When evaluating how much I like all the Star Wars films, one of the things I often look at is what their sequences involving starfighters are like. Each of the films has at least one, and some are among the most iconic sequences in their respective films.
This is not to say that I feel a decent or even great starfighter sequence automatically makes such a product “good” as a whole. For example, one of my least favourite Star Wars films, Attack of the Clones, has a sequence which I would probably just place outside of my top five. Sure, the film scores more than a handful of points for it (most of which go to the glorious sound design of the seismic charges!) but nowhere near enough to make up for the majority of its flaws in the grand scheme of things.
When it comes to Star Wars
games, I tend to view things just a little differently. Unlike with a film,
where a starfighter sequence tends be expected as part of the main plot,
starfighter experiences in games depend heavily on the game in-question. Either
the entire game is built around them (Rogue Squadron, TIE Fighter,
X-Wing), they’re a compulsory part of some campaigns (Battlefront II,
LEGO Star Wars), or they don’t feature at all apart from maybe some
turret sections (Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy, Knights of the Old
Republic, The Force Unleashed). In the rarest of instances, they are
present but are so much of a side thing that you can play the entire game
however you want without once having to encounter them (The Old Republic).
Thus, while I still look out for
them, I do not always include “has a decent starfighter experience” as part of
my criteria for evaluating a game. For example, SWTOR’s original
starfighter experience is anything but “fun” to me, since it is purely an
on-rails shooter. Furthermore, it eventually ramps up the difficulty to an
obscene level and thus becomes impractical as an activity. 2014’s
mini-expansion Galactic Starfighter, on the other hand, brought in an
entirely different starfighter experience which I still am a huge fan of to
this day.
I was therefore quite excited to learn that EA would be publishing a new Star Wars game which focused purely on the starfighter experience. Squadrons is basically a massive love-letter to the starfighter experience from the developers, and it can easily be regarded as “the modern X-Wing game”. It also shares several similarities with SWTOR’s Galactic Starfighter mode. As such, I have chosen to dedicate today's post to a comparison between both games.
To some people playing Squadrons, this choice of comparator will be more than a little bit odd. There have been several starfighter-based games across the years, and many of these will be closer in spirit to Squadrons than Starfighter. However, I have not played all these games and it has been well over a decade since I have played those which I owned. Due to changing focus away from the PC to the PS2 and PS3 between 2004 and 2011, I believe that I can say with confidence that it would have been over sixteen years since I played any game which can be deemed “more relevant” for comparison purposes. Thus, even if I were to pick those games up again, I would still refrain from focusing on them as it would be wrong for me to present myself as a voice of experience after a gap of nearly two decades.
This should go without saying, but this is not meant to be a comprehensive review of Squadrons as a game. Any bugs, game issues, or specific story details will not be discussed. This is purely meant to be a comparison between one game and another for the features that they include.
On with the show!
~~~
Gameplay
Similarities
Both games feature distinct
classes: Galactic Starfighter (hereafter GSF) has the scout,
strike fighter, gunship, and bomber. Squadrons has the interceptor, fighter, bomber, and support class. They follow a similar sort of
structure in how they play: the scouts and interceptors are the dogfighters,
the strikes and fighters are the all-rounders, the gunships and bombers (Squadrons)
are the heavy-hitters, and the bombers (GSF) and support class are
support vessels.
In case you’ve never played GSF
and wonder why its version of bombers are the support vessels, this is because
they brought in components with their potential loadouts such as healing and
resupply probes, remote turrets, and even a hyperspace beacon which
reinforcements can use as a spawning-in point. They can also drop mines of
various sorts, so they do technically adhere to their official classification
somewhere along the line.
Both games appear to use a similar flight model, although the ships in Squadrons feel like they have more weight than the ones in GSF. When making multiple turns, it takes about a second for the vessels to align exactly where you want them to go each time as they will carry on with the initial momentum. GSF's ships are much nimbler, but arguably less "realistic" in how they fly.
Online gameplay modes in both Squadrons and GSF follow a similar structure, including the number of modes (currently) available. The first is a deathmatch-type game (Deathmatch and Dogfighting) where the objective is to eliminate as many players on the enemy team as possible. The second is a tug-of-war objective mode (Domination and Fleet Battles) where players must defend their own resources while trying to eliminate or capture those of the enemy.
