criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
July Community Calendar
Obi-Wan Kenobi Community Quests

Remember How People Didn't Want SWBF To Be Like Battlefield?

Alvonator
2510 posts Member
Well, I'm sure many of them regret it....This current Battlefront left much to be desired, and all of it has to do with the "casual" aspect of the game.

The Original Battlefronts worked because they resembled and more or less used the traditional Battlefield formula, including:

-Open Maps
-Objective Based Play. Conquest.
-Class system, which encouraged players to co-operate as different classes had distinct weaknessed and strenghts.
-Placed much importance on the use of land/air vehicles to help objectives.

In this current release, gameplay is casual, no doubt about that. Everything has been numbed down. Powerup/Pickups are awful, Hero Tokens are a joke, Vehicles are quite unimportant, and most players do not cooperate. And many Star cards are poorly designed and most players use the "best" ones, thus causing poor gameplay variety.
In other words, this game has little depth. Complexity will always beat out simplicity.

I sincerely hope that SWBF EA 2017 follows a more complex formula. Preferably a Battlefield-like formula. We all saw how despite its flaws, the original Battlefronts were very good. There is a reason why Battlefield is so succesful and it all has to do with its formula.

Replies

  • Anoh
    8380 posts Member
    Battlefield 4 with a Star Wars skin is the ideal.
    Editor/Cinematographer - Anoh is pronounced: AhNo.
  • I'm not sure the choice to cater to casuals is the real problem. I think it's the fact that they changed their target demographic so much that we ended up with all these bizarre design choices, and infuriating mechanics.

    Pick one, and stick with it next time.
    PSN: Trooper8059
    "Remember: Your focus determines your reality."
    ezgif_5_a643336582.gif
  • Alvonator
    2510 posts Member
    edited March 2017
    I'm not sure the choice to cater to casuals is the real problem. I think it's the fact that they changed their target demographic so much that we ended up with all these bizarre design choices, and infuriating mechanics.

    Pick one, and stick with it next time.

    I think it is one of the many major problems. Gameplay was catered to casual players, hence the poor inplementation of Star Cards like ES and Distuption, as well as OHK features like Krennic and Lando. This also includes the Hero Tokens and Random Powerups. It simply didn't create good gameplay.
  • Can't we just forget this Battlefront and call the next one Battlefront III?
    For General Ahsoka Tano!
    h3d5nuo8y0jq.png

  • Blazur
    4468 posts Member
    I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally kept it different so as not to drive sales away from Battlefield 1. Why buy that game when Battlefront offered the same great fun and large scale battles which defined the series? Nope, we had better keep the scope of this game small and contained so people who crave bigger, more team-oriented warfare will buy into our other franchise.
    The greatest teacher, failure is.
  • Yes, this was always one of the most annoying comments back in the day and something I could never understand. People were just jumping on a bandwagon. "Frostbite + first-person mode + shooter + the title having Battle in it = BATTLEFIELD RESKIN TERRIBLE," apparently. I felt like I was one of the few people who understood that the original Battlefront games were always inspired by Battlefield, and were actually very similar to them in many ways. Not all ways, since they always had their own unique twists and style, of course, but in many.

    Hopefully DICE understands this and EA lets them develop the future of Battlefront to be more similar to Battlefield. That's what a lot of people want, even if they don't want to admit it.
  • Jrob122
    4638 posts Member
    edited March 2017
    Can't we just forget this Battlefront and call the next one Battlefront III?

    Hopefully
  • leftweet
    2216 posts Member
    Personally, I'm not sure I'd want a straight-up copy of Battlefield. However, I do think Battlefront 2 could benefit by drawing more from Battlefield than the current game does.

    One main issue with the current game—in my mind—is that DICE attempted to reinvent the wheel a bit too much. I feel like this was done to try and make something unique and something that might appeal to casual gamers.

    On the surface, there's nothing wrong with that. However, by making the game both casual and multiplayer, they inadvertently cut down their potential audience. Those that generally don't enjoy multiplayer games might've had a difficult time getting into this one; meanwhile, those that enjoy multiplayer shooters found it lacking compared to other games in the genre. As a result, the actual number of players the current game targets is very low.

    Hopefully, the next Battlefront's campaign delivers a solid experience for those that just want to have fun with Star Wars gaming. And then the multiplayer portion can have a more challenging experience for those that want that.

    I'll add that a Star Wars game doesn't necessarily need to have revolutionary game mechanics to break out from the pack. The fact that it's Star Wars sets it apart enough. Making Battlefront 2 more like Battlefield won't make it any less of a unique game.

