Now, Battlefield has always been about the multiplayer, but that's no excuse for putting resources into something and it still ends up being mediocre.

----

Bad Company 1 had a pretty good singleplayer. It was mostly because of the amazing characters and their humorous dialog. The gameplay was also pretty with huge, open levels and vehicles scattered throughout.

Bad Company 2 was an entirely different beast. The story was much more serious, the characters not as chatty or as funny, and the game was much more linear. Overall, it was pretty underwhelming.

I spoke to the lead-writer for Bad Company 2 (different than the one from BC1), and asked him why there was such a shift in tone between the two games. Unfortunately, he said he "couldn't go into it".

Have the trailers for Battlefield 3 shown anything different? Is DICE doing anything to change it up?

The singleplayer in Battlefield 3 will probably be generic and underwhelming, with characters no one cares about. It will look great, sound great, and play alright. Oh, I am also sure you will shoot a lot of dudes in the face.

Bring on the multiplayer, DICE.    

cool

Sure are a lot of people that can see into the future in the Internet...

EDIT: To give one interesting piece of discussion value though, I think Battlefield 3 shouldn't try to make memorable characters at all, but attempt to go with placing you in the eyes of random soldiers tasked to do some amazing yet dangerous things, with the major plot points being around political decisions being made as a result of the key events that you are participating in.  Would make for an interesting commentary into "what-if" scenarios within the realm of global politics. 

If they really need a memorable character, it should just be a plain honest soldier that gets roped into the worst things possible and that he simply must survive whilst questioning the things happening around him in his mind.  The emotional moments should not be stretched out, but lightly sprinkled throughout the campaign to give people some emotional ties to whatever the story could be.

Will they go that path? Seriously Doubt it.  I will guess that here will likely be more than 1 character in this that will have different fates in the campaign at least.

" Sure are a lot of people that can see into the future in the Internet.

" @ShiftyMagician said:

" Sure are a lot of people that can see into the future in the Internet.

I'm not looking into the future, I am looking back. What was the last military first person shooter that had a good story? I am finding it hard to think of one... "

" @ShiftyMagician said:

" Sure are a lot of people that can see into the future in the Internet.

I'm not looking into the future, I am looking back. What was the last military first person shooter that had a good story? I am finding it hard to think of one... "

" @Jayross said:

" @ShiftyMagician said:

" Sure are a lot of people that can see into the future in the Internet.

I'm not looking into the future, I am looking back. What was the last military first person shooter that had a good story? I am finding it hard to think of one... "

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare had a pretty good story with a lot of really great set-piece moments. But, that formula has been butchered and done to death by now, so changes might be in order, I think. "

" @Jayross said:

" @ShiftyMagician said:

" Sure are a lot of people that can see into the future in the Internet.

I'm not looking into the future, I am looking back. What was the last military first person shooter that had a good story? I am finding it hard to think of one... "

Black Ops has a pretty good story, and I enjoyed that singleplayer quite a bit. Anyways, I don't see why people get so hung up on every game needing a great story. Sure, a perfect game would include a perfect story, but it certainly hasn't put me off of... really any game I can think of. This is Battlefield, the only things I'm worried about are the things that make Battlefield special, and those are all gameplay. Use the singleplayer to give me unique setpieces based on that gameplay, and I'm happy. "

It all depends on your expectations, man. Don't expect a Casanova-like story telling and you should be able to enjoy it no matter what it does and doesn't do. Disappointment only happens to those who expect something fantastic out of everything

What is up with all of the negativity on unreleased games lately?

compared to the campaign in battlefield 2, anything is better than that

" Now, Battlefield has always been about the multiplayer, but that's no excuse for putting resources into something and it still ends up being mediocre.----Bad Company 1 had a pretty good singleplayer. It was mostly because of the amazing characters and their humorous dialog. The gameplay was also pretty with huge, open levels and vehicles scattered throughout.Bad Company 2 was an entirely different beast. The story was much more serious, the characters not as chatty or as funny, and the game was much more linear. Overall, it was pretty underwhelming.I spoke to the lead-writer for Bad Company 2 (different than the one from BC1), and asked him why there was such a shift in tone between the two games. Unfortunately, he said he "couldn't go into it".Have the trailers for Battlefield 3 shown anything different? Is DICE doing anything to change it up?The singleplayer in Battlefield 3 will probably be generic and underwhelming, with characters no one cares about. It will look great, sound great, and play alright. Oh, I am also sure you will shoot a lot of dudes in the face.Bring on the multiplayer, DICE.     "

" @Jayross said:

" Now, Battlefield has always been about the multiplayer, but that's no excuse for putting resources into something and it still ends up being mediocre.----Bad Company 1 had a pretty good singleplayer. It was mostly because of the amazing characters and their humorous dialog. The gameplay was also pretty with huge, open levels and vehicles scattered throughout.Bad Company 2 was an entirely different beast. The story was much more serious, the characters not as chatty or as funny, and the game was much more linear. Overall, it was pretty underwhelming.I spoke to the lead-writer for Bad Company 2 (different than the one from BC1), and asked him why there was such a shift in tone between the two games. Unfortunately, he said he "couldn't go into it".Have the trailers for Battlefield 3 shown anything different? Is DICE doing anything to change it up?The singleplayer in Battlefield 3 will probably be generic and underwhelming, with characters no one cares about. It will look great, sound great, and play alright. Oh, I am also sure you will shoot a lot of dudes in the face.Bring on the multiplayer, DICE.     "