Both games feature six maps,
although Squadrons has all six accessible regardless of which mode you play while GSF splits its six maps in half across both modes.
Additionally, two of its maps – Lost Shipyards and Kuat Mesas – have variants unique
to both modes. Neither of the games share any of the same locations, although
one of the map locations in Squadrons does amusingly share the same name
as the first Republic flashpoint in SWTOR (Esseles).
Maps in GSF are flanked by capital ships which effortlessly melt any enemy who gets too close. Squadrons only has larger ships flanking the map in its Fleet Battles mode, as they are integral to it, but they are still treated as a no-man's-land if attacked too early. While attacks from flagships can be survived, unlike those from GSF, you certainly do not want to be left in this area for too long. Additionally, this no-man's-land will progressively update throughout the match as all capital and flagships get closer and closer throughout the game. If the match goes on for long enough, they will proceed to engage in combat with one another.
 |
| GSF above, Squadrons below. |
Both games have a similar system in place for their deathmatch mode: fifteen minutes for one team to hit the cap, although GSF has the higher kill-limit of 50 compared to Squadrons’ 30 to account for the differences in time-to-kill. They even have pickups which can be used by either team.
 |
| They pretty much all look like this, but coloured red, purple, yellow, and blue. |
 |
| Doesn't make a lot of sense in-universe, but eh, it's useful as a game mechanic. |
Both games encourage a range of classes to perform well. In GSF if you run with mainly strikes and scouts you would do okay in the short-range play around satellites or weaving around asteroids but you’d suffer in the long-range play if you have nothing to counter a pesky gunship or keep players pinned down without risking them getting too close. If you have most of your team being bombers, you would be left with a lot of slow ships that cannot really pump out much damage.
In Squadrons,
players are actively warned in Fleet Battles if their team-composition is not
ideal, although as you only have five players maximum compared to twelve the
effects of a non-viable team will be felt much more immediately. In GSF
a weaker middle squadron can be made up for by at least four – six other
players, but if you have a couple of weaker players in Squadrons, that
puts proportionally more pressure on their remaining teammates.
Both games have a similar base system of selecting specific targets. You can cycle through nearby ships, those directly in front of you, and anyone who happens to be attacking you. Squadrons has the option to auto-target any ship a player shoots at, but this can be disabled if desired. When selected, your targeting computer will show you your target’s name, their ship, and the angle their ship is at relative to yours. GSF’s computer will also show you what your target is currently targeting, which is useful if you are in voice-comms with that gunship who has not noticed them approaching.
Both games feature similar tracking systems for engaging and defeating foes. GSF requires you to lead shots on a target by aiming at a little circle in front of them, and this is the only thing you can aim at if you wish to deal damage. GSF vessels do not count as actual physical objects, so merely shooting at the ship itself will not deal damage if the aim-spot is elsewhere.
 |
| GSF also tends to be far more extreme in how far ahead of a target you need to shoot to hit them, but this is likely a side-effect of the increased range of blasters. |
 |
| I have not altered this in Photoshop in any way: this is legitimately what happened when an interdiction mine blew up right next to me during a recording session. Useful for demonstration purposes! |
 |
| I have immense respect for anyone who can use the Squadrons radars effectively. |
But then maybe I am just feeling that way due to being so used to GSF. I imagine that I will eventually get used to the Squadrons radar, but it will take some time.
 |
| GSF: statistics are everything. |
 |
| Comparison between the standard laser cannon and the rapid fire laser cannon for the A-wing. |
Both games handle ship health in a similar manner. Hulls do not repair themselves unless a ship has access to a specific repair ability or can get healing from a friendly resupply probe or capital ship. Shields however, will regenerate naturally - unless you choose the overloaded shield in Squadrons which will never regenerate if disabled.
Both games are rather forgiving
when it comes to collisions. Collisions can be fatal, but provided that you
weren’t already at low health, boosting, using a fancy engine ability, or
taking it at a particularly steep angle, you’re going to survive if you briefly
collide with terrain. Some ships, notably bombers, abuse this in GSF for
getting more of a defensive position, although it is possible to get stuck,
continually smash against the surface, and die this way.
