so... BF3's ending (spoilers)

[bart56912]

in the games ending affter beting the final boss blackburn opens the nuke case to find that the nuke is clearly active the player looks up dramaticly and the screen flashes white leaving the player to belive the nuke went off destroying new york so why do most people think he disarmed it if the nuke had not exploded they would have proof the russians were not behind the terror plot meaning the war in multiplayer would have never have happend but he nuke destroyed the evidence leaving the amricans to blame the russians

 

[Holy_Hotdog]

been there done that what's new and cool......well that's just great!

 

[strum4h]

Because then there would be no multiplayer. Battlefield was meant to be a multiplayer game.

 

[bart56912]

sp is there to explain the mp

 

[gellert1984]

If SP actually affected MP wouldnt Paris have a nuclear hole in it and generally look pretty rough as opposed to shiny and new?

 

[bart56912]

If SP actually affected MP wouldnt Paris have a nuclear hole in it and generally look pretty rough as opposed to shiny and new?

well there are alot of damaged buildings i like to think the paris nuke went off far enough to cause pretty bad damage to the outskirts of the city but only do a small amount of damage oh well and radiation poisoning

 

[bart56912]

now that i think about it the MP might be set during the 2007 war from bf2

 

[Ruwrak]

sp is there to explain the mp

I've never heard of such a thing frankly. Nor do I see the reason why the SP would have to clarify the MP. To me, the MP is just something to extend the live of a game. (which in most cases it does.)

 

[bart56912]

sp is there to explain the mp

I've never heard of such a thing frankly. Nor do I see the reason why the SP would have to clarify the MP. To me, the MP is just something to extend the live of a game. (which in most cases it does.)

battlefield is mp based the first few had no or little sp at all

 

[Ruwrak]

sp is there to explain the mp

I've never heard of such a thing frankly. Nor do I see the reason why the SP would have to clarify the MP. To me, the MP is just something to extend the live of a game. (which in most cases it does.)

battlefield is mp based the first few had no or little sp at all

I'm aware of that.
Doesn't explain why the SP needs to explain the MP. You're ditched into a map and the game goes: "See those? Kill em." The only explanation you need really.

 

[bart56912]

sp is there to explain the mp

I've never heard of such a thing frankly. Nor do I see the reason why the SP would have to clarify the MP. To me, the MP is just something to extend the live of a game. (which in most cases it does.)

battlefield is mp based the first few had no or little sp at all

I'm aware of that.
Doesn't explain why the SP needs to explain the MP. You're ditched into a map and the game goes: "See those? Kill em." The only explanation you need really.

true but i rember alot of old fans being upset about there being a SP campaign maybe it was just to make it up to them or maybe even the multiplayer takes place back in the 2007 war from bf2 and the nuke plot is only there for future sequels

 

[Ruwrak]

sp is there to explain the mp

I've never heard of such a thing frankly. Nor do I see the reason why the SP would have to clarify the MP. To me, the MP is just something to extend the live of a game. (which in most cases it does.)

battlefield is mp based the first few had no or little sp at all

I'm aware of that.
Doesn't explain why the SP needs to explain the MP. You're ditched into a map and the game goes: "See those? Kill em." The only explanation you need really.

true but i rember alot of old fans being upset about there being a SP campaign maybe it was just to make it up to them or maybe even the multiplayer takes place back in the 2007 war from bf2 and the nuke plot is only there for future sequels

'OH NO THEY IMPLENTED A SINGLEPLAYER!'

There is an easy solution. See that button named "Multiplayer"?
Click it. I don't see why people are so annoyed over it. If you don't wanna do the SP don't do it It's not like they prohibit you from playing MP before finishing the SP right?

 

[Robert Ewing]

Because then there would be no multiplayer. Battlefield was meant to be a multiplayer game.

This is it I'm afraid.

 

[bart56912]

sp is there to explain the mp

I've never heard of such a thing frankly. Nor do I see the reason why the SP would have to clarify the MP. To me, the MP is just something to extend the live of a game. (which in most cases it does.)

battlefield is mp based the first few had no or little sp at all

I'm aware of that.
Doesn't explain why the SP needs to explain the MP. You're ditched into a map and the game goes: "See those? Kill em." The only explanation you need really.

true but i rember alot of old fans being upset about there being a SP campaign maybe it was just to make it up to them or maybe even the multiplayer takes place back in the 2007 war from bf2 and the nuke plot is only there for future sequels

'OH NO THEY IMPLENTED A SINGLEPLAYER!'

There is an easy solution. See that button named "Multiplayer"?
Click it. I don't see why people are so annoyed over it. If you don't wanna do the SP don't do it It's not like they prohibit you from playing MP before finishing the SP right?

i agree i think its because they would like them to spent the time they spent on the campagn working on more maps vehicles ect

 

[Ruwrak]

i agree i think its because they would like them to spent the time they spent on the campagn working on more maps vehicles ect

I could champion that oppinion the other way. Less time on the MP = more time on the SP. Though what do you expect from BF & MW singleplayers? Not to much hopefully.

But don't forget there are people who just don't like the MP. And for those is there the (albeit short-ish) SP.


Meh, rather play Skyrim or HOMM6

 

[goldendriger]

...There's a campain in this game?!

 

[Vault101]

so he died in the end? well that sucks....

personally I find somthing terrible off putting about a "realistic" setting..only reason I got the game was for multi

seriously Im having doubts about console multi...it just seems to be "do whatever" rather than teamwork..or mabye i havnt played enough

 

[InfectedStar]

Ok great example, remember Battlefield: Bad Company (the first)?
<spoiler=The ending>
The ending started off with Preston destroying The Legionnaire's helicopter, thus believing to have killed him; as the squad treks back to their hidden stash of Legionnaire gold they find the American military already upon it. The commanding officer sees them and orders them to take the trucks full of "scrap metal" with the rest of the convoy, thus breaking away and stealing it for themselves.
[/spoiler]
So how does the SP story ultimately HAVE TO tie in with the MP? And there's no white flash at the end, that was just your T.V. nevermind the fact that Dima had an epilogue speech where he implies that the nuke was stopped because Blackburn had to make the tough choices; infact this was a really cheap-ass ending especially for a Battlefield game. I would atleast like to know if Montes lived.

 

[Korolev]

The screen doesn't flash white. It fades to black. It is armed, but not beeping. It implies he got to it just in time and the bomb did not go off. As for why there is a battle in the multiplayer - it's because they have to have two sides and US Vs Russia makes the most sense.