No Happiness Forever: Star Wars Battlefront: EA

"I got a bad feeling about this..."

I recently played Star Wars Battlefront II with my brother, and in the first time in what felt like ages. Despite the archaic graphics and controls, We had a great time, throwing together a quick playlist of modes in Instant Action and customizing them. We dared entering Echo Base against Wampas on Hoth, before diving and weaving between capital ships in space. Finally, we went at it competitively on Endor, with one of us as the Empire and the other as Ewoks. The Ewoks won, because I decreed it so.

Ever since the new game was announced and I found out more and more about it, I realized there was going to be less and less in it. Classic modes like Instant Action and Galactic Conquest were absent, as well as the ability to dogfight in outer space. The number of maps and factions were also greatly reduced, so that DICE could "focus on the original trilogy".

But even with all that was missing... I was still excited for the game, based almost entirely on what I got to play in the beta. Despite the obvious balancing issues, what DICE had crafted in this new Star Wars game brought me closer to the movies than ever before. I felt like I was a snow trooper, blasting rebels while other players, piloting miniature-looking starships, blew the crap out of each other from above. Maps felt like actual on-set movie locations, as apposed to the theme park attractions in the older games (God, remember Cloud City?). To call it nostalgic was an understatement, I truly felt like a kid again. That's a feeling I haven't felt since... I saw the final trailer for Star Wars 7 a few weeks earlier. Man, what a year...

However, it was to my dismay to learn that the new Star Wars Battlefront, subtitled "EA" (am I pronouncing that right?) did do something that turned even ME away. The straw that broke the Bantha's back for me, was the apparent lack of offline playability. Split-screen and bot options are in the game, mind you... but they're relegated to certain game modes. And what's worse is how seemingly undervalued these modes appear to be. They look like something you'd play once and then never touch again.

It's safe to say that I was one of the many who were ready to be bent over and had by EA. Here I am, ready to brace and bear it, my body is ready. But, with what I'm getting out of the deal, it just doesn't appear to be enough, and for reasons I fail to understand. You could say I'm Oliver Twist in that regard (or "Offline Oliver"), content with the meal itself, although curious as to why I'm getting so little of it. Does that make sense? It's not the options that AREN'T in the game that I have a problem with, it's the options that ARE.

In fact, the more I'm learning about this... this... "EA", the more and more I'm starting to feel like I'm getting less and less out of it as a $60+ game, and for reasons that are ONLY beneficial to one side of the arrangement. This deal's getting worse all the time...

"Hold it! Asking for split-screen in an online multiplayer game is unreasonable!"

Whu...uh...huh? So now wanting to play the whole game that I'm paying $60+ for is "unreasonable"? It's not like I'm asking for DICE to build a feature from scratch. They've already gone through the trouble of developing split-screen and bots for offline play. BOTH FEATURES ARE IN THE GAME. This whole plea is based on the fact that both features are already IN THE GAME. But for some reason, they aren't applied to the whole game. It's like if I went through the trouble of preparing to run track. I gear up, I stretch out, and I take off... only to stop halfway to the finish line. What was the point? Why would anyone go through the trouble if they're only going to go half way?

But then, what about the multiplayer modes demand online-only play? What about Walker Assault demands it needs 40 actual human people to play it, as apposed to 1 or 2 human players and 38 or 39 bots? Nothing. In fact, the mode would actually play out how it's SUPPOSED to, with less kamikaze-ing Tie fighters, or teammates ignoring objectives so they can focus on their precious killstreak. It's never a good idea in a game like this, to make everyone's experience entirely dependent on the competence/attendance of an online community. Online-exclusive game modes can only ever be a recipe for inconvenience, even to online-preferenced players. What happens when the servers go down, or the online community dries up and there aren't enough people to play the mode that you want to play?

(an offline option ain't looking so bad anymore is it?)

This kind of thing happens too often with the online side of a game, but the problem can be circumvented with offline playability, a feature that (remember) DICE have already gone through the trouble of INCLUDING.

I still very much hope all of the multiplayer modes are included offline, at least in some form (like perhaps as their own mission in the offline mode). I know instant action isn't in the game, but neither is mode customization in general it seems, so it just makes sense including the online modes as missions (or maybe a type of special mission), then I (and a couch buddy) would get to play ALL of the content, and I would definitely buy the game on launch day!