    I honestly enjoyed the current Battlefront. That said, there are numerous places where it can improve (off the top of my head, gunplay, vehicular combat and the token system). Pulling more ideas and concepts from Battlefield would be welcomed.
    I write things for The Star Wars Game Outpost
  • leftweet wrote: »
    Personally, I'm not sure I'd want a straight-up copy of Battlefield. However, I do think Battlefront 2 could benefit by drawing more from Battlefield than the current game does.

    One main issue with the current game—in my mind—is that DICE attempted to reinvent the wheel a bit too much. I feel like this was done to try and make something unique and something that might appeal to casual gamers.

    On the surface, there's nothing wrong with that. However, by making the game both casual and multiplayer, they inadvertently cut down their potential audience. Those that generally don't enjoy multiplayer games might've had a difficult time getting into this one; meanwhile, those that enjoy multiplayer shooters found it lacking compared to other games in the genre. As a result, the actual number of players the current game targets is very low.

    Hopefully, the next Battlefront's campaign delivers a solid experience for those that just want to have fun with Star Wars gaming. And then the multiplayer portion can have a more challenging experience for those that want that.

    I'll add that a Star Wars game doesn't necessarily need to have revolutionary game mechanics to break out from the pack. The fact that it's Star Wars sets it apart enough. Making Battlefront 2 more like Battlefield won't make it any less of a unique game.

    I honestly enjoyed the current Battlefront. That said, there are numerous places where it can improve (off the top of my head, gunplay, vehicular combat and the token system). Pulling more ideas and concepts from Battlefield would be welcomed.

    If they wanted to get casual multiplayer, they should have just taken a peek over at Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare. One of the best casual games I've played.
    PSN: Trooper8059
    "Remember: Your focus determines your reality."
    ezgif_5_a643336582.gif
  • I think people just had so much passion for a new Battlefront game that they had great fear of the reboot being ruined. I don't think people realized that by telling DICE not to make it like Battlefield meant that DICE would strip the game completely of common military features seen in today's games. People assumed we would still get 32 v 32 ground battles, assumed we could enter vehicles, assumed all the normal stuff would be there, so nobody screamed at DICE ahead of time to make sure the normal stuff would be there since it was assumed it would be there. The game would of been a lot better if it followed the BF4 Template. I agree with Complexity always wins, more progression, more depth, more character and multiplayer development. For a game that has so much potential i'm surprised the best they could do was floating tokens and star cards. Normal loadouts per class would be great and possibly replace the trait cards with an actual skill tree to level up the way you want. Would also be great to walk up to a vehicle and get in it.
  • One of the real problems in my mind is the separate DLCs. Shrank the players and instituted the awful playlists which took the choice of playing specific game modes away from players.
    DLC implementation was a fresh new disaster each time. Say what you will about casual play, I feel the real straw that broke the camel's back was forcing players to play modes they didn't want to all in the name of "iconic new content"
  • Jrob122
    4638 posts Member
    The DLC playlists were initially implemented to make sure you could always find a game, but ended up making the DLC's deserted and sometimes almost impossible to find a game.

  • The above arguements still don't explain why a company can get the idea to abstract everything away from the Battlefront series which was fun and replace it with some casual ideas.
    People wanted to play a Battlefront game? So what is a Battlefront game? Well, there were two games which would fit to the name.
    I've still more fun with Battlefront II (2005).
    For General Ahsoka Tano!
    h3d5nuo8y0jq.png

  • Blazur
    4468 posts Member
    edited March 2017
    Jrob122 wrote: »
    The DLC playlists were initially implemented to make sure you could always find a game, but ended up making the DLC's deserted and sometimes almost impossible to find a game.

    It would have been a lot worse without the playlists...trust me. We saw that briefly with only Jakku when it first surfaced as a game filter. The root of the problem is the paid map packs that divides the community.

    And in hind site I wish they didn't offer a map filter to better group players up, similar to Overwatch. They need to seriously improve the matchmaking services if they want the next game to be an improvement. Hopefully they give it the attention it deserves because it's so flawed right now. I can't believe that the problem is entirely related to lack of players. There seems to be issues with team balancing, backfilling, lobby variety per mode, etc.
    The greatest teacher, failure is.
  • Blazur wrote: »
    Jrob122 wrote: »
    The DLC playlists were initially implemented to make sure you could always find a game, but ended up making the DLC's deserted and sometimes almost impossible to find a game.

    It would have been a lot worse without the playlists...trust me. We saw that briefly with only Jakku when it first surfaced as a game filter. The root of the problem is the paid map packs that divides the community.

