Forum Discussion

Re: I've got a bad feeling about this...

I personally think they made a good choice with this game. They have picked their target audience and designed it with them in mind. It may not be what some people want but you have to remember that this is part of EA's redemption attempt while still being true to their investors.

They know that for the majority of players this is going to be a relatively short lived game hence the fixed price/ no micro "this is what you get" announcements. I hope I'm wrong about it being short lived but unless they add more content I don't see it happening. There will be a competitive following but eventually the skill curve will get very steep.

My pipe line dream is this is only a part of a large scale "Battlefront 3". Rogue One: Scarif assault anyone?

5 Replies

  • CodesterMX-YT's avatar
    CodesterMX-YT
    6 years ago
    @RuStyMoNkeY96 When you say about more content, you notice that every time the Starfighter lineup is mentioned, they always say something along the lines of: “The 8 currently revealed ships are the ones available AT LAUNCH.” I had to do those in caps because you can’t do italics with quick reply. But they always say “at launch” which makes it sound like future content may be coming...
  • RuStyMoNkeY96's avatar
    RuStyMoNkeY96
    5 years ago
    @CodesterMX-YT Yip I'm aware but adding ships is similar to adding guns to a FPS. Unless they constantly release new ships then the game will become stale again quickly. Since there are no micro-transactions they wont be able to do this for long.

    Game modes are where longevity is achieved. Furthermore, a lot of people will not have the ambition or time to play this game at its perceived competitiveness. People don't want to be stuck playing AI if they just want to jump in their favorite ship and have a bit of fun.

    I'm still going to play this game and probably love it. I'm just worried that it being a competitive game the players may get toxic towards casuals like LOL is.
  • GENERALZOOL's avatar
    GENERALZOOL
    5 years ago
    @jimmarshall
    I would hope so, otherwise there'd be little point in charging very much for it.

    Personal Opinion: When you buy a game, you're paying for the effort spent on making the Single Player Campaign. Games that don't have a Single Player Campaign are not worth any more than £10 GBP. There is more value in a good Single Player Campaign than any Multiplayer Game Mode. That said, a Multiplayer Campaign with Cinematic's and so on would be worth its money if introduced.
  • GENERALZOOL's avatar
    GENERALZOOL
    5 years ago
    @RuStyMoNkeY96
    Personally, there is more fun to be found in PvE combat than in PvP combat. All games that support casual PvE combat tend to last longer on my shelf than games that lack PvE features. I also don't bother buying 'PvP Only' games since they're a waste of time.

    It's important to find the balance between the two. Not everyone likes PvE, not everyone likes PvP. Having an over saturation of either one is detrimental to the game. Looking at Battlefield 1 for an example, they focused too much on the PvP side of the game, and the game suffered for it. The Campaign was like a mini-game, so I wasn't very happy about it. Completed Campaign one and two in less than 4 hours (closer to 3 hours).

    PvP only games invite Toxic Players, games that have too large of a PvP element also suffer the same Toxic Overload. Integrated PvE Multiplayer tends to be more inviting to Casual Players. Example on how this could be done in this instance, Players work together to take down an AI Only opponent Death Star for example. Equally, Players work together to take down an AI Only Rebel Base. This makes it a purely PvE Combat Game Mode.

    Please note that everything I've said is my personal opinion, based only upon my own experience. People will have contrasting opinions.

About Star Wars Games Discussion

Talk with the community about EA's STAR WARS™ games.14,768 PostsLatest Activity: 12 hours ago