Originally Posted by RexKobra
The singleplayer has always been a weak point in the BF series. Personally, I think they should get rid of singleplayer all together and focus those resources on multiplayer, which is essentially the core of the game.
Getting rid of single player wouldn't make the multiplayer better. xD DICE is pretty large company so they have the resources to spare without negatively affecting any aspect of the game. The have the resources to spare to have multiple projects at once.
Also, BC2 single player campaign was quite entertaining.
The only reason I want BC3 is because of the story. BF4 already does what BC2 did in multiplayer except a lot better, IMO.
Originally Posted by Kuivamaa
Although I agree MP is by far the most important part of the game, they could make a very interesting campaign and then use the actual areas and assets as MP maps. They are losely doing it now, eg. in Caspian Border we are supposed to be fighting the same fight that occured during "rock and a hard place" campaign mission, or how BF4 campaign mission 5 (kunlun mountains) is operation locker etc. but they could greatly expand on that and deliver a fantastic campaign directly connected to mp.
The BF4's maps are actually good, though. I'd rather that part be separate from the campaign. There's bigger issues with it anyway. Character development and simply gameplay is lacking. I personally enjoyed the story, but by the time I actually started to like the characters it was the last mission. Gameplay was just a typical shooting gallery style FPS. If there's anything it could do to improve the campaign, it's to actually make it different gameplay wise.Edited by moocowman - 12/1/13 at 6:20pm