• Battlefield 4 won't have co-op due to 'focus' on single and multiplayer
    65 replies, posted
[url]http://www.shacknews.com/article/78460/battlefield-4-wont-have-co-op-campaign[/url]
This would be literally the only feature that could get me to preorder.
They could always just add a cheap SP coop like in world at war, where you simply had two main characters instead of one, each being a duplicate.
Good, the BF3 coop was pretty half assed and people only played it to get the multiplayer unlocks anyway.
All I'm hearing is "we're cutting features to get this game out the door as soon as possible." This never ends well.
[QUOTE=goon165;40074306]All I'm hearing is "we're cutting features to get this game out the door as soon as possible." This never ends well.[/QUOTE] Or, "we're cutting features that people didn't like/use in BF3"
[QUOTE=RichyZ;40074318]co-op was hardly a feature in bf3, it sucked shitty dicks even compared to co-op in [B]2/2142[/B][/QUOTE] You can hardly call that co-op. [QUOTE=AzzyMaster;40074323]Or, "we're cutting features that people didn't like/use in BF3"[/QUOTE] Irrelevant Scraping this and the Wii U version of the game tells me that corners are flying off of everything at DICE, design experimentation is giving weigh to assembly line efficiency to getting something shipped. This is going to be Battlefield 3.5 if even that, not like a give a fuck though because I'm not buying it until I see 2143.
But isn't co-op multiplayer?
0/10 wont buy
[QUOTE=goon165;40074394]Scraping this and the Wii U version of the game tells me that corners are flying off of everything at DICE, design experimentation is giving weigh to assembly line efficiency to getting something shipped.[/QUOTE] I don't know if you've noticed recently but very few developers are making Wii U versions of their games. Why? Not to cut corners, but because the system has sold so poorly that it would be a wasted investment. As for co-op, it was the smallest section of BF3 and ended up being pretty lame so it only makes sense to drop it and focus more the other areas of development.
Not only did BF3 co-op suck complete dick, but it was SO buggy. And they never fixed any of it to my knowledge.
[QUOTE=goon165;40074394] Scraping this and the Wii U version of the game tells me that corners are flying off of everything at DICE, design experimentation is giving weigh to assembly line efficiency to getting something shipped. This is going to be Battlefield 3.5 if even that, not like a give a fuck though because I'm not buying it until I see 2143.[/QUOTE] EA scrapped the WiiU version because EA is having a hissy fit that nintendo didn't make the WiiU the Origin console.
[QUOTE=Wiggles;40074524]I don't know if you've noticed recently but very few developers are making Wii U versions of their games. Why? Not to cut corners, but because the system has sold so poorly that it would be a wasted investment.[/QUOTE] More so that They would actually have to put effort into it and work something out with the Wii U controller, not because it didn't sell well.
[QUOTE=goon165;40074552]More so that They would actually have to put effort into it and work something out with the Wii U controller, not because it didn't sell well.[/QUOTE] But developers don't actually have to do anything with the controller. I mean, all they did with Black Ops 2 was put the minimap and some stats on it.
How about dropping that shitty linear GAWD BLES AMMERIKA-themed, run&gun campaign made only to chase Modern Warfare and instead just had co-op missions? Quite sure everyone prefers holding out a base against waves of enemies with 31 other players to the campaign (or take one of the good parts of MW instead and do something like Spec-Ops just more large scaled and more Battlefield). Not to mention it would cost less, without all the fucking cutscenes and super expensive voice actors (because you gotta get the super expensive ones, god forbid a soldier in a firefight suddenly didn't deliver lines like a A-list actor).
People are always complaining about SP being tacked on, then as soon as a feature is removed to improve the SP people still flip out.
[QUOTE=Scot;40074778]People are always complaining about SP being tacked on, then as soon as a feature is removed to improve the SP people still flip out.[/QUOTE] They need to stop with the generic Call of Duty point and click to kill gameplay that they have been doing in BC2 and BF3. BC1's singleplayer was fun because after you get done killing the bad guys you can look back and find that the path you came down is a war-torn hell. There was a much greater focus on the destruction in BC1 than BC2 and that was enough to make the singleplayer replayable unlike the other games. If they aren't going to come up with some fresher gameplay then I'd rather them work exclusively on multiplayer.