Was Romeo and Juliet basically a generic forbidden love story? Was Hamlet basically a generic revenge story? As you get older, you've probably seen or even have thought of all the possible outcome there is in life. For me, any and all storytelling is always interesting. "

" @Ocean_H said:

" @Jayross said:

" Now, Battlefield has always been about the multiplayer, but that's no excuse for putting resources into something and it still ends up being mediocre.----Bad Company 1 had a pretty good singleplayer. It was mostly because of the amazing characters and their humorous dialog. The gameplay was also pretty with huge, open levels and vehicles scattered throughout.Bad Company 2 was an entirely different beast. The story was much more serious, the characters not as chatty or as funny, and the game was much more linear. Overall, it was pretty underwhelming.I spoke to the lead-writer for Bad Company 2 (different than the one from BC1), and asked him why there was such a shift in tone between the two games. Unfortunately, he said he "couldn't go into it".Have the trailers for Battlefield 3 shown anything different? Is DICE doing anything to change it up?The singleplayer in Battlefield 3 will probably be generic and underwhelming, with characters no one cares about. It will look great, sound great, and play alright. Oh, I am also sure you will shoot a lot of dudes in the face.Bring on the multiplayer, DICE.     "

Was Romeo and Juliet basically a generic forbidden love story? Was Hamlet basically a generic revenge story? As you get older, you've probably seen or even have thought of all the possible outcome there is in life. For me, any and all storytelling is always interesting. "

You know those are probably the oldest examples of those stories.  Maybe to a point where they aren't cliches. "

i dont think the story will be all too fun so im leaning on the gameplay of the single player to entertain me for a bit and get me used to the game

In comparison to the multiplayer, yes.

AS long as they fix the grenade physics, I'll buy it.

I'm really not expecting anything from the single player at all.  DICE showed me very plainly with BC2 that they can't make a good single player shooter campaign for shit, with the alarmingly robotic AI and the stale, linear level progression, and literally nothing to the gameplay outside of gunplay.

It is still a step up from having multiplayer maps with bots. Which is in my opinion all it should have, and what there previously was. The game does not need any sort of singleplayer, and if one comes at the price of diverting anything from the development of the multiplayer on any level it is wasted in my o. That is at least if they want it to be a proper Battlefield game.

I thought the structure of BC 2.s single player was better.

BC1 had some interesting parts but I mean come on, you fucking re-spawned! How awkward and dumb was that?

The only problem I had with single player in Bad Company 2 was that even though you had all these characters in your squad or company right next to you they didn't do shit combat wise, and the enemy AI knew that so they all aimed for you.  

I actually like Bad Company 2's story a bit better the previous game, and mostly because the first game was too goofy. 

The struggle of making the single player campaign is WHAT is worthwhile in the attempt.   In the struggle to make a good single player games is the seed to make better multiplayer games.  Any third-rate develops can slap some guns, some generic dudes, and some micro-goals onto a map and let players shoot each other; but it takes a team who cares and has something to say to make a good multiplers game.  If a developer has something to say, they say it with the single player game.   Any developer who does not even try to make a single player experience is just showing how unskillful and lazy they are to not even try. 

I will never buy a fps shooter that does not have a single player campaign in it.  Why buy a game from a team who has so little faith in their own skills?

[Bob] Should you buy a game from people who think they are unskillful and incompetent? I doubt it!

Bad Company 2's singleplayer was completely awful. I really did not enjoy it. 

duh?
 
Who plays Battlefield for the singleplayer? Hell, i'm just glad they're not just bot matches anymore.

A generic singleplayer is bound to happen. Expect 4/5 stars reviews from major sites because of that. 
 
They took an interesting approach to BC1. But sadly they toned down the humor ... maybe good in a game that is about killing people. 

The single player in Bad Company 2 was way better than in the first one. Just sayin'. 
 
Sure, they didn't joke around as much, but when they did, I laughed my ass off. There was some seriously funny shit in there. Didn't laugh once in the first game.  
 
Oh, and actually playing the game was much more fun.

I would have preferred to hear BF3 had no single player at all. I never finished the Bad Company 2 campaign, it was pretty bad.

I'm personally getting a little burnt on the single player parts of FPS. They're all starting to seem the same as the last game, especially COD. Most people end up playing the multiplayer for years and I still don't get why they don't put more dedication into that by allowing rewards for people who have been playing so long. Sure they have Prestige in COD and it takes forever to unlock everything in Reach but I'm wanting an online shooter that's constantly evolving. Instead of pushing out another sequel every year they could come up with some pretty awesome updates/DLC to expand the game. Maybe what I'm looking for is an FPSMMO or something like that. A game where there's still the competitive parts but lots of stuff you have to work a long time to get...

