DICE Wants Battlefield to 'Grow Up a Bit'

[Shawn Zipay]

DICE is placing more of an emphasis on the single player component in Battlefield once Battlefield 4 rolls around. The team says it's "important to grow up a bit" when it comes to the single player campaign.

DICE Executive Producer Patrick Bach

People talk to me about the characters, for a game like Battlefield, you could argue that it’s just a shooter, so who cares. For us it’s important to grow up a bit and create a great story, a character you care about, where you feel involved in their actions and that’s based on the core idea of the whole game, that we want to move elements of multiplayer into singleplayer. If you’re playing multiplayer, you actually care about the guys in your squad, those are often your friends, they have their personalities, you help them, they help you, and they have their own mindset. Now we need to create a singleplayer that mimics that feeling.

He continues on to say that the single player campaign will incorporate various elements of the game's multiplayer. Players will have choice, characters that you care about that will evolve over time.

When questioned about the potential use of motion control in Battlefield 4, DICE said that they are not interested in things that don't make the game better. Yes, they say that motion control is a gimmick and have no interested in adding it into their game.

You can read more from Bach and his interview for Battlefield 4 over at Edge.

[CptainCrunch]

Hmmmm, I dont agree with that. DICE says grow up, but I dont think so. I think the correct term is evolve. Battlefield is evolving for a console generation. NO, I dont mean a console port, whatever that even means anymore. I mean a game that was only multiplayer and had small handfuls of things in it to expand well beyond that and offer much more to a much larger audience (yes, console) that is used to getting so much, regardless of its suck level.

Good or bad, Evolution or De-evolution, whatever your take on it, it is what is happening.

[K-16]

In my perspective, I see this as DICE aiming to achieve what Danger Close wanted to do with the Medal of Honor series. There's a part of me that keeps thinking EA's board of directors are repeatedly demanding for a more emotional experience in modern warfare shooters, because I keep seeing the persistent attempts at it. And in my opinion, the closest they have to succeeding is Battlefield: Bad Company 2, I guess? Quite frankly, the only time I feel any kind of emotion from the Medal of Honor series is when I watch Linkin Park's accompanying music videos. And then I watch their behind the scenes footage and remember it was all in good promotional fun, which ruins my immersion.

So they shelve Medal of Honor in recognition of its failure, and will now put Battlefield's brand to the test for a rather similar goal. If only they could borrow some Gearbox writers (Brothers In Arms) to improve their chances. Well, here's hoping DICE can pull off what Danger Close couldn't do. Is it also safe to assume Battlefield 4 won't feature rat battles?

[Thortok2000]

I like a game to have a single player story. It provides some sort of context for what happens in the multiplayer, if done right. However, the single player is only played once and the multiplayer (theoretically) forever, so priorities should be in the right place...

As far as motion control being a 'gimmick', I read the interview and I get what he's saying. Slapping on motion control to something that wasn't designed for it is a gimmick. Designing something for it and doing it right, goes far beyond a simple 'port' to this method of control. And they don't have the time or desire to do that until someone else does it first as proof of concept, basically. Until then, it's a gimmick.

I don't necessarily agree, but I get what he's saying. When you combine it with all the other "can you support X?" questions he implies that they are inundated with, I can see why they draw the line at "does it improve the game or not" and right now, motion control is just a growing niche, as far as I know at least. It's on the rise but it hasn't yet risen.

[eradicator8]

There was a huge shift in the SP campaign in '42 ,BF2 and 2142 to BC an onwards. Basically all these did was supply you with a free testing ground for learning to fly.
They did absolutely nothing for the game in itself.
I for one has always played the SP first before venturing into MP. And if I like what I see I often venture back. I do not mind the linear story. As it is a story it needs to be linear.
However if they want more people to play the SP campaign maybe they should look into the possibillity of granting MP-unlocks for completing the campaign or for special assignments within the SP campaign.

[MurderDogg]

Ohh God. EA is still ruining a dead title. A lot of my friends refuse to buy an EA title, let alone another Battlefield title.
Please release a separate multiplayer version. With troops, tanks, planes, jeeps, subs, ships, aircraft carriers and helicopters, 8 man squads, and a commander. Like BF 1942 2, or BF2 2.
I would suggest working with certain mod teams. I wont mention any names, but one begins with PR.

[Shawn Zipay]

EA is ruining a dead title? Battlefield? What?

[CptainCrunch]

Must be a lot of friends.

[eradicator8]

Yeah the 11,1 mill. players recorded in 2012 must have got it all wrong.

[jimykx]

I honestly don't really care about the SP. I'm just going to play it because it's there and I payed for it and I want to see what they have done with it. Then, after I finish it on the same day playing for 5 hours straight, I won't touch it anymore and will go back go the multiplayer, where I will easily spend over 150+ hours in.