    And in hind site I wish they didn't offer a map filter to better group players up, similar to Overwatch. They need to seriously improve the matchmaking services if they want the next game to be an improvement. Hopefully they give it the attention it deserves because it's so flawed right now. I can't believe that the problem is entirely related to lack of players. There seems to be issues with team balancing, backfilling, lobby variety per mode, etc.

    Oh agreed. The matchmaking is atrocious. Improvement in that is essential. How many times have you joined a game and are greeted to DEFEAT? Thanks for throwing me into a game's last 5 seconds.
  • CS2107
    1961 posts Member
    I would like to have the next Battlefront be more like Battlefield, but with not as open maps. A bit more cover would be nice
  • CS2107 wrote: »
    I would like to have the next Battlefront be more like Battlefield, but with not as open maps. A bit more cover would be nice

    I don't mind some open maps. I hope there is variation.
  • I still awk at that comment dennis made awhile back about conquest, oh we dont like to copy our game modes from other games, wait what did u play battlefront, you know its premiere game mode... Conquest

    Oh and if this game was alot like battlefield, there would be real teamplay, anybody remember fusion cutters, battlefronts answer to the drill

    That right made it more like battlefield, you had equipment designed for teamplay

    But hey throw it out the window, disruption, sure why not make the game less fun and irritating by throwing a button mashing quicktime event as a piece of equipment

    Did you enjoy that well how about we will give u a gun that replaces all your star card slots and overcomplicate things and then we will charge you 15 dollars too

    #givebethesdayourmoneynotea
    #giverockstargamesyourmoneynotea
    #passonbf2

  • As a business why on earth would you reduce your broad starwars game potential by making a battlefield star wars....I would not either.
  • Alvonator
    2510 posts Member
    edited March 2017
    As a business why on earth would you reduce your broad starwars game potential by making a battlefield star wars....I would not either.

    Because that was what the original Battlefront were like. And they were very profitable even to this day. It also had much critical acclaim.

    Compare that to this current one. Not a financial disaster, but it had wasted potential, did not achieve expectations, EA admitted the game was rushed, and credible critics said that the game had very little depth and lacked content. And look at the player base now, virtually dead. Look at past Battlefield games, and their populations are still very much alive.

    Believe it or not, people prefer a more complex game than a simple casual game.

    And, I did not say a Battlefront Carbon Copy of Battlefield. I said Battlefront should use a formula similar to that of Battlefield.

    Why wouldn't you want Battlefront to use a Battlefield like formula?
  • CS2107
    1961 posts Member
    CS2107 wrote: »
    I would like to have the next Battlefront be more like Battlefield, but with not as open maps. A bit more cover would be nice

    I don't mind some open maps. I hope there is variation.

    Variation is important too. The problem with the open maps is the sniper class. When playing Battlefield, whenever you want to run for the the next objectives you'll have to pass through about 200 metres without any cover. And bad enough when a machine gun is firing at you, but than you have like the whole enemie team playing snipers and everyone has his own rock to camp at. Thats how you play Battlefield if you wanna have good scores. It is frustrating for all medics supporters and assaults. Esspecially for me playing a medic, I see all those skull signs of my fallen teammates, but i know I can't help them, as when i just move a second out of cover I will get shot down by 20 snipers. It is annoying, thats why I want more cover. Of course there should be some open parts on each map, to make snipers not useless, but not like a completly open field and than one building in the middle. This just doesn't work that well, it is just too attractive for snipers.
  • I wanted a Battlefront as an improved version of Battlefront II. If you call it a Battlefield Battlefront that doesn't matter to me. That's what I was expecting like everyone else when he heart that DICE is creating Battlefront (2015).
    Now, we got this pile of unfinished buggy casual small battle token camping game combined with a low playerbase and playlists...
    For General Ahsoka Tano!
    h3d5nuo8y0jq.png

  • As a business why on earth would you reduce your broad starwars game potential by making a battlefield star wars....I would not either.

    How would it reduce it ?
    It is essentially the same basic mechanics but with more depth to make it fun.
  • As a business why on earth would you reduce your broad starwars game potential by making a battlefield star wars....I would not either.

    How would it reduce it ?
    It is essentially the same basic mechanics but with more depth to make it fun.

