Battlefield 2042 won’t have a campaign- thoughts?

[ThatMuttGuy]

3 minutes ago, milanbarca82 said:

Gonna wait for a deep sale on this one, especially if there is a season pass of some sort.

 

Just wait for it to go free on PS+ ✌️

[Eraezr]

Not buying.

[NMErickson]

If they scrap campaign they should of at least added some co-op missions or another similar type mode. PVP only doesn’t do it for me dawg.

Edited June 9, 2021 by NMErickson

[FreshFromThaDeli]

Where are all these people coming from that say they are disappointed? I love FPS campaigns but Battlefield hasn't had a good campaign since bad Company 2, this is good because it allows more time and resources to be spent on the multiplayer which is the reason to be playing a Battlefield game.

[NMErickson]

19 minutes ago, FreshFromThaDeli said:

Where are all these people coming from that say they are disappointed? I love FPS campaigns but Battlefield hasn't had a good campaign since bad Company 2, this is good because it allows more time and resources to be spent on the multiplayer which is the reason to be playing a Battlefield game.

Got old! At least for me. Played the heck out BF3, got pretty good at the PVP then life happened. A family to take care of, not as good reflexes, etc. With the limited play time I do get I try to find something that’s not too stressful or that will take a ton of practice, just spend it on something I really enjoy  

[offdutysuperhero]

I guess they werent paying attention to what happened to the sales of black ops 4 not having a singleplayer. But we will see when the sales numbers come out

[Redninja-222]

2 hours ago, FreshFromThaDeli said:

Where are all these people coming from that say they are disappointed? I love FPS campaigns but Battlefield hasn't had a good campaign since bad Company 2, this is good because it allows more time and resources to be spent on the multiplayer which is the reason to be playing a Battlefield game.

100%  agree 

[droppingtherock]

Another reason to skip this title. I love the WWI and WWII themes of I & V, but speculative future wars do not interest me. I know a lot of people didn't dig the campaign of V, but I quite liked most of it. Specifically because it aimed to show parts of the second world war that don't get much screen time: The fall of Berlin from a German POV, the historical revisionism of the contributions of French-African forces. Even the heavy water sabotage was a real event, though the Battlefield V version is heavily fictionalized. The emotional weight of all these would be lost in speculative fiction. 

[Redninja-222]

I'm rely getting tired of people complaining that there is no campaign, this is what happens when a game franchise gets taken over by and flooded with non veterans of said games. If you want a campaign go play COD, if you want all out military gameplay then play battlefield; But for the love of god you can not have both.

[GUDGER666]

20 minutes ago, Redninja-222 said:

I'm rely getting tired of people complaining that there is no campaign, this is what happens when a game franchise gets taken over by and flooded with non veterans of said games. If you want a campaign go play COD, if you want all out military gameplay then play battlefield; But for the love of god you can not have both.

Tired? It got announced a few hours ago. You say it like they never have campaigns, BF had longer campaigns than Cod! And Military gameplay, what jumping out of a plane and using a rocket launcher, using C4 to shoot a tank into the air to shoot a plane. Cod is more realistic than BF lol. What a stupid comment. 

[MatThaRiPP3R84]

bf campaigns are mp maps with bots that say wrecker, wrecker, WRECKER, WRECKER im all for a mp only bf.

[Quink666]

The campaign is why i bought the Battlefield games. No campaign means i will probably never pick this up unless i find it really really cheap in the bargain bin.

[Potent_Delusions]

Good. Wayyyy more people enjoy the multiplayer than campaign in COD and Battlefield. Relatively few people buy the game to play a one-time 6 hour campaign than they do to play hundreds and hundreds of hours of multiplayer with high replayability. They should focus everything on the multiplayer, which they've done, in order to appeal to the majority of their clientele.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Potent_Delusions

[GUDGER666]

15 minutes ago, Potent_Delusions said:

Good. Wayyyy more people enjoy the multiplayer than campaign in COD and Battlefield. Relatively few people buy the game to play a one-time 6 hour campaign than they do to play hundreds and hundreds of hours of multiplayer with high replayability. They should focus everything on the multiplayer, which they've done, in order to appeal to the majority of their clientele.

When Black Ops 4 had no campaign the game was a disaster. The next game MW had a campaign, became the best selling Cod. Yea most probably buy Cod and BF for the MP. But a lot of people buy them for the campaign. Imo i wouldn't be surprised if this is the last BF we see as i think it will be a failure. BF has never sold well, just 1 Cod game has probably sold more than every BF combined. Now its just MP only and they are charging full price when stuff like Warzone is free to play. Madness. 

[MidnightDragon]

A bit surprised it didn't happen earlier.

[Potent_Delusions]

36 minutes ago, GUDGER666 said:

When Black Ops 4 had no campaign the game was a disaster. The next game MW had a campaign, became the best selling Cod. Yea most probably buy Cod and BF for the MP. But a lot of people buy them for the campaign. Imo i wouldn't be surprised if this is the last BF we see as i think it will be a failure. BF has never sold well, just 1 Cod game has probably sold more than every BF combined. Now its just MP only and they are charging full price when stuff like Warzone is free to play. Madness. 

