Battlefront3.net

Maybe like multiplayer Galactic Conquest for EaW.

possibly, never played. I really like the multiple campaigns for factions idea, but it would hard to do. I wouldn't expect too much with the first person campaign in BF3 though, LA seems to be only interested in making a strong amount of multiplayer (with BF3 online )

Multiplayer campaigns would rely on your enemy to be able to kill you with one shot. Humans have strategy and teamwork that AI does not. Operation Flashpoint games are a good example of good co-op campaigns but they are tactical shooters and you do die very easily. Other games have done them but they usually rely on waves of enemies to make it harder. OF felt organic. Unless you are wanting BFIII to be a tactical shooter I don't think a multiplayer campaign would be very good or fun.

It would add great PvP in the experience of it.

I don't know if a tactical shooter is what I'm going for, but who knows, we'll see.

Darth Vader wrote:It would add great PvP in the experience of it.

Oh, if you mean a PvP campaign then Brink is a game you should check out. If I understood what the game is then I'm fairly sure that is one of the aspects of it.

Arosenivai wrote:I don't know if a tactical shooter is what I'm going for, but who knows, we'll see.

I wouldn't be happy if BFIII is a tactical shooter either but a multiplayer campaign would be tricky to deal with. I'd be happy with a normal campaign with 2-4 local multiplayer for campaign and instant action. I don't like campaigns with other people I don't know anyway. Again, except OF because if you play it, you realize how organic and fun it can be, if tactical games are your thing.

Scott wrote:

Darth Vader wrote:It would add great PvP in the experience of it.

Oh, if you mean a PvP campaign then Brink is a game you should check out. If I understood what the game is then I'm fairly sure that is one of the aspects of it.

I'll look up videos on it now, and see if it's the same thing I am suggesting.

EDIT: I can't seem to find anything.

Scott wrote:

Arosenivai wrote:I don't know if a tactical shooter is what I'm going for, but who knows, we'll see.

I wouldn't be happy if BFIII is a tactical shooter either but a multiplayer campaign would be tricky to deal with. I'd be happy with a normal campaign with 2-4 local multiplayer for campaign and instant action. I don't like campaigns with other people I don't know anyway. Again, except OF because if you play it, you realize how organic and fun it can be, if tactical games are your thing.

I'm pretty sure you could make up to a 8 multiplayer and be pretty safe. Tactical shooters are fun, but, to me, it wouldn't feel like Battlefront. Although I'd like to see a campaign that wasn't just an extended tutorial.

I know, right. I felt the campaign keeps treating me like I don't know what to do.

I love operation flashpoint but for different reasons, its a completly different game, sometimes infuriating but other times absolutly brilliant. Its by far the most realistic warfare game I have played.

I don't think BF would fit well with that level of realism

Tretarn wrote:I don't think BF would fit well with that level of realism

But there'd be no harm with it being just below.

Darth Vader wrote:

Tretarn wrote:I don't think BF would fit well with that level of realism

But there'd be no harm with it being just below.

Ya there would...It'd be too hard and not as fun. Republic Commando 2 would be cool if it was around OFs difficulty.

Arosenivai wrote:

Scott wrote:

Arosenivai wrote:I don't know if a tactical shooter is what I'm going for, but who knows, we'll see.

I wouldn't be happy if BFIII is a tactical shooter either but a multiplayer campaign would be tricky to deal with. I'd be happy with a normal campaign with 2-4 local multiplayer for campaign and instant action. I don't like campaigns with other people I don't know anyway. Again, except OF because if you play it, you realize how organic and fun it can be, if tactical games are your thing.

I'm pretty sure you could make up to a 8 multiplayer and be pretty safe. Tactical shooters are fun, but, to me, it wouldn't feel like Battlefront. Although I'd like to see a campaign that wasn't just an extended tutorial.

I was never suggesting BFIII should be a tactical shooter as it would only he for the hardest of hardcore gamers. I was just saying co-op campaigns rely on elements BF can't rely on. Such as one hit deaths or waves and waves of enemies in small areas.

8 player would work if at least 4 of those people weren't very good. BF was never that hard of a game so that it could appeal to a wide array of gamers (which is why I think BFIII may also be too easy). I once beat Hoth in around 5 minutes with only one other person. If there were 8, 2 people could get each CP and it would be over. Multiplayer should not be the selling point for the campaign. It could work in the campaign but it better not be the only fun part about it.

But really guys, what should the single-player campaign be about.

Scott wrote:
8 player would work if at least 4 of those people weren't very good. BF was never that hard of a game so that it could appeal to a wide array of gamers (which is why I think BFIII may also be too easy).

That's why there's always multiple levels of difficulty. I mean Veteran from BF2 was a joke even without legendary in guardian. There's no reason why they couldn't have a difficulty mode in which both campaign and galactic conquest are legitimately challenging.

Slayer1 wrote:But really guys, what should the single-player campaign be about.

On that note: I think there should be an actual campaign, not like a battlefront multiplayer battle in which you can't "fight it you're way". I know that seems odd coming from me, but I think they can do much more with the single player than what they have.

It wouldn't necessarily be like that if the AI were as stupid as they used to be.