• [Super Bunnyhop] How Do You Make a Single-Player Battlefield, Anyway?
    25 replies, posted
[video=youtube;LtnDtlL5bec]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtnDtlL5bec[/video]
Always thought the Modern Combat style singleplayer was the way to go. The more traditional CoDian school of campaign design leads the Battlefield titles to have a level or two that is really good followed sort of a flatline of by the numbers levels to pad out the 5 hour length. You could also look at other series for inspiration too though. Battlefront 2 essentially took multiplayer levels and set them up to make narrative sense, or you could forgo that and go with Battlefronts Galactic Conquest mode where, sort of like BF1's Operations, you play missions in a free form sort of sequence where you have an end goal but you can pick and choose what maps you want to play on, which could give you buffs through the overall campaign. Throw in 4 player coop, collectables, mutators, and a hardcore option and I think you have a pretty appealing campaign package.
Haven't watched it yet, but I hope they at least reference Frontlines: Fuel of War. Not the best game, but as far as "Battlefield clones with a singleplayer campaign that feels Battlefield-like without being a vs bots match" I've seen none better.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51506082]Always thought the Modern Combat style singleplayer was the way to go. The more traditional CoDian school of campaign design leads the Battlefield titles to have a level or two that is really good followed sort of a flatline of by the numbers levels to pad out the 5 hour length. You could also look at other series for inspiration too though. Battlefront 2 essentially took multiplayer levels and set them up to make narrative sense, or you could forgo that and go with Battlefronts Galactic Conquest mode where, sort of like BF1's Operations, you play missions in a free form sort of sequence where you have an end goal but you can pick and choose what maps you want to play on, which could give you buffs through the overall campaign. Throw in 4 player coop, collectables, mutators, and a hardcore option and I think you have a pretty appealing campaign package.[/QUOTE] Modern Combats hotswap feature in a campaign laid out like galactic conquest would be really cool!
I'd love something like the galactic conquest from SWB2 for Battlefield for offline singleplayer.
Okay, watched it now, it focuses a lot more on narrative than on gameplay, but it touches briefly on the gulf between multiplayer and campaign gameplay. Doesn't do much more than acknowledge that it exists, and bring up the Xbox BF2 trick of swapping soldiers, which doesn't seem like the best solution. After giving it some thought, there are three games that have ideas worth stealing for a Battlefield campaign. I already mentioned Frontlines: Fuel of War, a game that I guess is obscure because nobody seems to talk about it or remember it when I talk about it. It was basically just a Battlefield clone, and not a particularly great one at that, but it had ideas, and it had a campaign that actually felt like the multiplayer without just being a vs-bots multiplayer match. Many (but not all) of the levels were very open in their approaches. You got basic objectives, and then could do whatever you wanted to accomplish it. You need to clear that outpost - do you take your sniper rifle, plant yourself on a hill, and start plinking, or do you sneak around with your silenced pistol and metal-gear it up? You need to hold this line - do you grab a drone and rain down death from above, or hop on a downed tank's machine gun and lay down some fire? The game sometimes left you all alone, sometimes gave you tons of comrades who didn't really do anything except soak up bullets, or mop up the few hiding enemies so you didn't get bogged down finding the one last guy. I think the game had a lot of other, boring levels that were corridor shooters, but it's been a decade since I played it and I've blotted out the bad memories, other than a vague recollection of the game being uneven as hell. Frontlines made you (IIRC) a special-forces operator, explaining why you were better than all the cannon fodder, surviving all these deadly battles, but it was a half-explanation at best. Crysis (the first one, at least) had many levels with a similar open philosophy, but it made you basically a god. Singleplayer shooters are almost always power fantasies, and Crysis was that in spades (at least until the plot twist and that horrible, HORRIBLE level, after which you should stop playing). While I'm not sure Battlefield specifically should copy that part, it could work well for a Battlefield-like game. And some tricks it used are directly applicable - the "sidequests" to get certain weapons early would work perfectly. Say you're playing a level as just a rifleman - if you go take out that sniper on a hill just off the normal path, you can take his weapon and have a much easier time with the main level. The last game with an idea worth stealing isn't a shooter - hell, it's not even a video game. The Planet Mercenary tabletop RPG (unreleased, but