Author Topic: Criticisms of Star Wars Battlefront (Thus Far)  (Read 1181 times)

Darchind

  • Imperial Grand Director
  • Veteran Contributor

  • Offline
  • *

  • 139
    • View Profile
Criticisms of Star Wars Battlefront (Thus Far)
« on: January 01, 2016, 10:46:56 PM »
Star Wars Battlefront is the best new Star Wars game in which no one can join or form a clique or a clan..

Actually, I may have spoken too soon. If you have a number of people on your friends list, people with whom you play regularly, you can enjoy the luxury of always playing together on the same team, more than likely lending yourself a competitive advantage over the rest of the player base because you have mutual chemistry and you are familiar with one another. This is true of any war game, even the Call of Duty and Battlefield titles, so I am mystified as to why contemporary game developers insist on trying to arbitrarily constrain competition and rivalry with the promulgation of an all too casual casual, team-based trend where players are randomly assigned to one of two competing teams.

Enough of that rant. Now to get to the real order of business.

Preliminary Notes:

  • Lack of a server browser because there seems to be a philosophical objection to players leasing and controlling their own servers. Developers these days seem to operate on the same track as left wing socialists. They think they can preserve the game's integrity by outlawing private ownership.
  • User interface locks player in the game. The player is unable to exit the game, other than by using the good old Ctrl+Alt+Delete method, until after the new round has started. This must have been done on purpose to coerce player participation. I imagine the developers thought players who were on their way out of the game might think, "Ah, what the heck, I'll play another round."
  • There are too many similar gameplay modes. How is the Battle of Jakku or Cargo really any different, from a point of practicality, than Supremacy? The consequence of having too many similar modes is that many may not be played and/or the existing player base may be spread too much.
  • Thermal detonators and explosives should not operate on cool-down timers. They should be limited to one or two uses per spawn. They are widely abused as of this point.
  • DL-44 pistol and bowcaster are disgustingly overpowered as a result of bad logic in the game mechanics.


Bad Gameplay Logic:

  • Game operates on what I characterize as a rock-paper-scissors kind of logic, one that should not be unfamiliar to players who are aware of the negative trend.
  • Pistols, such as the DL-44, seem overpowered because of the predetermination of the success of projectiles based on the native ranges of the game's weapons. The weapons break down into three basic categories: pistols, carbines and rifles.
  • Pistols are predetermined to connect the most often at close ranges. It is predetermined that you are more likely to lose to a pistol user if you are using a carbine, and you are most likely to lose to a pistol user if you are using a rifle. This is because the game has predetermined that close ranges are native to the pistol.
  • Carbines are predetermined to connect most often at medium/assault ranges. It is predetermined that you are more likely to lose at this range if you are using a pistol or a rifle.
  • Rifles are predetermined to connect most often at long ranges. It is predetermined that you are more likely to lose to a rifle user if you are using a carbine and you are most likely to lose to a rifle user if you are using a pistol.

What should have been done with the gameplay logic is this: no predetermination of any of the guns' ranges. Have pistols be the fastest but weakest. Have carbines be of moderate damage and moderate speed. Have rifles deal the most damage but also have the slowest fire rate. It would have made far more sense than the current system, where projectiles are quite literally redirected based on artificial predeterminations and a kind of technical correctness, similar to political correctness in the realm of social politics.

"Flight Squadron" battles seem biased toward the Rebel faction because of the natural imbalance that results from imperial starfighters having a meager boost ability while rebel starfighters have the much more useful shield ability. There may be other causes for the imbalance, too.

Let me end this post by saying that I like this game. It has excellent graphics and it is extremely well optimized. But it has glaring intellectual problems that are too significant to ignore. DICE should have stuck to the formula it used for Battlefield 3 and 4.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2016, 10:55:25 PM by Darchind »