If someone would like to fill me in on any unknown variables (DICE, I'm looking at you), I'm all ears; To my knowledge I've seen no official reason given for lack of split-screen play in all modes. I'd appreciate a link to it though, just like I'd appreciate being 5 years old and being told Santa isn't real. Offline was my preference even with the old Battlefront, I've NEVER played Battlefront online, and that had less to do with my lack of an internet connection or friends, and more to do with convenience.

Maybe I just don't want to come home hoping the servers will be up when I want to play, or if the connection won't bug out and lag all over the place. Maybe I don't want to worry about waiting, HOPING, for other players to play the mode I want to play, or if they'll still be playing at all a few months from now. Maybe the thought of EA's servers shutting down some odd years later, isn't something I want hanging over my copy of EA, like a pendulum just waiting to drop and cut EA in half, lobotomizing EA of half its content.

"The game just needs a campaign!"

I disagree, and not just because I don't think it will be good, but because I'm sure it would miss the point given DICE's track-record. The first DICE game I ever took interest in was Battlefield 3. Compared to Call of Duty, Battlefield was an incredible alternative. It was gorgeous to look at and the sound was immersive. It was large-scale, and it had vehicular action. I rented it to try it out, only to find that I simply wasn't allowed to play the multiplayer modes unless I played them online with other people. My mind could not comprehend this design decision. I was locked out of half, (if not most) of what was almost a $60 purchase. Thank God I rented it first.

But boy was I missing out, because the singleplayer experience is NOTHING like the advertised multiplayer experience. instead of a plethora of vehicle options and large-scale warfare, I was stuck in the backseat of a jet; an on-rails turret section disguised as an exciting aerial dogfight. I was trapped in a cramped corridor, mashing the x button to stop a guy from slitting my throat in an unavoidable quick time event. This wasn't Battlefield, this was "Battlecorridor". if I wanted that, i'd just play any generic shooter campaign.

The baffling design of the campaign was made even MORE baffling when compared to Battlefield: Bad Company, a game in which the demo alone allowed you to explore a large open countryside, driving cars, destroying houses and fighting tanks. Let me reiterate that, just to drive the point home: in the DEMO for one Battlefield, I drove through a house, with a tank hot on my heels (yes, this really happened), while in the campaign for another Battlefield, that sequence would've been a scripted event. It was that reason that made me revere Bad Company as an offline gamer, yet pick up and drop Battlefield 3 like it was a bad habit.

I don't want a campaign if that means linear levels and quick-time events are all I get to play. I'm a guy who grew up with the Xbox 360. Gears of War 2 was my mainstay title for a long time. I would spend hours in horde, either by myself or with a family member/buddy on the same couch. I had access to all of the multiplayer content in that game. If I wanted to play wingman, king of the hill, annex, or execution, it was my option to do so, and without having to wade through numerous cutscenes or scripted events beforehand.

Gears was the kind of game that did it right, the only thing that I would care to miss out on was playing that content online with other players. Epic didn't take their toys and go home just because I wouldn't play exactly the way they wanted. the simple fact that I'm playing at all should be enough. Had Gears 2 not allowed us to play the multiplayer modes offline, and relegated us to campaign-only play, I don't think I'd still have the game, much less remember it as fondly as I do.

"If you don't like it, don't buy it."

...but I DO like it, and that's why I'm making such a fuss about it. What is this, a George Orwell novel? Am I not allowed to articulate WHY I find something to be unfavorable? I just have to accept everything about it or piss off? That's some drone behavior right there. I LOVE what I played so far in the new Battlefront, really I do. However, the fact that the offline/split-screen offerings don't seem to hold up is what disappoints me, not just as a Battlefront veteran who's disappointed over what isn't there, but as someone who just wants to play the entirety of what IS.

In conclusion, I cant, in good sense, buy EA. And not just out of principle, EA. It's not simply a matter of having the will power or the patience to send EA a message, EA, but a matter of basic consumer value instinct towards EA. its simply not a good enough value for me to buy EA, and I say this in contrast to me enjoying what I've played of EA so far. Knowing that not only will I have to play EA on someone else's time, but also without my brother, is most certainly a deal-breaker, EA. EA.

