Star Wars Battlefront Scraps Single Player in Favour of Multiplayer Gameplay

by - 7 years ago

star wars battlefront

I always used to play the single player campaign in all Battlefield series. It might not have been the best, but it was enjoyable and something to do to pass the time. But since the upcoming Star Wars Battlefront title was announced, no word about its single player campaign was released to the public.

I know the title in question is not Battlefield, but I was hoping to see a single player campaign that follows the Star Wars storyline a bit. However, the latest information coming from Pete Moore, EA’s COO, tells that they scrapped the single player mode and are solely focusing on the multiplayer bit.

Moore says that nobody is playing the single player campaign in games focused on multiplayer gameplay and he emphasizes that they encountered the same problem when developing Star Wars: The Old Republic. He stated that “people don’t play the single player on these types of games”, but still leaves a back door opened to make single player available in a sequel, should there be demand of it.

I don’t think people would mind the title not coming out with a single player campaign since everyone will rush for the multiplayer feature from day one, but it would have been nice to have one for those of us who want a story strapped to the Star Wars title. What do you think?

Thank you TechnoBuffalo for providing us with this information

Article Index

Author Bio

6 Comments on Star Wars Battlefront Scraps Single Player in Favour of Multiplayer Gameplay

  • Avatar Tougard Blackbeard says:

    i will have to skip this one, if there is no story which you can enjoy, then f.. it

    • Avatar Eoin Mc Namara says:

      Yea, it just seems that the game is being stripped bare. I mean, no Split-Screen on Local, 5 DLC packs that seem to feature around maps and guns, no vehicles playable and no classes.
      Why? They basically could have upped the BF2 game to include more guns, more maps and re-do the graphics.

      The old games was worth €50. This? No…not yet

      • Avatar Weston Konik says:

        …Except that chart is flawed. An you have to take into consideration that this is a game being made from the ground up. BF2 had the luxery of using assets already created for BF1, and expanded on it. So, it would be wiser to compare it to BF1, in terms of content.

        -there will be 12 maps at launch, plus the free Jakku map 1 month later. that is 13 maps and 5 planets.
        -no space battle, but squadron mode. BF1 had no space battles
        – AT-ATs are playable, as are AT-STs and speeder bikes.
        -there are AI players… so that should be a check.
        -they seem to be excluding the prequels, as is the future focus of Star Wars.

        • Avatar Eoin Mc Namara says:

          So far, we have only seen 4 planets with 8 maps to chose from. Do you mean 4 more for Squadron battles? Where are these 12 maps at launch?
          Squadron Battles sound like the Air Battles in BF4, everyone’s in a jet and you zoom around an extended map, that was still too small for jets to manoeuvre in. Besides, BF1 was well over 10 years ago, why not push boundaries in the modern world? DICE are good at FPS games, but, IMO, as a Dev, you would like to experiment with new things in your games. Space Battles, or Spcae Missions could have been that experimentation.
          There are limited AI players depending on what mode you play and on what console. PC won’t have split-screen, so that cuts out the local missions they discussed at E3. Likewise, AI ‘targets’ in a PvP match don’t entice me, as they could have pushed the player cap to 32vs32 in the big maps.
          Vehicles have not been disclosed as to how you get in one. Is it a BF4 ‘1st come 1 serve?’ business? Is it everyone can spawn one in, just that the map will have limits as to how many can be present?
          Heroes is quite a mystery. You can unlock them in battle…no mention of how. No mention of how many people can unlock them in a match either. What if they are tied to the MVP’s? Some players might never see the chance to be one in their lives. And this begs the question:
          Is DICE making a fun game, or a competitive game?
          Will the DLC add a power-creep, or be more immersive, aesthetic and plot orientated?
          The future focus of Star Wars excluding the prequels is 1 of 2 things:
          Cutting content
          Allowing the possibility to create a Prequel based Battlefront.

          If they don’t want to be compared to Pandemic’s Battlefront, maybe they should have changed the name? I don’t know, I’m worried EA will hype this, people will hype this, and suddenly it falls short because the above concerns were not addressed, or addressed correctly.

          • Avatar Weston Konik says:

            i’m just going by all the official announcements made back in may. 12 maps. and i am comparing it in terms of being built from the ground up. BF1 didn’t have nearly as many maps as BF2, and it didn’t have space battles. With the sequel, they had all the assets and alot of stuff already done, so they could focus on other maps and play styles.

            They had like what…. around 2 years to get this done? Disney bought lucasfilm, and then they probably made a deal with EA and set out to get this game done before TFA. they are focusing on multiplayer so it is as good as it can be.

            to be honest, as much as a Battlefront story would have been the only FPS campaign i would have played, because i love star wars so much, i think it was right to not try an develop one.

            Not just because of time, but what the hell could they have done? Disney has specific plans for Star Wars stories, such as in comics/tv/movies/books, and i don’t think cobbling together a canon FPS story.

            Plus… the VAST MAJORITY of people don’t play single player in FPS games. not with Bf/COD games. hell… i never even played any of them, save for MW2 for a couple of hours when my internet was off.

          • Avatar Eoin Mc Namara says:

            I don’t mind no campaign, as we would share the same sentiments on that area. But no local split-screen on PC? Why? They can do it on Xbox 1 and PS4. Why cut that feature out of the PC release? Split-Screen was a staple in Battlefront 1 & 2, as it allowed siblings, parties etc. to play together, against one another and the AI.
            Is it because monitors that are 27″ might be too small? Most TV’s have a HDMI slot, plug it in there if it’s too small.
            Is it because of controllers? Because 1 could use KBM and the other use an Xbox controller, or even both use controllers if they want to play across the room.
            This isn’t an exclusive game tied to one platform, so why exclude one out of what everyone else will get? Can you explain this to me? Games like Serious Sam 3, Dirt 2 and Timesplitters are split-screen on PC, and work well.

            But that’s the core issue: DICE are no longer looking at where BF1&2 succeeded in being a fun to play game, with groups. Instead, DICE are looking at this new ‘Battlefront’ and seeing how to make it competitive and monetisable, for single players.

Related Posts