I backed it on Kickstarter) has a mechanic where, upon your character dying, you gain control of your squad's lieutenant, who takes command. (There's some more mechanics tied into it that I don't think are directly applicable). This turns your squad into essentially extra lives - and adds a natural bit of difficulty ramp because you'll get less supporting fire as the mission goes on and you lose "lives". While kind of like the Xbox BF2 example they gave, I think a system like this would work much, much better. It has an actual loss condition (which games need), it makes in-story sense, it follows a common war-story trope (the same one used in one of the better BF1 levels, according to this video), and it keeps your focus on a small group of characters instead of "literally half the people on the battlefield", allowing for an actual story to be told. It wouldn't be necessary to make the campaign a full squad-tactical shooter - in fact, I think it would be best if your control of your squad was somewhat limited, to better mirror the multiplayer experience. With good AI programming, it should be possible to make many commands automatic or implicit: "oh, you're going through a door? Let's do the breach-and-clear routine", "a sniper just shot at us, let's take cover from that general direction unless we're moving", and so on. But if you wanted to make the singleplayer gameplay a bit deeper, going more explicit with your squad control wouldn't be a bad idea. (Also, make squad characters besides the player immortal - both for story simplicity, and to avoid punishing the player for a mistake the computer made) I think that's how a Battlefield (or BF clone) singleplayer campaign should [I]play[/I]. You control the leader of a squad, control switching to the next in chain-of-command when you die (and losing the level if they all die), with not much emphasis on squad tactics, but a lot of emphasis on your squad's characters. Levels are very open-approach, with main objectives, but also having optional objectives and even "sidequests" that aren't called out by the game but can offer some sort of advantage (better weapons, vehicles, artillery support, etc.). The story probably follows small arcs of a few levels following the same characters, which will require somewhat adaptive cutscenes since certain characters might not be alive at any given point, but it's only linear to the number of characters and not exponential, should be doable for a big-budget game. A larger plot can be told through the sequence of squad-focused story arcs, similar to how BF1 does it (although making the sequential rather than parallel will probably work better for most settings... World Wars are somewhat an exception).
[QUOTE=Marbalo;51506592]Never played or even touched Battlefield 1, but have they seriously not included a German campaign at all? The game decides to focus on the Australian and Bedouin sides of the conflict, but completely forgoes literally one of the key players in the war.[/QUOTE] you get to play as a british guy, an american guy fighting with the british, an italian guy, an australian guy, and a bedouin woman
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51506565]Okay, watched it now, it focuses a lot more on narrative than on gameplay, but it touches briefly on the gulf between multiplayer and campaign gameplay. Doesn't do much more than acknowledge that it exists, and bring up the Xbox BF2 trick of swapping soldiers, which doesn't seem like the best solution.[/QUOTE] Mostly because it's a sequel piece of sorts to his BF3 criticism video. Which not only tore the narrative of that game a new asshole but also confronted the possibilities more directly (even if he mainly pointed at Bad Company 1 and Star Wars Battlefront 2 for examples at the time with a cursory mention of Modern Combat).
[QUOTE=Marbalo;51506592]Never played or even touched Battlefield 1, but have they seriously not included a German campaign at all? The game decides to focus on the Australian and Bedouin sides of the conflict, but completely forgoes literally one of the key players in the war.[/QUOTE] It does seem sort of dissonant. A narrator tells us that behind every gun sight is a human being but apparently this wasn't true of the Germans or Ottomans who are just fodder in the game.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;51506624]Mostly because it's a sequel piece of sorts to his BF3 criticism video. Which not only tore the narrative of that game a new asshole but also confronted the possibilities more directly (even if he mainly pointed at Bad Company 1 and Star Wars Battlefront 2 for examples at the time with a cursory mention of Modern Combat).[/QUOTE] Sure, I'm not saying he's wrong to focus on the narrative failings, I just thought the gameplay problems deserved more than a cursory mention, and that the solution he pointed at is far from ideal (particularly as it works against the story qualities he praised). (Also, please tell me his BF3 criticism mentions how the story is exactly the same as BF:BC2, except without any parody, satire or comedy, just bland seriousness, right down to using the same model for the MacGuffin.)
