[I will avoid spoilers in this thread]
I have been playing the Battlefield 4 campaign for the past couple days in order to create a first impressions video on the campaign, as well as unlock the weapons for multiplayer (I want my M249!).
After playing through a great deal of the game I have pondered on what makes a great singleplayer experience in a game. Particularly in the FPS genre.
First off i'd like to say i'm fond of indulging in games such as Operation Flashpoint, Battlefield Multiplayer, Mass Effect, Deus Ex, ARMA and other open world or adaptive choice games. I enjoy feeling immersed with the world I play in and value the personal choices involved.
That being said, I see the value in a linear storyline. A story involving a fantastic story, great characters, and engaging dialogue is just as enjoyable to sit down and play for a session. Games such as Uncharted, Battlefield: Bad Company and Halo are a few examples of single player stories I greatly enjoy to this day.
This brings me to Battlefield 4 and the singleplayer involved with the game. After playing for three or so hours I have continuously felt bored out of my skull. In my opinion the problems with the singleplayer experience boil down to the feeling of lack of immersion within the story along with the lack of choice invloved. The campaign has seemingly managed to avoid being a compelling personal player story as well as being a lackluster character story. The story seems to sit in a limbo between allowing you to create your own story and punishing you for attempting to think outside the box.
For instance, whilst playing through the levels I have consistently come under attack by helicopters. On more than one occasion I have already acquired the means to dispose of said helicopter via a grenade launcher, or other explosive. Although the helicopter was hovering directly in front of me, firing my explosive weapon clipped through the vehicle as it was at that stage a set piece in the level, unable to be harmed. This was the case until mere minutes later when the game gave me "permission" to use the same explosive device to destroy the helicopter.
Why did the game not let me destroy the helicopter in the first place? It was certainly aimed to appeal to the target audience that would rather have their hand held through the campaign in order to simplify the process of actually playing the game. My question towards this is whether or not that populace of gamers actually exists. We see games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, Homefront, and other AAA titles released every year with minimal choice or variety within their respective campaigns in order to draw in revenue from casual gamers who may only buy between one and three games per year. However, do these gamers actually prefer linear, hand-holding campaigns? Or would they prefer a campaign where their choice would matter and affect the game as they played? Would they even notice?
I have a few ideas as to how singleplayer campaigns can be spiced up in order to feel personal, or offer more engaging storylines and gameplay. Money and game development time is definitely a factor therefore I will attempt to have these ideas affect monetary spending as best as possible.
Offer small choices throughout the game. Games such as Mass Effect, Skyrim and other RPG titles offer a variety of story or gameplay impacting choices throughout the experience. Many of these choices impact the game in a large manner, although many more have slighter results. I believe The Walking Dead by TellTale is a fantastic example of this. The game will regularly offer slight choices whilst conversing with the player about various subjects. While conversing, the game takes your responses and actions and applies their consequences later in a manner of varying extremes. This sounds as though it would be a huge endeavor to take on during game development, however, small choices that may be less noticeable are also an option while developing games. What I refer to is the notion that destroying a helicopter before it's scripted even should be entirely available to the player, with a small change to the game's immediate progression. Even a small line change later down the line such as "Another helicopter! This one must be out for revenge." would be more welcome than simply being unable to complete an objective until the game permits it. Other choices may include choosing to save civilians before they are shot, blowing your cover but possibly having them help fend off enemies by shooting from a balcony later in the level, or choosing to let them die which would lead enemies to believe the area is clear to evacuate thus having less later in the level. Even having small dialogues with different squabbling squad members which could change their dialogue or load-outs would be a welcome addition. Small changes to gameplay along with the inclusion of choice help immerse the player in feeling that the world is alive outside of the small corridor they are traversing and should be used to compliment the game.
Give the main character a voice. RPGs often refrain from voicing their main protagonist in order to give the player a sense of immersion and take over the character for themselves. On the flip-side, a linear game without choice such as Uncharted will create a cast of colorful characters with distinct personalities, while placing extra effort in to crafting a likable main character for players to relate to. A game such as Battlefield 4 offers neither of these. The main character of Battlefield 4 does not have a voice in order to have the player be immersed in the character himself. Although, the character his own name and the player cannot make any choices during play. Thus, the game fails at creating compelling characters, or immersing the player with the protagonist. It feels as though the player is a toddler being handed cookies from the jar for waiting through a cutscene. The Half-Life series has perfected sitting on the fence in this aspect by allowing the player to engage with fantastic characters, but also offering choices in the gameplay in the form of how you handle situations or solve puzzles.
Make the fight mean something. America vs. [Insert communist country here.] is a tired storyline filled with meaningless plot. Saving the world is great, yet offers no meaningful incentive or feelings. Yes, you are saving the population of billions of people on the planet, but you don't know any of them. A game such as Bioshock Infinite uses your emotions for Elizabeth in order to drive you to move forward in the game. The Halo series does a fantastic job of having it seem that the entire fate of the galaxy, nae universe is in the hands of the player through fantastic dialogue, characters (Sergeant Johnson.) and cutscenes. Battlefield: Bad Company attaches you to your squad via their personality and allows you to care about their journey. Battlefield 4 is an example of a game which tries to convey these feelings within minutes, rather than an entire game. Sections such as walking you around an area and seeing NPCs which you cannot interact with, only to have the area be invaded and destroyed minutes later are sorry excuses for conveying emotion on the player. Why should I care whether these miscellaneous soldiers survive when their names don't even pop up if I look at them? A good storyline takes time to gradually develop in order to have impact on the player through characters and lore.
What are your thoughts? Do you enjoy linear games? Or do you prefer having a degree of choice?
Log in to comment