Battlefront 3 is still in a galaxy far, far away...

Well now its out, and for whatever reason I kind of made it almost like my duty to discuss the game's falls and triumphs from the perspective of both a fan of the original two, and... well that just creates a great situation to poke at its many holes and show you just how far some aspects of gaming have fallen (but of course, others have risen). This isn't just about a sequel being made by a new team; this is Star Wars on the whole getting a near reboot in modern day after it has been about maybe a decade since the last games and movies were a big deal. In that time so many different things have changed around our games, and unfortunately... I believe Battlefront EA (its actually in the title) has taken on some of the worst. The true successor to the games we originally got, is still in a galaxy far, far away.

For starters its worth it to point to something surrounding the game rather than the game itself: The licensing deal. Back when Battlefront was started, it was done also by EA at the marketing, and Pandemic as the development team (same guys that did Mercenaries and Saboteur) with what I can only assume was some assistance under LucasArts gaming department. They were simply focused on Battlefront when it came to star wars games, nothing really different at first sight. However when someone else was called up to task, well Free Radical took it up and was working on Battlefront 3 before some problems arose. Fast-forward to current day where EA has an exclusive deal with Disney (who now owns Star Wars) and you've got a nice little analogy for the way things drastically changed across 7-8th gen, and its odd almost nobody else seems to talk about it: Owning companies and games. In the PS2 era and prior, most teams could walk around and find a publisher for their games. There were plenty of kind opportunities out there where developers would check your ideas out, and fund your game based on if they liked it or could make a couple changes. That was it. Now I'm sure we're all aware these developers aren't walking anywhere. Dice makes stuff under EA, Free Radical (or what's left) is owned by Deep Silver, Arkane under Bethesda (a pairing that actually fits great), and its hard to say just what exactly Ubisoft owns between their oversized studios umbrella that pumps out their games. That's not to say pre-8th gen was perfect in this regard, there are plenty of troubled stories with Naughty Dog and Insomniac's days with Universal, and Activision was bullying their teams since the original Call of Duty by telling them they had to keep it in WW2 or else no console devkits would be given. Still its gotten much worse since then, with the only free team outside of indies I can think of being Insomniac, and they only found a publishing deal that let them keep their own IP through Microsoft which obviously limited their console reach.

Just stop and think about it all for a second. Think about all these annual releases, reoccurring series, and developers that have been cut down or re-used outside of what they were known for. Its all in part due to the fact that they, and their very games, are owned not by the artists but by the same people whose main job is to set up deals like this and market the game. No wonder indies are such a big deal now. Well in addition to all of that, lets close this in circle formation by reminding you that EA pretty much owns Star Wars on the gaming field for the foreseeable future, because that's very true to the nature of current publishers right now.

While on topic of publishers, this feels appropriate

So now that's out of the way, lets talk about the game itself since that's also kind of important. The main point of concern is... well, actually lets talk about the originals first. They weren't all too amazing by its own mechanics in today's market as we've had multiple multiplayer titles now with big battlefield. The only real difference that makes it special in mechanics is that it had better stock mechanics with a real health system, and a reason to carry support people or visit munition depots. No casual hide and restore crap, or reflex based gunfights. Though there was no sprinting in the original, which sucks for that side of things. Aside from that it was nothing special save for the star wars theme. However that's just the thing: It was massive star wars fan service. Massive scale battles across 16+ levels battling over flags or territory in a wide array of vehicles, a strategy mode allowing you to build up and take over the universe with any of the major army factions while paying off favors and abilities, and of course the fact that you could play as a famous big name hero like Han Solo, Darth Vader, Yoda, etc. All the while you could do this offline or online, split-screen as well, and across both timelines and many planets (even ones that didn't make much sense, like a rebel vs empire war on Kamino clone facility). Then of course the sequel refined most of the process better expanded mode functions, customization, better award system, and the most popular addition of space battles where you could blow apart capital ships or board them and blast them from the inside. These were all within $50 PS2 games straight on the disc. Now how has the game improved after over a decade? 8 maps (not planets, maps), prequel content and wars totally omitted, online only with a couple arcadey co-op modes you could play on your own, and oh yeah classes and normal vehicular use is completely scrapped. So a massive step backwards in every way at surface-value. To be fair now, there's way more multiplayer modes, but they're already hurting with low player count which wouldn't be a problem if they had bots to fall back on (but they don't). If that doesn't grab you, then you'll just hate it when I also tell you they're asking you to pay extra for the deluxe edition and have been pushing for their season pass at a hefty $50 range with promise that they'll split the community more with map packs. Oh but relax, you're also paying for early two week access to DLC so you can be more lonely in them while everyone else has to wait on an intentional delay.