    Yeah his logic makes no sense. Why would someone ask for games to offer less?
    PSN: Trooper8059
    "Remember: Your focus determines your reality."
    ezgif_5_a643336582.gif
  • The business logic is simple but perhaps not palatable to people who represent only a part of the POTENTIAL market . I am very sure that the potential market is significantly bigger than a gamer base who would be expected to buy a battlefieldesque game. Of course delivering a broader appeal game is the challenge, certainly not met by this first effort.
  • Maybe we dont need a super-complicated game but it is tru that there is very low variety, and if you want the Battlefield 1 game-concept you need much bigger maps...
  • Old_fella_1963
    4697 posts Member
    edited March 2017
    I think it requires various modes to address the broader deep strategy and pick and go 30 minute players - very definitely per mode weapons,character so things can be more easily balanced.These across the board abilities,settings made the EA Swbf a total car crash of in balance at the end
  • The business logic is simple but perhaps not palatable to people who represent only a part of the POTENTIAL market . I am very sure that the potential market is significantly bigger than a gamer base who would be expected to buy a battlefieldesque game. Of course delivering a broader appeal game is the challenge, certainly not met by this first effort.

    Except Battlefront is already a battlefieldesque game -_-.
    Playing as foot soldiers, piloting ground and air vehicles etc etc, it was already hyped and advertised as that kind of game.

    Only it ended up with less depth than its inspiration.


    So reallly, your logic makes no sense at all.
  • The business logic is simple but perhaps not palatable to people who represent only a part of the POTENTIAL market . I am very sure that the potential market is significantly bigger than a gamer base who would be expected to buy a battlefieldesque game. Of course delivering a broader appeal game is the challenge, certainly not met by this first effort.

    Except Battlefront is already a battlefieldesque game -_-.
    Playing as foot soldiers, piloting ground and air vehicles etc etc, it was already hyped and advertised as that kind of game.

    Only it ended up with less depth than its inspiration.


    So reallly, your logic makes no sense at all.

    Agreed
  • The business logic is simple but perhaps not palatable to people who represent only a part of the POTENTIAL market . I am very sure that the potential market is significantly bigger than a gamer base who would be expected to buy a battlefieldesque game. Of course delivering a broader appeal game is the challenge, certainly not met by this first effort.

    Except Battlefront is already a battlefieldesque game -_-.
    Playing as foot soldiers, piloting ground and air vehicles etc etc, it was already hyped and advertised as that kind of game.

    Only it ended up with less depth than its inspiration.


    So reallly, your logic makes no sense at all.

    Yeah, I also think a lot of people also forget that the originals were heavily inspired by the Battlefield games. It's kind of odd that DICE took a completely separate route.
    PSN: Trooper8059
    "Remember: Your focus determines your reality."
    ezgif_5_a643336582.gif
  • Alvonator
    2510 posts Member
    The business logic is simple but perhaps not palatable to people who represent only a part of the POTENTIAL market . I am very sure that the potential market is significantly bigger than a gamer base who would be expected to buy a battlefieldesque game. Of course delivering a broader appeal game is the challenge, certainly not met by this first effort.

    Except Battlefront is already a battlefieldesque game -_-.
    Playing as foot soldiers, piloting ground and air vehicles etc etc, it was already hyped and advertised as that kind of game.

    Only it ended up with less depth than its inspiration.


    So reallly, your logic makes no sense at all.

    Yeah, I also think a lot of people also forget that the originals were heavily inspired by the Battlefield games. It's kind of odd that DICE took a completely separate route.

    Weren't original Battlefront I & II maps also quite open?

    I mean, it was practically Battlefield in Star Wars, and I Gosh Darned loved that.
  • leftweet
    2216 posts Member
    Alvonator wrote: »
    The business logic is simple but perhaps not palatable to people who represent only a part of the POTENTIAL market . I am very sure that the potential market is significantly bigger than a gamer base who would be expected to buy a battlefieldesque game. Of course delivering a broader appeal game is the challenge, certainly not met by this first effort.

    Except Battlefront is already a battlefieldesque game -_-.
    Playing as foot soldiers, piloting ground and air vehicles etc etc, it was already hyped and advertised as that kind of game.

    Only it ended up with less depth than its inspiration.


    So reallly, your logic makes no sense at all.

    Yeah, I also think a lot of people also forget that the originals were heavily inspired by the Battlefield games. It's kind of odd that DICE took a completely separate route.

    Weren't original Battlefront I & II maps also quite open?

    I mean, it was practically Battlefield in Star Wars, and I Gosh Darned loved that.

    The first one was pretty open, but the second one managed to include some variation with CQC (Tantive IV, Mustafar and the Death Star were more or less CQC focused, and others incorporated a fair amount of CQC, like Polis Massa or the Jedi Temple on Coruscant).

    Personally, I hope that EA's Battlefront sequel includes a similar level of variation. I enjoy the open maps, but CQC can be fun too.
    I write things for The Star Wars Game Outpost
  • Alvonator
    2510 posts Member
    leftweet wrote: »
    Alvonator wrote: »
    The business logic is simple but perhaps not palatable to people who represent only a part of the POTENTIAL market . I am very sure that the potential market is significantly bigger than a gamer base who would be expected to buy a battlefieldesque game. Of course delivering a broader appeal game is the challenge, certainly not met by this first effort.

