This is not the Star Wars game you are looking for.
Move along Move along.
Battlefront is DICE's love letter to Star Wars fans. It's for all of us who grew up manually marching AT-ATs across the back garden, or making swooshing noises as we smashed our Luke and Vader figures together. It's like you're actually on Tatooine Every visual cue has been recreated in immaculate detail, from the rivets on …
I am not interested in yet another FPS. Star wars games have provided some of the greatest FPSC (First Person Space Combat) experiences to date. It is sad to see a regression on this one, they could have (at least) implemented the basic controls from the original X/B-Wing and Tie Fighter. I will happily pay for a revival of those. FPS? No thanks, there is a gazillion of those around.
Might fun to watch on Twitch if you can turn off the commentary.
I'm not interested in multiplayer-only games. I don't have enough time to get good at them and frankly, being bawled out by foul-mouthed 13 year old for not pwning sufficient face is not a pleasant use of my time.
@dogged - "I'm not interested in multiplayer-only games. I don't have enough time to get good at them and frankly, being bawled out by foul-mouthed 13 year old for not pwning sufficient face is not a pleasant use of my time."
I have no interest in multiplayer for similar reasons.
I think I could be enticed if there was some sort of league hierarchy system, much like there is in sport (in Britain at least). Everybody starts at the bottom level and if they are good and win a lot, they get moved up into a higher level. That means that those of us that play for a few hours at the weekend (at most) stay in the bottom level and are well matched against each other. Those who are good, or put the hours in, play against those who are also good. You could have many levels, with the pros at the top and us losers at the bottom. You wouldn't be able to play against those in higher or lower levels unless you enter a special cup or 'open' competition.
Perhaps those of use that don't want to interact with 13-yr olds, can then form side-leagues at the relevant level. Or even have age-group levels, people only play in their age groups unless they are good enough to progress, in which case they are good enough to play with good (or older) players anyway and don't get in our way when we just want to have fun. (That also could sell to the 'think of the children brigade')
It seems that gaming is in its infancy and the structures of established UK sports like rugby and football, would work well in gaming if they could be managed in the same way.
One of the reasons I liked CS was you had control over your servers, we played with a community that had people from all over and had rules on the server, no swearing before a certain time since members kids would be playing, admins usually about to stop anyone being a twat, tk'ing etc.
It was an open server and if you actually had community tags the only advantage you had was it bumped you to the top of the queue if waiting for a slot, in fact community members were held to more stringent standards with regards to the rules.
We had a lot of players drop in and become regulars because it was well run, including pro players, (in fact quality of players was pretty damn high which I guess says something for it), and it was a lot nicer place to play and have a laugh on than some of the other places out there because of it.
I don't think I could put up with one of those places were you just here even full grown adults revert to screaming like they are in the terrible two's of age.
"I'm not interested in multiplayer-only games. I don't have enough time to get good at them and frankly, being bawled out by foul-mouthed 13 year old for not pwning sufficient face is not a pleasant use of my time."
This is exactly what I though when I heard it was going to be multiplayer only. However IMO, many of the negative points brought up in this review regarding simplicity and lack of depth ended up being a plus for a non-hardcore FPS player like me as I'm not really interested in, or have time for, the RPG side of things in an FPS shooter.
Perhaps it's that the really hardcore players are staying away, or perhaps it's that all the players/characters are pretty balanced regardless of level (as there's nowhere to level up to!) but I'm finding it really enjoyable, accessible, and fun!
Also a m̶a̶j̶o̶r̶ ̶l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ pleasant surprise is that there's no voice chat (at least on PS4) so no PFYs screaming at me.
Of course, like everything in this world it's far from perfect, but, ignoring it's shortcomings, the game really makes you feel like you're in the Star Wars universe :-)
But the threat of DLC scared me off. I don't want to pay full whack for a handful of levels when premium DLC will appear in a few months to make the game what it should have been in the first place.
EA can do multiplayer games right - Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare is a blast. I simply don't trust EA (or Ubisoft, Activision etc.) to release complete and fully formed games any more. It'd be one thing for F2P games, but it is totally unacceptable for full retail titles.
I was tempted to not only buy this game but also a console to go with it (having been a SW fan since '77 but never a gamer apart from '83 Atari Star Wars vector graphics arcade game which took a lot my uni grant 8-)
Battlefront graphics look great but the subsequent reviews (wonky AI?) and ongoing costs have killed it for me, which is a shame.
@Synonymous Howard: I really recommend you find someone that has this game and give it a go for yourself, before dismissing it. If you were willing to shell out £200 for a console and £40 for the base game, then an extra £40 for the DLC is not that much - especially with Christmas coming.
I know I'm in the minority here, but for me this game is really good and really fun. The graphics and audio really do draw you into the Star Wars universe. The simplified nature of the game compared to Battlefield (which I also play) does not detract much from the Star Wars feel, but rather allows your less committed gamers to join the fun.
