7034 replies to this topic 26 votes

[+Lingwo]

Yeah multiplayer and singleplayer will be being developed alongside each other with two separate teams. DICE are big enough to handle both and they've been developing the battlefield series for years, so it won't suffer.

The only reason people think it will suffer is because of call of duty and their dev cycle for the series.

[epk]

Why so many people want single player? one of the reasons I love so much Battlefield, Mafia and Max Payne is that they all focus on what they're good at. Over the years I've seen so many games trying to overreach and ending up with either boring singleplayer experiences or sucky MP plagued with empty servers. Really, there's just so little games that can do both alright (off the top of my head, Quake 2 and the original Fear after "Combat" was released) it makes me wish developers just stick to their main idea.

Hey, if both SP and MP end up being amazing, all the merrier! but it's quite a risk.

[+Lingwo]

It is because they will sell more. Some people will buy it for single player only and some will buy it for multiplayer. Especially as it is going to be on consoles too. If it was PC only then they could probably get away with multiplayer only.

[thatguyandrew1992]

All the time, resources and money could be put towards multiplayer. Why not merge both teams and have them work on multiplayer? I mean if you guys want a single player and don't mind that multiplayer won't have AS MUCH work put towards it, fine. But don't say having a singleplayer doesn't effect it, cause it does.

[HawkMan]

thatguyandrew1992, on 10 February 2011 - 19:04, said:

All the time, resources and money could be put towards multiplayer. Why not merge both teams and have them work on multiplayer? I mean if you guys want a single player and don't mind that multiplayer won't have AS MUCH work put towards it, fine. But don't say having a singleplayer doesn't effect it, cause it does.

No actually it doesn't.

look at MoH. multiplayer and singleplayer where effectively two different games, they didn't even share art assets.

[Kerm]

I'm very much into Multiplayer aspects, BC2 at the moment. But I still love smashing the single player campaigns, and I do think they have gotten extremely good recently. I loved all of the single player campaigns in BC2, MoH and Black Ops.
Although I did think MoH was the best and BO the weakest.

[Anaron]

thatguyandrew1992, on 10 February 2011 - 19:04, said:

All the time, resources and money could be put towards multiplayer. Why not merge both teams and have them work on multiplayer? I mean if you guys want a single player and don't mind that multiplayer won't have AS MUCH work put towards it, fine. But don't say having a singleplayer doesn't effect it, cause it does.

You don't know that for sure. It would make sense for DICE to have a team for SP and a team for MP. And you're totally right with your last statement. Often times, MP maps are based on SP maps so having a SP campaign has positive benefits.

I'm all for having a MP-only Battlefield 3 if it means a better MP experience but let's not be too selfish here. Instead, let's take comfort in the fact that the game will be heavily MP-oriented and that their focus is to provide an amazing online experience. As I said before, I see the SP campaign as an added bonus.

[thatguyandrew1992]

HawkMan, on 10 February 2011 - 19:16, said:

No actually it doesn't.

look at MoH. multiplayer and singleplayer where effectively two different games, they didn't even share art assets.

Well that's not an efficient way of making a game. And all those guys making the singleplayer could have worked on multiplayer. Maybe it would have turned out better.
Let's just say dice has 100 people making battlefield 3. 50 working on multiplayer and 50 working on singleplayer. Wouldn't you think multiplayer could be better if all 100 were working on it? Sure maybe some guys wouldn't be necessary, so they could be replaced with people who would be necessary.

Anaron, on 10 February 2011 - 19:18, said:

You don't know that for sure. It would make sense for DICE to have a team for SP and a team for MP. And you're totally right with your last statement. Often times, MP maps are based on SP maps so having a SP campaign has positive benefits.

I'm all for having a MP-only Battlefield 3 if it means a better MP experience but let's not be too selfish here. Instead, let's take comfort in the fact that the game will be heavily MP-oriented and that their focus is to provide an amazing online experience. As I said before, I see the SP campaign as an added bonus.

