Square Peg: The Battlefield 4 Story Trailer

Battlefield 4 has a story? Yes, it has a story. I’m not alone in forgetting that it would be coming with single-player, am I? It just doesn’t seem to be the reason for people to play it. And now I’m thinking about it, I can’t remember if the previous game even had a campaign*. So now I want to know: who plays the single-player bits of Battlefield games, and were you/are you excited about the fourth game’s offline shootery? Actually, you should probably wait until watching the trailer before answering that, because it looks a bit crap.

It turns out it is the sort of story that is mostly told with raised voices and pointed guns, and there is a bit when one of the team punches a dog that has to be a dig at Call Of Duty. I’d like to direct you all to the performance about 37 seconds in, where Gruff Manshouts gives the performance of a lifetime. You will note how he starts off quietly and then increases in volume. As I understand, this is a really tough bit of acting to pull off, and most actors can’t do it without the letters getting bigger on the autocue. You don’t get an autocue in games, so this is pure acting all the way.

Release date: 29th of October in the US, and November the 1st in Europe. Don’t you Americans spoil the story for us Europeans.

*I just remembered that it did, because I was sent all the way to Stockholm to see it.


  1. FurryLippedSquid says:

    I think I lasted 2 missions in BF3 before I got bored. So tired of the OORAH gameplay. I used to love the thoughtful campaigns of Call of Duty 1 and 2. Oh well.

    • Gap Gen says:

      THE LAST AIRCRAFT CARRIER *Patriotic music swells*

      But yeah the complete destruction of the US Navy by all those other powerful navies is completely plausible.

      • FuriKuri says:

        But yeah the complete destruction of the US Navy by all those other powerful navies is completely plausible.

        You may find the following interesting, if not illuminating.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        • Gap Gen says:

          Granted, places like the Straits of Hormuz are dangerous environments for shipping if, say, Iran decides to mine it or send suicide boats out, but I’m talking taking out carrier groups around the globe, as the trailer suggests.

          • Dances to Podcasts says:

            I think the more important point is the dominance of missile technology the last few decades. Carriers are nice when you can park them off the coast of some podunk dictator. In an actual high tech major conflict they’re great big sitting ducks.

          • Walsh says:

            That argument would make sense if carriers travelled by themselves. But they don’t and they are surrounded by missile destroyers whose job it is to annihilate anything flying towards the carrier group.

          • Gap Gen says:

            It’s true, depends on the ability of surface ships to destroy missiles. If, say, Chinese missile tech outstrips US missile interception tech, or if (non-nuclear) ICBMs become able to effectively target surface ships, carriers are in trouble, but this is more distant future stuff.

          • bills6693 says:

            Straits of hormuz – not a huge issue. One or two mines COULD go off. But there are british minehunters always in the area, and they are very good – once the strait is mined, even if one goes off, from that moment the minehunters would simply find and destroy any remaining mines, and the naval forces in the area would stop (with force) iranians from putting out any more mines.

            On the topic of missiles – missile defence is very advanced. Furthermore, a bigger threat may well be from submarines. The highest tech submarines currently are extremely capable and it is very difficult for you to defend against it – mainly because the first ship will be sinking before you even know there is one somewhere, and its unlikely you will find it after that either.

        • Showtime says:

          Well, yeah, MC2002 is bad news if your enemy invents speed-of-light uninterceptable carrier pigeons that can transmit information from any group to any other group with no delay and can teleport veritable fleets of small boats around without attracting suspicion. Oh, and the small boats can carry missiles and torpedoes that weigh several times as much as the boats themselves (much less the illumination and FCRs required to use them), and that you allow these boats to sail right up to your ships during wartime so that they can detonate their payload of suicide bombs larger than the boats themselves.

          …but then again, any navy that could do that probably wouldn’t need to bother actually fighting mere earthlings, haha. While there’s no doubt that Millenium Challenge 2002 exposed some vulnerabilities in fleet defense within littoral waters, it only worked as well as it did by giving REDFOR those allowances. You can read plenty of words on it in link to dod.mil

          • Gap Gen says:

            Thanks for that document; it’s interesting how militaries run these exercises, and how they model the various components. Like you say, certain assumptions also made by videogames, like instant communication, aren’t necessarily true. I love Scourge of War’s courier system for that – one time I was cut off by a much larger enemy force from my co-op buddies, and none of my couriers made it through enemy lines to warn them, so I had to pull back and try to find a way to regroup with the main force.