I strongly believe that Walker Assault could be played with bots/split-screen, and literally the only thing of value that would change is less snow troopers riding the AT-ATs like they're over-grown horses.

I mean, honestly, what's stopping them fro-

[JOWAPPO]

TL:DR

EA is double+ ungood.

[bixxel]

But better than Ubisoft...

[annoyedgamer]

Ubisoft was superior for a while but I would say they are on par at this point.

[nX]

Both did enough to land in hell.

[s45gr32]

Hard to tell

[RegorL]

Sounds like you expect the relationship to end... you'll be right.

[garrettbobbyferguson]

"It's safe to say that I was one of the many who were ready to be bent over and had by EA"

If this is the way you describe purchasing something, you may need to re-evaluate your want to even purchase it in the first place.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Agreed. Buying a product should not be done reluctantly, especially if its something as subjective as a game. The reality is, its a product ,they describe what it is, you buy it based on what they are selling.

.....Thats it.

Its as fair as fair can be. People got to play the beta for days, they've been transparent on what is in the game and what is not since the very day it was announced.

Yet....we have people complaining about what its not, despite them never promising such a thing. Can someone miss SW BF2? Sure. I guess, but this is a bit much. I don't agree with attacking a game, based on emotional reasons, based on concepts never promised and based on a comparison of "less" from a game that was 10 years old and started as a mod.

DICE never promised this title to be a sequel to Pandemics work, they promised a reboot and that is exactly what this game is. Like it or hate it, its still a MP focused Star Wars game, JUST like the original series, DICE is making this series THEIR way, what Battlfront is going to be, is up to the team making it currently, not any of us.

[BillytheBarbarian]

It's fine for what it is but really why do you have such a problem with the game not including Bots? You realize that if they included bots you would be able to continue the experience of the game's entirety offline years down the line even when servers are pulled.

Not including them is a step backwards and a show of greed from EA. Again, it's not about liking or disliking a genre, it's not about them putting in a single player mode, and it's not about comparing it to the old Battlefront title. It's about ownership and being able to still fire it up to maybe one day show your grand kids.

I have a son and daughter now and nothing is cooler than firing up the old Sega or Nintendo and letting them experience these games. I like knowing I will be able to play Gears of War 3's multiplayer long after the servers are killed. It means that I actually OWN the entire game. Internet or no internet I can enjoy it 20-30 years from now.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@Billy- The game includes bots in its offline single player mode.

I have zero problem with the game not including bots in its MP modes. The game is multiplayer online focused, I'd rather have that focus on real people competing vs robots adding to kills for filler. I didn't like it in those other FPS games back in the day, nothings changed. Its still stupid today.

"continue the experience of the game's entirety offline years down the line even when servers are pulled."

The game is not an offline game, its focus is on online MP, they have no ode to do such a thing as they made it pretty clear what it is and what its not.

"Not including them is a step backwards and a show of greed from EA"

Yet many, many FPS titles don't include them. If the game is online MP with humans....that is what it is, bots was never a staple or mandatory thing for the genre.

"it's not about liking or disliking a genre, it's not about them putting in a single player mode"

??? Might be one of the stupidest contradictory things I've heard in a long time.

OH so its not about hating a genre, its about wanting it to be a genre it was never suppose to be? lol Really? Buddy...its not a single player story game, and it also has a single player MODE, play survival. If you want a mode where you play by yourself with bots....that actually exist in the game.

" It's about ownership and being able to still fire it up to maybe one day show your grand kids."

Again...that isn't what the title is marketed to be in the first place, can you not say the same thing about MMOs? So your asking for it to be, something they never promised the title to be? ...I see.

"I have a son and daughter now and nothing is cooler than firing up the old Sega or Nintendo and letting them experience these games"

Good, don't buy online only titles then, that might be a good start...

" Gears of War 3's multiplayer long after the servers are killed. It means that I actually OWN the entire game. Internet or no internet I can enjoy it 20-30 years from now."

Moot point, don't play online only titles. Can you sue them for misrepresenting the title? Did they falsely advertise what the title was? Were you misled? What your actually saying is, your mad at something it was never in anyway shape or form stated, promised, marketed etc to actually be.

