Recommended Posts

DrJohnSmitherson

Couldnt singleplayer stay with BC? I just really wish 100% went towards multiplayer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheLegendOfMart

Why, its not like they are going to sacrifice multiplayer for singleplayer campaign, people need to stop whining.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DrJohnSmitherson

Why, its not like they are going to sacrifice multiplayer for singleplayer campaign, people need to stop whining.

Multiplayer sure wont be AS GOOD as it could be, since there is a singleplayer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayepecks

Multiplayer sure wont be AS GOOD as it could be, since there is a singleplayer.

That doesn't make any sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheLegendOfMart

Multiplayer sure wont be AS GOOD as it could be, since there is a singleplayer.

Why not?

DICE has the time and money to take their time, coding single player will take as long as it needs to take its not going to take time away from working on multiplayer, id even bet that they have staff split between the single and multiplayer aspects of the game separately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DrJohnSmitherson

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yusuf M.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DrJohnSmitherson

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. :laugh:

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.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lamp0

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayepecks

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

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. :laugh:

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DrJohnSmitherson

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ViperAFK

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

This

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DrJohnSmitherson

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayepecks

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.

You think there aren't people doing that in the multiplayer team? You think having more people will inherently make that portion of the game better?

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheLegendOfMart

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.

As already stated they arent working to time constraints, they have already planned out how many multiplayer maps they are going to make, they dont just keep making things till they run out of time, having more people wont get things done any better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DrJohnSmitherson

You think there aren't people doing that in the multiplayer team? You think having more people will inherently make that portion of the game better?

I know that there are. Yes. Because their time could be spent on making multiplayer better. If they all switched to multiplayer and suddenly the game was ready to be released earlier, then great, or maybe they could have added more to it.

I'm sorry if I sound illogical I just don't understand why no one sees my point. :pinch:

As already stated they arent working to time constraints, they have already planned out how many multiplayer maps they are going to make, they dont just keep making things till they run out of time, having more people wont get things done any better.

Ok. Let's say they planned 5 maps. Then they decided to scrap singleplayer and move them to multiplayer. Wouldn't you think we could get MORE maps?

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

I know that there are. Yes. Because their time could be spent on making multiplayer better. If they all switched to multiplayer and suddenly the game was ready to be released earlier, then great, or maybe they could have added more to it.

I'm sorry if I sound illogical I just don't understand why no one sees my point. :pinch:

Ok. Let's say they planned 5 maps. Then they decided to scrap singleplayer and move them to multiplayer. Wouldn't you think we could get MORE maps?

because only so many people can work on the code at one point.

because the multiplayer can only have so many art assets.

because they can only test and balance so many multiplayer maps before launch, no matter how many people that make them.

because the SP team, don't do multiplayer, they do SP. they would be useless for MP.

because lot of people buy games for SP to and then get into the MP.

Ok. Let's say they planned 5 maps. Then they decided to scrap singleplayer and move them to multiplayer. Wouldn't you think we could get MORE maps?

no

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ligan

Sorry thatguyandrew1992, but I don't think you have a shred of a clue what you're talking about. Budgeting developer workflow is much more complicated than taking a team of 100 and splitting things even. It's not that simple. Art assets and animations, things like that can be swapped interchangably. I think you'd have to read more into an atypical development process rather than give an argument devoid of any critical thinking.

The argument, by the way, is pretty silly to begin with. To a certain point, more people working on something does NOT equal more quality and replayability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Steven P.
      Xbox Deals with Gold feature Need for Speed Payback, Darksiders, and more
      by Steven Parker

      Every week, Microsoft and select publishers discount a number of titles for weekly Deals with Gold, Spotlight, and Publisher sales. This week, games from A Plague Tale, Need for Speed Payback, Darksiders and other franchises are available for substantially less.

      Below, you'll find the Xbox Series X, Xbox Series S, Xbox One, and Xbox 360 games with their respective discounts. Xbox Live Gold members receive additional discounts on a number of titles through the paid subscription which is denoted with an asterisk.

      Xbox Series X|S, Xbox One
      Xbox 360
      Many of the Xbox 360 games appear to be backward compatible so you'll be able to play them on your Xbox One and the Xbox Series X|S. Microsoft also included a bunch of Xbox One backward compatible titles so that they can be enjoyed on the Xbox Series X|S consoles.