I'm personally getting a little burnt on the single player parts of FPS. They're all starting to seem the same as the last game, especially COD. Most people end up playing the multiplayer for years and I still don't get why they don't put more dedication into that by allowing rewards for people who have been playing so long. Sure they have Prestige in COD and it takes forever to unlock everything in Reach but I'm wanting an online shooter that's constantly evolving. Instead of pushing out another sequel every year they could come up with some pretty awesome updates/DLC to expand the game. Maybe what I'm looking for is an FPSMMO or something like that. A game where there's still the competitive parts but lots of stuff you have to work a long time to get...

I don't expect an amzing story driven campaign. I expect a pretty OK campaign with awesome set pieces like A FUCKING EARTHQUAKE MAKING A BUILDING FALL ON TOP OF YOU!

They're just putting one in so they can sell it to the people who plan to play it on console.

If the games single player sucks, I won't want it. That's the whole reason I want to play it, to see how the single player turns out. I couldn't care less about its multiplayer.

If the games single player sucks, I won't want it. That's the whole reason I want to play it, to see how the single player turns out. I couldn't care less about its multiplayer.

I couldn't care less about the single player. It will be a series of set pieces strung together by various shooting sequences, just like every other shooter. MP is why I'm buying this game.

It'll be underwhelming till your team is tasked to extract Bravo Company from a special assignment. When that happens; the campaign will be amazing. 

Loved the SP characters from BC1. The humour and relationship between them with the sort of misfit overtone was perfect and refreshing for a FPS game. When they released the 2nd BC game and made the story all doom-and-gloom it just became another military FPS shooter with  a typical story line where the characters had now become an almost crack squad of elites (well close enough). I agree in that i also felt BC2's SP campaign was a huge step back for the franchise. Ive never liked to MP side of the BC games (although was a huge fan of all BF games on PC up to BC). I get the impression that in BF3's SP you will just be a faceless soilder doing his duty which is a shame because as done to death as the COD franchise is it still has memorable characters. Im glad they are putting a SP campagin into BF3 although I dont hold high hopes for it, but mabye it will free up the next BC game to go back to its comedic roots now they can have BF3 as the serious one. 
Ill be picking up BF3 for the X360 as I have no PC and no cash to build a new one but if BF3 is as good as I hope and stays true to BF2 and not as closely to BC 1 & 2 ill definitely pick it up for PC when I get round to getting a new one.

Loved the SP characters from BC1. The humour and relationship between them with the sort of misfit overtone was perfect and refreshing for a FPS game. When they released the 2nd BC game and made the story all doom-and-gloom it just became another military FPS shooter with  a typical story line where the characters had now become an almost crack squad of elites (well close enough). I agree in that i also felt BC2's SP campaign was a huge step back for the franchise. Ive never liked to MP side of the BC games (although was a huge fan of all BF games on PC up to BC). I get the impression that in BF3's SP you will just be a faceless soilder doing his duty which is a shame because as done to death as the COD franchise is it still has memorable characters. Im glad they are putting a SP campagin into BF3 although I dont hold high hopes for it, but mabye it will free up the next BC game to go back to its comedic roots now they can have BF3 as the serious one.   

but mabye it will free up the next BC game to go back to its comedic roots now they can have BF3 as the serious one. 

@ShiftyMagician said:

" Sure are a lot of people that can see into the future in the Internet.

I'm not looking into the future, I am looking back. What was the last military first person shooter that had a good story? I am finding it hard to think of one...

@Jayross said:

@ShiftyMagician said:

" Sure are a lot of people that can see into the future in the Internet.

I'm not looking into the future, I am looking back. What was the last military first person shooter that had a good story? I am finding it hard to think of one...

So bad story = bad game?  Guess I better stop playing Mario and Pacman and Resident Evil and pretty much every game I love. 
 
I can name maybe 10 games in the history of video games that have, what I'd consider, a good story.  Off the top of my head; Mass Effect, Bioshock, MGS, GTAIV, Red Dead, LA Noire, Planescape: Torment, Half Life...ok, so I could only come up with 8...I guess that means every other game ever has a crappy single player campaign right?
 
Good story does not necessarily mean fun game and fun games usually have nothing to do with good stories.  I think you're confusing video games for movies or some other genre of entertainment where gameplay isn't the defining feature.

BC was more of a campy experiment.  So far BF3 seems to be like the recent MoH game in terms of tone and story. So basically it really depends on immersion and authenticity to drive the story instead of  solely relying on plot devices and character.

My only worry is that they will try to hard to make an awesome single player (which nobody really cares about)  and the multiplayer suffers because of that and isn't as fully featured as the old Battlefield 2.

I wanted to kill the Bad Company 2 Campaign with fire. I could not be less excited about BF3's singleplayer, Im considering not even touching it and just sticking with Multiplayer. 

@NTM said:

If the games single player sucks, I won't want it. That's the whole reason I want to play it, to see how the single player turns out. I couldn't care less about its multiplayer.

Not caring about the multiplayer for a battlefield game makes me wonder how you got interested in the franchise at all. Not hating just wondering.

I know it's made for multiplayer, but the trailers still suggests the single player will be awesome.

I had no plans to touch the single player.