# EA: Battlefront won't have single player because "people don't want it."



## Clarky (Aug 14, 2015)

sounds like more bollocks about how EA are telling you what you want as opposed to what people actually want. Who knows, who cares


----------



## Demifiend (Aug 14, 2015)

chavosaur said:


> ​In a recent interview with Peter Moore, COO of EA, Moore was asked about the controversy of yearly released sports titles, as well as some information about Star Wars Battlefront's lack of a single player campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't care if it's Star Wars (Actually, i haven't watched not even one movie of that series for that reason), if it's a videogame, a single campaign mode it's always important, i can't understand how videogame industries have the line of thinking "People don't play Single Player campaigns mode" because sadly, it's part true, many people buy CoD, the fifa games, and the rest of the sport games for multiplayer reasons, but this is Star Wars, a movie where the main focus is the story and action, when you make a game solely based on a multiplayer mode, you're really betting something high, the consumer will feel like they have been scammed.

It's actually unbelievable the state of this industry, everyone is asking for remakes of old games, many companies aren't giving two shits about their games and they decide to release the yearly sequel of something with little to no actual updates, i knew that this was going to happen in a near future, since the 7th generation, the over-fluid quantity of sequels and remakes, and lack of actual new ips, and when you finally receive a new ip with an interesting setting like Codename S.T.E.A.M, everyone will say "This is bullshit, we want more Zelda and Mario", i just, can't understand this, you know, Game Theory has pretty dumb theories about Mario and Zelda games, but they were right with the "Most Gamers are ruining the videogames" shit, i'm not talking about the kind who actually play the games, beat them, enjoy them and pass a good time with it, i'm talking about the people who buy the games, expect the most common denominator in their games, and when they don't get satisfied with the same repetitive feature that wasn't included for a new and better one, they complain, complain like bitches because their games aren't the thing they want.

I need a time machine, old games are getting too expensive when time passes, and the good consoles are getting dusty and breakable, i need to go back to the time were everything was simple, yet better with games.


----------



## Vanth88 (Aug 14, 2015)

These kinds of games? EA this isn't your standard BS Call of Duty or Battlefield game. The fact you couldn't even include a fraction of the maps the previous games had shows how little your company actually knows about making a quality game. Single player be damned, it was fun to run around those maps with AI. Your pathetic excuse for a Battlefront game can't even do that much.


----------



## endoverend (Aug 14, 2015)

This just confirms my suspicions that EA is taking away everything that made this game good back in the PS2 days and making it just another generic shooter. Ah well. At least Call of Duty has a campaign. Numbers don't necessarily equal what the fans want.


----------



## vayanui8 (Aug 14, 2015)

What a load of shit. The thing that made the old battlefront games so great was the instant actions mode. Not to mention the fun I had in the campaign mode and galactic conquest. This lameass excuse might be able to pass if they pulled it on battlefield, but this is fucking Star Wars.


----------



## the_randomizer (Aug 14, 2015)

It's EA, they're full of shit, this shouldn't come as a surprise.


----------



## zoogie (Aug 14, 2015)

Watch all the ranting and raving Streisand effect this game to even higher sales. 



Spoiler: or better yet



they'll hear your 'passionate complaints' and offer SP as paid DLC


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 14, 2015)

I actually haven't been following this closely, but it seems like a lot of people are going be disappointed with this game.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Aug 14, 2015)

I've never played the previous games in this series, but regardless, I think every video game should have a single-player component. Period. There are many people who have little to no interest in multiplayer, whether it's due to poor/no internet connection, social anxiety, personal preference, or... *ahem* lack of support for pirated copies. Sure, there may be some genres that you'd think wouldn't work well with single player modes, but that's probably because they're not common or have never been done before. I could easily imagine a LoL single-player mode, akin to some of the non-building maps of Warcraft 3.

But, like everyone's saying, this is EA. They've been lowering the bar for years.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 14, 2015)

Remember when EA took 3 steps forward? Well I warned everyone that it was just a distraction for when they would go right back to shitting on the fans.


----------



## Vipera (Aug 14, 2015)

My God, so much entitlement in this thread alone.


I don't really blame them. Single player costs money and people have bitched about Battlefield's campaigns just because "lol EA XD". If that's what their data points out, then let it be. It's not like people would've really played the single-player part of the game nowadays. I play AoE II and AoE III and I've never heard of anybody finishing the campaigns.


----------



## Walker D (Aug 14, 2015)

um...  ..people don't want it..

that may be a new pleonasm for "lazy"


----------



## Selim873 (Aug 14, 2015)

I was really on the fence about that poll.  At first, I said No, since most Single Player campaigns just aren't worth it to me nowadays.  Back then when I was growing up, there was MUCH more effort put into the Single Player than the Multiplayer.  Like Halo, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Half-Life and Goldeneye.  I chose "Yes" because, other than what I listed, there are more than likely other exceptions from this and the second half of last generation that I've never played.  Everything just seems to be about Multiplayer now, so most of their focus goes there, rather than the single player.  Multiplayer is supposed to be an extra, but they just switched it over because "reasons".  People have recommend campaigns like CoD and Battlefield, but these war simulators are all the same, where you just run a linear path killing bots with a story that's hard to follow because of how boring it is to me, except for MW2.  I actually liked that one.


----------



## HaloEffect17 (Aug 14, 2015)

Isn't it the other way around?  Like initially intended single-player games with a multiplayer mode nobody cares to bother with?  Metroid Prime 2: Echoes anyone?


----------



## olshrimpeyes (Aug 14, 2015)

Hmmm... Welp there goes another game I was going to buy that I will now be skipping.


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 14, 2015)

I lol'd that I was the only no. Tacking on a shitty singleplayer with shit AI and threadbare story is a waste of time and effort. If it's a multiplayer game, make it for multiplayer. You don't see MMO players screaming for a singleplayer mode. Battlefront 2's singleplayer was just an extended bare tutorial to get the gist of the game mechanics.

It's like CoD singleplayer. It's just an absolute and total waste of time for both developers AND players. It's literally like tacking multiplayer onto a primarily singleplayer game, it's just a waste of effort that could've been spent fleshing out and improving the primary mode.


----------



## TecXero (Aug 14, 2015)

I have no desire for a single player mode in games like those, but I don't see a reason to not have some basic single player options. Still, I'm not going to get Battlefront, but that's due to other reasons.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Aug 14, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> If it's a multiplayer game, make it for multiplayer. You don't see MMO players screaming for a singleplayer mode.


Who is the one to define "multiplayer game"? If a "multiplayer game" is multiplayer only, that's only because the devs made it that way. Any game can be made singleplayer (for good or bad), just like any game can be made multiplayer (for good or bad).

And on your MMO note, there have been many players "screaming" for singleplayer content, which is essentially singleplayer mode. I can't stand MMOs where the only content I can do requires groups, especially considering the fact that most people are idiots, and it makes dungeons/raids/battlegrounds frustrating. When I play MMOs I do the group content, but when I get tired of playing with others I like to do something that can be soloed.


----------



## chartube12 (Aug 14, 2015)

Damm them. The various single player modes of the previous 2 titles is what I enjoyed the most of battlefront. The pvp modes always sucked. I didn't know they dropped the single player mode from 3. I'm gonna have to call microsoft and cancel my digital preorder


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 14, 2015)

The campaign modes in Battlefront 1 and 2 were just revisiting famous battles from the canon, they were glorified matches against bots. This game doesn't need a story campaign, but splitscreen and fights against bots would be welcome.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Aug 14, 2015)

The game has been building to look very promising and yet, EA is throwing it all away with this nonsense of theirs that folks don't want a Single Player Mode. Total bs.


