All of these complaints would seem to be largely restricted to the singleplayer component, but they do come into play online.īattlefront is a cooperation-focused team deathmatch title that demands players fighting for either opposing army capture and control a variety of map specific points to limit enemy spawn locations and eventually deplete the ranks of the enemy. Had there been more commands such as, 'Don't steal my damn Snowspeeder and fly it into the ground you stupid, stupid idiot,' it wouldn't be bad at all. The AI frustrations wouldn't have been so severe if they were more inclined to follow some of the basic commands that are offered (follow, hold, move out, pile in craft, exit craft). In very specific scenarios, such as the Battle of Hoth, an AI might actually ride shotgun in the snow speeder and aid in taking down a walker with the tow cable. It's not uncommon to see the fools commandeer star fighters, tanks, and walkers, and then just circle the map without direction, or fly straight into the nearest canyon a building, or repeatedly take off and land, neglecting to actually fire their weapons at anything that needs a good shooting. Unfortunately for Battlefront, not only are the AI units incompetent, they're frustratingly counterproductive and will act in a manner that hinders the efforts of your army. Battlefield 1942, as an example, also offers a similarly weak singleplayer experience because there are simply too many AI units to keep track of efficiently. It's easy to understand why this is, given the processing strains that must be placed on the systems. The game appears to use a sort of context sensitive AI, meaning bots in the right positions will do stuff (like use turrets and vehicles and lay down cover fire), but those not immediately engaged in combat will idly stand around helping themselves to an endless breather. Thus, playing Galactic Conquest is also of no point.ĪI Battlefront is easy because of point number three: everyone is an idiot. As it stands, acquiring bonuses is of little importance, since the base singleplayer game is so terribly easy. It's a neat premise had it been properly delivered in multiplayer there could be some very long, very brutal conflicts. But that will only happen if you choose to activate this bonus as opposed to another that enhances the accuracy of your troops, allows them to regenerate health, prevents the enemy from using the in-game radar, and so on. For instance, conquering both maps on Tatooine grants your army an uncontrollable Jedi Hero in the next battle. The eventual goal is to conquer all planets.Īcting as an incentive to more strategically take planets are bonuses. Should he fail, the computer will attack a planet of its choosing. Should he be successful in this invasion of the map of that planet, he'll then be allowed to choose another conflict.

Essentially, the player begins a turn by choosing a planet to invade. The battle areas are represented by planets, which are themselves comprised of two maps each. It highlights all potential battle areas for the chosen faction. From there, a limited galactic map is presented. Galactic Conquest is quite a bit different than the historical actions.

You're bad but now you're good because it fits better into the overarching storyline of the films - the same one the game all but neglected to develop. These engagements are so poorly tied together that toward the middle of either historical campaign, you'll actually be forced to switch sides in the war, making any lasting drive to conquer the galaxy pointless. Between them all come little snippets of film footage and some ultra cheesy briefings. Each victory will linearly catapult you into another mission in chronological order. Pick a side, begin at what is unanimously considered to be the approximate start of the conflict (for the Clone Wars that would be the invasion of Naboo by the Trade Federation) and win, win, win. The missions throughout solo play are entirely standalone, and barely tie to on another, regardless of whether you choose to play Galactic Conquest or the Historical Campaigns.įighting through space history a long time ago and in a galaxy far, far away is fairly straightforward. Unlike Rogue Leader or the once outstanding TIE Fighter, Battlefront does not come saturated by high production value. 3) The AI exhibits a type of intelligence roughly on par with the average rock's. This is primarily due to three major solo play problems.ġ) It's too easy. Multiplayer-centric means players who opt to stick to singleplayer will have something to do, but won't be thrilled enough to desire extended play. Single-Player Battles This is a multiplayer-centric third and first-person shooter.

Will there be a star wars battlefront 3