 3?

Battlefield 3 had a single player experience that had mixed opinions. If battlefield 3 had a single player like battlefield 2 where its just the multiplayer maps that you can play freely against bots and didn't have the actual SP levels and cinematics and story.. and if everything else (like multiplayer) was the same... would it be a better game in your eyes? Also, would the reviewers have reviewed it more highly?

Feel free write your thoughts in addition to voting in the poll.

 

Reviewed more highly? BF3 got a 9.0 out of 10 from IGN. And I would never, ever pay $60 for a game where the singleplayer consisted of nothing but the multiplayer game with bots ("skirmish mode," in FPS terms). For $60, I expect a single-player campaign.

 

Mitlov, what would you say though to the original question? Yes or no?

 

Single player is not what makes or breaks any BF game though. I like the campaign personally.

No

 

Thanks for your viewpoints guys, I really appreciate it. If you could though, please state at the end of your post yes or no in response to my question above.

 

The problem is that people are trained to perceive campaigns as the game, and multiplayer as an added bonus. In BF3 this is the exact opposite.

 

I like singleplayer being an actual campaign rather than multiplayer with bots instead of people.

 

I like having both.

 

I like it as it is.

 

No, it would make it vastly inferior if it didn't have a real SP campaign. I would prefer even a dull (or preposterous) campaign to just MP-with-bots. Of course, you can always have MP-with-bots TOO, but if there's no SP campaign, I'm not buying, period.

 

I don't know how it could go any better. A modern warfare setting with expected explosions, guns, etc., and if necessary, a war criminal.

No, it can't get better, but it wasn't even bad to begin with.

 

It can get better. It's just that it's pretty good as it is.

 

My opinion?
Battlefield 3 had a boring singleplayer and i actually would have just prefered fighting bots on the multiplayer maps.

Cutting out the SP part might have made the game cheaper to develop too, and if EA was kind enough (doubt it) they could have sold it cheaper at launch.

 

You asked two completely separate questions but only offered one poll. I elected to answer the second question. No, it would not have been reviewed even higher. It already has ridiculously high reviews.

The single player campaign is terrible by consensus. Some people may tolerate it, but the overwhelming majority does not. This isn't really a good example of mixed opinion - all games have some degree of mixed opinions.

 

I would totally have preferred it with bots....that means infinitely replayable without internet connection.

the reason they don't do that is because they want to fight piracy.

 

would've had more fun if it had multiplayer maps with bots as well.
easier to train on choppers and jets while being offline lol.

 

It was too scripted IMO and the push button fighting scenes were frustrating and uninvolving.

 

Yeah quick time is getting really old. Just because COD developers are obsessed with it, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

 

Dont give other devs ideas. D;
We might end up with The Witcher 3, with firearms, quicktime stuff and lead platform as the Xbox.

 

Everything can be "better" it's fine right now though.

 

I still haven't played the SP and I haven't updated the game since that patch was released.

 

Back to Karkand is more Battlefield, less Bad Company but it still has a bad aftertaste.
I would guess if Dice had free reigns when they developed it then it would be less like CoD because the two games are meant for different gamers.

CoD players want a quick multiplayer fix where you dont actually need to be hardcore gamer to enjoy or be good at.

Battlefield players want a game where they need strategy and teamwork to win.

But both games also contain a bunch of ***holes who screams hacker or whatever every time they die and generally try to ruin it for the good folks.