So I’ve decided to address one of the images hosted on the EAStarWars.com page.

In case you don’t know, a cybersquatter has bought the domain, as well as the domain for EAStarWarsBattlefront.com, out from under EA’s nose, and will likely hold it for ransom.

When you consider that EAStarWars is EA and DICE’s Twitter handle for Star Wars: Battlefront, the cybersquatters may have something, but that’s not what I care about.

I’m annoyed that one of the images they’ve chosen to use is a rather short sighted set of reasons as to why the upcoming Star Wars: Battlefront is supposedly an inferior game to Star Wars: Battlefront II by Pandemic Studios.

 

 

Whomever drew up this table seems to be far more concerned with quantity over quality, and content over an experience – it’s not an idea we prescribe to.

For the moment, I can’t really argue in Star Wars: Battlefront’s name; it hasn’t released yet. But I can hopefully dissuade you from jumping to conclusions based on a fairly weak, cursory argument.

*For the sake of this piece, I’m going to refer to the part responsible for this table as nostalgic old-timer.

Number of Maps

While less maps is usually worse, it may not be in this case. Looking back, some of Battlefront II’s maps were a little bare bone.

With hindsight, you’d think some of the developers phoned in some of them, having hardly bothered at all. It’s certainly not the case for all, but it’s hard to deny this:

Having played an awful lot of the likes of Battlefield: Bad Company, Battlefield 3 and 4, it’s pretty clear that DICE puts an absurd amount of work and effort into each map.

We’d much prefer fewer, higher quality maps. Yes, more maps of that quality is certainly better, but to expect that of DICE is asking a lot. 12 maps is already a lot more than most developers do these days.

The resources and man-power required of Star Wars: Battlefront is on a whole new scale compared to Battlefront II, and more maps means less time getting everything else working right.

Number of Players

I’m sorry, but in no way is more players always better.

Is the 128 player MAG better than Battlefield 3, Counter-Strike: GO, or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare? Not a chance.

Imagine trying to pilot an Imperial Walker (I know they’re confirmed not to be playable), a massive and very obvious target, while 20 opposing soldiers fire anti-vehicular weaponry at you. Less players means less of a frenzy, and a focus on making use of your resources.

As long as the vehicles and maps are made for it, Star Wars: Battlefront’s smaller player count may be the superior one.

Don’t just assume Nostalgic Old-timer.

Space Battles

The loss of space battles is unequivocally a loss, but not something I’ll cry over.

I’d much rather DICE spend their time refining and working on ground combat over and over and over again, until I can see my reflection in the polish.

Moddable

There’s no denying it, I’d love to see mod support for Star Wars: Battlefront.

Mods would not only extend the life of Star Wars: Battlefront by maintaining a more interested community, but will indubitably make for a better game.

Sure, DICE have given their reasons a number of times for why modding isn’t strictly allowed on the Frostbite 3 engine, but we suspect they just want to protect their assets.

It’s a bit of a pity, and clearly a loss for the title, so I’ll give Nostalgic Old-timer this one because there were some fantastic mods for Star Wars: Battlefront II.

DLC

There’s really no point in getting into this without DICE and EA showing us what to expect from DLC.

Say what you like, but I rather enjoy Premium Service. If it was adapted to Star Wars: Battlefront, I think I’d be happy.

Nostalgic Old-timer doesn’t really say much on the topic anyway.

Campaign, Galactic Conquest and Instant Action

What is there to say about this one?

Star Wars: Battlefront would definitely be a better game with something of this nature, but DICE has proven themselves incapable of producing a single player campaign capable of matching their multiplayer suite.

If it’s going to take time away from multiplayer, then I don’t want it. That’s why I’m getting Star Wars: Battlefront; that’s why we all are.

That said, a multiplayer, MMO-like Galactic Conquest would be brilliant, but it’d also be a whole game unto itself.

Infantry Types

This is just silly. Has Nostalgic Old-timer played Star Wars: Battlefront II recently?

Half of the playable infantry types are pointless or otherwise boring to play. There’s very little reason to play those types, making them irrelevant.

DICE’s loadout approach, however, is proven to be effective. It allows for more overall customisation and we loved loadouts in Battlefield.

We’re not saying that it’s a perfect system, but with a little refinement, it could certainly work in a pinch. Besides, by swapping out gadgets, weapons and so forth, a player effectively requires a whole new approach to playing – it sounds a lot like changing player types.

Vehicle Types

Sure, there are less vehicles available in Star Wars: Battlefront, but have you played Battlefront II?

Vehicles in Battlefront II felt largely cumbersome, ineffective in combat, less than real and lacked the weighty or otherwise mechanical feel you expect from vehicles. They’re floaty, if that makes sense.

If you hadn’t played Battlefield 3, you would never know what you’ve been missing, but we have.

DICE’s vehicles feel authentic; they feel like they belong on the battlefield. DICE know what they’re doing, and the Frostbite 3 engine will do the rest.

Besides, too many vehicles spoils the broth. It’s all about balance and maintaining that becomes increasingly difficult as you include more vehicles.

Of course we’d love more, but I’m not going to judge a game for having less before I’ve even played the damn thing.

A.I. Players

I’m not even sure how this is an argument for Star Wars: Battlefront II. Clearly Nostalgic Old-timer doesn’t remember how dreadfully stupid Battlefront’s AI was.

Sure, it made up for a lack of players, a very real possibility given limited access to sufficient bandwidth back in the day, but it’s hardly an issue now.

We’d much rather have real players take up those slots. They’re far less predictable and much more interesting to play with and against – unlike bots, they have personalities.

And does Nostalgic Old-timer not recall Titanfall? It had A.I. opponents and allies in multiplayer, and they detracted from the experience on a number of occasions.

No A.I. is for the best. A.I. has a long way to go before it’s worth embedding into multiplayer games like Battlefront.

Playable Eras

Do we really need to get into this?

More eras is not better just because there’s more eras. It means more factions, more vehicle types, more maps and a lot less time to make the game as good as it can be.

I’m not saying it’s a better game sticking to the classic era. I’m saying that it doesn’t need it, nor does it necessarily make it an inferior game to Star Wars: Battlefront II.

TL;DR: More is not always better. Nostalgic Old-timer and the rest of the community under the assumption (yes, it’s an assumption) that Star Wars: Battlefront will bite the big one should wait for the damn game to release before they throw a fit.

I’ll have to address the other hosted image next time.

Forum discussion