http://www.gamespot.com/articles/star-wars-battlefront-has-12-multiplayer-maps-at-l/1100-6427079/

While that number doesn't include the co-op missions it still seems small, especially when the game is forgoing a campaign of any kind.

12 sounds fine to me.

That's pretty typical for a modern shooter. Battlefield 4 launched with 10, Advanced Warfare with 13, and Titanfall had 15.

Titanfall launched with 8 and most Battlefield games only have 8-12 at launch. Seems pretty alright to me.

40 players max makes me sad.

Add a mode where those of us who want to experience a big chaotic fight can be able to join large 100+ servers with large maps. Make transports important again. I loved BF2 where people car pooled to fight at flags together in conquest. It seems really restrictive to not allow these things on PC at least. Stepping back on the number of players, and then at the same time say to me I'll be able to live out my Star Wars battle fantasies is just weird. In my Star Wars battles there are more than 40 participants and zero quick-time events to kill AT-ATs.

Yeah the player count is way more disappointing than the map count for me. We still haven't seen the game in motion yet though so eh nothing really matters yet

Sort of an interesting title there saying "only" then using a number that's more than a lot of DICEs recent games. I just hope they are good. I've been following the level designer on twitter and he said "if it's not a good game then what's the point?" referencing his choice to skip a work party to keep working so that's encouraging

Maybe fix your title to have the game name correct...

The more I hear about this game the less I want to play it. Sounds like CoD star wars or battlefield 4: Star wars. Sounds like they gutted what made battlefront great to make it sell to CoD and battlefield guys...

I think this could be the most hated game of 2015 and we have seen very little of it. This game will also follow the same path some AAA games take: people will complain about the game leading up to release, then it will be released and people talking shit on the game will want to be part of the dialogue happening around it, so those that vowed to not purchase it will end up purchasing it, then they'll complain about it on forums about how "they'll never be fooled again" by EA, rinse and repeat.

In Battlefield 3 they made the maps smaller, with the flags in Conquest Mode situated closer to each other in order to make the game experience more "intense" compared to Battlefield 2. Apparently players hated having to travel to the flags, and of course on a lot of servers some players drove off with the transports empty causing his/her team to lose. My impression was that it had more players waiting for me than leaving me, but hey that's just my opinion. I also liked the logistical aspect it brought to a fight, and the impact of eventual misuse of vehicles.

I feel from what I've heard so far that they're continuing on with this trend of trying to compress action/intensity by making maps smaller. Everything has to be more instant. You won't notice as much a small player count when the area you're fighting in is smaller. Apparently some of the "Missions" will take place on the same maps, but with even fewer players.

Smaller maps and a lower number of players allow for more graphical fidelity, I suppose. But who cares about the bark on trees when there's a fight, right? Right? ...

I'd totally understand this approach if the game was about two smaller spec ops groups facing each other in a skirmish somewhere: which is a scenario you see used to explain the fights in CoD for example.

This game is called Battlefront. Large armies face each other. In my opinion the game is already falling short just by not bringing large fights. In the design document the first bullet point should be to make a game that allows a large number of players to join in on the action. Instead they removed Galactic Conquest entirely.

Battleground?

Twelve seems fine to me as long as they do them well. Battlefront 2 had a lot of maps but probably half of them are terrible.

Only? That sounds like a good number.

12 is okay, we'll see how good they are. There could be 24, and players would still only play 2 or 3 good ones over and over.

12 isn't terrible, but I'm also sure that EA/DICE would love nothing more than for you to purchase some sort of season pass equivalent for 4 new map packs over the course of 6 months.

"Only" Had me cracking up. Battlefield 2 shipped with 14 maps. And people only played Strike at Karkand.

Seems fine to me. Really you only want/need the battles and planets that you recognize from the films. Do you really want to battle in a place you know nothing about or was invented solely for the game? Or would rather you visit places you've seen in the movies?

And you get a 13th map if you buy the game before Ep. 7 comes out, and that one is free.

As long as the maps are designed well, that's all that concerns me.

Titanfall shipped with 15, the story mode only used 8. All 15 are used in every other mode. 9 more were added bringing the total to 24.

Considering most people ever play on like 3 maps, sounds about right.

Was thinking exactly the same ... I guess at this point there is no pleasing people with that game.

In my opinion, 12 is a perfectly reasonable number of maps. This game may very well end up having issues, but that doesn't seem like one of them.

@finaldasa: There are two maps in the Battle of Jakku thing and it is free always not just before ep7

Well, the original had 16 and I remember a few of them being garbage that could have gotten cut anyway. So it lines up pretty well.

The more I read about this game the more I think its fucking crazy that they are going to sell it for full price. It sounds really lacking in content. No single player story/campaign, no space battles and DLC out the ass.