I am part of a "clan" of like minded parent gamers, who enjoy playing online games without all of the histrionics of adolescents and without the need to prove you are the best player. If you can find a group of people like that, you will have a much better time in any multiplayer game.
an extra £40 for the DLC is not that much
Yes it is, especially for some people but if you want to say to companies hey monetize me, I don't mind paying extra for something incomplete. In fact next time I buy a car sell me the steering wheel for extra, then I guess it isn't.
Garden warfare introduced the Android pricing model to the PC, it was utter shite. You buy your coins to power up and your power ups don't stick around because there are sooooooo many of them you can't possibly keep up without spending money. Some were spent on that level and didn't carry over.
EA are all about the DLC and fleecing people. Cod 4 had dozens of DLC with one over £20 and most were around £12.
Sadly they own the best company for making decent shooters, DICE. But with no single player, £40 for the season pass and the inevitable DLC...
Not for me.
I was poised to buy this game, but I read the Amazon reviews first, and for all formats the reviews are pretty shocking. The consensus is that this is around £40 - £50 for a half finished game, with an additional "season pass" which will give you more multiplayer maps for another £40!
This is a horrible smash and grab by EA. They know that the Star Wars name will sell this game like hotcakes and it feels like they've deliberately rushed it out before Christmas and the Star Wars release at minimum content and maximum value. I shouldn't be surprised really. I might buy it when it's down to a tenner.
This, if I am going to pay £90 quid for a game (and lets be honest the DLC are set up to make the game unfairly balanced, or just missing parts without it), then it better be an amazing game. EA doesn't really have the sort of reputation I would trust for them to produce that.
I saw the Xbox one version, it was a lagfest too. I didn't notice the problem in ps4 version. I guess that's why most games are getting PS4 as the submitted version.
I also noticed Sony just unlocked another CPU core, if it wasn't bad enough for Microsoft already
and if COD didn't have the COD name no one would care. If Halo didn't have Halo etc.
The fact is it has the star wars licence and that matters. I'm loving the game, take away the licence and it would be dull, same as COD and Halo multiplayer.
One thing that's come up in all the reviews is the "lack of depth". Having played almost all the recent FPS games I'm struggling to find the depth they had, but battle front is missing. I remember the old Novatech games with 150 players per server being awesome and a few games I'd just sit there and watch as teams went about their business. Console FPS' though have never had the numbers, so have never had the depth to me. Certainly Halo 5 doesn't seem to have anything extra, but I've only played a few games online.
The real problem with this game are some of the absurd balance issues it has - oh look it's darth vader, oh look I'm dead. Game chooses to make the best players on teams actually unkillable and they can instantly kill you. Not sure how made that decision but they're an idiot.
The good news is (certainly on PC) the game is utterly stunning - I've never personally seen anything like it - and where there's no heroes on the field the gameplay is a lot of fun.
The bad news is it's overpriced and there's not enough content and paying even more for more content doesn't fix the problem at all. The other piece of good news is it looks like there is free DLC coming which I imagine is in response to the obvious complaint.
I would recommend the game but not at full price unless you have cash to spare because seriously it's just too expensive (certainly at UK prices). It is major nerdgasm if you're even half into Star Wars though they did get all sorts of things right as much as they got wrong.
If you buy it from origin or for consoles then yes its stupidly expensive.
but I got it from the usual CD key websites fro just under £30,
The first DLC is free so you get 6 maps and a bunch of fun modes.
I have been enjoying it for the last few weeks now, although there are a lack of weapons, and playing as rebels you only get to use a few types of aircraft and no land machines.
I am not buying any DLC though or doing their season pass. To me that is a ripoff. We need to change the industry thinking to stop trying to sell us the same game twice.
Personally I rather like the lack of detailed / advanced controls and levelling in the game. Unlike Battlefield or COD, where throw though time into the game and you get enough perks that you're a one man army, Battlefront is refreshingly accessible to noobs.
Battlefield in particular was really very, very hard to control aircraft. You needed to spend a LONG time learning and practicing flying, as well as have a very high level so you had the perks to make it usable.
No such issues with Battlefront.
If I want a FPS where I can level up, get lots of extras and hone my skills to perfection then I'll fire up Battlefield or COD. If I want a drop in/ drop out bit of fun on a glorious looking Star Wars set then this game is pretty much spot on.
Although I totally agree with the arse raping that EA are doing regarding the DLC. Although it's EA, so I shouldn't be surprised.
@thomas k - "Really? More perfect than KotOR 1 or 2?"