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 14, 2015)

Xrosblader: EA doesn't get money from me because EA doesn't want it.



Foxi4 said:


> The campaign modes in Battlefront 1 and 2 were just revisiting famous battles from the canon, they were glorified matches against bots. This game doesn't need a story campaign, but splitscreen and fights against bots would be welcome.


Except the PSP exclusives had a story that was not revisiting fameous battles.


----------



## goober (Aug 14, 2015)

I don't necessarily mind it shifting focus from single player to co-op, really. It makes sense and could be more fun if done right...

That said, people want single player, they just don't want a crappy offline mode in place of it like BF1/2. They want a tailored experience.

But yeah leave it to EA to miss the point entirely and tell us what we want while they cover their ears while screaming about the high life.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 14, 2015)

Battlefront and Battlefront 2 had really bad campaigns, Battlefront 1 basically just slapped movie footage intros to the multiplayer maps and battlefront 2 basically did the same and added in triggerable events. IMO neither of those 2 games actually had a REAL singleplayer mode. Unless they do a Section 8 Prejudice then I'd rather have campaign removed altogether.

As for instant action, that's just the multiplayer mode with bots instead of players, I only used it in BF2 because that game was broken online, the first game worked fine online so I never bothered with IA. If this game works like the original did, then the absence of single player instant action should go unnoticed.


----------



## T-hug (Aug 14, 2015)

I'd prefer a co-op SP game over MP only any day.
I think this game will a bit bare bones day 1 but in a year or so it will possibly be worth getting. It's EA though so who knows how it'll end up.


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 14, 2015)

Pedeadstrian said:


> Who is the one to define "multiplayer game"?



Didn't even bother reading the rest of your post.
The devs.

It's incredibly obvious when a game is made for one thing or the other. It's not that difficult, really. People venomously despised singleplayer games for having multiplayer modes, like Assassins Creed or Bioshock. Most people regard CoDs singleplayer as completely worthless. So again, it makes infinitely more sense to just focus on the primary mode.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

All games need single player since I personally play them by myself sometimes (shocking)
Plus what happens when they kill all the servers?


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 14, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> Plus what happens when they kill all the servers?


People will buy the next bare bones, MP only game ofc.
I find it baffling that there are so many people who are okay with a multiplayer only 60$/70€ products that will eventually fade away and become useless.
Same reason why I absolutely hate paying money in MMO's.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

XrosBlader821 said:


> People will buy the next bare bones, MP only game ofc.
> I find it baffling that there are so many people who are okay with a multiplayer only 60$/70€ products that will eventually fade away and become useless.
> Same reason why I absolutely hate paying money in a MMO's.


Me to as I want a game that I will play for a  while even once it stops. Like I still play kart wii, diamond, and other games with closed servers because I like the single player


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Aug 14, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> All games need single player since I personally play them by myself sometimes (shocking)
> Plus what happens when they kill all the servers?



Just take Splatoon for example, its single player mode is horrendous yet it's there just to tick that box so they can say the game had a Single Player mode. So if they're going to put 0 effort then they shouldn't bother.


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 14, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Just take Splatoon for example, its single player mode is horrendous yet it's there just to tick that box so they can say the game had a Single Player mode. So if they're going to put 0 effort then they shouldn't bother.


Actually I heard some people having lots of fun with that mode.


----------



## AzerothArg (Aug 14, 2015)

All I get from that statement is "We're too lazy to come up with a story".
On second thought, it may be better this way.. This is EA we're talking about, I don't want another MoH2010.

Regarding Splatoon, it's single player is simple, each level is just a series of mini puzzles than anything, but is sorta fun and is good to learn some of the lore of the game (I find it very interesting, btw). Also, the bosses are fun to fight.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Just take Splatoon for example, its single player mode is horrendous yet it's there just to tick that box so they can say the game had a Single Player mode. So if they're going to put 0 effort then they shouldn't bother.


Yes but I want as a gamer a single player and a multiple player.

Saying we didn't add single player cuz it would suck is just being fing lazy and not giving a shit.

Also alot of people liked splatoons single player


----------



## CitizenSnips (Aug 14, 2015)

This game could have been way better, too bad they took out all the good details and features from the previous Battlefront games and pretty much made a Call Of Duty: Star Wars Edition. That is what to expect from EA I guess.


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 14, 2015)

CitizenSnips said:


> This game could have been way better, too bad they took out all the good details and features from the previous Battlefront games and pretty much made a Call Of Duty: Star Wars Edition. That is what to expect from EA I guess.


You mean Star Wars Battlefield, right?


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Aug 14, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> Yes but I want as a gamer a single player and a multiple player.
> 
> Saying we didn't add single player cuz it would suck is just being fing lazy and not giving a shit.
> 
> *Also alot of people liked splatoons single player*


Really? That's surprising. I found the Single Player mode boring, repetitive and dull as fuck. The final boss was extremely repetitive and uninteresting.


----------



## Osha (Aug 14, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Just take Splatoon for example, its single player mode is horrendous yet it's there just to tick that box so they can say the game had a Single Player mode. So if they're going to put 0 effort then they shouldn't bother.


Splatoon's single player is there to teach people the mechanics of the game. And it does its job well. Not everyone is a jaded guy like you.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Really? That's surprising. I found the Single Player mode boring, repetitive and dull as fuck. The final boss was extremely repetitive and uninteresting.


Meh I mean it is thier and at least it adds content to the game which is nice.



Osha said:


> Splatoon's single player is there to teach people the mechanics of the game. And it does its job well. Not everyone is a jaded guy like you.


Yup


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Aug 14, 2015)

Osha said:


> Splatoon's single player is there to teach people the mechanics of the game. And it does its job well. Not everyone is a jaded guy like you.


Well, I expected a bit of a challenge (it was super easy) and variety but Nintendo nowadays lacks it so should've predicted it.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Well, I expected a bit of a challenge (it was super easy) and variety but Nintendo nowadays lacks it so should've predicted it.


Well at the same time you don't like the kart games single player (or I thought you said so) so its only natural.

Personally I did not play splatoon and probably will not since there are better games I can play on my wiiu


----------



## sj33 (Aug 14, 2015)

Thatr's funny because I was planning to buy Star Wars Battlefront until I found out it has no single player. Now I don't want it.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

sj33 said:


> Thatr's funny because I was planning to buy Star Wars Battlefield until I found out it has no single player. Now I don't want it.


Fight the power man!!!


----------



## sj33 (Aug 14, 2015)

Nothing to do with that, I just don't play games online. Not my thing. I was all up for the idea of a modern single player Star Wars FPS.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Aug 14, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> Well at the same time you don't like the kart games single player (or I thought you said so) so its only natural.
> 
> Personally I did not play splatoon and probably will not since there are better games I can play on my wiiu



Yeah, there's really no reason for me to play MK8 offline when the online mode is so much better and there's a randomness of how good/bad the other human players will be.

Still the other Mario Kart games I'm okay playing them offline because that's all that's left.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

sj33 said:


> Nothing to do with that, I just don't play games online. Not my thing. I was all up for the idea of a modern single player Star Wars FPS.


Same here only online gaming I do is pvp with people I know

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WiiCube_2013 said:


> Yeah, there's really no reason for me to play MK8 offline when the online mode is so much better and there's a randomness of how good/bad the other human players will be.
> 
> Still the other Mario Kart games I'm okay playing them offline because that's all that's left.