    • Syra says:

      I think they acknowledged your concerns about comparing to the COD stories by punching the CODGhosts dog in the face at 1.37

      • Fitzmogwai says:

        videogame trailers have made me punch my four month old puppy in the face, just now.


        • SillyWizard says:

          This is an ARMY DOG-PUNCHING SIMULATOR. What do you want, FLOWERS TO WOMANS?!

    • shagohad says:

      yeah got as far as the mission with the jet

      then got horribly bored of sitting in a jet clicking at things….. so never went back, also QTEs are even worse on keyboards and it had those

  2. engion3 says:

    Battlefield games have the greatest lore of any game world.

    • darkChozo says:

      Personally, I ship Soldierman With Assault Rifle with Soldierman Sitting In Jet. You can read all about it in my fanfiction, Love is a Battlefield.

      • dethtoll says:

        Well done.

      • Spoon Of Doom says:

        They were more than just brothers in arms. The marines judged them, but they were strong – no one could tell them they were wrong. Soldierman With Assault Rifle was trapped by his love, forever chained to Soldierman Sitting In Jet’s side.

    • Gap Gen says:

      What is up with that man with those softer features and squeaky voice? I don’t want none of these “liar” whatjumacallits in my game, whatever that is.

    • Joshua says:

      “World Superpower Free-For-All”

      Seems like a great idea actually.

  3. GameCat says:


  4. Gap Gen says:

    Yeah, take that, dog! Cats 4 life.

  5. Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

    It actually sounds like quite an interesting story that looks a bit wasted on a manshoot.

  6. SuicideKing says:

    Ah so they omitted that part where you fall of the top of a 6+ story building with a large slab(s?) of concrete falling on top of you…only to get up a dust yourself like you jumped off a slide into a sandpit.

    • chewbaccasdad says:

      It worked in Blues Brothers, which is one of the most realistic war films ever made.

  7. The Random One says:

    I’m at work so I can’t watch it, but I can’t wait to find out what those dastardly Russians are doing now!

  8. bills6693 says:

    I wish they just sold the single player, for like £4. I’d buy that. I don’t want the multiplayer, I have no interest in the multiplayer, and I don’t want to pay £40 or whatever for a not very good single player experience. But I’d waste a few hours on that single player for a small amount of money. Reflective of how much value I’m getting out of it :P

    Same goes for GOD and these other crappy-SP FPS games

    • Machinations says:

      It’s funny, as I feel the exact opposite. There is no satisfaction in gunning down moronic AI enemies.
      Where Battlefield shines is in the most complex and inviting playground for manshooting that exists – and human opponents are devious and determined. BF3 was an amazing game, and the BF series does not need to be compared to the hot mess for kids called COD.

      • bills6693 says:

        I mean its comparable for single-player. And thats why I don’t want to spend much on it.

        I have to say, I remember playing Battlefield Bad Company (the first one) campaign on a friend’s x-box and the campaign was rather fun in that. It was pretty open IIRC – i.e. you were on a map and had an objective, but you could approach it however you want, it was a large open space – you could take a boat up a river, or dive on the roads there, chose how to get there, it was pretty good. Plus the destructable terrain, it made a good campaign in my memory.

      • Shooop says:

        Too bad it’s already the same game.

        That fancy font and the lens flare must have obscured your vision.

      • DodgyG33za says:

        That used to be true of the BF/BC series. I felt that BF3 was more of a ‘random death hits you from any angle’ simulator. For me the series peaked in BC2, where most of the time when you died, you knew who killed you and what you did wrong. It also had the best destructible environment of the series. BF3 was much more of a twitch shooter.

        BF4 will be the first in the series I give a miss as from the beta it looks more like a BF3 expansion than anything else. If I wanted a COD I would buy one.

  9. CookPassBabtridge says:

    I have Cod 1,2 and 4, and BF2 and Bad Company 2. I played the campaign missions of COD1,2 and 4 several times over, and the BC campaign once. In terms of MP, I dabbled once with MW4 and a brief dalliance with the bots in BF2, so for me these games have always been campaign only as I HATE PEOPLE. I really enjoyed the campaigns of the early CODs, but never stepped beyond MW1. BC2 campaign was a bit silly really.

