As much as I hate it, no campaign or space battles is perfect for Star Wars Battlefront

Ben Salter of MMGN: DICE is the wrong developer to take the lead on Star Wars narrative, and it’s not right to venture into space either. But 40-player planetary mayhem built on the foundations of Battlefield with the locations, weapons, characters and vehicles of Star Wars: that is why it has the honour of developing the first in a new era of Star Wars games.

The story is too old to be commented.
Activemessiah1219d ago

How is less content "perfect"? We are being conditioned to accept less is more here... also, remember when there was a plan to have the consoles always-online? well, it was a hollow victory because slowly by sure games are becoming always-online... that was the back-up plan it seems to me.

Randostar1219d ago (Edited 1219d ago )

Except this game has a offline mode. offline co op in fact
With a 2 1/2 year dev time on this im glad DICE chose Quality over quantity. This is their version of Battlefront not Battlefront 2. The level of detail that the game has (According to the hundreds of people on reddit who saw gameplay at celebration) is absolutely outstanding. Since that was pre-alpha running on a PS4, most of my worries are gone, once they outright show gameplay at E3 i have a feeling i wont even being worrying about it anymore. Less doesn't always equal more, and since this is DICE's first attempt at a battlefront im glad they are taking it slow.

HaveSumNuts1219d ago

Don't forget this is EA and Dice we're talking about, to them quality over quantity means they are already justifying a small number of maps at launch. On top of this it's a multi player only game, you can't ignore the lack of a campaign just because they threw in some co op missions. If their was a co op campaign then yes but right now all I see is EA trying to bank on nostalgia already justifying a scarce amount of content at launch. Come on it's Dice and EA battlepacks day one, season pass, premium edition bullshit, small number of maps in a muli player only game to get you to buy the dlc maps which they'll sell no less than a month later.

nX1219d ago

DICE sucks at storytelling anyway. You can get away with a shallow made-up military campaign... but you can't get away with ruining the Star Wars IP. A missing story is not a big deal if they compensate it with enough other content. I'm not quite convinced that they will, though.

freshslicepizza1219d ago

i dont get the mindset less is more. how is it less if they are totally committed to online multiplayer and not just an online mode attached to single player campaigns we see so often?

consumers need to stop having this theory that games that cost $60 must have a campaign attached. there are no set rules of what games must adopt to charge full price. it all boils down to how much enjoyment the consumer gets out of the product. some players enjoy 10 hour single player games, that's fine too. so why dismiss a game that could have hundreds of hours of replay value?

BattleTorn1219d ago

"It's Battlefront, not Battlefront 2"

Wow... It's also 2015

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1219d ago
DoctorXpro1219d ago

How mad people was when TitanFall came out with that crazy price tag and lack of content?

Its just happening again.

Expect expensive price and season pass.

Activemessiah1219d ago

Well at least they've realised this and Titanfall 2 is now currently rumoured to have a campaign... I say lesson learned there.

pivotplease1219d ago

I also expect quick price drops as well then. Titanfall's price dropped like a rock. Saw it for $20 a few times within 6 months of release and that's in Canada. I don't see the point of needing a game at launch anyway. If anything it's gotten less appealing. Especially with regard to online games with their countless bugs and connectivity issues.

Pandamobile1219d ago (Edited 1219d ago )

You seem to forget that DICE is rooted in mutliplayer games and only added campaigns to Battlefield as recently as 2008, and that was only to flesh out their game engine's features and go toe to toe with the CODs of the time.

Adding a campaign to a game like Battlefront is just a waste of money for EA when they can focus instead on creating a stellar multiplayer experience. Adding a whole 6 hour campaign literally doubles the amount of people and money needed to complete the project.

There's also bot matches and stuff for those of you who can't seem to handle playing online games.

They've even got a single-player Star Wars game in the works at Visceral.

If Battlefront not having a campaign is a deal breaker for you, then that's really just your loss.

windblowsagain1219d ago

Totally agree.

BF2 which imo is one of the best MP games for it's time had no SP.

I've had countless hours of enjoyment in mp games.

SP campaigns in war shooters are the same old thing, someone is trying to take over the world, a new weapon or some blah. It's gotten boring.

Don't get me wrong, I would play a SP if it were there, but it's not a problem. I would prefer more worlds and a spot on solid mp that's going to last.

Imalwaysright1219d ago

2008 was 7 years ago so that excuse doesn't fly and to be honest I don't know why I should care how much it would cost EA to add a campaign because I see publishers with a lot less resources providing games with both online and singleplayer experiences.

Also, this isn't a run of the mill military IP like Battlefield where all you need to do is grab a gun and start shooting everything that moves. We're talking about about a IP with a massive universe and lore so EA/DICE not taking advantage of it by not having a campaign might just be their loss.

