Bad Company 1 and Battlefield 3 were good. I'm not saying they have Shakespearian plots, just that they're fun to play. For me they were, anyway. Length doesn't matter anyway, the online is clearly integral, I'm just also saying that that doesn't make everything else, like single player or co-op, non-existant.(Original post by NathanW18)
Of course they want it to be good, but are they ever good? Most are pretty short and just boring to play. The story tends to suck as well. I only ever buy them for the multiplayer and I assumed that most people did the same. Maybe I'm wrong.
People saying that about GTA is weird, though. That game has always been about the campaign.
Battlefield 4 Watch
Last edited by ozzyoscy; 17-11-2013 at 03:15.
- 17-11-2013 03:13
(Original post by ozzyoscy)
- 17-11-2013 15:30
There's always one (or several) spouting this nonsense. If the single player didn't matter one jot, they wouldn't have included it at all (as with BF2). Including it suggests they want at least a good single-player experience.
I've even heard this rubbish said for the likes of GTA. Some people are just strange.
They shouldn't have included the singleplayer and instead they should have focussed on actually finishing the game before release. DICE has made a pretty huge mistake getting EA to publish their games if they have to stick to deadlines and release a subpar product. I'd much rather a polished game that was released 2 months late than the current unplayable mess of wasted opportunity.
(Original post by Keckers)
- 17-11-2013 19:39
I don't see how the comment about GTA is at all relevant since I didn't mention it and GTA has always had stellar singleplayer..
P.S. I don't see how the comment about deadlines is at all relevant since I didn't mention it and Battlefield has always had deadlines etc.