That is like me complaining about Fallout 4 being single player only and saying

(I have kids, they like to play with one another but live in different states, now they can't play online with each other, Bethesda's greed is making them not make it online so my kids can play with each other, playing online helps build bonds, doing so would be able to have them experience the game together etc, etc)

Sooooooo would it not make better sense to actually FIND A GAME OF THIS NATURE vs begging for every game to fit such a mold? If that is important to you, don't buy a title that doesn't support that concept.

Stop asking for Star Wars Battlefront to be a offline bot MP title, and simply go find an offline bot filled mp title. If it supports you ideals, buy it, stop begging for titles to be concepts they never stated themselves to be. That is not the fault of the team, they never promised such thing. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to play or buy it. You have options bud. (We round this silly complaint up with first world problems lol)

[garrettbobbyferguson]

Of course I'm entirely against this game even using the same name in the series, that is irrelevant to this conversation. I'm merely stating that OP obviously realizes that this title is a complete rip off to him and he shouldn't have even considered purchasing it in the first place.

[JOWAPPO]

EDMIX, I never said that they promised the whole game would be offline. I said that they DELIVERED on their promise, but that the end-result is disappointing (based on the standards set by other games). I don't think you're actually understanding me. I'm "criticizing" (that's a word that's probably alien to you) the game for how it handled it's offline features.

"lol, "problem"? Buddy...buy another game if you want that so badly. I don't recall them ever saying the whole game was offline."

Again, you dunce, I never said they promised that. But here you go again with this "take it or leave it" mentality. Because in your black and white world, criticism and feedback do not exist. A game's design is not allowed to be criticized in an attempt to improve it. Yes, EDMIX, "PROBLEM". Simply not buying the game does not solve the problem. The problem being, EDMIX, is that the game is designed poorly. To solve that problem, we have to criticize it. That means point out the flaws so that the developers will learn from their mistakes. The reason we want them to improve is because we LIKE the product, but there's something about it that ruins the deal.

But silly me. According to you, improving the game would be "turning it into something it's not supposed to be". Logic fail.

"? So resort to name calling to solve your issue?"

When did I call you a fanboy? I compared your mindset to the mindset of a fanboy. That's not name-calling, you hyper-sensitive baby.

(yes, the irony was intentional)

"I'm not sure why getting emotional and crying about it is your answer. Buy another product, do you think to burger king and cry about them not having pizza? Because that is their problem right? First world problems bud..."

I'm not emotional over this EDMIX, in fact, I even try to be entertaining with my diatribes. This is fun for me, I like discussing problems in a game and hopefully putting a smile on someone's face at the same time. And "do I think to burger king"? You mean, do I think to go to Burger King for a pizza? Again, EDMIX, I've gone over this already. I'm not demanding that the game be turned into a different game. I'm criticizing how poorly the game was designed based on what it's SUPPOSED TO BE.

Please, this next part is important so pay attention: Using YOUR EXAMPLE, I'd be criticizing Burger King because they also SELL PIZZA, but the pizza isn't cooked very well, and so I'm going to-I'm sorry, I mean "I think to Burger King" to criticize them for it, so that they'll IMPROVE and make a better pizza. Whether or not pizza is their primary focus is IRRELEVANT. If you're going to sell pizza, and appeal to pizza lovers, DON'T HALF-ASS IT and not expect criticism.

Again, I don't think you understand the difference there, because you keep repeating yourself with the same awful counter-argument. You think your defending an online game from becoming an offline game (hence, your comparisons). In reality, EDMIX, your defending a terrible design choice in a game from criticism. Your logic is basically "because it's designed to be this way, that makes it okay. Don't like it, don't buy it, bud. First world problems, lol". And you wonder why I compared you to a fanboy?

You're conflating the idea of criticism with "turning the game into something it's not supposed to be". That's exactly what you're saying EDMIX, and that's why I said that you were embarrassing yourself.

I'd tell you again, but it's already too late at this point. The damage is done. Abandon all hope. GAME OVER MAN.