That's true I dont KNOW for sure. I'm not saying BF3 will have bad multiplayer either. I'm sure it will be amazing. I just think it could be even more amazing, if there was no time spent on singleplayer.

[Lamp0]

thatguyandrew1992, on 10 February 2011 - 19:04, said:

All the time, resources and money could be put towards multiplayer. Why not merge both teams and have them work on multiplayer? I mean if you guys want a single player and don't mind that multiplayer won't have AS MUCH work put towards it, fine. But don't say having a singleplayer doesn't effect it, cause it does.

No it doesn't. You're thinking they are pulling resources from multiplayer to work on singleplayer. They aren't. They have a separate team, whom would, probably, otherwise be working on other projects. They already have the necessary time, money and resources for multiplayer. Adding more doesn't mean it's going to be better. In fact adding more would probably hinder it's development, as the old saying goes: Too many chefs spoil the broth.

[Ayepecks]

thatguyandrew1992, on 10 February 2011 - 19:04, said:

All the time, resources and money could be put towards multiplayer. Why not merge both teams and have them work on multiplayer? I mean if you guys want a single player and don't mind that multiplayer won't have AS MUCH work put towards it, fine. But don't say having a singleplayer doesn't effect it, cause it does.

If they have two separate teams working on it, it's not like one team is getting short changed and the other benefits. What logic is there in merging the two teams to make the multiplayer? Do you honestly think having a 120-person team instead of a 60-person team is going to make the multiplayer even better? DICE has employees that have concentrated on the singleplayer in the previous Bad Company games -- it would make no sense to have them now work on the multiplayer aspect of the game. Having a singleplayer doesn't change the multiplayer. What do you think they're going to be lacking by not having the singleplayer team working on multiplayer?

[HawkMan]

thatguyandrew1992, on 10 February 2011 - 19:23, said:

Well that's not an efficient way of making a game. And all those guys making the singleplayer could have worked on multiplayer. Maybe it would have turned out better.
Let's just say dice has 100 people making battlefield 3. 50 working on multiplayer and 50 working on singleplayer. Wouldn't you think multiplayer could be better if all 100 were working on it? Sure maybe some guys wouldn't be necessary, so they could be replaced with people who would be necessary.


That's true I dont KNOW for sure. I'm not saying BF3 will have bad multiplayer either. I'm sure it will be amazing. I just think it could be even more amazing, if there was no time spent on singleplayer.

More people working on something doesn't make it better, in fact often it can make it worse. more chefs and all that.

[thatguyandrew1992]

Lamp0, on 10 February 2011 - 19:29, said:

No it doesn't. You're thinking they are pulling resources from multiplayer to work on singleplayer. They aren't. They have a separate team, whom would, probably, otherwise be working on other projects. They already have the necessary time, money and resources for multiplayer. Adding more doesn't mean it's going to be better. In fact adding more would probably hinder it's development, as the old saying goes: Too many chefs spoil the broth.

No, I know they have a separate team. But the people making the levels for singleplayer could make maps for multiplayer instead. People making models and textures that won't be seen in multiplayer could be spent making models and textures for multiplayer. People creating the scripts and animations for single player could be making them for multiplayer instead.

[+ViperAFK]

HawkMan, on 10 February 2011 - 19:32, said:

More people working on something doesn't make it better, in fact often it can make it worse. more chefs and all that.

This

[TheLegendOfMart]

How many maps do you expect them to make, two people cant work on the same map as any changes one makes wont get copied over to the map the other is making. There isnt a strict time limit to these things so there is no need for loads of people to be doing the same job.

[thatguyandrew1992]

JensonButton, on 10 February 2011 - 19:44, said:

How many maps do you expect them to make, two people cant work on the same map as any changes one makes wont get copied over to the map the other is making. There isnt a strict time limit to these things so there is no need for loads of people to be doing the same job.

I have no expectations on the number of maps. I'm saying that there could be MORE if they weren't doing them for singleplayer.