I've just had the pleasure of playing through KotOR again, as it has been re-released for the iPhone. What a wonderful game, easily the best Star Wars games and still one of the best RPGs. It really upsets me that they could have made such engrossing stories in that universe in these two games and yet completely screwed up the films by trying to stick to closely to the original films (which never happened btw)
I don't really understand the negativity this game is receiving. Yes, underneath the shininess, it's still Battlefield, but with the odd exception (the DL-44 which has just been nerfed) they got the balancing pretty well sorted. The game's presentation is absolutely fantastic, no long loading times, quick player matching. Running around chasing droids in droid run (which I feel it one of the better game modes given the limited number of players allowed) is great fun.
I'm no youngster, but at least I can top the leaderboard occasionally during the game. But, for me, the stand out feature has got to be the forest level of Endor. The lush scenery simply takes your breath away. If you have any interest if gaming and you love Star Wars, you'd be mad to avoid this game.
And I don't like DLC either, so I simply won't buy any. There'll be plenty of people doing the same, so the original levels will always have plenty of player. And there will inevitably be a "Game of the year" edition in due course.
My son bought this for me for my birthday, I was instantly transformed back to the Odeon, Southend on Sea in 1977, it's immersive with great graphics and sound.
My only man is the guns which all seem to be the same and need about 100 shots on target to kill anyone, either that or I am a crap shot.
So much stripped from the original games that it's not even funny. I wanted Battlefront 3, not a reskinned Battlefield 4. As buggy as it is, even Angels Fall First gives a better Battlefront experience than this does. I'm happy I got to play the open beta on PC before release, because it stopped me from shelling out a single cent on the game.
Graphics are good. Sound is great. Everything else is awful, from TTK, to map structure, to AT-ATs being on rails. Why couldn't they take the DICE engine and make something great out of it?
It's an EA Games title, what did you expect ?
I love the Star Wars universe, but I'd really rather they leave out the "hero" characters. Star Wars is fascinating enough without Jedi.
Nevertheless, I would like to get this game, except that I have suffered enough from sloppy EA DRM and abysmal patch management in the past. I am not giving EA one more penny.
I'll just enjoy the videos on YouTube, and relive the glory of Tie Fighter.
I picked this up from CDKeys for 30 beans (50 on Origin!) and after about 25 hours of play I say I'd rate it as "fatally flawed masterpiece".
It is sooo good.....nearly. The graphics are a sight to behold, the sound design is the best I've ever heard in an FPS game and it really does blow you away...at first.
But then the shallowness of it all kicks in. No player classes, no squads, poorly balance weapons, grenade spam , and it really is just a shoot-strafing frag-fest. Not even a simple mechanic like being more accurate when crouched or scoped has been incorporated into the game design. The game is more like COD than it is like Battlefront 2 or even any of the Battlefield series.
The other big moan as a PC user is lack of server browser - and the matchmaking system as it stands is shocking - players in low population areas are unable to find any games at all for hours at a time. Given the pathetically small numbers online for the PC version I have no idea why EA have specified such high player counts for games to start either. There are even fewer viable games available at the moment also due to EAs bizarre decision to split the player base for a week with the Jakku release.
Unless something changes substantially I can't see the PC version surviving the release of paid for DLC - the online numbers might be too low for it to survive the fragmentation. Last 24hr peak for Battlefront on PC is a feeble 22k players. PS4 looks in much ruder health at almost 100k which is double the Xbox player count.
So EA think it's cool to charge £40 for a £20 multiplayer-only, dumbed down COD/Battlefield clone with pretty Star Wars visuals?
Not cool EA/DICE, not cool at all. You might as well be pissing in Star Wars fan's mouths.
Quite surprised you rated it above a 3. Better games have scored less.
@Gred D. It is nothing, nothing like Battlefield at all. For all its flaws Battlefield does have depth and I'm still playing BF4 2 years after I bought it. I'd probably be still be playing BF3 4 years after its release date had BF4 not come along.
2 years or more playing SWBF - as it stands today, not a chance.
Oh no, really?
I picked up a CD of the PS4 version for myself while out picking up Christmas Presents. Was saving it for a bit of Christmas Day entertainment ... thinking I'd be playing single player.
Am not interested in on-line multiplayer games on the console - apart from the assholes you find in such games, I find the controls on the console too limiting for all-out gaming. I reserve this for the Mac where I can use the keyboard/mouse more easily.
Whilst I am pretty rubbish at FPS, I was thinking of picking this up as it looks and sounds fantastic... and at that point someone told me it was multiplayer only. Whilst I'm not totally against multiplayer, getting my arse handed to me on a plate continuously is not my idea of fun, so at least a single player campaign would give me some fun/VFM.
I guess it's just not to be!
Basically the whole game is going to be a scam, with them planning to sell piece after piece of the game for a total price up around the $1000 mark, with the excuse 'but it's multiplayer, that's why you have to pay full price for add ons, they are 'er' other games'.
Basically what is being offered up in not Battlefront at all, you'll have to pay by instalments to get it in instalments. They have screwed up though, in not offering up enough and blame, they have now lost the whole $1000 scam because people are giving up on battlefront already.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019