    Except Battlefront is already a battlefieldesque game -_-.
    Playing as foot soldiers, piloting ground and air vehicles etc etc, it was already hyped and advertised as that kind of game.

    Only it ended up with less depth than its inspiration.


    So reallly, your logic makes no sense at all.

    Yeah, I also think a lot of people also forget that the originals were heavily inspired by the Battlefield games. It's kind of odd that DICE took a completely separate route.

    Weren't original Battlefront I & II maps also quite open?

    I mean, it was practically Battlefield in Star Wars, and I Gosh Darned loved that.

    The first one was pretty open, but the second one managed to include some variation with CQC (Tantive IV, Mustafar and the Death Star were more or less CQC focused, and others incorporated a fair amount of CQC, like Polis Massa or the Jedi Temple on Coruscant).

    Personally, I hope that EA's Battlefront sequel includes a similar level of variation. I enjoy the open maps, but CQC can be fun too.

    Yes, variation is key. Good point.
  • leftweet wrote: »
    Alvonator wrote: »
    The business logic is simple but perhaps not palatable to people who represent only a part of the POTENTIAL market . I am very sure that the potential market is significantly bigger than a gamer base who would be expected to buy a battlefieldesque game. Of course delivering a broader appeal game is the challenge, certainly not met by this first effort.

    Except Battlefront is already a battlefieldesque game -_-.
    Playing as foot soldiers, piloting ground and air vehicles etc etc, it was already hyped and advertised as that kind of game.

    Only it ended up with less depth than its inspiration.


    So reallly, your logic makes no sense at all.

    Yeah, I also think a lot of people also forget that the originals were heavily inspired by the Battlefield games. It's kind of odd that DICE took a completely separate route.

    Weren't original Battlefront I & II maps also quite open?

    I mean, it was practically Battlefield in Star Wars, and I Gosh Darned loved that.

    The first one was pretty open, but the second one managed to include some variation with CQC (Tantive IV, Mustafar and the Death Star were more or less CQC focused, and others incorporated a fair amount of CQC, like Polis Massa or the Jedi Temple on Coruscant).

    Personally, I hope that EA's Battlefront sequel includes a similar level of variation. I enjoy the open maps, but CQC can be fun too.

    It was fun when it wasn't a OHK fest.
    PSN: Trooper8059
    "Remember: Your focus determines your reality."
    ezgif_5_a643336582.gif
  • rollind24
    5567 posts Member
    I've only been playing BF1 for about 3 weeks now and I'm enjoying it and learning the mechanics. One thing I can say for sure that I've seen is you don't see 38-1 K/D in BF1 as something common. I have yet to see it in BF1 but it is quite common in Battlefront. It shows me that Battlefront is just a matter of determining which hand of Rock/Paper/Scissors is the strongest.

    I do really enjoy the casual aspect of it but that has to be fixed. What makes it casual also destroys casuals. The mechanics in Battlefront are fun and easy to use, ridiculous weapons and star cards could be toned down.
    #infantrylivesmatter
  • Shinjuku
    1760 posts Member
    Alvonator wrote: »
    Well, I'm sure many of them regret it....This current Battlefront left much to be desired, and all of it has to do with the "casual" aspect of the game.

    The Original Battlefronts worked because they resembled and more or less used the traditional Battlefield formula, including:

    -Open Maps
    -Objective Based Play. Conquest.
    -Class system, which encouraged players to co-operate as different classes had distinct weaknessed and strenghts.
    -Placed much importance on the use of land/air vehicles to help objectives.

    In this current release, gameplay is casual, no doubt about that. Everything has been numbed down. Powerup/Pickups are awful, Hero Tokens are a joke, Vehicles are quite unimportant, and most players do not cooperate. And many Star cards are poorly designed and most players use the "best" ones, thus causing poor gameplay variety.
    In other words, this game has little depth. Complexity will always beat out simplicity.

    I sincerely hope that SWBF EA 2017 follows a more complex formula. Preferably a Battlefield-like formula. We all saw how despite its flaws, the original Battlefronts were very good. There is a reason why Battlefield is so succesful and it all has to do with its formula.

    I APPLAUD YOU.

    @Anoh Battlefield 4 with a Star Wars skin pasted over it? OH HELLS YA, finally someone who gets it!
    MLtmeEi.png
    " If you're not with me, then you're my enemy."
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!