    • Machinations says:

      You would think if you truly hated people, you would love manshooters. I mean, there is no greater outlet for misanthropy than online shooters.

      Knife, then teabag, a recipe for trollish satisfaction

      • CookPassBabtridge says:

        I long for a remake of Lemmings, where the Lemmings are real online gamers.

        I sucked at Lemmings.

        • bills6693 says:

          Amazing game concept. A first-person puzzle-type game, multiplayer, with lots of people on a level. But you can’t see or work it out from first person. Instead there is one player who sees it like you see lemmings. Then that player has to direct the other players around, but can’t talk to them, all they can do is place symbol icons…

          So basically kind of like lemmings but the lemmings are people. But you don’t use them to make stairs and blow up, you place icons which people have to use to work out what to do. Not entirely sure how you make sure people don’t do things on their own but I’m sure it could work :)

  10. Tei says:

    USA has build a panopticon to live in it. Is already a empire falling to pieces. The Tea Party is just the first wave of barbarians looting the capital.
    Watch out what you say, read or watch, USA citizens, naked eyes are watching 24/7. And dogs. Fuck dogs. Cats is where the fun is.

    • Gap Gen says:

      Problem is, I don’t see the great power rising to challenge US dominance of the world economy. China still can’t project power and has difficult structural problems to deal with (same goes for India, Brazil), and Russia isn’t going to roll over Western Europe any time soon. While the US political system may be effed in the ay, it still has a vast amount of global power that no-one can challenge, so it gets to remain global hegemon until someone can step up and slap away control of the oceans from the US Navy.

      • CookPassBabtridge says:

        It put all its cities into military research and production focus for fighting units, and now its happiness value is falling and other countries are denouncing them. Soon they will not be able to flog anyone their gemstones and horses except at a silly rate or in exchange for some grumpy japanese mumbling. All it has left to do is conquer everyone because all the other victory conditions are borked. If only they had built the Colosseum instead.

        • Gap Gen says:

          You missed the part where they won the big war and built the United Nations, thus winning the game. Now they’re just dicking around over the map after the score counter’s been turned off.

          • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

            Ah, the post-game projects. The Trans-Polar Railroad, filling out the last corners of the tech tree, the nuking and salting of former French lands, placing airstrips and carriers everywhere so the entire world can be reached for immediate retaliation, taunting the Aztecs with the secret of Pottery that they so desperately want, drawing rude shapes with roads…

        • chewbaccasdad says:

          If I didn’t love you for that comment, I’d love you for that username.

        • Lanfranc says:

          “Wise men said, only fools run an empire without luxuries… King.”

        • Tei says:

          Theres a entire subReddit where you can read the world news in this style.

      • SuicideKing says:

        China powers the US economy, if you hadn’t noticed.

    • Blackcompany says:

      Correction: The Tea Party is just the first group who want their government to spend responsibly, stop borrowing money, bring our soldiers home, leave the rest of the world in peace and mind our own business.

      Which is what I thought you all wanted from our messed up, politically divided, self-centered nation.

      There. I fixed it for you.

      • nimzy says:

        Isolationism never fixed anything.

        • Gap Gen says:

          Worked for the Founding Fathers! When the US was incredibly weak, and a war with a European power would have crushed it. It’s interesting people who believe that the incredible wealth of the US can be maintained long-term without significant spending on the US Armed Forces guaranteeing that the world economy is more or less aligned with US interests, thanks to their owning the sea lanes and being able to conquer a mid-level nation without really breaking a sweat.

    • waltC says:

      Sorry, but I think you’ve got the Tea Party confused with the Democratic Party in US. Admittedly, there is no similarity in the spellings, but the barbarians definitely don’t belong to the Tea Party…;)

      • Gap Gen says:

        Both parties have ideological wings that drive policymakers away from compromise, but the Republicans seem to be particularly badly afflicted by insane people who view threatening the US economy as a valid tactic for getting what they want. I guess it’s partly primaries rewarding ideologues over moderates, and partly movement conservatism effectively policing Republican policy. It’s possibly also that US policy is so far to the economic right at the moment that even a left-wing ideologue is effectively a moderating influence.