Even still I'm assuming you like the older games much better with local multiple player


----------



## Obveron (Aug 14, 2015)

In  a shooter with decent multiplayer, I NEVER play the single player.  All I'm interested in is competitive multiplayer.  I'm in the minority on this board, but I know there are many people like me out there.  My biggest concern with Battlefront is that the multiplayer is balanced and polished.
I do like co-op campaigns and other co-op style missions, but I don't like playing campaigns/missions by myself.

If you guys want Star Wars shooter story mode just wait for a Dark Forces / Jedi Knight sequel or Republic Commando sequel, or even a Shadows of the Empire sequel.  Don't get me wrong, these single player games had great story modes and are worthy of single player sequels, but Battlefront is not the right place for a story mode, and DICE have a bad record for making story modes.


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 14, 2015)

Guys, lets be fair to EA here.  If they let you have fun playing single-player, what would be your incentive to buy a new battlefront the next year after they shut the multiplayer server off for this one?


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> Guys, lets be fair to EA here.  If they let you have fun playing single-player, what would be your incentive to buy a new battlefront the next year after they shut the multiplayer server off for this one?


What about like the NBA 2k series where they make both multiplayer and single player great and you still buy a new one every year or so


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 14, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> Guys, lets be fair to EA here.  If they let you have fun playing single-player, what would be your incentive to buy a new battlefront the next year after they shut the multiplayer server off for this one?


Man I wonder how Activision keeps selling COD so well after each game has a single player campaign mode that some people really enjoy, this time even co-op campaign mode, which should be even more fun.
I wonder how Nintendo keeps selling Pokemon games yearly since they're primarily Singleplayer games.
I wonder how Scott could make 4 FNAF games in a single year, purely Singleplayer games, and the fanbase loving them.

EA doesn't trust their customers that they're going to buy the yearly sequel so they design these games around having full control over them.
I bet when the XBO still had these shitty DRM features EA pissed themselves with excitement.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Man I wonder how Activision keeps selling COD so well after each game has a single player campaign mode that some people really enjoy, this time even co-op campaign mode, which should be even more fun.
> I wonder how Nintendo keeps selling Pokemon games yearly since they're primarily Singleplayer games.
> I wonder how Scott could make 4 FNAF games in a single year, purely Singleplayer games, and the fanbase loving them.
> 
> ...


Exactly people would still buy them no matter what


----------



## duwen (Aug 14, 2015)

It wasn't that long ago that developers were shoe-horning very underwhelming multi-player modes into single player/campaign/story based titles - they're just too lazy/greedy to do the reverse.

And as for that BS about the sports titles and consumers still wanting a shiny new boxed release every year... did I miss when they trialed alternatives, like a far more logical dlc roster update?


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 14, 2015)

I voted "no". Reason: I played the UT3 campaign.


No, I'm not trolling. For me, it's simple: if a game is aimed at singleplayer, it shouldn't have a tacked on multiplayer "just because". Likewise, multiplayer games shouldn't have a single player tacked on "just because".

Of course there's a very good reason for a singleplayer campaign (mostly: to learn newer players the ropes). But tutorials have replaced those, and really...I think the costs of a campaign hardly anyone bothers about is just money that could've been better spent elsewhere. And to gamers: it's not like you won't find a singleplayer fix anywhere else.

...and so far, I'm not even taking into account that this is EA we're talking about. I wasn't going to buy shit from them in the first place, so I'm not exactly panicking right now.


----------



## SolidMario7 (Aug 14, 2015)

While this will not affect my decision on getting the game much it is still disappointing. Campaign mode has been essentially training mode for online play for me. Single player may not always have the same 'physics' as multiplayer mode, but it allowed you to get a 'feel' for the game. Besides I remember Battlefront 2 had an interesting campaign mode telling of the Journal of the 501st. They didn't put much effort into it but it was appreciated all the same.  It wouldn't take much for EA to connect it to the new movie for a story on the troopers. 

Anyways, I hate how games in general are degenerating.


----------



## JaapDaniels (Aug 14, 2015)

absolutely needed, since internet is not always working so perfect, in single player (with a desent story) i'd still be abble to practice my game to get better in the game.


----------



## XDel (Aug 14, 2015)

No single player? Guess I won't be playing then. I play everything alone, or at the very least, co-op..
...but no one is ever around for that anyhow.


----------



## Arras (Aug 14, 2015)

From the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Steam achievement stats. I guess those 55.9% of players don't matter.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

Arras said:


> From the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Steam achievement stats. I guess those 55.9% of players don't matter.


???
That is who didn't complete it or who did? Seems like the latter


----------



## Arras (Aug 14, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> ???
> That is who didn't complete it or who did? Seems like the latter


That's the % of players who completed the campaign. I guess those players don't matter to EA.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

Arras said:


> That's the % of players who completed the campaign. I guess those players don't matter to EA.


OK I thought you said those players who completed the game don't care about single player.

My bad


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Aug 14, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> Same here only online gaming I do is pvp with people I know
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


I've never really had anyone to play local multiplayer other than a few times with my nephew, so no. It's either online or offline (1p).


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> I've never really had anyone to play local multiplayer other than a few times with my nephew, so no. It's either online or offline (1p).


Hm well OK then , personally to I think it depends on what tracks the game has as some I don't like playing on and some I could play forever


----------



## Monado_III (Aug 14, 2015)

Demifiend said:


> I don't care if it's Star Wars (Actually, i haven't watched not even one movie of that series for that reason), if it's a videogame, a single campaign mode it's always important, i can't understand how videogame industries have the line of thinking "People don't play Single Player campaigns mode" because sadly, it's part true, many people buy CoD, the fifa games, and the rest of the sport games for multiplayer reasons, but this is Star Wars, a movie where the main focus is the story and action, when you make a game solely based on a multiplayer mode, you're really betting something high, the consumer will feel like they have been scammed.
> 
> It's actually unbelievable the state of this industry, everyone is asking for remakes of old games, many companies aren't giving two shits about their games and they decide to release the yearly sequel of something with little to no actual updates, i knew that this was going to happen in a near future, since the 7th generation, the over-fluid quantity of sequels and remakes, and lack of actual new ips, and when you finally receive a new ip with an interesting setting like Codename S.T.E.A.M, everyone will say "This is bullshit, we want more Zelda and Mario", i just, can't understand this, you know, Game Theory has pretty dumb theories about Mario and Zelda games, but they were right with the "Most Gamers are ruining the videogames" shit, i'm not talking about the kind who actually play the games, beat them, enjoy them and pass a good time with it, i'm talking about the people who buy the games, expect the most common denominator in their games, and when they don't get satisfied with the same repetitive feature that wasn't included for a new and better one, they complain, complain like bitches because their games aren't the thing they want.
> 
> I need a time machine, old games are getting too expensive when time passes, and the good consoles are getting dusty and breakable, i need to go back to the time were everything was simple, yet better with games.


I like this post so much, this is probably one of the best things I've read in a long while. 

I don't get where he gets the idea people don't want a single player mode. One of the major complaints about Splatoon was the there wasn't enough single player content. Don't know why EA thinks they can get away with NO single player content


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

Monado_III said:


> I like this post so much, this is probably one of the best things I've read in a long while.
> 
> I don't get where he gets the idea people don't want a single player mode. One of the major complaints about Splatoon was the there wasn't enough single player content. Don't know why EA thinks they can get away with NO single player content


Most likely he does not believe that and is saying that billsht to cover his ass to the media


----------



## HaloEffect17 (Aug 14, 2015)

Monado_III said:


> I like this post so much, this is probably one of the best things I've read in a long while.
> 
> I don't get where he gets the idea people don't want a single player mode. One of the major complaints about Splatoon was the there wasn't enough single player content. Don't know why EA thinks they can get away with NO single player content


Yeah, I thought the story mode for Splatoon was surprisingly weak and uninspiring.  I felt there was a great deal more that they could have done with it.  Really short, too.