Both games allow for a free look
option, although this is best used sparingly when in-flight as, unless you are playing Squadrons
in VR, activating this will temporarily disable a ship’s pitch and yaw in both games.
 |
| Comparison of visual effects for maximising shields in both games. |
Both games give each player ship
an option to boost into or away from battle. However, GSF allows players
to boost regardless of how much power is in the engines, while Squadrons
will largely only allow you to generate boost power if you have maximised power to the
engines. The SLAM engine component generates boost if even a little bit
of power is in engines, making it quite an invaluable tool for fast flights.
 |
| GSF also awards these little medals to each player for things like "slaying an enemy player in a one-on-one dog fight!" |
 |
| Outside of completing a match, this is all that Squadrons allows you to see of your illustrious career. |
 |
| You can also link each and every single one of these stats to the chat window. I do not believe that I have ever seen anyone do this in the six-and-three-quarter years that GSF has been active. |
~
Differences
Victory in GSF’s Domination
mode is attained through a points-based system. You earn points for capturing
one of three defensive satellites and killing enemies, although to stand the
best chance of victory a team ideally needs to hold at least two of the
satellites throughout much of the game. In Squadrons, victory in the
objective-based Fleet Battles is only attained when one team completes their
objective of destroying the enemy’s flagship. I have not yet experienced a
time-out in this game so I have no idea if it will allocate a winner based on
points / destruction progress like GSF does.
GSF matches are purely
between teams of players, with the only AI being turrets which are either deployed
by bombers, surrounding a defensive satellite, or attached to the capital ships flanking the maps. While Squadrons
features AI in its online Fleet Battles mode (as well as of course the
single-player and co-op versions), it does not feature AI in Dogfight. Thus, this mode is essentially just a smaller-scale version of GSF’s
Deathmatches.
 |
| I am not about to spend Cartel Coins just for the sake of a blog post. Actual GSF currency, sure, but not CC. |
Squadrons so far only has
one type of ship per class but that is not to say that this will remain the
case for perpetuity. While the developers are essentially treating Squadrons as a complete package at launch –
what a rarity! – they are not averse to considering later additions if it sells
well. This may include additional ships and classes, or it may not.
Because each individual ship-class has completely identical stats and loadout options to one another in GSF,
you have a decent chance of knowing exactly what you’re up against
before you even engage in combat with an opponent once you know how the full
ins-and-outs of ships within your own ships and how to identify specific components
by sight. Ships in Squadrons have different stats across factions, but
it is also largely impossible to work out which components an enemy has slotted
until you see them in-use. Thus, even if you really understand your beloved
T-65B X-wing, you will not necessarily be able to predict what that TIE/LN
fighter which is chasing you will be capable of doing in advance (unless the player is low level).
 |
| In order: Repair Probes, Charged Plating, Koiogran Turn, and Hydro Spanners. |
In GSF, most missiles and
torpedoes are lock-on only and are unable to be fired unguided (“dumb-fired”),
although the rocket pods component has no lock-on functionality and thus can
only be dumb-fired. Many projectiles in Squadrons can be fired both
via lock-on and via dumb-firing, although there are a few which either require or lack lock-on capabilities much like the projectiles in GSF. Dumb-firing is really useful
for objective play, where a lock-on may not necessarily be needed or possible,
like if you are moments from death when attempting an attack-run but just want
to fire that one last missile towards the enemy flagship.
In Squadrons, missiles and torpedoes are very specifically designed to fulfil certain purposes rather than being for general use. Proton torpedoes, for example, can theoretically destroy any ship in one hit as they deal 4,000 damage and only the TIE/SA Bomber can reach that value in HP. However, due to the low ammunition count, moderate lock-on time, poor tracking, and the fact that use against players may waste a lot of its damage, it is best to use them only for taking on objectives. Anti-starfighter, cluster, concussion, and quick-lock missiles are among those which are designed primarily for use against other players.
Even
more wasteful than a misused proton torpedo is a misused ion torpedo: this
thing deals massive ion damage (24,000), but use
against a player will result in both expending your entire stock in one shot
and practically all of its potential damage just going to waste even if it
hits.