This is why I never intended to buy the game on launch. Even with both of my copies of Battlefront on the PS2 being unable to work, I simply don't see the value here. I'd be better off getting a brand new computer and purchasing Battlefront 2 off of steam/GOG, or Ebay shopping for the PS2 originals. They have way more content in the box, are cheaper, and are far more accessible, and I'd even say have a more consistent fun factor to the gameplay. The sad thing to is that I don't exactly hate the new battlefront. The beta was pretty fun despite plenty to complain about. I kind of side with the portion of players and critics out there that talk about how fun it is as a casual shooter. Its great to just hop on there, melt some people with laser blasters, call down wild power-ups, and see what the end results are. I'll even say that some of the changes are great. I've never had as much fun in an AT-AT as I did when I had a range of cool-down super powers including an orbital strike. Its also the most well realized star wars presentation ever... period. I don't even think the movies are this good as pulling you into the world, because this one actually lets you walk on areas that were photographically digitized into the games, and then unleashed in a big sci-fi battle with amazing sound design pulled right from the SW universe. The graphics, sound design, and "feeling" of being there is just absolutely perfect for a star wars game. ...and then we get back to just what this is doing so wrong as a modern game, with its 8 maps and online only ability shoved down your throat. I've really got to wonder in a time like this if it truly is a case of graphics and big budget fancy stuff taking priority over gameplay. If it wasn't that, something else is seriously wrong here. Was it held back for DLC? Were their maps too big to make more of? Is their AI programming really that terrible that they can't be bothered to code bots? Were they drunk when they paved the groundwork for a matchmaking only online point? No really, I want answers or some kind of excuse, because at every corner outside of presentation it feels like this was set up to be a sub-par backpedal from a game made back in freakin' 2004 and the sequel that followed in '05. Heck even some of the PSP games have done things like space battles and fun bots to fight against!

Its not just nitpicks or purist complaints either (heck if it were, Battlefront 2 would be thrown under a bus as well for messing some stuff up), its the fact that I literally cannot play 90% of this game during a lot of Comcast's awful low speed connection where as everything I came to love the series for before came from an offline experience I played on my own time. This is lazy design that assumes everyone just wants to play online, and is totally fine with all of your short comings, and fixed modes. As a matter of fact offline play is such a big deal to me, my entire perspective of Rainbow 6 siege has changed from "ignore it" to "Definitely curious, renting it" based on the mixed reception of solo play, and hints of AI bot design. So I'm literally trying and potentially buying an online focused game because I hear it may have a solid offline mode with AI, and nothing else has contributed to me changing my previous thoughts before. But this is the era where Destiny, and Assassins Creed Unity are big sellers, and reviewers don't actually analyze the games they review before passing a 7+/10 score to. Its nothing new that something like Battlefront is made and money begging before its even released, and somehow gets away with poor quality. I predicted it all ahead of time, and that's why I'm not supportive of EA owning all the Star Wars gaming space, and why I was never truly excited about a new Battlefront made by Dice. It just wasn't going to come even close to doing what I like in the series, and competitive wise it doesn't sound like a good buy in itself either. I think in the long run, this really is about graphics taking a bigger priority, but not just in a simple way of one over the other. This is 2015 where such high end graphics cost a massive budget, and then they're rushing it to the market to cash in their game multiple times before they have to risk another big budget dip. The PS2 game did the best they could do before they shipped it with a moderate team on a plain budget, in a time where you actually had to make a good game (or do something spectacular for marketing) that people talked about to get it to sell. Now there's just too many other factors, chokes, and expenses racking up for quality content to take the biggest priority. They can just patch or sell it to you later, and sweep anything else under the rug. Or they'll "make up for it" with an online only sequel that adds maybe space battles to quite people down, and heavily ride on that criticism being fixed.