----------



## Monado_III (Aug 14, 2015)

HaloEffect17 said:


> Yeah, I thought the story mode for Splatoon was surprisingly weak and uninspiring.  Really short, too.


I thought it was short, but pretty good while it lasted, almost reminded me of Super Mario Galaxy in ways.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

HaloEffect17 said:


> Yeah, I thought the story mode for Splatoon was surprisingly weak and uninspiring.  Really short, too.


At the same time thier is alot more to make a compelling interesting story than they had with splatoon so to see it go to waste is sad. Plus splatoon lasted like 10 hours which was not horrible but the lack of replay value for a single player mode was weak


----------



## HaloEffect17 (Aug 14, 2015)

Monado_III said:


> I thought it was short, but pretty good while it lasted, almost reminded me of Super Mario Galaxy in ways.


Yeah, it definitely had that Galaxy feel to it -- launch pads and all.  I just thought it could have been a whole lot better.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Aug 14, 2015)

Monado_III said:


> I like this post so much, this is probably one of the best things I've read in a long while.
> 
> I don't get where he gets the idea people don't want a single player mode. One of the major complaints about Splatoon was the there wasn't enough single player content. Don't know why EA thinks they can get away with NO single player content



If anything, Splatoon lacked online content and variety of modes. It still does, regardless. Splatoon is an online game and they only shoved the Single Player mode to say the game included such thing.

Nintendo's still not willing to take risks i.e, release an online game only.


----------



## HaloEffect17 (Aug 14, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> If anything, Splatoon lacked online content and variety of modes. It still does, regardless. Splatoon is an online game and they only shoved the Single Player mode to say the game included such thing.
> 
> Nintendo's still not willing to take risks i.e, release an online game only.


I agree.  The Splatoon story mode feels "tacked" on and I think Nintendo felt that by adding this single-player component, it would ultimately result in a more robust package.  But when the effort is clearly lacking into making a great campaign/story mode, it only diverts to disappointment.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> If anything, Splatoon lacked online content and variety of modes. It still does, regardless. Splatoon is an online game and they only shoved the Single Player mode to say the game included such thing.
> 
> Nintendo's still not willing to take risks i.e, release an online game only.


Well considering the fact that it like you said lacked multiplayer content would have made it mediocre at best plus it was over priced which would make it a bad experience. It needed to be more online with more stages and modes but who knows why they lost it? Maybe because they felt it would not do good since it is a new IP being targeted to kids? Now Nintendo needs to take risks but this is when they should not have unless they added more but like you said they don't like risk like how this is the first new IP in years but most Nintendo players don't care for new ips and just stick with them for Mario and what not.


----------



## Monado_III (Aug 14, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> If anything, Splatoon lacked online content and variety of modes. It still does, regardless. Splatoon is an online game and they only shoved the Single Player mode to say the game included such thing.
> 
> *Nintendo's still not willing to take risks i.e, release an online game only*.


What do you call the Wii U? That was a several million dollar risk. Splatoon in itself was a risk, it was a shooter that was completely different from pretty much every other shooter.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

I guess they are scared to take risks as it can alienate the homeboys who support them but at the same time it stops them from appealing to new different crowds


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Aug 14, 2015)

HaloEffect17 said:


> I agree.  The Splatoon story mode feels "tacked" on and I think Nintendo felt that by adding this single-player component, it would ultimately result in a more robust package.  But when the effort is clearly lacking into making a great campaign/story mode, it only diverts to disappointment.


The Single Player story could have been an amazing experience but it's more or less a "Training Mode" but even playing online without knowing much can still be fun so there's little reason to play offline.

P.S.: I got all the book thingies of the Story Mode but never read them other than see the pictures. lol


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

Plus notice how the most critizies Nintendo games are te ones that are different?
(Star fox adventures, other M, and what not?)


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Aug 14, 2015)

Monado_III said:


> What do you call the Wii U? That was a several million dollar risk. Splatoon in itself was a risk, it was a shooter that was completely different from pretty much every other shooter.



Releasing the demo before the game was even out was a brilliant idea which Sony and Microsoft would wish they'd have on their consoles too. So if _Splatoon 2_ ever gets made then I hope Nintendo takes their time and make it as meaty as possible.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Releasing the demo before the game was even out was a brilliant idea which Sony and Microsoft would wish they'd have on their consoles too. So if _Splatoon 2_ ever gets made then I hope Nintendo takes their time and make it as meaty as possible.


Agreed as I know alot who would not have got it before the demo


----------



## Monado_III (Aug 14, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Releasing the demo before the game was even out was a brilliant idea which Sony and Microsoft would wish they'd have on their consoles too. So if _Splatoon 2_ ever gets made then I hope Nintendo takes their time and make it as meaty as possible.


That demo is the reason I bought the game lol. I genuinely hadn't had that much fun with a game for a long time.


----------



## Blaze163 (Aug 14, 2015)

I mostly play single player games. If I wanted to be social, I'd go to the pub. I go outsside to be with people, I stay indoors with my Playstation when I want the world to fuck off and leave me alone. By all means focus on multiplayer but if you're gonna introduce largely pointless multiplayer features into games like Mass Effect 3 to have a broader market appeal (Frankly if you join a trilogy at part 3 and don't know what's going on,  that's your problem, do the leg work and play 1+2 you lazy fucknuggets) then you also by extension need to appeal to the demographic that just want to play by themselves. I've always believed that a game needs to stand on the merits of what every gamer  has available right out of the box. What about poor saps who don't have strong wifi? I pay £16 a month for basic Sky Broadband. It's adequate but hardly high speed. Am I too poor to enjoy your game, EA? Stop being elitist wankstains and get somemotherfucking business sense.


----------



## I_AM_L_FORCE (Aug 14, 2015)

Are they retarded? SP in swbf2 was gracefully executed. We need Space, SP, and Galactic Conquests in this game full stop.


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 14, 2015)

Luke Gainsford said:


> Are they retarded? SP in swbf2 was gracefully executed. We need Space, SP, and Galactic Conquests in this game full stop.


The're are none of the things you mentioned in the game. Alpha testers leaked the list of features and none of them were on the list.


----------



## I_AM_L_FORCE (Aug 14, 2015)

What the actual fuck.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Anyone got spare vials of cianide?


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 14, 2015)

Ikr. this game is targeted at battlefield fans because targeting it at actual battlefront fans would be ridiculous in EA's eyes.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Ikr. this game is targeted at battlefield fans because targeting it at actual battlefront fans would be ridiculous in EA's eyes.


Yeah you are so right. Might as well add battlefield costumes instead of those ugly star wars ones


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 14, 2015)

Monado_III said:


> What do you call the Wii U? That was a several million dollar risk. Splatoon in itself was a risk, it was a shooter that was completely different from pretty much every other shooter.


Nintendo isn't doing what everyone else is doing.  WHY WON'T THEY TAKE RISKS?


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 14, 2015)

It seems people are somewhat upset. Normally I would play devil's advocate regardless of my actual opinions, however here I actually can see some logic in it. What about if you view it the other way -- I am sure we have all seen games that had weak multiplayer modes added because that was the thing to do, and if the time and effort was instead spent on single player then something great could have happened. If the game is primarily a multiplayer one then...