Unlike in GSF, the missiles and torpedoes in Squadrons can be targeted and destroyed by players. In the above instance where a target fires one last missile before death at a flagship, their pursuer could then in-theory prevent that missile from reaching its target if they were quick enough. Additionally, where GSF only has a maximum range, Squadrons gives some of its projectiles a minimum range: ion and proton torpedoes cannot be locked if the intended target is within 500m of the player.
 |
| Please note that the descriptions in the tooltip state different damage values for both Proton and Thermite weapons. I assume that the top value in both instances is correct and that the lower value does not account for upgrades. |
GSF is the only game to
feature any direct form of sensor manipulation for all classes. Squadrons
experiments with this a little bit by allowing the support class to use a
“squadron mask” to obscure nearby friendly allies from enemy sensors, but GSF
takes things a lot further. Sensors are split into four separate
categories: communication, dampening, focused detection, and range. As best as
I can understand it, communication helps ships to cross-reference enemy
positions, dampening causes ships to take longer to appear on enemy sensors,
focused detection allows ships to better detect foes in their line-of-sight,
and range increases a ship’s general detection radius. While certain specific
components can increase any of these, some crew members also have passives
which bolster them as well.
Truth be told, this has always
been the thing which has confused me the most about GSF over the years,
so I have absolutely no idea if I have got these definitions correct. Mine do
appear to sync up with the commonly accepted definitions among the GSF community,
although this is all still just conjecture as far as I know. The game does not
provide anything like an official glossary for these things, unfortunately.
GSF is the only game where
it is possible to switch your camera’s viewpoint temporarily to numerous set
angles (nine) around your ship. Of course, if used in-flight to keep an eye on
pursuers, these views can result in accidental collisions with terrain and
potentially allowing opponents a couple of free pot-shots while you regain your
bearings. Squadrons, being cockpit-view only, does not allow for altering the fixed camera position at
all.
GSF is the only game which
features cross-faction teams. It was not always this way, but SWTOR’s
PvP in general shifted to cross-faction about two years ago to match the
state of the story and this affected GSF as well. I am not entirely
sure how this works out, whether we are all Alliance pilots fighting each other
in live war scenarios or if we are fighting with and against defectors… I put
it down to personal choice here, really! Squadrons, which styles itself
in the aftermath of the battle of Endor, is strictly between the New Republic
and Galactic Empire.
 |
| GSF is also the only game to show you both teams' setups before the match begins. Squadrons will only allow this once the game has started. |
Since there are no faction-specific spawn points in Dogfight, this means that there will never be a situation where one team pins the other down just outside where they spawn. This happens a lot in deathmatches in GSF, mainly thanks to gunships, and I always feel sorry for any teams which I am against where this ends up happening to them as it can be especially frustrating.
Due to momentum affecting turning as mentioned earlier, maintaining a consistent aim on your target in Squadrons can be relatively difficult while in-motion. The game does allow a player to purchase and equip auto-aim weapons to help with aiming, but these will deal reduced damage compared to their standard counterparts. Weapon locks also function differently, in that Squadrons locks missiles onto targets automatically before you then simply press the fire button, whereas GSF has you hold down the missile key until it is locked and ready to fire.
 |
| The size of the firing-arcs will also change depending on which weapons you use. |
GSF has the most distinct
manner of identifying a firing arc of the two games. The HUD has persistent
targeting rings around the crosshair which define where the firing-arcs stop.
If you have lock-on projectiles their firing arc is normally represented by the
smaller of the two rings, while a laser’s firing arc is often the larger of the
two. If a target goes outside either of the rings you will not be able to score
a hit or lock-on with whichever weapon corresponds to that ring. Squadrons
does have quite strict firing-arcs as well, but it is never actively shown where
the limits are for lock-on weapons until you lose track of a target.
GSF is very forgiving for
a player slowing or outright stopping their throttle when attacking objective
points. Destroyable AI turrets are damaging, sure, but are unlikely to kill a
player in one sitting unless their health is already low. Slowing or cutting the throttle in Squadrons for
attacking a flagship is near-on suicidal with all the tricks enemy vessels
use to defend themselves. Depending on the map and how close the game is to
shifting back to defence, hit-and-run tactics will not necessarily guarantee
survival in this instance either.
Beyond bringing a ship to an
absolute halt, GSF does not allow you to set a “fixed” throttle in any
shape or form. You can deliberately increase or decrease the throttle but
releasing the respective keys will return the ship to its default speed.
Increasing or decreasing power to the engines will make the ship slightly
faster or slower respectively, but once again the ship will return to a “default” speed setting if the throttle is not directly being used in some form. Squadrons’
capability to keep a fixed throttle depends entirely on your hardware.
Some setups will allow it, while others will not.