It's still months off so who knows but I was super excited for this when announced and my excitement has pretty much died. I guess we'll see at E3 if there's anything going for this game besides being a Star Wars lick of paint over Battlefield and with half the content. I realized a couple of weeks ago that EA and Dice made a huge fucking mistake naming this Battlefront because its only going to disappoint fans of the original games, they probably should've just named it Star Wars Battlefield since that's what it is.

@straightgrizzly: Phone auto corrected it and I didn't catch it. As far as map count it's less 12 is a small number and more they want me to pay $60 for 12 maps no campaign and a few co-op missions.

It's a different game. I don't see what all the comparisons to the originals are for. Especially before we've seen any gameplay. People are taking every piece of information that comes out and convincing themselves that it's the worst thing ever. Let's see how the game plays. Let's see... anything. Map and player count has little to do with the quality of a game. I'm not focused on what was in the original, because this is a new game.

@thatonedudenick: You're totally right but at the same time, as I said in my post, EA brought this on themselves by calling this Battlefront and not Star Wars Battlefield. This is a game fans of the originals have been waiting for almost 10 years and with multiple leaks and cancellations.

@hayt: Oh I didn't realize that. What I saw made it sound like once the movie came out that was it. Good to know I don't have to buy it day one just to get that.

Agreed with everyone else here, 12 is perfectly sound, and I believe the free dlc will add 2 more bringing it to 14 which honestly is on par or more than most games ship with.

Also people worrying about be player count need to kinda chill out. I'm willing to bet they fiddled with a bunch of numbers and 40 felt the best.

Battlefront isn't those games though. Dice is going backwards with this whole thing. Really a shame.

Sounds like a healthy number.

How do we know that these aren't 12 huge, intricately built next-gen maps that will blow our minds with all the features they put in them? Until they actually show something people are basically getting into a tizzy about nothing.

The sky is not falling... yet!

12 seems small?

Compared to what?

Someone lock this thread up.

I didn't realize illegitimate, 1 sentence complaints are good enough to keep as threads now, but I suppose it has been slow here recently. The OP just looks like negative nancy spam to me. 1 link + 1 thoughtless statement that isn't backed up by literally anything - like, say, comparisons to other games? - great conversation starter..

I find the idea that naming a product in the same legacy as something else, and then saying the company "asked for it" to be a bit silly. What, so the internet has to be filled with arm-chair experts criticizing a game that hasn't even released, let alone had any game-play? It'd be nice if their free time was spent on something a little less spiteful and maybe a tad bit more productive. Oh well.

Having remembered the previous Battlefronts, 12 maps sounds like more than enough. They are large, open areas. Hell, if you play on the more popular servers of any FPS, let alone the Battlefield series, you rarely see more than a handful anyway.

@arbitrarywater said:

12 isn't terrible, but I'm also sure that EA/DICE would love nothing more than for you to purchase some sort of season pass equivalent for 4 new map packs over the course of 6 months.

What is wrong with that?

Nothing beyond my own personal cynicism.

I agree. And I think that DLC is coming out less than a month after release so maps should be fine. I'm going to reserve judgement on this game for when we actually know what this thing is exactly.

Sounds fine to me. And I'll probably like half of those, which is enough to last me a good long time.

If they're battlefield-esque maps, then that sounds fine to me.

Either way you know we are going to get slapped with EA's typical map pack bullshit. I really miss the days when you bought a game and it was just everything, you didn't have to spend $100 more to get the "complete package".

Sounds fine to me.

12 is perfect.. I probably couldn't even think of more than 12 different map ideas lol

As long as they're visually interesting, I'd actually rather have a decent mix of new (or at least sparingly used) planets in with the recognizable ones. I mean let's be frank, here -- Hoth is just a big white ball, and Tatooine is just a big brown one. You can only play on those maps so many times over the years before they get stale; there needs to be new stuff to balance out the checklist of mandatory movie sites. The potential for creative freedom in map design is one of the strong points of the Star Wars license, and it'd be a shame to waste it.

Otherwise I agree, twelve (or thirteen) maps is plenty, so long as they're well designed.

This writer has unrealistic expectations of what should come in the base product or is click baiting.

the original Battlefront had no campaign, no space battles, a smaller player count, and a comparative number of maps. and, as a fan, i thought it was perfect. dice haven't put a single foot wrong so far in that regard, and you're trying to claim the opposite? and trying to claim it on behalf of fans of the original? if you want to come off as hysterical fine, but kindly don't presume to speak for us fans.

Can't wait to buy some more!

All it really needs is Hoth, Tatooine and that place with the teddy bears.

@jimbo: Endor. And teddy bears would be Ewoks.

I don't why people complain about map or player count instead of the lack of a real single player campaign story mode, space battles, galactic conquest or the Clone Wars era. You know, actual content.