All this said star wars + online shooting... if they somehow managed to work a football simulation into that it would probably be my anti game.

On achievement thing for people doing the single player. Nice to see stats and reasoned argument, however I have to wonder here if it was played as a key component/selling point or just as some kind of time killer.


----------



## I_AM_L_FORCE (Aug 14, 2015)

I used to play galactic conquest with my brother when I was about 3-6, it saddens me to think that something as simple as that will not be included. I'm afraid to say if they don't buck up their ideas I will not buy this fake game.


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 14, 2015)

well to be frank they only got 4 Planets (12 maps) so the mode would suck anyway. 5 Planets if we count the EP7 DLC.
But that just shows where Dice is putting their focus towards. Quick cash in on the EP7 hype.


----------



## I_AM_L_FORCE (Aug 14, 2015)

I guess they would need at least 8 planets.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Either way I'm not buying Ea Wars: Cashfront


----------



## Blaze163 (Aug 14, 2015)

Why do I get the feeling that whatever survey they're basing this choice on was run by this guy?


Spoiler


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

Blaze163 said:


> Why do I get the feeling that whatever survey they're basing this choice on was run by this guy?
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Because ea hates us


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 14, 2015)

Blaze163 said:


> Why do I get the feeling that whatever survey they're basing this choice on was run by this guy?
> 
> 
> Spoiler


I doubt it even was based on a survey. I participate in EA's surveys multiple times and I don't recall them ever asking if Singleplayer is important to me.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

XrosBlader821 said:


> I doubt it even was based on a survey. I participate in EA's surveys multiple times and I don't recall them ever asking if Singleplayer is important to me.


Its a survey that does not exist they just said it to cover thier ass


----------



## Blaze163 (Aug 14, 2015)

XrosBlader821 said:


> I doubt it even was based on a survey. I participate in EA's surveys multiple times and I don't recall them ever asking if Singleplayer is important to me.



Yeah, I can speak categorically for myself and pretty much everyone I know that we were never asked about this. We would have told EA to go jam a cactus up themselves. Still, as the internet and modern technology continues to grow and feedback becomes even more powerful in the entertainment industry, I'm sure one day even companies like EA will learn that they have to ASK what we want, not try to TELL US what we want. They clearly don't have a clue what we want and yet they see fit to jam their ill-informed opinions down our throats. Give it time. Once this fad of the Doritos and Mountain Dew 'Bro' gamer wears off, things should improve. It's always the same. Look at the motion control fad. It was fine for a while, the novelty wore off, the companies were left with the hardcore gamers they pissed off by going so casual friendly, and now we get a better balance.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Aug 14, 2015)

Perfect, I'd rather have no singleplayer than a shitty tacked on singleplayer any day.


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 14, 2015)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> Perfect, I'd rather have no singleplayer than a shitty tacked on singleplayer any day.







if you don't like it just ignore it. Deleting something isn't fixing anything if anything it hurts those who actually wanted a SP even if its shit.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

XrosBlader821 said:


> if you don't like it just ignore it. Deleting something isn't fixing anything.





Tom Bombadildo said:


> Perfect, I'd rather have no singleplayer than a shitty tacked on singleplayer any day.



Why not just let then add single player and make it good?


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Aug 14, 2015)

XrosBlader821 said:


> if you don't like it just ignore it. Deleting something isn't fixing anything.


Why would you want a piece of shit, when you can...not have a piece of shit? I'd rather a developer put all of their effort into what they want to make, not shit out something because a couple hundred people on a forum like to bitch about shit. If you want to play a soggy sack of shit developers don't care about, good for you, but I don't. If they went and just shoehorned a shitty singleplayer in, you'd all just bitch and moan about that.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 14, 2015)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> Why would you want a piece of shit, when you can...not have a piece of shit? I'd rather a developer put all of their effort into what they want to make, not shit out something because a couple hundred people on a forum like to bitch about shit. If you want to play a soggy sack of shit developers don't care about, good for you, but I don't. If they went and just shoehorned a shitty singleplayer in, you'd all just bitch and moan about that.


Because they aren't putting their time in multiplayer game


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 14, 2015)

On the survey business they probably did not need to conduct a pointless survey when they ask people things but instead just looked up the numbers for the relevant games -- metrics is a way of life for a lot of these companies.



XrosBlader821 said:


> if you don't like it just ignore it. Deleting something isn't fixing anything if anything it hurts those who actually wanted a SP even if its shit.



It will still cost for that single player though. A couple of hundred grand putting such things together vs spending that on multiplayer refinement would be a discussion worth having.


----------



## vayanui8 (Aug 14, 2015)

I can see why they might not want to spend for a full on campaign, but I don't think its unreasonable to request a single player mode where you play against bots.


----------



## Blaze163 (Aug 14, 2015)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> Why would you want a piece of shit, when you can...not have a piece of shit? I'd rather a developer put all of their effort into what they want to make, not shit out something because a couple hundred people on a forum like to bitch about shit. If you want to play a soggy sack of shit developers don't care about, good for you, but I don't. If they went and just shoehorned a shitty singleplayer in, you'd all just bitch and moan about that.



It's EA. No matter what they do it'll be a soggy sack of shit until it's been out for a year or so, patched to oblivion and had at least another £40 worth of DLC added.


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 15, 2015)

People seem to forget that developing AAA games costs a lot of money.
Shocking, I know. I'll let that soak in for a few minutes.


Anyway, with that thoroughly soaked, this factoid leads to the obvious conclusion that there comes a point where you can't have literally everything in one game. If they take time to make a singleplayer, that means less time for the multiplayer. That means a meh multiplayer and a shit singleplayer, rather than good/none. So it's obvious why they aren't catering to the vocal moronority. EA is shit, but they aren't wrong in this case. Battlefront is a multiplayer game, so that's what they focused on. It might still be shit, but it'll be a lot less shit than it would've been if they had tacked on a singleplayer.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> People seem to forget that developing AAA games costs a lot of money.
> Shocking, I know. I'll let that soak in for a few minutes.
> 
> 
> Anyway, with that thoroughly soaked, this factoid leads to the obvious conclusion that there comes a point where you can't have literally everything in one game. If they take time to make a singleplayer, that means less time for the multiplayer. That means a meh multiplayer and a shit singleplayer, rather than good/none. So it's obvious why they aren't catering to the vocal moronority. EA is shit, but they aren't wrong in this case. Battlefront is a multiplayer game, so that's what they focused on. It might still be shit, but it'll be a lot less shit than it would've been if they had tacked on a singleplayer.


Maybe it is  because while your logic isn't half bad it is sad that a game is being OK with lacking a once crucial part of a game. I mean yes it is primarily a multiplayer game but to say that it should not have a single player is bullcrap in all honesty. Game companies are only becoming worse about things like this cutting quality in order to make profits caring less about how the game is because they know they have people who will buy games regardless of how good or bad they are. Ea, Activision, capcom, and Nintendo are all destroying quality gaming with crap sequals like this that are basically made for a quick buck as gamers are becoming stupid. Really look at it a crapshot money maker can make a million sells while artful original ip games struggle to make 100k, why? Because as I said gamers with bro culture are becoming so stupid to where they could care less about quality since they buy it any way. Bravo EA, you really didn't give a shit about game quality and by cutting a good portion out while not using you'd extra funds wisely have contributed to the problem.