[QUOTE=Marbalo;51506592]Never played or even touched Battlefield 1, but have they seriously not included a German campaign at all? The game decides to focus on the Australian and Bedouin sides of the conflict, but completely forgoes literally one of the key players in the war.[/QUOTE] it's campaign seems to be lacking a fair number of things it should have had
Modern Combat was a fantastically well-done way to make a singleplayer Battlefield fun. If there was hotswap with BF1 instead of an attempt at a story driven singleplayer, I'd fucking [I]love it.[/I]
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51506565] The last game with an idea worth stealing isn't a shooter - hell, it's not even a video game. The Planet Mercenary tabletop RPG (unreleased, but I backed it on Kickstarter) has a mechanic where, upon your character dying, you gain control of your squad's lieutenant, who takes command. (There's some more mechanics tied into it that I don't think are directly applicable). This turns your squad into essentially extra lives - and adds a natural bit of difficulty ramp because you'll get less supporting fire as the mission goes on and you lose "lives". While kind of like the Xbox BF2 example they gave, I think a system like this would work much, much better. It has an actual loss condition (which games need), it makes in-story sense, it follows a common war-story trope (the same one used in one of the better BF1 levels, according to this video), and it keeps your focus on a small group of characters instead of "literally half the people on the battlefield", allowing for an actual story to be told. It wouldn't be necessary to make the campaign a full squad-tactical shooter - in fact, I think it would be best if your control of your squad was somewhat limited, to better mirror the multiplayer experience. With good AI programming, it should be possible to make many commands automatic or implicit: "oh, you're going through a door? Let's do the breach-and-clear routine", "a sniper just shot at us, let's take cover from that general direction unless we're moving", and so on. But if you wanted to make the singleplayer gameplay a bit deeper, going more explicit with your squad control wouldn't be a bad idea. (Also, make squad characters besides the player immortal - both for story simplicity, and to avoid punishing the player for a mistake the computer made) [/QUOTE] Some of the Arma Campaigns have this and I love it.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51506082]Always thought the Modern Combat style singleplayer was the way to go. The more traditional CoDian school of campaign design leads the Battlefield titles to have a level or two that is really good followed sort of a flatline of by the numbers levels to pad out the 5 hour length. You could also look at other series for inspiration too though. Battlefront 2 essentially took multiplayer levels and set them up to make narrative sense, or you could forgo that and go with Battlefronts Galactic Conquest mode where, sort of like BF1's Operations, you play missions in a free form sort of sequence where you have an end goal but you can pick and choose what maps you want to play on, which could give you buffs through the overall campaign. Throw in 4 player coop, collectables, mutators, and a hardcore option and I think you have a pretty appealing campaign package.[/QUOTE] While that'd be fun I don't think they'll ever do it, since it doesn't have the 'cinematic' experience going for it. Shame really. [editline]10th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;51506651]It does seem sort of dissonant. A narrator tells us that behind every gun sight is a human being but apparently this wasn't true of the Germans or Ottomans who are just fodder in the game.[/QUOTE] The prologue is a mess in general. I love the respawning idea, but apart from what Superbunnyhop said, it also gives you this slow mo if you get hurt, making you feel powerful despite it saying you're not expected to survive. I think they should've focused down on the feeling of the prologue and polished it more and had it across the campaign, could've been great.
through mud and blood and friends in high places would have worked better in a movie rather than being in a video game the good cutscenes in those were held back by sloppy design gameplay and presentation-wise once actually in-game
All of this makes me wish for something akin to Battlefield Bad Company again. BC1 and 2 have some of the best campaigns specifically for a Battlefield game, due to the nature of the games. There was a game that completely understood itself on both the singleplayer and multiplayer aspect of it. I mean, Battlefield is a game that has been advertised like this (to be fair this is what an outsiders perspective is on it, but still, that is pretty much what Battlefield is) [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo5-XpQ5Jkk[/media] and yet this is the story they want to tell: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIUJh2mA8vg[/media] Bad Company was built like a linear sandbox, all about big explosions and great setpieces. To top it off, the story matched the tone of the multiplayer, in fact i'd argue a story like that would fit Battlefield 3/4/Hardline more because it drives you not by drama but by sheer fun, and those games in multiplayer are some great, crazy blockbuster fun.