        Another problem is that Republican policy doesn’t appear to be coherent – the idea that cutting spending encourages growth doesn’t always work. and austerity policies in other countries, such as the UK, have been disastrous during the recession since the government can’t stimulate spending elsewhere in the economy if it too is cutting back. There is also a party divide between defence hawks, who demand spending on the military, and libertarians who demand any spending be slashed. In any case, while Republicans in opposition make a lot of noise about slashing any and all government spending, Republican governments since the 1970s haven’t even been fiscally conservative, running up deficits as they cut taxes while increasing spending – the only president since Carter who cut the deficit was Clinton, a democrat: link to en.wikipedia.org

    • Misnomer says:

      How is this not the sort of nationalistic (or anti-nationalistic) trolling that gets deleted from the comments thread? If you want to talk about American militarism in video games, that might be relevant. This is just trolling.

  11. Junkenstein says:

    I remember reading an interview a while back about how BF4’s campaign was going to be based a lot more around the type of experiences you get in the multiplayer. Who knows, it could be good. Maybe.

  12. hotmaildidntwork says:

    The dog dies.

  13. Laurentius says:

    This trailer is really bad but so is CoD one, i don’t get. I mean BF3 SP was pretty bad as well and i only finished it probably after decking 60 or more hours in MP finally when my internet went down. It has at least some finer moments like tank battle or even this on rails flying mission, you as a players were participating in some cool stuff but this trailer ? You are mostly spectator, watching some shouting and ocasionally some action that is happaning to other people. It’s not even clear if i will be able to punch that dog or i will just watch some other dude do it.

    • darkChozo says:

      If you want a picture of the future, imagine a fist punching a dog in the face — forever.

      • One Pigeon says:

        Maybe it will have some kind of weird animal love/hating type karma system.

        “Press X to pet dog”

        “Hammer B to repeatedly punch dog into a bloody mess”

        I’m sure there’ll be some kind of achievement to go along with this. Maybe a picture of Tom Hanks and the dog in Turner & Hooch if you take the “good” route.

        • Gap Gen says:

          This is basically me playing Splinter Cell.

          Player A: “OK, quietly knock that guy out.”
          Me: Messily stabs terrorist
          Me: “Wait, LMB or RMB?”

  14. ScruZer says:

    Dear RPS, we know all you are biased against this game as you have trashed BF4 since day one. It all started when john walker ranted about the initial reveal trailer, and then he admitted in a tweet to me that he will never play battlefield 4.(funnily enough i cant find the tweet anymore, maybe he deleted it.)

    So your upcoming review of this game doesn’t sound very credible. Not only that, but when you write in the headline that the story is crap based on 1 minute and 50 seconds edited footage, then you’re not objective about this game.

    As for the dog, it was there in the original video before CoD Ghosts was unveiled.

    • Craig Pearson says:

      It is true that RPS takes it’s editorial direction from John Walker’s tweets, but I said it looked crap because in this trailer it does. If they put out a shitty trailer of people screaming nonsense at each other, then I am happy to say that it looks a bit poo. If I play it and it’s not, then I’d be happy to point that out.

      Thanks for the dog help.

      • ScruZer says:

        no problem. You can watch the dog punch scene here. It starts around 4:20 link to youtube.com

        the new trailer has the same scene, but it is a close up this time.

    • Machinations says:

      I play EU4 and BF3 quite frequently. I guess I straddle the fence between two largely dissimilar communities. I can tell as I age my reaction times have gone down, hence my crappy stats, but I dont care, because it is fun.

      Frankly, I LOVE beating people in manshooters; not Quake style or CoD arena ones, though – only Battlefield gives a person the space they need to connive and deceive opponents, being unpredictable and knowing the map gives a huge advantage and there is something inherently satisfying about outwitting an opponent likely 2 decades younger than I am.

      I don’t quite understand the dislike of BF either; its head and shoulders above CoD and is clearly primarily a PC franchise. Arma has some simulation items going for it, but other than the large amount of players, the only advantage I see to it, is that you can shoot AI soldiers (or fly using a mortar)

      Frankly, after decades of shooters, the ability to destroy scenery is a MUCH bigger game changer than I thought it would be. In BF2, you might be driving a tank and come across a sniper, but because he hides in some little wooden building, you could not get him. That has changed in BF – now I can collapse the house on the sniping scum, and giggle with perverse glee as he is crushed by falling masonry.

      • Sparkasaurusmex says:

        I want to recommend that you give Natural Selection 2 a try! (though it does not have destruction)

    • ffordesoon says:

      I think it’s funny that people still come here assuming RPS is in any way “objective.”

