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.

[Activemessiah]

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.

[Randostar]

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.

[HaveSumNuts]

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.

[nX]

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.

[freshslicepizza]

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?

[BattleTorn]

"It's Battlefront, not Battlefront 2"

Wow... It's also 2015

[DoctorXpro]

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.

[Activemessiah]

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

[pivotplease]

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.

[ifistbrowni]

both published by EA....

[Pandamobile]

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.

[windblowsagain]

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.

[Imalwaysright]

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.

[Halo2ODST2]

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.

[Kane22]

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.

[Spotie]

1. Who is "everyone?"

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

3. People are ridiculous.

[pivotplease]

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.

[OB1Biker]

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

[TonyPT]

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"...

[Activemessiah]

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".

[lelo2play]

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.

[SniperControl]

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_Sage]

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.

[SniperControl]

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.

[Fishy Fingers]

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.

[WellyUK]

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_Slaughter]

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.

[terminallyCapricious]

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/

[1nsomniac]

If it's MP only & only getting 9 levels (unconfirmed, but led to believe) then it's a £15 game max!

[pivotplease]

It's probably worth a bit more than that but I agree that these kind of games are hardly worth the standard MSRP and should retail for less. At least with an uncharted I'm getting a 12 hour campaign straight up that I can replay. With these kind of games you're getting maybe only 2 hours of varied content that you have to repeatedly replay to get any sort of value. It's apples to oranges, but I just get so bored of playing online shooters. It's fun to learn maps and perfect strategies but the monotony gets to me quicker than most (most being the kids who played CoD every day from 2007 until now).

Anyways as I said before the price on this will drop quickly. The only games that never seem to drop in price are Nintendo games and that damn GTA remaster.

[WellyUK]

This game isn't made for you then... Lol its made for people who play shooters and play Battlefield... The price is worth it for them and for me as I enjoy FPS games...

CoD4 had about 9 maps yet that game had massive replay value, no reason why DICE can't make Battlefront very re-playable through unlock systems or map variety.

[BiggerBoss]

@welly

Thats part of the problem, it shouldnt be made for the people who play Battlefield, it should be made for the people who play BattleFRONT. And its missing so many elements that made Battlefront what it was.

Im more than likely going to buy the game, but I have a feeling its going to disappoint me:/

[Pandamobile]

Well, no one actually plays Battlefront. That's why they're rebooting the whole series.

[ninsigma]

I don't want it built on the foundations of battle field. If I did I'd just buy battle field, but I don't because I don't like it. I want a battlefront game revamped from the old ones or if that isn't possible (which is likely because those games are pretty old now) then brand new gameplay style. What's the point in this if it's going to play like battlefield??

[Dudebro90]

Amen.

I don't want to play battlefield. I want to play battlefront.

[BiggerBoss]

I agree 100%

[Solid_Penguin-64]

In a conquest match players are separated into two teams, each team with a set number of tickets that allow for respawning. The aim of the game is to drain the other teams tickets to zero by capturing fixed command posts dotted around the map, as well as killing enemy players. Players can choose from a number of classes such as soldiers and engineers, and can pilot land and air vehicles to aid their team in battle.

What game did I just describe?

[rezzah]

This gen is edgy, it is the dlc practices. They seem to have become more fleshed out than last generation.

Patience is needed more now more than ever due to "extra" purchasable content becoming more common. It is hard to determine what is simply a cash grab and what is not.

Pre-ordered dlc is the new method to obtain money and it is based on the word of the publisher/developer alone. This method tests the loyalty of fans with something that is non-refundable but easily shifted to the side with apologies. Example of apologies is the listed raid for House of Wolves (Destiny), for unknown reasons it has been switched out for a enemy hoard mode (basically what most of the game already is).

Paying for the unknown is what people are doing, don't give into the hype the media or fans build.

[boing1]

No campaign is fine for this kind of game IMO. Not sure about lack of space battles though. They were awesome in previous battlefronts.

[Solid_Penguin-64]

Yeah this is the one real downer for me, makes you wonder what they still call it "star" wars...

[Spotie]

Not when this game is supposed to fill in the gaps between the last and the new one. Pretty hard to tell a story without a campaign.

