Battlefield 4 campaign will make you feel smart: “we have a great story to tell”, says DICE

Tuesday, 8th October 2013 09:37 GMT By Dave Cook

Battlefield 4′s campaign may not seem necessary to those multiplayer-focused players out there, or those who disliked Battlefield 3′s hokum, but DICE creative director Lars Gustavsson reckons the developer has a great story to tell, and a smart one at that.

Speaking with CVG, Gustavsson was asked if there was any call for a Battlefield 4 campaign at all. He replied, “The future will tell, but where we come from we do single player because we want to and we’ve learned a lot while doing it, and I think we have a great story to tell. As a team and a studio we’ve learned so much from crossbreeding between single player and multiplayer. The whole concept of Levolution in many ways comes from single player, and our exploring how we could bring drama and interaction to the world.”

He noted that the reaction to Battlefield 3′s campaign wasn’t as strong as he’d hoped, and added, “We got a lot of feedback from the Battlefield 3 singleplayer, and based on what we intended to deliver the team did a great job, but given that it’s a Battlefield product there were a lot of expectations that it would be more open.

“What we promised ourselves [with Battlefield 4] was to unify the product more, so we infused a lot of the things from multiplayer – from being able to use your squad – into multiplayer, so now you can use them in single player to engage enemies.”

He closed, “First and foremost we’re opening up the encounters more to give you the freedom to decide how to tackle them, whereas in Battlefield 3 it was more ‘pick up that one and kill that one’, which I can agree is not the most exciting way. Players want to feel smart doing what they’re doing.”

Do you reckon the campaign will make you feel smart? Will you play it at all? Let us know below.

Meanwhile, DICE recently told our very own Brenna that they should be slapped for the nature of Battlefield 3′s unlocks. Find out why here.

Via PCGamesN.



  1. VibraniumSpork

    I’ve owned Battlefield 3 from day one. I’ve spent roughly half and hour with the campaign in all that time – worth revisiting?

    RE: BF4′s campaign, if it’s that good they could have done with showing it off a bit more. One of the main things I was surprised with COD:Ghosts’ unveiling was how fleshed out the campaign looked. Actually appears to have some decent emotional hooks in there…

    #1 1 year ago
  2. YoungZer0

    Yeah, the singleplayer of BF3 wasn’t good. It really wasn’t. The atmosphere was great and it was really satisfying to play russian folks and see them handle the situation much differently then their american counterparts. Too bad you’re playing american only again this time, but at least you have a proper squad with (hopefully) actual character.

    The most important thing though, is that they implement things from the multiplayer. Never understood why they didn’t try that in BF3.

    That’s what made BF:BC2 so great for me, you really could do all the stuff you can do in the multiplayer and the maps were HUGE.

    #2 1 year ago
  3. VibraniumSpork

    @2 “That’s what made BF:BC2 so great for me, you really could do all the stuff you can do in the multiplayer and the maps were HUGE.” – Totally agree!

    #3 1 year ago
  4. KAP

    Single Player was incredible. I played through it multiple times. Cant wait for BF4 campaign.

    #4 1 year ago
  5. Creteck

    BF3, was okey, it wasnt amazing or creative. It felt like a tech demo, which follows the Call of Duty straight forward linare style. And BF4 seems like its just the same. I remember Bad Company 1, now that game had a really good campaing. You could compare it to the originale Crysis, half open world mission structure and collectabels hidden in the game. You could also choose a tactical attack to get to next checkpoint. BFBC1 was a amazing game. But in BFBC2 they choose to be more linare like Call of Duty.

    DICE did a bad Choice i would say, i accutally cares about the campaing in games. I dont buy games for the muliplayer.

    #5 1 year ago
  6. Dave Cook

    Battlefield 3′s campaign was utter bullshit.

    There, I said it.


    #6 1 year ago
  7. VibraniumSpork

    @6 Hah :D

    #7 1 year ago
  8. Hcw87

    Still, it beats all the CoD campaigns by a very large margin.

    Nothing worse than being funneled along corridors with constantly respawning enemies until you hit that invisible checkpoint to make them stop spawning.

    #8 1 year ago
  9. Dave Cook

    @8 No, it really doesn’t. Bland, boring, buggy, claustrophobic compared to previous Battlefields. To me it spat in the eyes of the series’ legacy and tried to copy a format Call of Duty dos so much better.

    They should have stuck to what they were best at.