 

Modern Warfare did well because it caters to absolute trash players. And i'm not saying that to be a dickhead or whatever, it's true. Part of the marketing for that game was, as the devs said, "to help players with less experience". The game had strict skill based matchmaking and highly unbalanced guns like double-barrelled shotguns that kill people in one shot at absurd distances, in order to aid these players. As well as this, the game only matched them with fellow bad players to help create an illusion that people were doing really well when, in reality, if they were paired against people with even a 1 K/D....they'd get annihilated. The meta on that game was to literally sit in a dark corner with a shotgun and just wait for people, or if you felt adventurous...run around with the same two-shot shotgun which cross-maps people. Who spends hundreds of dollars on COD Points in a game where they're performing poorly? No one, that's why they've set up a system where 0.5 K/D players get paired with 0.5 K/D players to create the illusion that they're good/improving  Suddenly they're getting 1 K/Ds instead of 0.5K/Ds like in the past games so they feel like investing in the game.

 

The game is absolutely full of crutches for "less experienced players" which do form a huge proportion of the COD community today. It's nothing to do with it having a campaign. The Spec Ops in Modern Warfare is also a renowned unanimous disaster. No one who averages above a 1 K/D likes the mutliplayer, most of the professional COD roster have cited it as the single worst COD multiplayer of all time. Ironically given my argument, the single player is the sole redeeming part of the game. It was good. But it certainly isn't the reason for the game doing well. 

Again, i'm not trying to sound like an elitist or whatever, it's just how it is. That's why Warzone is so popular: it had 101 ways to respawn again if you die, unlike Blackout which was one-life. Warzone was also free, unlike Blackout, so of course it has more players. Activision keep writing about Warzone having "Our most players ever" as if it's an indictment of the quality. It's not, it's because it's free. 

Edited June 10, 2021 by Potent_Delusions

[Alex_Gorbatschow]

Better include no campaign than having a terrible one like battlefield 3 had. Worst campaign i ever played.

[audiopile]

Only getting half a game so ill wait for a half price or better deal.  Shame because I loved 2042 on PC back in the day.  Ive got some sweet camping spots on the mothership. 
 

EDIT - nvm that was 2142. Ill give the beta a try but still wont buy new. Either used or not at all. 

Edited June 10, 2021 by audiopile

[ArsGoetia]

I've never bought a battlefield game for the campaign, most of them are forgettable... I started way back with the first battlefield, battlefield 1942 19 years ago and it never had any campaign or anything so I'm not worried much, if the game has a great multiplayer.. that's all I need

[SKiL_Clash]

1 hour ago, GUDGER666 said:

Tired? It got announced a few hours ago. You say it like they never have campaigns, BF had longer campaigns than Cod! And Military gameplay, what jumping out of a plane and using a rocket launcher, using C4 to shoot a tank into the air to shoot a plane. Cod is more realistic than BF lol. What a stupid comment. 

Battlefield was a multiplayer game before it even had a campaign... if they had a longer campaign time, woo. Can’t remember a damn thing I did In any of them, they were all pretty shitty compared to COD. But If you seriously think COD is more realistic than Battlefield than I need a smoke what ever joint you’re having. Gameplay wise, Battlefield is severely more realistic than COD. Military wise, Battlefield is still more realistic than COD. Yeah Battlefield has some non realistic stuff, but at least I don’t see myself dropping a nuke on myself after getting 30 kills and calling that realistic... or running down 3 lane pathway maps and camping on the staircase on Nuketown and calling that realistic military strategy. Story wise, yeah COD is more realistic unless you count the War Stories as they are as real as they get when the events used actually occurred. 
 

For real though. It’s an arcade game. It’s meant to be fun, not a sweat lobby like Modern Warfare 2019 turned into. People wanted bigger maps and more options for MW19 and hated it when people just camped with claymores and 725 At least with Battlefield I have options than just camping. Least In BF I don’t have to hear kids screaming in my ear. Just have my 4-5 friends squad up and have a good time in our squad.

 

is it worth $70, we shall see when gameplay comes out. Lol

[OmegaRejectz]

Battlefield V's campaign was actually so horrible. Even if it only took 5 minutes of dev time I'd rather that be spend on literally anything else.

 

Many people enjoyed Battlefield 1's campaign but I personally didn't care about it.

 

Personally I'd say this is good, EA is very generous with their fast discounts (like Ubisoft) so you'll be able to get it for like 50% off 6 months later.

 

Don't understand people getting annoyed, like, Battlefield has ALWAYS been heavily multiplayer-sided, so them removing this portion of their next game isn't the same as if Naughty Dog, Sony Santa Monica, etc removing the campaign of their next game and making it multiplayer only.