GSF is not particularly
great at allowing ships to turn. While certain engine abilities will allow a
player to turn sharply in various directions, ships which lack or are not
advised to take any of these engines as options are just left having to turn as
quickly as their ship can allow. Worth noting that some of these engines will
also propel the player along the destination axis for a second or two, so
crashing is quite possible when using their abilities in a panic. Squadrons
features a drift mechanic, meaning that turning sharply yet controllably in
space is possible for all four ship classes. This can be rather tricky to pull off,
however, as it can only be accomplished while boosting.
GSF allows for very quick
kills when dogfighting and can be particularly vicious at times. As shown by the proton torpedo example above, it gives several
ships many tools to rapidly eat away at opponents’ defences if not bypass them
entirely. In designing
and recommending several of its “big guns” for objective play, Squadrons
has a relatively high time-to-kill in comparison. The plus side of this is that
it gives players a somewhat greater opportunity to retreat from a no-man’s-land if they
get stranded, but I can see it be particularly frustrating for certain players
that “running and hiding” is such an effective strategy.
On the flip side, becoming an
accomplished dogfighter even with this compromise does then become something of
a badge of honour for the respective pilots.
While both games enable you to completely cut your throttle, GSF is the only game which allows any movement for a stationary ship. By default, holding Shift and any of the directional keys used for throttle control and roll allows the fighter to climb, descend, and strafe. This will function with the throttle active as well, but it has the most noticeable impact while in an otherwise stationary position. Squadrons has no climbing, descent, or strafing capabilities since it tries not to incentivize staying still even for brief periods of time, meaning that a ship with no active throttle provides no options for manoeuvrability – a word which I already know I’m going to hate by the end of this post – other than to resume moving forwards.
I cannot say that I really feel the
absence of strafing in Squadrons, as it is only really used in GSF
to get into secure defensive positions and to allow a gunship to get a better
view on a potential target. It has little strategic benefit otherwise as it is awfully
slow so has no defensive use unless you and an opponent are just that
tightly weaved around a structure and dip into and out of cover to fire.
A very minor one, but upon death GSF only leads the player to a generic respawn screen where they can choose a ship. Squadrons firstly shows players a kill-cam of their death before allowing them the option to directly spectate their teammates before they can respawn. GSF does, technically, allow this indirectly as the respawn screen’s
camera is fixed at the point where they died, so any nearby battles can at
least be observed. That is about it, though.
I mentioned it in passing, but Squadrons
has a story mode! This is especially useful here as it serves as one of the
several entry-points for newer players or people unfamiliar with more “proper”
simulators which this game provides. Since it covers both factions it enables
players to get to grips with all the available ships and components and work
out what makes them special. There are also special bonus objectives to
complete with all the story missions, which means that there are incentives to
come back to them if you failed to complete these the first time through.
 |
| I love it. |
Conversely, GSF has an
extremely basic single-player tutorial where you fly a prebuilt Flashfire or
S-13 Sting around a bit and the only enemies are a few unresponsive AI training
drones around a satellite structure. This is useful for just getting to grips with the basic controls, but if you want to play this game mode even a
tiny bit properly or get to use other ships, you have no choice but to do the PvP mode. The only single-player
starfighter experience you can otherwise access is nothing like GSF.
Your ship is on-rails, all other ships follow strictly premeditated paths, and
it is just not anywhere near as interesting as a space mode.
While I am disappointed that GSF
is a standalone thing for PvP and has no PvE integration, I can completely
understand why it is like this. Even though giving players a prebuilt ship and
a brief tutorial on GSF flight mechanics is something they have done and
could possibly translate across to a story mission, building fully functional
ship-AI would be an entirely different ballgame. It could work, sure, but if it
is only going to be something that would only appear a handful of times and
probably not be that popular among SWTOR’s wider player-base? I do not
believe that would really be worth the effort when all is said and done.
Squadrons boasts something
significant which GSF simply cannot: Virtual Reality compatibility. The
VR support also means that the perspective for Squadrons is locked to
cockpit-view only, whereas GSF only has a third… vessel… viewpoint.
It is possible to then take this forced view even further by disabling some or even all the additional targeting UI elements and rely solely on the instruments in front of you for direction. This is the sort of thing which will require a fair bit of experience for a player to pull off satisfactorily, but I can imagine that this is the sort of thing that the hardcore space-sim crowd absolutely love. I have a couple of UI elements disabled myself (although for the sake of this post, I re-enabled them all while recording footage) and will probably disable more as time goes on.