[JOWAPPO]

@EDMIX

MMOs are online-only, EDMIX. There is no offline play in a massively multiplayer ONLINE game. Because it can only be played ONLINE. As in, if you're not ONLINE, you're not playing it at all. Have I explained it enough there? Do you get it?

The new Battlefront is not "online-only". This isn't Destiny or Blacklight. Star Wars Battlefront can be played OFFLINE, and with split-screen to boot.

DICE promised offline play. They promised split-screen, bots and an offline experience. And they delivered on their promise. However, when we review how they handled the "offline experience", it becomes apparent that they restricted the offline play for no real reason and it only hurts the game as a result. I don't care if that was done on purpose, it does not absolve it from criticism, and it's only by criticizing it that we can hope to change it. Simply "not buying the game" does not solve the problem. In fact, that is such an overly simplistic and counter-productive way of solving problems, that it's something you'd only expect to hear from fanboys and corporate drones (because they just want to defend their favorite game/company).

I'm pretty sick of hearing people adopt this "take it or leave it" mentality. You act like there's no such thing as feedback or criticism, like we live in a George Orwell novel or something. Gaming will only continue to get worse with mindsets like that infecting the community.

At the end of the day, it's an offline/online game that is of very little value when played entirely offline. And on what planet does that make sense when there are clear examples of games that do this dynamic correctly? It's a matter of consumer value, not genre difference, you dunce.

The game could've easily appealed to me had the offline/online dynamic been designed correctly. It wasn't. So the fact that there's splitscreen/bots at all is quite baffling considering the game's design.

DICE: "We want to appeal to offline play but not really"

Yep, makes perfect sense!

[_-EDMIX-_]

They did, but I believe that was referring to the offline single player mode, not the online multiplayer mode.

I don't recall anywhere of DICE EVER promising that of the multiplayer portion of that game. Your confusing what they stated about a mode, with the entire game.

I get you might have confused what was stated with the whole game, it happens.

http://gamerant.com/star-wa...

"Star Wars: Battlefront will support bots. There is a game mode called Missions that can be played either solo or cooperatively, and will be filled with bots. This mode can be played either offline or online"

" it does not absolve it from criticism, and it's only by criticizing it that we can hope to change it. Simply "not buying the game" does not solve the problem"

lol, "problem"? Buddy...buy another game if you want that so badly. I don't recall them ever saying the whole game was offline.

" that it's something you'd only expect to hear from fanboys and corporate drones (because they just want to defend their favorite game/company)"

? So resort to name calling to solve your issue? Bud...its just a game, they are telling you what the product is, take it or leave it. You are free to actually play other games that support the concept you want, many already knew going into this that this is what the game was.

I'm sorry if you where confused about what it was as pretty sure they stated the facts regarding this game a long time ago.

I'm not sure why getting emotional and crying about it is your answer. Buy another product, do you think to burger king and cry about them not having pizza?

Because that is their problem right? First world problems bud, you might as well cry about every game that releases and beg for them to be things they never promised them to be in the first place.

[BillytheBarbarian]

@Edmix

From your responses it's clear you can't understand what we're talking about. Twisting everything up to the point readers of your posts would think you work for EA. You missed the point of everything said here. Everything.

"Throw away gaming" is a term used to describe games that have little to no use without the internet. People dump money into an experience that's not meant to last forever. You can keep that physical disc all you want but in 20 years when the servers don't exist it's not a game any longer, it's a disc that's as good as smashing a brownie in a VCR.

It's the younger generation that are used to it. Tablet/phone games, mmos, pay to play stuff...it's all "throw away".

[s45gr32]

Good article, I really wanted to get this game but the fact it has less content than its predecessor plus a $50.00 season pass. On top off the lack of space battles is too much for me

[BillytheBarbarian]

Nice article. This entire blog is the reason I wasn't quick to jump in this generation of gaming and some of last generation. Offline Bots have been the norm since Unreal Tournament (Dreamcast) and Golden Eye (N64). Most multiplayer games in similar genres gave you the options to play offline bots. It became accepted. That was until Halo. Halo had system link and since it was 2001 and still sort of a new thing to console gamers that didn't buy a Dreamcast it got a pass. But then Halo 2 in 2004 did the unthinkable. A heavily focused multiplayer online game without BOTS! I still played Halo 2 for years online but system link offline with friends got old because at most we had maybe 4 Xboxes hooked up and a few split screen players to get the numbers up. Too much crap to worry about. Surely a letdown when you want to revisit and you basically are running around in an empty world. Bots could have saved Halo 2 forever. Now you have to buy the X1 and the Chief collection to enjoy it.