[grimydawg___]

Battlefield MP is what makes it Battlefield TBH.  

[OmegaRejectz]

7 hours ago, Fro_Jangles said:

To me, it's hard to justify a $70 game thats only going to have multiplayer, and then add on expansions later on for like $50 more

I highly doubt this game will feature a season pass/DLC for maps, etc

They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Way more profitable to add in a battle pass & cosmetics like Fortnite, Apex, Rocket League, Warzone, Call of Duty, etc

7 hours ago, fresquinho said:

LMFAO WHAT? 

 

Not gonna buy it. Fuck that, I'm a big Single Player guy. Yes I do love the MP part of some games they are really fun but no Single Player on a war game? No thanks.

Did you play Battlefield V's campaign? It was actually awful. Even if they had spent 5 minutes of dev time (which they definitely didnt) it would've been time wasted. Battlefield was made for large scale PvP war environments, not singleplayers.

7 hours ago, Forunth said:

It's funny how both of the sides claim the true Battlefield fans play only multi/only solo. 

 

I'm not a fps type girl, so I don't have strong opinions. But isn't it weird to argument "last campaigns were shit, glad they cut it off" instead of "last campaigns were shit, they should make good one for once"? 

Not really. It's clear they will never invest enough time into the campaigns. Not only do they take more resources (voice acting, cutscenes, AI, etc) but they are not profitable and probably 1/16th if that actually play the campaign. Makes way more sense to cut a mode that hits all those negative points than invest time & money for no actual return.

6 hours ago, milanbarca82 said:

Yeah. Gonna wait for a deep sale on this one, especially if there is a season pass of some sort.

I respect the deep sale, luckily EA games go like 50% after 6 months. But I highly doubt they'd add a season pass, paid maps, guns, etc in multiplayer games in the current climate make no sense. COD & Co have shown how profitable optional cosmetics ingame are compared to content that forces players to purchase it if they don't want a fractured playerbase.

6 hours ago, Dangisuckatgamin said:

I hated the campaign in V. But that doesn't mean this one should got without... it means they needed to put more effort than the previous one.

With that said, I'll probably still get this one. I rarely play FPS campaigns and sometimes I just skipped them completely (looking at you most modernish CODs).

But they won't. It's a multiplayer focused series. That's where the playerbase is, that's what makes people buy the games, that's what makes them money, so it makes no sense to invest tons of resources for something that won't even be played but a 16th of the playerbase.

4 minutes ago, grimydawg___ said:

Battlefield MP is what makes it Battlefield TBH.  

I'd "upvote" if I still had "upvotes" to give.

1 hour ago, GUDGER666 said:

When Black Ops 4 had no campaign the game was a disaster. The next game MW had a campaign, became the best selling Cod. Yea most probably buy Cod and BF for the MP. But a lot of people buy them for the campaign. Imo i wouldn't be surprised if this is the last BF we see as i think it will be a failure. BF has never sold well, just 1 Cod game has probably sold more than every BF combined. Now its just MP only and they are charging full price when stuff like Warzone is free to play. Madness. 

Do I know people that rave about old school COD campaigns (COD4, WAW, MW2, BO1)? Without a doubt.

Have I ever talked to a single person that has ever bought a COD or Battlefield for their campaign? Nope.

Call of Duty has always sold more, it doesn't matter what Activision shits out it's just inevitable.

Infinite Warfare is easily the most divise game in the entire 17? 18? game series and yet it STILL sold more than BF1. Which was a fantastic game.

EA doesn't need Battlefield to sell twenty trillion copies like Activision. Modern Warfare had a ridiculously bad campaign, that, while it had a handful of cool moments or sections was overall forgettable.

Warzone might be free to play, but Activision's still charging an arm and a leg for Cold War, which is awful.

I think this is the year Battlefield will take 2nd place again like in 2016 behind World War 2: Valor.

That game inevitably gets more sales, despite the game being in worse development than Black Ops 4 & Cold War.

I can easily see many people switching from COD to Battlefield, if just for this one game.

[EightBitArtist]

a $60 mp only game, where the servers will be garbage and battle passes. lol. no thanks ea.

[POEman553]

I'm not sure about this at all.

 

Given a lot of people's backlogs (we have people on this site including myself that haven't Platinum'ed/played PS3/Vita games), it would be absolutely pointless to buy BF2042. By the time, I would get around to it 1) whatever seasons content that is there would be finished and may not even be available to play, 2) knowing that it's EA and trophies just glitch on them without being fixed, there will be glitched trophies (see: the infamous conquest launch maps trophy from BFV) or worse trophies for modes that are no longer available, 3) probably a bunch of DLC trophies that may require season pass purchases, and 4) the servers will shut down by the time someone like me finishes their backlog and plays BF2042.

 

But if you're able to keep up and Platinum every game that comes out, buying Battlefield 2042 is not a problem for you.

Edited June 10, 2021 by POEman553