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 15, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> Maybe it is  because while your logic isn't half bad it is sad that a game is being OK with lacking a once crucial part of a game



I stopped there. You're talking about the wrong series or something. This is about Battlefront, which has never had a good singleplayer.
Battlefront 2 had a pseudo tutorial singleplayer that was boring as shit due to the braindead AI and lack of any real variety. It was entirely focused on the multiplayer, which it did very well. Would've done even better if they hadn't wasted time on that crappy singleplayer 'campaign'.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> I stopped there. You're talking about the wrong series or something. This is about Battlefront, which has never had a good singleplayer.
> Battlefront 2 had a pseudo tutorial singleplayer that was boring as shit due to the braindead AI and lack of any real variety. It was entirely focused on the multiplayer, which it did very well. Would've done even better if they hadn't wasted time on that crappy singleplayer 'campaign'.


I'm saying it is sad that for gaming in general it is sad they Companies are entirely ditching a major part of a game because of the fact it is best for their profits and could care less. It just shows how lazy they are.


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 15, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> If they take time to make a singleplayer, that means Release date can't be during the Episode 7 hype period and we can't cash in as easily.


FTFY

Yeah AAA games do cost a lot of money but think for a second why that is. Is it because they spend time and effort developing a game or because they spend time and effort developing a nice graphics engine that is easier to impress people with.
AAA used mean you get a quality product that has everything in it. Nowadays AAA's are pretty games that cut corners wherever they can because it would be too expensive otherwise. How are people okay with that exactly?
I remember spending hours in Jedi Knights II Singleplayer mode before heading to the Multiplayer portion of the game and play team death match and CTF against bots. I could against human players if I had Internet at the time.
Nowadays people are okay with half the game being missing? In a freaking 60$/70€ product? How? Why? How did we as gamers end up here?
If AAA development is soooooo inflated then f*cking fix the issue by making the development cheaper and don't make it worse by hiding the dust under the rug.



Hells Malice said:


> I stopped there. You're talking about the wrong series or something. This is about Battlefront, which has never had a good singleplayer.
> Battlefront 2 had a pseudo tutorial singleplayer that was boring as shit due to the braindead AI and lack of any real variety. It was entirely focused on the multiplayer, which it did very well. Would've done even better if they hadn't wasted time on that crappy singleplayer 'campaign'.


Have you seen the Alpha footage of Battlefront 3? That Singleplayer ->Story Mode<- looked f*cking fantastic.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

XrosBlader821 said:


> FTFY
> 
> Yeah AAA games do cost a lot of money but think for a second why that is. Is it because they spend time and effort developing a game or because they spend time and effort developing a nice graphics engine that is easier to impress people with.
> AAA used mean you get a quality product that has everything in it. Nowadays AAA's are pretty games that cut corners wherever they can because it would be too expensive otherwise. How are people okay with that exactly?
> ...


Very good points this is something I can second


----------



## DarkAce0 (Aug 15, 2015)

I knew they would **** it up.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Aug 15, 2015)

Here's the thing about the single player campaigns in the main two Battlefront games...They were fun to play, and THEY COULD BE CO-OP! Get your head out of your ass, EA...fuckin' hell...


----------



## Blaze163 (Aug 15, 2015)

I don't think games that throw half the gameplay out to make room for an absurdly over-inflated graphics budget should be called Triple A. Single A, maybe. Double A if they at least made a decent effort at getting things balanced. But in all honesty I've not seen all that many games that had everything since Uncharted 2 and The Last Of Us. We just call everything from the big developers a Triple A title these days and I think it gives them a false sense of how good they actually are. If we started looking at them with a more critical eye and called them like we see them, maybe developers would get the message and start balancing things out a little more. I for one don't care if a game runs at 60FPS in 1080p with hyper-advanced lighting engines. I care if I have fun playing it and enjoy the story. NOBODY is going to look back on this era of gaming and brag about how the games were in HD. That kind of stuff doesn't leave a lasting memory.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

Blaze163 said:


> I don't think games that throw half the gameplay out to make room for an absurdly over-inflated graphics budget should be called Triple A. Single A, maybe. Double A if they at least made a decent effort at getting things balanced. But in all honesty I've not seen all that many games that had everything since Uncharted 2 and The Last Of Us. We just call everything from the big developers a Triple A title these days and I think it gives them a false sense of how good they actually are. If we started looking at them with a more critical eye and called them like we see them, maybe developers would get the message and start balancing things out a little more. I for one don't care if a game runs at 60FPS in 1080p with hyper-advanced lighting engines. I care if I have fun playing it and enjoy the story. NOBODY is going to look back on this era of gaming and brag about how the games were in HD. That kind of stuff doesn't leave a lasting memory.


Absolutely, I feel if a game is AAA should depend on how good it is not how much money was spent or who made it


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Aug 15, 2015)

Titanfall had no single player and look at the booming lobby list now right??

*holds up his free origin Titanfall season pass*

Guys?....anyone....?


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (Aug 15, 2015)

More like we don't want the game lel


----------



## Originality (Aug 15, 2015)

I'm just gonna sit back, stay clear of the hype train, and wait for them to release it. Whatever state it's released in, that's how I'll judge if they made the right decision or not. Until then, let them make it however they want... it's Star Citizen that I really want to play anyway.


----------



## Pecrow (Aug 15, 2015)

Wait what? No single player story-sort-of-game? So what type of game is this? Another online only game that no one will buy, like the crew??


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

Pecrow said:


> Wait what? No single player story-sort-of-game? So what type of game is this? Another online only game that no one will buy, like the crew??


People will buy it no matter what because they are stupid


----------



## Deboog (Aug 15, 2015)

Give up on getting Bettlefront 3. This is Battlefield: Star Sars Edition. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 15, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> People will buy it no matter what because they are stupid


I am not entirely sure how buying this game would make one stupid.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> I am not entirely sure how buying this game would make one stupid.


I'm saying some people will buy overhyped games regardless of how good or what quality it is because they are stupid. A good example is the COD crowd


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 15, 2015)

Buying games sight unseen is a fairly risky proposition from where I sit (at least if the price of a game is a sum of money that matters to you), however I am not seeing how not having a single player in a game like this warrants such a mindset as displayed in this thread.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> Buying games sight unseen is a fairly risky proposition from where I sit (at least if the price of a game is a sum of money that matters to you), however I am not seeing how not having a single player in a game like this warrants such a mindset as displayed in this thread.


And what mindset is that?


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 15, 2015)

People seem to be somewhat upset and wondering why people would buy the game, chastising others, chastising EA and I am not entirely sure why. Actually the cynical side of me is but I am curious to hear others say why.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> People seem to be somewhat upset and wondering why people would buy the game, chastising others, chastising EA and I am not entirely sure why. Actually the cynical side of me is but I am curious to hear others say why.


Well here is my two cents and hear me out.
I'm going to answer this individually


*chastising others*
IMO it is because of the people like I said who will buy a "AAA" game no matter what without caring about quality like the "bro" gamers..


*chastising EA*
Because whether or not you like it EA is part of the problem of companies that are spending money to release uninspired sequels without caring to much about quality and at the same time canning more original quality tittles for subpar sequels which will make more money.

*I am not entirely sure why.*
Because of the fact a company is removing a major part of a game in order for money. Was it a huge part of past games? Not really but at the same it shows that EA does not care about quality as profits matter and this is amplified when that money saved is not going info multiplayer as it should but is going into EA's Cash cow.

Ultimately  I have to say I strongly can't understand your view but that's just me.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Aug 15, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> People seem to be somewhat upset and wondering why people would buy the game, chastising others, chastising EA and I am not entirely sure why. Actually the cynical side of me is but I am curious to hear others say why.