Like you said, Gears 2 and Gears 3 were thinking of us guys that maybe want to practice maps without getting ripped apart by clans online. You can experience all the modes with Bots and have a decent time. You can even set the difficulty of the Bot A.I. So years down the road when games like this Star Wars title is offline, I'll still be able to load up my Gears 2 or 3 and play it and experience all the content. That's what makes Epic a step above Bungie, Activision, and EA. Seems like they are the only ones that don't need to "force" online play and I love them for it.

Great read. Hopefully gamers will avoid these types of cash-in rip-off games to send a message to these companies. I know I won't be buying. I'll be too busy getting lost in Fallout 4 anyway.

[_-EDMIX-_]

""force" online play "???

Who is forcing you to do anything? You don't need to play or buy those products if you don't want to.

That is like saying Fallout 4 is "forcing offline".

If the genre is online MP.....its online MP. Your basically saying the genre is making you do something even though its very clear from the very description of the product that its of that genre.

Don't buy games that you don't like the genre of as suppose to begging for the game to be something else. That is like begging for a horror film to be a CGI comedy...

Do you not get what your asking is for it to not be what it was created to be? lol

Don't buy it, simple.

I got Fallout 4 because I want to play its concept.

I got Star Wars Battlefront because I want to play its concept.

I never asked of Fallout 4 to be a MP only title..

I never asked of Star Wars Battlefront to be a single player story based title....

I got them for the RESPECTIVE REASONS OF WHAT THEY WERE MARKETED TO BE! Not what I suddenly want them to be. Would you not think it strange if I begged for Mario Kart to be an RPG?

[BillytheBarbarian]

You're missing the point...entirely.

If you're holding a copy of Halo 2 for original Xbox in your hands right now and try to play multiplayer it's useless. Even that dlc extra map pack most players bought is trash now.

Alternatively, Unreal Tournament is still playable today because they were intuitive enough to include bots. Unreal Tournament from 1999 is still a game. Halo 2 from 2004 is now a drink coaster. (Unless you enjoy the campaigne)

Today we have Star Wars Battlefront 2015. When EA shuts down those servers the game becomes a coaster and Star Wars Battlefront 2 from 2004 is still a GAME because it included bots.

Why is that so hard to understand? It's not about liking or disliking a genre. It's about not stripping away content because of the lack of the internet.

And this is not what I "suddendly want them to be." This was and still is the fight of what the Xbox One's original concept was. Always online, DRM, etc... It's still killing your experience without the internet. Wasn't that the point of the X1's supposed turn around? That games weren't going to be limited to online only?

I guess now it's okay though. It started small and people gradually accepted this as worthy of $60. I won't waste my money on it. This would be considered a rental in most gamer's thoughts only 10 years ago.

So keep playing your "rented game" until EA cuts you off when they shut down the servers. It might not be in the next 5 years but it will happen and with it the game you thought you "owned".

[_-EDMIX-_]

@Billy- very, very simple. Don't play online only titles.

Like I stated in my previous reply, go actually play a game of that concept vs asking of titles to fit your mold of what you like.

"I won't waste my money on it." Buddy, that should ended this before it started, its a damn product, you either like it or don't, buy it or not.

Its not some sort of humanitarian right.

"So keep playing your "rented game" until EA cuts you off when they shut down the servers. It might not be in the next 5 years but it will happen and with it the game you thought you "owned"

??? Never claimed I did, I unlike you actually buy titles based on their respective concepts.

I very much know the game won't exist for life just like MMOs won't just go on forever. Read your damn EULA. Its fully understood that it won't just stay online for ever and ever.

Ask me if I care? Your adding this silly emotional response to it and its unnecessary, its a product that is 100% telling you its online focused and lets y ou know in its polices that they very much can shut it down years later.

If funny how you think I'm playing it with this strange concept of "owning" it for life, I actually understand its a online title and own't continue after the fact.

