While I did just say that we would not be posting anything this week while we get set up, I thought it important to at least give a taste of what we plan on doing here at GamerKulture. So for our very first report, i'd like to discuss EA's decision to not add a single player campaign to the upcoming Star Wars: Battlefront.
EA's COO Peter Moore states in this article http://www.pcgamer.com/ea-skipped-star-wars-battlefront-campaign-because-nobody-would-play-it/ that SW:B will not contain a single player campaign, though it will feature single player/co-op modes against AI. He goes on to claim that the data they see in today's games leads them to believe players don't play the campaigns and gravitate to the multiplayer. According to Moore in an interview with Gamespot's Rob Crossley, "You make a decision, years out, and you plan for what the world looks like when a game ships in two or three years...Between when a dev team starts work on a game, and when in finishes, the world is a different place." This was in response to Crossley asking if Moore and the rest of the EA exec's were "kicking yourselves for not including a single player campaign". Crossley goes on to clarify that he was alluding to the fact that triple-A games with single player content tend to sell better than those with multiplayer. Moore responded by saying that, while Crossley might be right, their data shows that very few people actually play the single player content on those games.
So it's very clear that EA feels, simply, that even if people want a single player campaign, most of the aren't going to play it. In an FPS environment dominated by titans like Call of Duty and Battlefield, they are not entirely incorrect. When was the last time someone purchased a CoD game for its solo play? Chances are, it's few and far between. So, does EA have a strong leg to stand on here? I would argue, yes. Absolutely. The trend in most FPS games today is to focus heavily on the multiplayer experience, with any solo play lending itself to an almost glorified tutorial. If they can build a variety of maps that offer a broad range of terrain, structures and tactics, as well as diversify the load outs available to each unit, a multiplayer only aspect could possibly capture the attention of even the most salty fans.
That all being said, as a Star Wars fan, I believe strongly that EA is missing a huge opportunity to do something great. The previous Battlefront game had the player follow the 501st, a famous legion of clone troopers, from their first battle on Geonosis, up through their station as the fearsome 'Vader's Fist' stormtroopers. It also offered the strategic 'Galactic Conquest' mode, which let players fight for control against players or AI to control each planet for the bonuses they offered. The potential for a fun, exciting, and unique story could make for that perfect linchpin in what looks to be like an otherwise brilliant addition to the Star Wars video game collection.
So what do you guys and gals think? Leave us a comment below and discuss your feelings on EA's decisions!
Thanks everybody, and stay Kultured!
-Kuma
EA's COO Peter Moore states in this article http://www.pcgamer.com/ea-skipped-star-wars-battlefront-campaign-because-nobody-would-play-it/ that SW:B will not contain a single player campaign, though it will feature single player/co-op modes against AI. He goes on to claim that the data they see in today's games leads them to believe players don't play the campaigns and gravitate to the multiplayer. According to Moore in an interview with Gamespot's Rob Crossley, "You make a decision, years out, and you plan for what the world looks like when a game ships in two or three years...Between when a dev team starts work on a game, and when in finishes, the world is a different place." This was in response to Crossley asking if Moore and the rest of the EA exec's were "kicking yourselves for not including a single player campaign". Crossley goes on to clarify that he was alluding to the fact that triple-A games with single player content tend to sell better than those with multiplayer. Moore responded by saying that, while Crossley might be right, their data shows that very few people actually play the single player content on those games.
So it's very clear that EA feels, simply, that even if people want a single player campaign, most of the aren't going to play it. In an FPS environment dominated by titans like Call of Duty and Battlefield, they are not entirely incorrect. When was the last time someone purchased a CoD game for its solo play? Chances are, it's few and far between. So, does EA have a strong leg to stand on here? I would argue, yes. Absolutely. The trend in most FPS games today is to focus heavily on the multiplayer experience, with any solo play lending itself to an almost glorified tutorial. If they can build a variety of maps that offer a broad range of terrain, structures and tactics, as well as diversify the load outs available to each unit, a multiplayer only aspect could possibly capture the attention of even the most salty fans.
That all being said, as a Star Wars fan, I believe strongly that EA is missing a huge opportunity to do something great. The previous Battlefront game had the player follow the 501st, a famous legion of clone troopers, from their first battle on Geonosis, up through their station as the fearsome 'Vader's Fist' stormtroopers. It also offered the strategic 'Galactic Conquest' mode, which let players fight for control against players or AI to control each planet for the bonuses they offered. The potential for a fun, exciting, and unique story could make for that perfect linchpin in what looks to be like an otherwise brilliant addition to the Star Wars video game collection.
So what do you guys and gals think? Leave us a comment below and discuss your feelings on EA's decisions!
Thanks everybody, and stay Kultured!
-Kuma