Because people are children and they all strive to bitch about anything. This thread could say "EA: Battlefront Will Have Short Singleplayer" and everyone will sit here and bitch and moan that it isn't a 90 hour epic and how EA is ruining the business and how EA is obviously wrong about everything they do and how this isn't a "real" game and boohoo bitch bitch bitch moan moan moan.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> Because people are children and they all strive to bitch about anything. This thread could say "EA: Battlefront Will Have Short Singleplayer" and everyone will sit here and bitch and moan that it isn't a 90 hour epic and how EA is ruining the business and how EA is obviously wrong about everything they do and how this isn't a "real" game and boohoo bitch bitch bitch moan moan moan.


Yes but at the same time its better then fanboys who will defend a company's every move. That the reason why Nintendo is F'd up


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 15, 2015)

I will probably watch the next Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone films, I see that much the same way. Equally aside from the wii and handhelds I am not sure of the last time Activision and/or EA really did a stinker in this world. That said I no longer bother to watch Steven Segal's output so maybe.

So what if it is just for money... such things are usually how projects work. Did they say it is not being reinvested? Also if they had pocketed a grant from somewhere, or investment earmarked/sold based upon..., then I might see being upset. Being able to invest your own money as you see fit seems pretty reasonable to me.

@ Tom Bombadildo are the cynical side of me's inner thoughts broadcasting over the radio again?


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Aug 15, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> Yes but at the same time its better then fanboys who will defend a company's every move. That the reason why Nintendo is F'd up


No, no it isn't, it's just as bad. Not a single person in this entire thread has ever touched the game, and you're all sitting here bitching about how you'll never play it and how it's the worst game 2016 and it's ruining AAA gaming and other inane horse shit. That's not "better" than fanboys, that's just as fucking bad.


EDIT: 



FAST6191 said:


> @ Tom Bombadildo are the cynical side of me's inner thoughts broadcasting over the radio again?


So that's who keeps telling me to kill them all! I thought I was crazy!


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> I will probably watch the next Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone films, I see that much the same way. Equally aside from the wii and handhelds I am not sure of the last time Activision and/or EA really did a stinker in this world. That said I no longer bother to watch Steven Segal's output so maybe.
> 
> So what if it is just for money... such things are usually how projects work. Did they say it is not being reinvested? Also if they had pocketed a grant from somewhere, or investment earmarked/sold based upon..., then I might see being upset. Being able to invest your own money as you see fit seems pretty reasonable to me.





Tom Bombadildo said:


> No, no it isn't, it's just as bad. Not a single person in this entire thread has ever touched the game, and you're all sitting here bitching about how you'll never play it and how it's the worst game 2016 and it's ruining AAA gaming and other inane horse shit. That's not "better" than fanboys, that's just as fucking bad.


No tom, fanboys who defend bs moves like a few of you have are creating a model where companies like Nintendo and Activision can and will do whatever the fuck they want because they have retards like the Nintendo fanboys  who will buy a game that is shit if it has Mario on it and that's what is wrong.

Calling EA out for there shit is what they deserve because its the only thing from morons who do nothing but buy a fing game regardless of quality.

So you can buy Nintendo consoles with crap ass specs, Capcom Dlc hubs, and games from EA where profits rule and quality is least and that's fine but I for one am want to call companies on it for one

And I am sorry if this comes off as rude but I had to get some shit off my chest


----------



## vayanui8 (Aug 15, 2015)

Complaining about the people who buy AAA games no matter what is pointless. They're the last people that would be viewing a site like this, and they tend to be 12 year olds who barely know the difference anyway. Honestly while I don't like this I think some of the EA hate is unwarranted. Sure they have some terrible practices but most devs do these days. For all the shit they pull they still do some decent things like free games on PC, and they put out some solid games from time to time.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 15, 2015)

Yeah Tom you never call bad games bad, what is up with that?


Also relevant


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 15, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> No tom, fanboys who defend bs moves like a few of you have are creating a model where companies like Nintendo and Activision can and will do whatever the fuck they want because they have retards like the Nintendo fanboys  who will buy a game that is shit if it has Mario on it and that's what is wrong.
> 
> Calling EA out for there shit is what they deserve because its the only thing from morons who do nothing but buy a fing game regardless of quality.
> 
> ...



It's pretty obvious that people should call companies out when they do stupid shit.

But it's also pretty obvious that not every single thing any company ever does is wrong. You're just too retarded to tell the difference. There's being a blind fanboy, and then there's being a blind anti-fanboy. Both are equally bad. Just because you personally don't like the decision, doesn't actually make it wrong. Anyone with a brain can understand why a development team would opt to focus on the primary mode of play.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> It's pretty obvious that people should call companies out when they do stupid shit.
> 
> But it's also pretty obvious that not every single thing any company ever does is wrong. You're just too retarded to tell the difference. There's being a blind fanboy, and then there's being a blind anti-fanboy. Both are equally bad. Just because you personally don't like the decision, doesn't actually make it wrong. Anyone with a brain can understand why a development team would opt to focus on the primary mode of play.


Yup retards like you are to dumb to notice that they aren't even going to put the money there and are just going to get the profits

I feel sorry for you if you honestly believe these companies saying they are using their time and money to make it better.


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 15, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> Yup retards like you are to dumb to notice that they aren't even going to put the money there and are just going to get the profits
> 
> I feel sorry for you if you honestly believe these companies saying they are using their time and money to make it better.



lol anti-fanboys are so funny

Humanity everyone.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> lol anti-fanboys are so funny
> 
> Humanity everyone.


People who have their heads in there butts and believe everything companies say give me lulz


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 15, 2015)

Okay guys this is going too far.
Can we all sit down, drink tea and stop hating each other?
Talking shit about each other because of EA isn't worth it.


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 15, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> People who have their heads in there butts and believe everything companies say give me lulz



Seems more like salt.
You act like EA beat the shit out of your dog right in front of you, then spat on you and left.

Anywho I try not to make it a habit of talking to retarded brick walls. If you ever get a brain and want to have an intelligent conversation, you know where to find me 




XrosBlader821 said:


> Okay guys this is going too far.
> Can we all sit down, drink tea and stop hating each other?
> Talking shit about each other because of EA isn't worth it.



I actually am drinking tea. Also this isn't even about EA anymore funny enough. At least, Rev is crying about his trust issues moreso than anything else.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> Seems more like salt.
> You act like EA beat the shit out of your dog right in front of you, then spat on you and left.
> 
> Anywho I try not to make it a habit of talking to retarded brick walls. If you ever get a brain and want to have an intelligent conversation, you know where to find me
> ...


I too am drinking tea actually and can say if you ever grow a brain and learn to think for yourself then PM me.


I kid




Kinda


----------



## Pecrow (Aug 15, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> I'm saying some people will buy overhyped games regardless of how good or what quality it is because they are stupid. A good example is the COD crowd


I have another example. Destiny!. 

Its a Buy the game and if you want to keep playing keep buying DLCs, its like one is paying for a demo and has to keep paying for the full game.  I hope companies start following the Witcher 3 format. Release a game and all DLCs are free.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

Pecrow said:


> I have another example. Destiny!.
> 
> Its a Buy the game and if you want to keep playing keep buying DLCs, its like one is paying for a demo and has to keep paying for the full game.  I hope companies start following the Witcher 3 format. Release a game and all DLCs are free.


Me too but things like this, evolve and what not are better money makers for companies by making a basic game barely playable and then using dlc a ton or just using dlc as a cash grab.