I don't care. Mind you, I bought Fallout 4 for what the concept is, JUST LIKE I bought Star Wars Battlefront for what the concept is.

I know 100% what both offer and purchased them for different reasons. I'm sorry buddy but gaming isn't a 1 size fits all. People very much buy and play certain games for a known limited amount of time.

Ask MMO fans, you keep trying to round up gamers into one brush stroke as if "owning" for life is the goal and expectations of all, buddy...that isn't the case for many genres for very real reasons.

[JOWAPPO]

You're so dense it hurts.

"Don't buy games that you don't like the genre of as suppose to begging for the game to be something else. That is like begging for a horror film to be a CGI comedy..."

That's not my argument. In order for that example to apply, the horror film would have to also have CGI comedy in it, with those elements failing to be pushed to their full potential, and thereby hurting the film as a result. Then again, that's something else entirely, we're not talking about genre difference, we're talking about CONSUMER VALUE.

The game let's you play it OFFLINE. Do you understand? THERE IS OFFLINE PLAY IN THE GAME. THERE IS SPLIT-SCREEN IN THE GAME. I addressed that directly in the blog: why include offline play if your not going to take it all the way? It either reeks of developer incompetence or shady business practices.

Regardless, the simple fact that offline play is in there automatically contradicts your statement. It's not an online multiplayer shooter, it's a shooter WITH ONLINE MULTIPLAYER IN IT. I don't care which side of it is favored because at the end of the day, that fact will remain the same.

But, where exactly did anyone state that the game should "stop being what it's supposed to be?" It's already an online/offline game. How would expanding the game's offline playability somehow STOP it from having online multiplayer? That doesn't make sense. In fact, I don't know if you realize this, but you're not defending a genre, you're defending a crappy business decision. You're basically saying that it's supposed to be an anti-consumer game. Even then, that doesn't absolve it from criticism just because it's stylistically designed to be that way, Mr. Lucas, so let's diminish the effects of it.

"Don't buy it, simple."

How about this, how about we not buy it but also talk about it? Because I care about this game and I want to express how easily it could have appealed to me as an offline-preferenced player (because again, it already went out of it's way to do so).

If this were an actual online-only game like Destiny or Blacklight, then you'd have more of a point. However, the game is designed to also be played offline (and even with a couch buddy), but those features are limited so that not only must you play the rest of the content on a server, but there's no garuntee you'll get to play it forever. It's the dumbest thing in the world: it's anti-consumer and it only shortens the game's life-span in the long run (something I'm sure is beneficial to EA).

In summation, there is no logical reason to include offline playablity and then limit it to barely half the game. There just isn't. Ever since games like Gears of War 2 (and hell, even the original Battlefronts) took that step forward, there should be no acception or defense of games that take a step back.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@JOW- "If this were an actual online-only game like Destiny or Blacklight, then you'd have more of a point. However, the game is designed to also be played offline"

The single player can be played offline...

It is not an offline only game, its a game that a portion of it can be played offline and a part of it can be played online.

They are 100% free to do this as....its their game, not yours. They have no ode to just make a feature, because you said so. If that isn't what their game is, they don't need to change it.

"but there's no garuntee you'll get to play it forever. It's the dumbest thing in the world: it's anti-consumer"

Nope. As pretty sure they told you from the jump what the game entails.

I also think you mean no "guarantee". smh

What would be anti-consumer is if they never told you in the EULA or marketing that the game would be this, buuuuuuut they did.

It is as simple as don't buy it bud, pretty sure you won't die if they do this lol.

First world problems I see...

@Bill- "Well, with that response I can tell you're a younger gamer and that attitude of "throw away" games will continue. Sad but oh well. To each their own"

Nope. I save all my games bud, that doesn't mean I don't buy titles I know are online only or won't last for life. I'm not sure why you thought you could paint all gamers with one brush stroke. It is truly to each their own. Stop generalizing, assuming and labeling gamers.

Do you not see how stupid your point is? Beg for a game to be something it was never promised to be, despite other games existing that actually give you exactly what you want?

I made that Fallout 4 example to show just how stupid it would be to bash Bethesda for not making Fallout 4 have an online mode.