Battlefield 4's campaign (in conjunction with how awful the entire game was on release) was one of the few times I actually felt [I]insulted[/I] by game developers for having bought a game. I felt like I could just hear them saying "whatever, yeah, it's fine, they'll buy it anyway. those fucking retards. release it" Like, don't get me wrong, the Multiplayer was eventually made excellent in its much later stages, but the campaign was one of the most awful campaigns I've ever played in nearly every fucking aspect, and still is. I still get annoyed thinking about it. I was expecting the same in BF1's campaign and was actually very pleasantly surprised to see the level of quality I got. Sure, there were some of the same problems in terms of the characters and writing (holy shit, the pilot in the Plane section is the most unlikable asshole of all time), but nowhere near the pile of shit that was BF4's campaign. I was just happy to have a solid campaign from a gameplay and design perspective. Right off the bat, the fact that you could change the FOV in Single Player was a HUGE improvement. [QUOTE=Gamerman12;51507009]All of this makes me wish for something akin to Battlefield Bad Company again. BC1 and 2 have some of the best campaigns specifically for a Battlefield game, due to the nature of the games. There was a game that completely understood itself on both the singleplayer and multiplayer aspect of it. Bad Company was built like a linear sandbox, all about big explosions and great setpieces. To top it off, the story matched the tone of the multiplayer, in fact i'd argue a story like that would fit Battlefield 3/4/Hardline more because it drives you not by drama but by sheer fun, and those games in multiplayer are some great, crazy blockbuster fun.[/QUOTE] Amen, brother. Huge fan of BC1&2, and was disappointed with BF3's campaign as well. But holy shit. BF4. The worst. The fucking worst.
[QUOTE=13illay;51507024]Battlefield 4's campaign (in conjunction with how awful the entire game was on release) was one of the few times I actually felt [I]insulted[/I] by game developers for having bought a game. I felt like I could just hear them saying "whatever, yeah, it's fine, they'll buy it anyway. those fucking retards. release it" Like, don't get me wrong, the Multiplayer was eventually made excellent in its much later stages, but the campaign was one of the most awful campaigns I've ever played in nearly every fucking aspect, and still is. I still get annoyed thinking about it. I was expecting the same in BF1's campaign and was actually very pleasantly surprised to see the level of quality I got. Sure, there were some of the same problems in terms of the characters and writing (holy shit, the pilot in the Plane section is the most unlikable asshole of all time), but nowhere near the pile of shit that was BF4's campaign. I was just happy to have a solid campaign from a gameplay and design perspective. Right off the bat, the fact that you could change the FOV in Single Player was a HUGE improvement. Amen, brother. Huge fan of BC1&2, and was disappointed with BF3's campaign as well. But holy shit. BF4. The worst. The fucking worst.[/QUOTE] god you and i are on the same wavelength. when I went from BF3 to BF4, I was thinking "well shit it can't get any worse, can it?" i was wrong. lord almighty. I still haven't beaten that trite of a campaign.
there really isn't much you can do with modern shooter singleplayer gameplay to make it interesting. even BC1's campaign, which is the "best" battlefield campaign to most people, is little more than walking from point A to point B and killing all the bots along the way i think a lot of people are looking at huge open maps and hotswap with rose-tinted glasses because it simply isn't fun duking it out with bots for hours without any coherent story, characters, or crafted scenes to break up to monotony. maps that are [I]too[/I] big fall into the open world problem where there really isn't anything to do and you spend more of your time traveling across the map than playing the game. i'm gonna claim that most people who want hotswap back won't even be able to play modern combat's campaign more than once without being bored what they should focus on is a good story and character development, because that's what makes these games enjoyable. people remember cod4 because of price, gaz, and the nuke scene. people remember bad company 1 because of your team shooters with bad characters are easily forgettable
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;51507045]god you and i are on the same wavelength. when I went from BF3 to BF4, I was thinking "well shit it can't get any worse, can it?" i was wrong. lord almighty. I still haven't beaten that trite of a campaign.[/QUOTE] I forced myself to play through for the unlocks in BF4 multiplayer and I can honestly say it was [I]painful.[/I] I was actually shocked at how half-assed the ending(s) was (were), despite my low expectations. Everything was so fucking pointless. I'm actually getting angry right now thinking about it, haha. [QUOTE=Jund;51507086]what they should focus on is a good story and character development, because that's what makes these games memorable. people remember cod4 because of price, gaz, and the nuke. people remember bad company 1 because of your team[/QUOTE] This was one of the biggest problems I had with BF4, too. I hated [I]everyone[/I] in the game. I specifically remember one moment where you meet one random soldier and he chats it up with the black dude (still don't remember his name, don't want to) and it comes up that they both went to the same school. It was a very brief conversation, but it sounded very natural among all the INCREDIBLY stale and stiff shit that you trudge through for the rest of the game. I remember thinking "holy shit, are they taking a step in the right direction for character development?" Nope. It's literally the only moment something like that happens. And it's very close to the end of the game. Honestly, I could write a fucking essay about how awful BF4's campaign is.