      I’m not being critical; RPS is proudly subjective, and thank God.

    • kud13 says:

      it’s amazing, in this day and age, how many people have trouble distinguishing the letters in a “review” from the letters in a “Wot I think”

      I really can’t remember when RPS claimed to provide “objective reviews”. They provide their thoughts–which are inevitably influenced by preconceptions and biases the writer carries, as would any non-robotic individual.

      The failure to understand this and evaluate a given piece of writing critically falls onto the reader, not the author. The only way a Wot I think will approach the objectability of a “review” is if the reader shares the author’s opinion about games. For example, Jim likes immersive first-person games. I also like such games. Because we share this interest, a Wot i think of such a game by Jim is more likely to carry greater influence in me forming opinion on the game he wrote a Wot I Think about. Note all the subjective opinion moments involved

      • vagabond says:

        It’s not an issue of “review” vs “wot I think”.

        If someone from RPS writes a piece on whether they enjoyed BF4 or CODGhosts or not, and what their experience was like playing it, whether they particularly care for the modern military shooter or not I might stand some chance of figuring out whether the game is a good or bad example of said genre, and whether or not I want to play it myself.

        Given the coverage of both games I’ve seen from them thus far seems to consist of little more than mocking the games, their trailers, and their audience, I’m not really expecting that a review, or a “wot I think”, will consist of anything more. Mocking the game doesn’t tell me anything other than they hate the genre. I’m sure it provides some laughs and the ability for a portion of their audience to likewise indulge in some derision directed at gaming’s lowest common denominator, but it is of no use to anyone that wants actual information about the game.

        I mean, we get it. They hate the genre.
        But as they are so fond of saying to people in the comments on the sexism threads and the like “if you don’t like this sort of stuff just ignore it and move past it, there’s plenty more going on that isn’t this”

        • Misnomer says:

          I’ve been saying this for a while. They really should just stop covering the genre if they don’t care a fig for it. This is like if Cara and Alec covered press releases for every dress up game ever released. It was funny once or twice as a journey into a genre they don’t typically give the time of day, but it would be obnoxious as an ongoing crusade against the type of game that certain pop culture obsessed teenage girls might enjoy.

        • SuicideKing says:

          Neither games are out yet, both take themselves too seriously, i don’t know why RPS shouldn’t mock them.

          You’ll see a proper WiT when the time comes.

    • Tams80 says:

      How is the heading biased. I mean, what if it’s a square hole? Using a round peg would just be silly.

  15. Drake Sigar says:

    Oh lord. I don’t think I’ve seen a dog get punched in a video game trailer before. The part we’re shown is a 200lb soldier pinning an animal to the ground and mercilessly beating the shit out of it while it whimpers helplessly, the soldier’s garbled ‘F off of me!’ being the only hint that the dog may have been hostile.

    Doing a quick shot of the dog running towards the soldier with slathering jaws first would just make more sense.

    • ScruZer says:

      You havent? Why was there NO reaction when he punched the dog in the reveal trailer from March?

      link to youtube.com

      watch at 4:20

      • Drake Sigar says:

        No reaction from me? I didn’t see it. Besides, I was focusing on the context. That’s an in-depth gameplay video which clearly shows the dog attacking, and it’s not a close-up. This is a trailer.

        I’m just saying, independently viewed it’s going to be much easier than usual for animal activists and such to misinterpret the scene.

        • Sparkasaurusmex says:

          Pissing off activists is probably part of the intent. They will make blogs/articles and repost them all over reddit and facebook. And then game sites will post articles about that.

  16. AngelTear says:

    Actually, Superbunnyhop made an awesome in-depth critique of Battlefield 3 single player campaign and storyline, why and how it doesn’t work, and how they could have made it better.

    link to youtube.com

    But I’m pretty sure they’ll make the same exact mistakes.

    • Gap Gen says:

      I don’t particularly mind FPSs with stories, but like the show says, it’s a nonsensical Frankenstein’s monster of ideas and actual dialogue borrowed from better games, TV and films.

      • Machinations says:

        I still fail to understand why they bother. It seems to be a bone to throw to CoD children, as though a SP ‘campaign’ is a necessity. I would far rather additional maps and gameplay items than a scripted 8 hour campaign shooting cardboard cut-outs.