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 15, 2015)

Pecrow said:


> I have another example. Destiny!.
> 
> Its a Buy the game and if you want to keep playing keep buying DLCs, its like one is paying for a demo and has to keep paying for the full game.  I hope companies start following the Witcher 3 format. Release a game and all DLCs are free.


I don't think DLC should be necessarily free. But I do think that the price I'm paying should feel fair.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

XrosBlader821 said:


> I don't think DLC should be necessarily free. But I do think that the price I'm paying should feel fair.


Me too but it is ultimately what you get and for how much but keeping major elements or watering down a game to sell dlc is cheap tho


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 15, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> Yup retards like you are to dumb to notice that they aren't even going to put the money there and are just going to get the profits
> 
> I feel sorry for you if you honestly believe these companies saying they are using their time and money to make it better.



Decided to reply to this since I have to wait for another ****ing virtual boat.

You're completely misguided if you think that deciding to create a singleplayer would save on any sort of money. They have a budget and most likely a time restraint for making the game.
Even if they decide to make a singleplayer, you're just further proving the point that they're just choking the multiplayer budget to do so.
Chances are quite high that they would never have spent MORE or taken LONGER to create a singleplayer portion, even if that WAS on the table. They simply would have cut back on the multiplayer development time and money. That's how AAA game development works.

So again you're still just crying that the company is managing its budget and time efficiently to deliver a better multiplayer experience. If you have no faith in the game anyway, i'm not sure why you would even want a singleplayer, since in your opinion it will be shit anyway. They probably could have admit to the budget rather than passing it off as "no one wants this" of course, but everyone knows EA's PR is complete and utter dogcrap.

The only one who isn't thinking here is you. You're just crying that you aren't getting what you want and that everyone is sheep for understanding how AAA development works.


Anywho my boat is here.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> Decided to reply to this since I have to wait for another ****ing virtual boat.
> 
> You're completely misguided if you think that deciding to create a singleplayer would save on any sort of money. They have a budget and most likely a time restraint for making the game.
> Even if they decide to make a singleplayer, you're just further proving the point that they're just choking the multiplayer budget to do so.
> ...


You are not thinking at all hells to understand that I am saying quite simply is they are not spending the money wisely but are just going to pocket it. If you really think they are putting the money where it counts then you are more fing stupid then I thought. They are not putting it to multiplayer and I doubt they really would treat the Mp any different regardless of sp.

I will say I'm glad you admitted ea (well KT least the PR branch) can be bs.

Anyway you idoit I have to say no I am not crying for what I want but I am simply expressing my opinion on thier descesion that they have made nothing more nothing less.

I do know how triple a dev goes and its all about the money which I have stated because that is all that companies like Nintendo ea and all them care about at the end of the day

Ultimately the only retard here is you for believing that crap and not accepting people can express thier opinion.


----------



## marcus134 (Aug 15, 2015)

coming a bit late in the debate but I'd like to point out that that we're talking about *Dice* here.

For those who don't know Dice they are responsible for the battlefield franchise, a franchise where most of the titles don't actually a SP campaign.
Even BF2 which was (and still is for many) considered a staple of the fps genre didn't have a SP campaign.

Dice started adding SP campaign in Bad Company, BC and BC2 campaign weren't particularly good but they had a spark, a little something. Unfortunately that spark died with BC line as BF3 and BF4 campaign were pure stinking shit and the mp part of the game suffered.

I have to say though that the excuses provided by EA are bullshit and the most probable reason is because they're trying to keep the scale of the projects within certain bound in hope that dice will finally be able to deliver a quality product which will also contain the EA checklist of shitty thing a modern MP game must have


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Aug 15, 2015)

marcus134 said:


> coming a bit late in the debate


What debate? This thread's mostly just people fighting (like usual). Idiots this, retards that... unfortunately the squeaky wheels get the most grease.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

Pedeadstrian said:


> What debate? This thread's mostly just people fighting (like usual). Idiots this, retards that... unfortunately the squeaky wheels get the most grease.


That is basically what a debate is. Its just like on Fox News a bunch of people yelling stuff at each other


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 16, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> No tom, fanboys who defend bs moves like a few of you have are creating a model where companies like Nintendo and Activision can and will do whatever the fuck they want because they have retards like the Nintendo fanboys  who will buy a game that is shit if it has Mario on it and that's what is wrong.


Or maybe people just have different opinions and tastes to your own and buy products that they enjoy and then have to put up with people like you who ridicule them for that.

If you don't like what Activision or Nintendo put out, don't buy their products.  If other do like what they put out, then good for them; they've found some happiness in the world.  No need for you to shit on someone else's happiness.


----------



## SickPuppy (Aug 17, 2015)

I voted no. The only thing the campaign is good for is when the mp servers are down, which isn't often.


----------



## WiiFit_Guy (Aug 17, 2015)

How to get a job at EA.


----------



## VinsCool (Aug 17, 2015)

I voted no. I don't even care about this game.


----------



## SickPuppy (Aug 17, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> I voted no. I don't even care about this game.



I think this debate should be about why isn't there a wii u version of the game instead of worrying about a campaign. I won't be getting it either.


----------



## VinsCool (Aug 17, 2015)

SickPuppy said:


> I think this debate should be about why isn't there a wii u version of the game instead of worrying about a campaign. I won't be getting it either.


Well, like they care about the WiiU lol


----------



## SickPuppy (Aug 17, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> Well, like they care about the WiiU lol



EA sucks donkey balls. I don't think I'd buy it even if it did get a Wii U release. Thanks for reminding me how much I hate EA.


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 17, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> Well, like they care about the WiiU lol


Haven't you heard that EA and Nintendo share an unprecedented relationship this generation?


----------



## VinsCool (Aug 17, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> Haven't you heard that EA and Nintendo share an unprecedented relationship this generation?


You don't say?


----------



## Social_Outlaw (Sep 2, 2015)

EA knew the singleplayer experience is mandatory for this generation. EA uses the typical "bestfriend that stabs you in the back" method which is legendary in the game industry. The first method is release  7 to 8 map packs and release the other 10 for DLC. Now As much when I played Battlefront 2 on PSP and PS2 all there was at the time were bots so this is kinda disrespectful in today age and it's equivalent to when Phil Spencer congratulated Shuhei Yoshida on The Last Guardian knowing it was in development hell for the longest of time (Well that's how I looked at it and took it).


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 2, 2015)

Logan97 said:


> EA knew the singleplayer experience is mandatory for this generation.



Saying I am optimistic would be stretching the limits of the "and they say I am ???" format but I will try if it means single play is back as the driving force. The only thing I would want more is local co-op.


----------



## Social_Outlaw (Sep 2, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> Saying I am optimistic would be stretching the limits of the "and they say I am ???" format but I will try if it means single play is back as the driving force. The only thing I would want more is local co-op.



Yeah local co-op would be great, so many piece's are missing . Now as I'm still thinking is it ok for shooting genre to replace the term "Singleplayer" with only "Multiplayer" now? I'll say it's mandatory for this new generation and older titles that's so far into multiplayer (milking aspect though), also there hasn't been a battlefront game in 10 years and this is potentially hurtful for a title that didn't even have growth as it's backbone...


----------



## xerochrono (Sep 2, 2015)

They know their userbase if you don't like it don't buy it. Most importantly you need to find forums to complain about it on, hopefully not just this one because someone somewhere could be disagreeing with you.


----------



## RichHomieSupreme (Sep 23, 2015)

Luke Gainsford said:


> What the actual fuck.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> Anyone got spare vials of cianide?


Cyanide*

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


----------

