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.