        • Gap Gen says:

          Basically that, yeah. Someone in marketing decided it was needed, so they shoehorned one in at great expense.

    • Nick says:

      Wow, what waste of time.. it doesn’t need an indepth critique to show why it sucks, all you have to do is play the first mission and a half.

      • Gap Gen says:

        That said, I did enjoy Red Letter Media’s savaging of the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Even if something is obviously broken, a good critical mauling is always fun.

    • Tams80 says:

      It boggles the mind that that story got past anyone. It’s absolutely terrible.

      • Gap Gen says:

        I think they hoped that if they told it in flashback with the time jumping all over the place then no-one would notice. Or maybe they were just blindly copying Black Ops. Probably the latter.

  17. Warduke says:

    I know this has been said before but EA can keep the SP and take all the $ wasted on it and make a better MP experience. Battlefield is a game with it’s roots in MP and that’s how me and my buds play it.

  18. DompR says:

    I must’ve missed it, what is Black von Solderduden’s stance on leaving people behind?

    • Gap Gen says:

      It’s a nuanced position on the issue that can only be expressed in binary via machinegun fire.

      • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

        Sadly an opinion expressed in machine gun fire is subject to rebuttal by the same. Fortunately, he has a corollary argumentum ad grenade launcher which has proven to be persuasive.

        • Gap Gen says:

          Grenade launchers are terrible rhetorical devices. Was it not Voltaire that decried the “tube de noob” employed by his opponents?

          • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

            You must be confused with another philosopher. Voltaire is known to have remarked:

            “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord give me a grenade launcher.’ And God granted it.”

          • Fitzmogwai says:

            Voltaire also famously wrote “I may not agree with your use of the grenade launcher but I will defend with my life your right to field it.”

            I believe he was fragged shortly afterwards, and then ragequit.

  19. Jad says:

    I actually really still enjoy the scripted, linear manshoot campaigns of the Call of Duties and Medal of Honor (not Warfighter, though) — I plan on buying COD: Ghosts, primarily for the multiplayer, but I will put in the 6 hours or so to see where the campaign’s rollercoaster brings me. But Battlefield 3’s campaign was awful — boring and consummately forgettable. I don’t think I got past the 3rd or 4th mission. It couldn’t measure up to the bombast and spectacle of the recent Michael Bay-ed Modern Warfares, it didn’t have even the moderate characterizations of the Black Ops, it didn’t have the pathos and history of the early WWII Call of Duties and Medal of Honors, and it certainly did not have the perfect culmination of all of the above that is still COD 4’s campaign. And of course, it had none of the openness and emergent behavior and combined arms gameplay of multiplayer Battlefield. Haven’t watched the video yet, so maybe this one will be better, but I have my doubts.

  20. Kobest says:


  21. ffordesoon says:

    Looks like the Battleship movie.

  22. Shezo says:

    Every time, when i’m reading articles about b4 singleplayer, i get disappointed by the lack of jokes about the wire and Omar the little in comment section.
    I don’t know why, though.

  23. stoner says:

    I liked the single player sandbox of BF2. I was expecting that with better graphics and gameplay in BF3. Severely disappointed. It was a PoS. I won’t buy BF4. I got burned once for $60…won’t happen again.

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      I’m right there with you. (and at about a [7])

    • SuicideKing says:

      I’ve barely had decent servers to play on, no servers in the country despite the second largest population in the world.

      So yeah, no BF4 for me.

  24. Meusli says:

    Why the hell is it cheaper to buy off Amazon than the dirty thieving scum called EA? What planet of value do the come from to think that they can get away with a £54.99 price tag on the premium version, that is without the god damned Premium which will take you up to a whopping £94.98 price tag. I will stick to BF3.

  25. Stense says:

    I got BF3 in the Humble EA Bundle a while back so thought I’d play the single player game out of politeness (I don’t really care about multiplayer games in general, so wasn’t too fussed with that). After gawping at the pretty graphics and lovingly created worlds, I found a turgid game that got increasingly distasteful and more tiresome to play as I got further. I didn’t last long I’m afraid to admit, so I can’t say if I gave it a fair go or not. From what I gather, the general feeling was that the single player game was a glorified advert for the game as a whole, something to take glimpses from to make the trailer with (exaggeration, obviously). Can’t help but feel that this trailer is doing nothing to suggest the new game will be any different.