Why don't you actually just buy the titles you want? You know, the most simplest and logical answer for your first world problem. lolz. Should we start going after MMOs next? Start making picket signs for Mario Kart to be an open world RPG? Or maybe we should have a petition to make Fallout 4 a sports game?

As it seems in that regard, could I not state "I can tell you're a younger gamer and that attitude of change all games to fit what I want as suppose to merely buying the games I want" Entitlement much? Sounds like a spoiled "young" gamer to me. /s

[JOWAPPO]

"The single player can be played offline..."

Okay...

"It is not an offline only game, its a game that a portion of it can be played offline and a part of it can be played online."

Mmhm. I never said it should be offline-only, but I'm reading you so far...

"They are 100% free to do this as....its their game, not yours. They have no ode to just make a feature, because you said so. If that isn't what their game is, they don't need to change it."

This is where you lose me, EDMIX. Sure, they're free to design their game poorly, just like I'm free to criticize them for it. That logic is a two-way street, my friend. And what feature would they be "making", exactly? The game is already offline-accessible, THAT'S ALREADY WHAT THE GAME IS: an "offline/online shooter". Improving on the offline element isn't going to impede on what the game is supposed to be, it would IMPROVE upon what the game is supposed to be.

"I also think you mean no "guarantee". smh"

I don't think your in a position to look down on someone else's errors, Mr. "I think to Burger King".

You're basically arguing that because it's designed to be this way, that somehow absolves it from criticism. You're conflating TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. My argument is criticism over what's there, while your counter-argument is to simply point out what they said would be there. You keep making it a matter of what's promised or agreed upon when that isn't the problem. I don't give a flying goose egg about what they said the game was going to be. The fact that the end-result is in need of improvement (based on the intended design of being an offline/online game) is WHY I'M CRITICIZING IT. Because I care about this new Battlefront.

However, I also refuse to stop thinking critically about it, or to blindly accept the game's problems. That is the mindset and damage-controlling strategy of a fanboy/corporate drone. It's called criticism and improvement, dear fellow. Your black-and-white way of looking at it is why I compared you to a fanboy, because they refuse to think critically or accept a game's problems. Instead, they'll do the mental-gymnastics necessary to come up with the most mind-numbingly and asinine excuses that you could think of to shut other people up. "first world problem" is their favorite fall-back argument when they know they have no real argument to make.

Improving on the game's intended design is not the same thing as "turning it into something it isn't supposed to be". That counter-argument is so baffling, that I would've already dismissed you as a brain-dead fanboy, had you not also seemingly confused what I was saying with "turning one game into another kind of game" (Fallout into a multiplayer shooter, for example). The obvious difference here, though, is that Battlefront isn't getting turned into anything. It's ALREADY THE KIND OF GAME THAT YOU CLAIM I'M "TRYING TO TURN IT INTO".

Once again, to use YOUR EXAMPLE; it would be like if Fallout had online play, but the online play was poorly designed. To say such a thing would not be a demand to "turn the game into something else".

It's criticism for the sake of improvement, EDMIX. If that's something you don't care to hear, then I don't know why you took the time to discuss such a "first world problem" in the first place.

[BillytheBarbarian]

Well, with that response I can tell you're a younger gamer and that attitude of "throw away" games will continue. Sad but oh well. To each their own.

To better explain the greed part... you have to pay to play multiplayer without bots. Hence my Halo 2 example. What's the quickest way to get subs? Don't have offline multiplayer bots. That was MS's thinking and EA's now.

[freshslicepizza]

to be fair only a small handful of consumers go back and play games that they bought 10 years ago. the line between actual ownership and your rights have been blurred for many years. when you look at the evolution of games it's becomes clear the direction most consumers have been headed and not just in console gaming. we live in a connected world and that whether you like it or not will remain the direction game developers aim for.

if you were to do a study and asked what gamers prefer, playing online with real people or playing with bots chances are it would be the former. the vocal minority will continue to be shunned but that doesn't mean you should be quiet about it.

what i see time and again is the main focus on the aaa games. this market will continue to implode because of rising costs. this is why there is so much emphasis on dlc and they can make more money getting gamers hooked online than offering playing with bots.