      Which titles are you interested in? Did you pick any up? Let us know in the comments below.

    • By anmol112
      Cyberpunk 2077 gets its first major patch, brings stability improvements and bug fixes
      by Anmol Mehrotra



      CD Projekt Red (CDPR) has released the first major patch for Cyberpunk 2077. The new update brings the version to 1.1 and fixes a lot of issues. In a tweet, CDPR noted that this update “lays the groundwork” for future patches. Here is the full changelog for the update:

      Apart from these, CDPR is also rolling out the following PC-specific changes including a fix for startup crashes on Nvidia GPUs. Here is the full changelog for the update:

      Lastly, the update also brings fixes for PlayStation, Stadia, and Xbox specific issues. You can check the changelog for those below:

      The new update is rolling out to PCs, PlayStation, Stadia, and Xbox users right now. Last week, CDPR shared the roadmap for Cyberpunk 2077 that included the details of the upcoming patches as well as a free DLC and a free upgrade for next-gen consoles.

    • By Rich Woods
      Xbox Games with Gold for February include Gears 5 and more
      by Rich Woods

      Today, Microsoft announced the Games with Gold that Xbox Live Gold and Xbox Game Pass Ultimate subscribers will be able to claim for free during the month of February. Typically, this includes two Xbox One games and two Xbox 360 games that are playable via the Backward Compatibility program. This month, however, there are five free games, one of which is optimized for Xbox Series X|S, and that game is a big title: Gears 5.

      Here's the full list:

      Gears 5 (Xbox One, Optimized for Xbox Series X|S, February 1 -28)

      Resident Evil (Xbox One, February 1 - 28)

      Dandara: Trials of Fear Edition (Xbox One, February 16 - March 15)

      Indiana Jones and the Emperor's Tomb (Xbox, February 1 - 15)

      Lost Planet 2 (Xbox 360, February 16 - 28)

      As usual, it's also not too late to claim some of this month's Games with Gold. You can still claim Little Nightmares (Xbox One) and Breakdown (Xbox) until the end of the month, and Dead Rising (Xbox One) until February 15.

    • By Namerah S
      Team Ninja details features of Nioh 2 Complete Edition for PC
      by Namerah Saud Fatmi

      Team Ninja launched the action RPG Nioh sequel titled Nioh 2 for the last-gen PlayStation 4 console last year. Two months ago, the video game developer revealed that Nioh 2 would be leaving PlayStation exclusivity by announcing Nioh 2 Complete Edition. The PC version is set to arrive early next month.

      Today the game's makers revealed more information about the upcoming PC game on Twitter. Publisher Koei Tecmo shared further details about the features of the upcoming Nioh 2 Complete Edition. A new game trailer highlighting the PC features has also been released.

      As per today's announcements, Nioh 2 on PC will support 4K Ultra HD, ultra-wide screens, HDR and a 144Hz screen refresh rate. The game's makers have added complete customizability for mice and keyboards and the game is touted to run at 60fps or 120fps consistently, depending on whether the PC specs are compatible of course.

      Nioh 2 Complete Edition for the PC platform is due out February 5, 2021, exclusively on Steam. Pre-orders are currently open and can be placed on Valve's dedicated game store. As a launch promotion, those who buy the Nioh sequel within the initial three weeks after the PC release will get two bonus in-game items, the Sohaya Deserter Garb and Ornate Gold Armour.

    • By vishal1082
      Star Wars Battlefront 2: Celebration Edition is free on Epic Games Store this week
      by Vishal Laul



      Epic Games Store has put on offer Star Wars Battlefront II: Celebration Edition to claim and keep for free, taking the place of Crying Suns.

      Star Wars Battlefront II is the second title from the 2015 reboot of the series by EA; taking players on a journey through the Star Wars universe with a campaign set between The Return of The Jedi and The Force Awakens, the game was received with mixed reviews by critics, but was praised for its multiplayer, gameplay, sounds, and visuals. Epic Games Store is giving away its Celebration Edition which includes all customization content released until December 20, 2019. Here is how the developer, DICE, describes it:

      Here are the minimum requirements:

      If you wish to claim Star Wars Battlefront II: Celebration Edition, you can find it here. It will be free to claim until January 21, which is when Epic will put on offer Galactic Civilizations III for its next giveaway.