[QUOTE=13illay;51507106]This was one of the biggest problems I had with BF4, too. I hated [I]everyone[/I] in the game. I specifically remember one moment where you meet one random soldier and he chats it up with the black dude (still don't remember his name, don't want to) and it comes up that they both went to the same school. It was a very brief conversation, but it sounded very natural among all the INCREDIBLY stale and stiff shit that you trudge through for the rest of the game. I remember thinking "holy shit, are they taking a step in the right direction for character development?" Nope. It's literally the only moment something like that happens. And it's very close to the end of the game. Honestly, I could write a fucking essay about how awful BF4's campaign is.[/QUOTE] it really baffles me how many fps game devs fail to understand how crucial character development is that line was one of the few things i remembered from bf4's campaign as well. it came out of nowhere and had no bearing on the rest of the game whatsoever, but it was a step towards [I]humanizing[/I] your otherwise throwaway AI squadmate, and that's what made it memorable if they had more breaks in between the rooty tooty point and shooty to actually build the characters up, i might have actually given a shit about who died at the end
The apex of Battlefield campaigns being disappointing is towards the end of BF3 when you (as Blackburn) get ambushed by Dima, a Russian Spetsnaz badass. He holds you at gunpoint and tells you the full story (the US and Russia are being setup against each other) then lowers his gun, puts his hands up and explains that if you don't shoot your squad leader, millions of people will die. So naturally the first thing I do is not shoot my fuckin squad leader because thats retarded. But if you don't shoot him[I] he shoots you[/I] and you have to restart from checkpoint.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51507264]The apex of Battlefield campaigns being disappointing is towards the end of BF3 when you (as Blackburn) get ambushed by Dima, a Russian Spetsnaz badass. He holds you at gunpoint and tells you the full story (the US and Russia are being setup against each other) then lowers his gun, puts his hands up and explains that if you don't shoot your squad leader, millions of people will die. So naturally the first thing I do is not shoot my fuckin squad leader because thats retarded. But if you don't shoot him[I] he shoots you[/I] and you have to restart from checkpoint.[/QUOTE] i can't see any reason at all for the protagonists to not have a voice outside of cutscenes in these games. just seems like total laziness.
[QUOTE=milktree;51507479]i can't see any reason at all for the protagonists to not have a voice outside of cutscenes in these games. just seems like total laziness.[/QUOTE] i think it's a common thought among game developers that hearing a voice come from the player in a 1st person game is jarring and confusing for certain players like you, i disagree, though, and i think it's becoming a more common thing in games nowadays anyway
I found the SP campaign in BF1 fun and engaging enough to play through it over the course of a day without stopping. That's pretty rare for me nowadays - even though it was only 8 hours of gameplay, at no time did I feel the desire to set it down and do something else, even when I was frustrated at it (especially during the end of the Mud and Blood campaign). All in all, I feel like DICE really nailed it with BF1, both SP and MP are great experiences and I'm glad I snagged it for $40 on sale. Also, SBH wasn't exactly accurate with their claim of historical weapon inaccuracy; red rot sights DID exist in WW1, just not to the scale it was represented, but c'mon, it's a video game, and in the end it's about having fun and it achieved its goal.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.