But at least it looks nice

However I don't want to be all doom and gloom here, because there's actually some hilarious twist here where I'll tell you of a terrific new FPS that releases with more content than even the original Battlefronts had. I mean I'm not the biggest fan of this series at all, and would usually bash on it for several reasons. However if you want what Battlefront offers on the up side (a fun little casual romp around sci-fi battlefields), and would be okay with offering up graphics for content, then I have just the remedy to tell you about: Call of Duty Black Ops 3. Yes, COD. If there is one thing COD gets undeniably right every damn time its lets something out into the world, its just how crazy accessible, and content stuffed it is. Okay so its not always perfect, Black ops 3 has some stupid stuff locked behind online mode like the emblem maker, but in general they even managed to outdo themselves on quality content. They have the normal horde mode, multiplayer, and campaign parts, but they also have a brand new hidden campaign which completely changes things, a return of arcade game dead ops (which I absolutely love), a bot mode full of custom options, full blown local co-op support in everything, a theater mode, and heck you can even spend hours just fooling with the painter. Oh, and there's also a $50 seasons pass promising you more content, so suck it EA, they've got that to and don't need a famous movie license to sell it.

Okay so I'm not trying to intentionally market to you about COD's game, I'm sure you get that enough from Mountain Dew bottles by this point, but what I'm saying is there still is an example of... well, doing the opposite of Battlefront EA. It is still possible to find quality AND quantity in gaming. There still are people out there making sure you not only have a lot of content in addition to passable graphics, but also go out of the way to surprise you with it and give you more than what you thought you paid for. This is why nobody except maybe GTAV has beaten COD. Despite all the copy-cats, gimmicks, and dumbing down that has been done to match COD, they always skimp on the content or formula in some way that prevents it from going big. However this is one of the big secrets to COD, its that content and accessibility. Its the empowerment they give to each and every player in reward for their $60 purchase. Meanwhile you may have to fight with servers just to even get into the game in Battlefront. Its not easy saying COD wins. I should be thrilled about an FPS that doesn't use ADS, has some of the best laser rifle aesthetics in the history of gaming, and re-introduces intentionally overpowered elements that make you panic or powerful. It should make me cheer for an anti-COD mentality and say "This was when shooters were better"! Instead its a reminder of how far south some parts of the industry go.

Some games are focused on fine tuning, improving, and content creating, and others have just let it all go down the drain as they shove you into a multiplayer cycle and expect you to pay $60-$100 and beyond for less. It actually works to, and sales so far are positive. On one side of things I do hope people still have fun, as that's what matters most at the end of the day. At the same time though, I can't help but look on in disbelief that this was actually sold as Battlefront. This just isn't the real sequel. It doesn't use the same core mechanics, doesn't have the same features, doesn't have the right kind of balance, and they didn't even put in an effort to make it feel like a successor as there's barely anything it does better outside of technical perspective. Heck, it even shows in the marketing art. We're talking about this and this being epic war scenes turning into this emptiness, or this guy's helmet with a reflection of slight action. Its a good sign of what you're in for, because one let you experience consistent and interesting battles from the star wars universe in many ways, and the other bottle necks you into another online shooter with a pretty picture. Its a shame it had to be this way. Its another case where content was removed and dumbed down, in a series that could have truly meant something by returning to the big console scene after a decade. Oh well. Hopefully this wraps up my Battlefield coverage. I'm sorry if I've spent too much time nagging about it, or talking about how sad it is, but it really is a great study piece in the dark side of modern gaming and how something can go from one of the best games of my youth, to the ideal game to make a stand against. Well... no, I'm not really sorry. I mean look at what we're talking about here! Would it have really killed them to add some damn bots or get more creative than 4 planets at launch?



At least we still have this in our history