Halo2ODST21219d ago (Edited 1219d ago )

What are you saying, halo did provide a stellar multiplayer, as well as great campagins, & expansive custom game modes, also a forge mode (which can be played with other people unlike far cry 4) and a great horde mode, if bungie can do all that than Dice can with battlefront & battlefield, u shouldn't underestimate dice.

Kane221219d ago

what i find funny is how everyone is ok with this game not having a single player story. yet, complained like hell that single player only games doesn't have some bs online co-op crap. you know like mass effect, god of war ascension, bioshock 2 and assassin's creed after part 2 also the order which got hell for not having any online and stayed true to what is was from the start. like wolfenstein the new order.

Spotie1219d ago

1. Who is "everyone?"

2. Most of those games could have done without multiplayer.

3. People are ridiculous.

pivotplease1219d ago

Everyone seems to me like less than half of everyone lol and yes games like bioshock and god of war never needed multiplayer modes. They were ultimately forgettable and a waste of resources that probably detracted from what the full games could have been. Ironically both games are the most mediocre iterations from each series. A correlation perhaps?

I'm in the boat that this doesn't need single player because it would suck anyway, but I'm also in the boat that this game won't boast enough content and value to be a justifiable purchase at full price. It's a waiter.

OB1Biker1219d ago

I think it's the other way round it's just as ridiculous all the whining to have a 'story' campaign for a MP game than it was to have MP in a single player story driven game.
Want a story? Watch the movies. There's offline single and coop mode nonetheless
I play single player games for what they are and look forward to this game as MP experience

TonyPT1219d ago

Are these Freaking "journalists" trying to make things worst for gaming content creation?

Unbelievable that someone would write something like this. Might as well remove the "stars" from the title. Who knows, it might be make the game more "perfect"...

Activemessiah1219d ago

I know i sound like a bloody paranoid loon but there is a conditioning process in place and I don't like it one bit... problem is, not everyone will remain unaffected. They all speak of "Choice" and "You don't have to buy it" leaving you in the cold because you wanted something substantial rather then bare bones "quality".

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1219d ago
lelo2play1219d ago (Edited 1219d ago )

I was expecting a great single player experience in the Star Wars universe, with a few multiplayer maps where people could fool around with friends... what we get is a multiplayer game like Battlefield, Titanfall or Evolve, where a person gets fed up playing a few maps and moves on.
For me, the hype for this game is completely gone. Looks good, like all Dice games, but NOT interested. I'll just go see the Star Wars movie, looks way more interesting.
I hope Dice doesn't f**k up Mirror's Edge.

SniperControl1219d ago

You are spot on, i havnt touched Titanfall in ages, Hardline & Evolve had no interest for me, as they were purely MP(which i hardly play).

This was going to be a day one purchase for me, now, it's not even on my list of games to buy, shame really, as i am dying to play a decent Star Wars game.

The_Sage1219d ago

Have you guys not played the original Battlefront?... This is like a reboot of the first game. The single player was exactly as this one is going to be. There was no real story to speak of and it was great. I think a lot of people that are complaining have not played the original, and are expecting a game that is nothing like Battlefront.

SniperControl1219d ago

I have owned every Battlefront so far, but what i was hoping for was a a SP experience as well, especially since the battlefield games do have them.

I am not a big MP and do prefer single player games.

WellyUK1219d ago Show
1219d ago Replies(3)
Fishy Fingers1219d ago

As many like to point out, not every game needs to have a multiplayer shoehorned in, doesn't that argument stand with multiplayers not having a single player.

While I'd concede a Star Wars themed SP would be more interesting than the conventional Battlefield campaigns. There are other Star Wars games in development. I'm happy DICE are doing what they're good at and frankly, I'll get more playtime out of the multiplayer so I'd rather they make the best version of it that they can.

WellyUK1219d ago

They are aiming it at the Battlefield players as they know from people doing their surveys on Battlelog every month or so that 95% of people buy BF for the MP, why would they bother making a SP if they know this. If you even still play Bf you will see this every so often.

People wanting a good SP Star Wars game will have to wait for the other Star Wars games to arrive which will be built from the ground up to be a SP game.

Sgt_Slaughter1219d ago

So we should have to buy another $60 game just to get some Star Wars single-player...?

That's something straight out of the Don Mattrick's School of Press Releases.

terminallyCapricious1219d ago

Oh yeah. And not even having half the content that battlefront 2 had is a blessing in disguise. Oh yes. Please don't act like this game is better with less content. It seems like as games have become prettier, content has steadily decreased and is being sold as dlc and is starting to be praised as smart design choices.

Enough. :o/

Show all comments (68)
The story is too old to be commented.