    #9 1 year ago
  10. Dave Cook

    @8 Also, COD hasn’t done constantly respawning enemies for the past several iterations. Again, this is people assuming things about a series they love to hate ;)

    #10 1 year ago
  11. Llewelyn_MT

    The story in Battlefield 3 was OK, but it was killed by the absurd plot twist. I enjoyed BC2 single player much more. If a campaign in a modern military even matters. Shooting dummies is hardly any fun in comparison to the multiplayer.

    #11 1 year ago
  12. Hcw87

    Nah, i played through BO2 and tested this after being told they fixed that. The amount of enemies spawning is far less if you rush through a map. If you stay back to pick off one by one, there is a whole lot more spawning. Might not be unlimited, but it’s far from realistic.

    Not to mention the over the top annoying Veteran mode. Enemies have pin point laser accuracy with both guns and grenades.

    BF3 campaign was more like a Black Hawk Down experience, while most CoD campaigns is like an Expendables type of experience. I prefer the more authentic feeling.

    #12 1 year ago
  13. DuckNation

    A FPS game campaign is always easy and simple nothing more then that

    #13 1 year ago
  14. maria.ge17

    til I saw the receipt ov $7550, I have faith that my best friend woz like truley taking home money parttime on their apple labtop.. there dads buddy haz done this 4 less than 7 months and by now cleard the loans on their place and got a great Ford. ==========>>>>>

    #14 1 year ago
  15. FuntimeBen

    BAD COMPANY 3!!!! What BF3 lacked was any charisma, charm or humor – Which is off, because it is what Bad company 1 and 2 ad is spades.

    Cool is you want to make multiplayer all serious, but I would rather play Tropic Thunder than The Hurt Locker.

    #15 1 year ago
  16. Dave Cook

    @15 This guy gets it ^

    #16 1 year ago
  17. AmiralPatate

    Yes, it need to take itself less seriously. They’d better add an offline/training mode with bots that trying to do a campaign that will most like be bland, predictable and boring from beginning to end.

    #17 1 year ago
  18. wickedcricket

    Umm, SP in BF3 and BF4 is an explicit profanity. I’m not even going to bother acknowledging whatever DICE has prepared for a “campaign”.

    Bad Company – THIS is where you should really put you effort in making single player a stand out, to put it simply, please just continue the adventures of Marlowe, Sweetwater, Haggard and Redford.

    Maaan, I can’t even believe I still remember names of the characters form BF:BC2.

    #18 1 year ago
  19. DrDamn

    One smart fellow and he felt smart, two smart fellows and they felt smart, three smart fellows and they felt smart and they all felt smart together!

    (try saying out loud quickly) :)

    #19 1 year ago
  20. KTF26

    yes 4 hours campaign

    #20 1 year ago
  21. Os Money

    The Majority are buying it for MP, why bother with a campaign anyways? They’re just shorter in each new version and everyone complains.

    #21 1 year ago
  22. AmiralPatate

    Because it makes cool trailers.

    #22 1 year ago
  23. Os Money

    @22 really? I always favored those CGI cut scenes that are have nothing to do with the actual gameplay. /sarcasm

    #23 1 year ago
  24. KineticCalvaria

    @15, 16, you BFBC2 fans seem to forget that there were Battlefield games before Bad Company… and they were more akin to BF3 and 4 in tone than Bad Company. Being a Battlefield 2 fan myself I was very disappointed with the steaming pile that was Bad Company.

    In regards to BF3′s campaign, it was definitely more of a tech demo… kinda like Crysis.

    #24 1 year ago
  25. MadFlavour

    Doubt it.

    #25 1 year ago
  26. AmiralPatate

    Being a fan of BF2142, I think BC2 is closest the the series’ spirit than BF3/4 will ever be. BC2 is not perfect, it’s not exactly Battlefield, but then again, neither is BF3.

    #26 1 year ago
  27. RocknRolla

    BF4 online controls for vehicles are just shit..

    #27 1 year ago
  28. Hcw87

    Change controls to veteran before whining.

    #28 1 year ago
  29. sh4dow

    Yeah right. I’ll never forget my first impression of the BF3 story. I believe it was in the first longer gameplay video they released.

    “You ever ask yourself how this part of the world gets so fucked up all the time?!”

    #29 1 year ago
  30. Praglik

    There was a singleplayer mode in BF3 ? Honestly, they shouldn’t have implemented one. They should stick singleplayer campaigns to Bad Companies and let Battlefield handle the multiplayer part…

    #30 1 year ago

Comments are now closed on this article.