And why the hell not have space battles?

[arbitor365]

It would be fine and well if they were replacing it with something. But the game has a fraction of the maps of the previous games. And they take out story mode, galactic conquest, space battles and the clone wars. But apparently that is not enough. They also have to make the game take place on only 4 planets. It is a joke.

[ninsigma]

Don't forget the removal of classes!!

[pivotplease]

I want to say wait and see but I'm pretty put off as well. At least now the hype level is much lower and the game could surprise people.

[Jovahkiin]

Space battles will be the first expansion. Air superiority mode but space...

[Sir_Simba]

one of their sfudios is making a singleplayer only star wars game thaT they gonna sell for the same price as this.
I honestly think I may pick This up 2016, by then I'll know everything I need to know

[REDDURT]

It's star wars what you mean no space battles? This dude nuts

[DillyDilly]

If I remember correctly the first two Battlefronts had no real story mode either

[bananaboats]

they didnt. more like small missions. majority of people crying about no story mode are most likely the ones who never played the original two.

I dont understand why some people automatically wave off a game because of no story or campaign mode.

[ninsigma]

Not everyone likes to play online.

[Monkeycan8]

ninsigma Then dont play online.

[GUYwhoPLAYSvideoGAME]

I understand being disappointed that there are no space battles, but don't understand the deal with being disappointed that there is no single player campaign.

I recently bought battlefront 2, and there's no single player there, there was never any variation of battlefront that I would consider a single player campaign, just playing multiplayer with bots. Some modes spice it up a bit like galactic conquest, but your still just are going through playing multiplayer matches with bots, what are people talking about? I'm not going to get this because of no single player? It has a mission mode they say can be played alone, but is meant for co-op. This in itself means this battlefront has more single player to it than any other battlefront ever did.

[GUYwhoPLAYSvideoGAME]

as for space battles, it's not like if battlefront 3 did have space battles, it would be what it is plus space battles that are as well done as the ground and air battles they have now.(not that we even know what that looks like)

i'm no developer, but i'd imagine that there's only so much money, time, and effort to put into a game before it's release. The developers decision to not have space battles isn't like meh, i'd rather have more maps, it was probably more of a, I want best battlefront we can make, let's focus on what we're good at and make it the best. And I'm for those decisions in games nearly 100% of the time It's quality>quantity

of course though i don't actually KNOW but i think it's safe to assume so

[The_Sage]

I could not agree with you more. I would rather they focus on making a great Battlefront game than make a completely new IP called Battlefront where they are spending dev time and tons of cash working on mo cap performances, voice talent, cinematics, and whatever else while trying to hold true to Star Wars lore and cannon.

Besides... There is a new single player Star Wars game in the works, and you can lay money a new space based Star Wars game is as well.

This game is going to be awesome, and I won't miss the people that decide not to buy it, at all. At least they won't have the aggravation of me sending them back to their spawn point over and over again with well placed blaster fire.

[GUYwhoPLAYSvideoGAME]

haha, you replied to the wrong comment, but yep, exactly

[JasonKCK]

I was going to pass on this anyway. Not because I don't love Star Wars because I do, but for now I'm kinda sick of Star Wars.

I think EA/DICE should have taken what the first two games did and combine them, not reboot it. It's like the gaming industry is copying Hollywood and rebooting or remastering everything popular.

[WeskerChildReborned]

No space battle is a shame but least we got air battles.

[Mithan]

I would prefer they focus on Multiplayer in this game, and make that awesome.

I would love them to release a new single player game, but don't make it have both. I am sick of single or multiplayer suffering in these games just to check off marketing boxes.

[PurpHerbison]

I'm actually hyped for this game but I can't help but think it will have a slew of issues on release that carry on for months.

[Izzy408]

I agree. I don' think DICE should use up a large portion of its resources creating single player campaign that I'm only going to play for 6-8 hours and then never touch again. Like it said in the article, DICE is a company that excels on multiplayer and lacks on single player.

Therefore, I'd rather have DICE create an awesome multiplayer experience with several single player missions, as opposed to a, hopefully, descent campaign and a bug/glitch riddled multiplayer.