There's still a little hope for the BF4 singleplayer seeing as how they introduce some open areas and freely controllable vehicles. However, the gameplay trailer did a poor job of demonstrating it. Plus it'll probably shove another story down your throat that takes itself too serious. BC2's attitude fit the game a lot better.
[QUOTE=Scot;40074778]People are always complaining about SP being tacked on, then as soon as a feature is removed to improve the SP people still flip out.[/QUOTE] I don't think there's anything DICE can do at this point that Facepunch won't take a small fit over. Just complaining for the sake of it really. Then half of those complaining will buy the game on release, enjoy it for a few months, then hate it again. Seems to be the way of Facepunch with nearly all newer Call of Duty / BF games.
[QUOTE=goon165;40074394]You can hardly call that co-op. [b]Irrelevant[/b] Scraping this and the Wii U version of the game tells me that corners are flying off of everything at DICE, design experimentation is giving weigh to assembly line efficiency to getting something shipped. This is going to be Battlefield 3.5 if even that, not like a give a fuck though because I'm not buying it until I see 2143.[/QUOTE] Very relevant. Would you rather catch a huge-ass trout or thirty sardines? It's better to have a bigger focus on the bits that matter, the campaign (arguable, yeah), and the multiplayer. There's no point in having co-op at all. Nobody I know even really liked it, and just grinded through it to unlock the co-op guns.
For me, a proper coop campaign was the only way BF4 could redeem it's self. I now most likely won't be purchasing it.
[QUOTE=Pig;40076870]For me, a proper coop campaign was the only way BF4 could redeem it's self. I now most likely won't be purchasing it.[/QUOTE] What a dumb reason to not buy a [b]competitive multiplayer focused[/b] FPS game.
But co-op was fun. Until the game bugged out like hell.
I remember that once scene where they had to confirm the identity of that one guy you kill. Ace identity confirming, if you saw the scene you'd know what I'd mean.
[QUOTE=Pikachu231;40076880]But co-op was fun. Until the game bugged out like hell.[/QUOTE] it was fun until my guns disappeared and i fell out of the map while my friend was fighting off a horde of 30 invincible russians
So they say they're cutting out co-op to improve SP and MP accordingly, but what happens if MP is, again, the only decent part of the whole game? The 17 minute trailer of SP only seems to reinforce that SP is a tech demo for their graphics and animations like BF3 did, and fancy setpieces isn't enough anymore. v:v:v
[QUOTE=RikohZX;40076952]So they say they're cutting out co-op to improve SP and MP accordingly, but what happens if MP is, again, the only decent part of the whole game? The 17 minute trailer of SP only seems to reinforce that SP is a tech demo for their graphics and animations like BF3 did, and fancy setpieces isn't enough anymore. v:v:v[/QUOTE] MP has really only been the decent part of battlefield for forever. BC1 and 2 campaigns were OK because the characters had some personality and were likeable, but it's going back to the usual military shooter trend of "Really shitty tacked on campaign modes when it's obvious 90% of the effort is in the multiplayer." And you know what? I'm OK with that. I'm not being forced to play the single player in an obviously meant to be multiplayer game. I'm guessing at this point it's just tacked on because having "online only" doesn't look good on the box cover. As long as what the game is designed to do (multiplayer in this case) does it's job well then i'm A-OK. I have never been disappointed with the multiplayer portion of a battlefield game and I don't expect it to suddenly stop here. And if cutting a shitty co-op mode helps them make the multiplayer any better at all then by god go ahead. Then I don't have to grind in co-op to unlock guns.
Ditch SP aswell.
Screw Battlefield 4. Where's our Bad Company 3? On Topic: hopefully, the campaign this time out isn't all stilted.
[QUOTE=goon165;40074306]All I'm hearing is "we're cutting features to get this game out the door as soon as possible." This never ends well.[/QUOTE] More like "we're cutting this feature because well, let's be honest, it was shite."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.