  26. nimbulan says:

    Is there anyone out there who actually likes playing these ultra cinematic, hand-holding shooting gallery campaigns? I really can’t figure out who they are making these for. They spend an immense amount of money creating…crap basically. I think they’d be better served (and might even save money) by making the game multiplayer only and creating an actual movie in lieu of a singleplayer campaign.

    • airmikee99 says:

      Someone tried that already with the game MAG, it got 500,000 players and the servers are coming down at the end of the year.

      So, 500,000 sales for a multiplayer only shooter over 4 years, or 10 million sales in the first week after release for a cinematic single player game with multiplayer added on.

      Now, I don’t know if MAG is any better or worse than BF3, but if your goal is to make serious profits from your games, which one is the obvious choice?

    • Baines says:

      Call of Duty and Battlefield are two of a very few games that might could actually get away with being multiplayer only, and it would still cost them sales. Smaller games would likely be signing an earlier death certificate.

      Look at news and comments for multiplayer only games. We get stories of games with dying player bases, and calls for the games to go free-to-play. A low effort single player campaign also hurts. Maybe Section 8 would have been more successful if it had a decent single player mode to get people to buy it, rather than the phoned in effort that it actually offered.

      For consoles, there is likely still a good percentage of gamers who do not game online. These gamers still buy Call of Duty and Battlefield and the like, even if they never have an online match. Going multiplayer only will cost all of those sales. It will also cost some of the more casual/cautious player sales, the ones who figure that they aren’t going to play online enough to make it worth a $60 purchase. That in turn reduces the online playerbase, which can discourage more people from buying the game or continuing to play.

      All that being said, ultra cinematic hand holding single player isn’t necessary the optimal solution, but it has unfortunately become the expectation. Enough of an expectation that it is probably held against any game that does not offer the same in its single player. (Personally, I’d rather have more replayable single player than these big budget over-scripted events. But my opinion is probably a minority both on the consumer side that actually plays these modes as well as the publisher side that funds them.)

    • Shooop says:

      Of course there are. Transformers by Micheal Bay made enough for 2 sequels didn’t it? There’s no shortage of plebs.

      • airmikee99 says:

        Honestly, if you think Michael Bay did a bad job with Transformers, then you haven’t watched the original cartoon series. Bay actually improved the Transformers storyline compared to the nonsensical plots from my childhood.

    • Misnomer says:

      Well, if those people do exist (they do, my father is one of them) they are not posting on forums like this so you can stop asking here.

      BF and COD articles are almost always a poor representative of the communities when discussed on RPS. The majority of COD players here are those who dabble and try it just for funs with roughly the same attachment as they have to any other multiplayer game. The majority of BF players here are old enough to have played BF when it was basically MP only with bots for SP and they miss those halcyon days of Desert Combat mod.

      Neither group represents the current target market for either franchise at all. While I fall into the category of the group that think COD:UO was the best of that series and BC2 was accidentally brilliant, I can understand that there are people who think BF should be played in TDM and COD made no sense before perks. I also understand that balancing the interests of this group with those in my group is the only thing that makes a major technological achievement like BF4 financially feasible to keep making the style of play I like even marginally possible in new games.

      Pretending other opinions don’t exist rarely results in anything positive.

  27. Radiant says:

    For BF3 just pretend the US missions didn’t exist and it was all about the absolutely wonderful missions with the 3 completely nutcase russian guys.

    They were the only ones who knew what was going on and were busy getting shit done.

    The american missions on the other hand were all about getting out of idiotic messes they idiotically caused themselves.

    • Boffin says:

      I absolutely loved the Russians in BF3. It was kind of neat to have Russians who weren’t automatically bad guys, and have people assuming that they were be part of the story. Apparently barely anyone played that far into it though.

      I don’t get why this is a huge deal though, “Multiplayer Focused Game Has Forgettable Singleplayer Experience” isn’t super surprising. Like if someone wrote an article about the multi in Spec Ops: The Line being bad, the reaction would be “Well, duh”.

  28. MeestaNob says:

    I dunno, I think that looks really nifty. It may turn out to be duff, but there’s really no way you could say this looks like it will be bad just from this.

    But fuck Origin, seriously. I’d buy both of these (yes, just for the single player silliness) if Origin wasn’t present.

  29. Dobleclick says:

    I do play the Singleplayer, not for the “story” but as a sort of tech demo for the engine.