EA Says Battlefield Single-Player Integral To Franchise
|
Battlefield 3’s multiplayer has been getting rave reviews, but the single-player has been getting the cold shoulder. You’ll hear my take on Monday, but suffice it to say that a lot of folks are wondering why EA and DICE spent production time on what seems to be an ancilliary element to the multiplayer-focused franchise. EA execs Frank Gibeau and John Riccitiello answered that question in a recent Q&A with Eurogamer. “The single player experience is important,” explained Gibeau. “It’s a great way to get fans into the experience, have them train up and get ready for multiplayer.” Riccitiello agreed, noting ” single player is often how new players ramp into the game. It’s a way for new players to get exposed to a franchise.” On one hand, this makes sense – a lot of people play single-player first, and if the mechanics are the same they’ll learn something from it. But Battlefield’s linear, heavily-scripted campaign is the opposite of the free-form chaos of a 64-player Conquest match. I, for one, kicked ass at the single-player only to regularly feature in the bottom rankings of multiplayer matches. The traditional way to learn multiplayer was simply to host your own local server and explore the maps, experiment with the vehicles, and learn what the weapons felt like; but Battlefield 3 has removed all local options, and players can’t even create their own servers (you have to pay to rent one from EA). It’s unclear if they’re knowingly cutting off this learning method in order to make cash on server rentals, or if they just don’t realize how useful that feature was. Or was I the only one who ever did that? Do you think it makes sense for DICE to expend development resources on single-player campaigns? Let us know!
|
