Until there is a substantial amount of news on the new
Battlefront (NBF) I will call this my last post on the contentious issues
identified so far from the information available. I want to talk today about
the necessity for a single-player campaign in multiplayer-focused games. NBF
does not have a dedicated campaign for single players. In its place are several
short “missions” (see what amounts to: horde mode) that could be played solo
but ideally suit co-op play. This trailer gives us an idea of what to expect:
(Aside: Why is “…thank the force.”
an acceptable line of dialogue? I’m pretty sure the majority of people in the
later days of the empire think of the force as a bit of a joke.
e.g. General Motti; “Your sad
devotion to that ancient Jedi religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen
data tapes”.
((Aside aside: Haha; “tapes”.
It’s funny when people can’t predict the future of technology)).
I know the Rebellion seems to
bandy around “May the force be with you” but that’s like “good luck” right? Not
“May god be with you” and “thank god” as this suggests. Am I being crazy?)
The trailer look stunning visually but also gives an example
of the objective-horde gameplay like in Mass Effect 3’s multiplayer. In my
opinion this is a vastly superior use of resources than trying to engineer a
single-player campaign. In the modern era of gaming it can be safely assumed
that the vast majority of console owners are connected to the internet and play
multiplayer regularly enough that the amount of hours spent online is greater
than the amount of hours spent on the campaign. Short objective-based missions
train the player to better play the multiplayer and focus on the team goal
rather than go through the motions of the films in a campaign.
Now I must stress that this is just the case for the Battlefield
series which tries to dole out a compelling single-player and multiplayer experiences.
There are plenty of games that manage to do both successfully but it is my
opinion that DICE should favour a purely multiplayer model as they have failed
to do both at the same time.
What do I mean by failed? Let’s do a classic comparison; Halo
vs Battlefield. Halo has consistently had a popular campaign across its titles.
Likewise, it has also had a popular multiplayer component. Battlefield, despite the efforts of DICE and
especially Visceral, does not have the best record of campaigns to accompany
their excellent multiplayer experiences. BF3, BF4 and BFH have been poor at
best and at worst completely forgettable. Particularly in the case of BF4 where
the multiplayer launched in such a shocking condition it seems resources could
have been better spent on avoiding that than creating a lacklustre
single-player that was over in 5 hours and then cast aside. Halo tells a
compelling story in single player with gameplay that draws you back in to play
it time and again whilst also delivering an engaging and addicting multiplayer
platform.
This is why I am relieved to hear that the single player for
NBF has been ditched in favour of more multiplayer focused gameplay. There must
have been a great temptation to try and create the ultimate Star Wars
experience with a campaign that directs the player through the precise
speeder-bike chase/ trench run/ lightsabre fight etc. from the films. However, by
avoiding this DICE seems to be betting on the organic nature of a multiplayer
match to create the “wow” Star Wars moments. They are attempting to immerse the
player in the wider world of Star Wars instead of strapping a Go-Pro to Luke’s
head; a brave step for the studio and hopefully one to be commended.
-Norris
No comments:
Post a Comment