The above also means that the HUD for things like ship-health, shield, missile-counts, etc. will be in slightly different places depending on the ship and faction you fly rather than all in the same place as with GSF's on-screen HUD.
 |
| "I have you now." |
Just as an aside, the in-vessel targeting computers
are not entirely screen-accurate in how they function (i.e. 3D imagery instead
of simple 2D graphics), but it cannot be denied that making these completely
accurate would be horribly impractical from a gameplay perspective. Motive
have done a decent job in keeping the general aesthetic of the computers for the TIES while updating both factions' technologies to be more useful to a player.
 |
| The aesthetic here is nowhere near accurate, but I feel it would be hard to keep the film targeting software design and make it functionally useful. |
While the targeting systems are quite similar between both games on base principle, Squadrons provides much more intricate functionalities with its system. Firstly, you can target allies as well as enemies. This comes up a few times in the story as a means of scanning certain objects, but it also enables a U-wing or TIE/RP Reaper to fire a resupply drone or tactical shield directly at an ally.
 |
| So many choices. |
Squadrons supports
controllers, joysticks, and keyboards whereas GSF only supports
keyboards. While I am very used to the keyboard setup due to my experiences
with GSF, I decided to splash out and get some quite nice joysticks for Squadrons.
I had hoped to acquire a throttle device instead of a second stick, but due to
the then-recent release of the newest version of Microsoft Flight Simulator any bits of equipment
were extremely hard to come by. Less than a week after I had purchased my
joysticks, they were out of stock again on Amazon.
Speaking of hardware, Squadrons is featured on three platforms - PC, PlayStation, and Xbox - while GSF and SWTOR are only available on PC. Unlike I believe every Star Wars game before it, Squadrons features cross-play capabilities, meaning that players across all three systems can play with and against each other and even form cross-platform groups. Really nice feature, that, as it should hopefully prevent the game from reaching much of a stale state where some platforms are coping okay but others are struggling to find games.
 |
| Comparison between the standard laser cannon and the rapid fire laser cannon for the TIE interceptor. |
Squadrons also offers
in-built voice-communication capability while GSF relies on players
using Discord, Mumble, TeamSpeak, Ventrilo, or whatever programs the gamer
communities like to use nowadays. Squadrons, which emphasises the need
for the small squadron to work together, allows for voice-comms even in
randomly-allocated groups. This is encouraged, but not strictly necessary, for
a team to be successful.
Squadrons also has
official support for the third-party program VoiceAttack. This will enable
players to link up voice commands to actions within the game, so you can
literally tell the game what you want it to do if you have it installed.
 |
| My three current Y-wing loadouts. Top is an anti-player loadout while the bottom two are more themed around objective play. Since the TIE bomber lacks the automatic ion cannon, its first loadout uses a proton torpedo instead. |
SWTOR in general has never
really experimented with loadouts even with its standard game systems, although
it does try it a little bit with GSF’s hangar system. Each ship is meant
to remember the exact layout of components and upgrade choices, but it is
notoriously unreliable. It will often forget exactly which tier you have
selected of some components if not remove them entirely. It is easy enough to
correct as it is thankfully just a UI glitch, but it can still be a bit tedious
to have to check your ships before queuing.
 |
| Exhibit A: A mostly inobtrusive kill-tracking system. |
 |
| Exhibit B: A slightly more obtrusive kill-tracking system. |
 |
| Nice in-theory, clunky in-practice. |
Squadrons gives players the option to use an in-game communications wheel, theoretically allowing a team to communicate with one another quickly without use of voice-comms. While this would be a useful addition to Domination in GSF to call for aid without using the chat window, this can be quite a clunky thing to use no matter which game it is in. If you are under pressure from one or more enemies, the chances of your team coming to your rescue in time are still rather limited no matter what you use to call for help.
The more streamlined nature of Squadrons
compared to GSF also means that the support ship has more offensive
capabilities than GSF’s bomber. Not only is the support ship the
third-fastest ship type, but it also takes a much more active role in
debilitating the enemy team. GSF’s bombers have a reputation for relying
on mines and drones to deal the bulk of their damage, whereas the support class
in Squadrons has access to multiple tools to lock down enemies and make
them substantially easier to kill as well as being able to hold their own in
dogfights as they have access to the same default weapon as the fighter class.
It is, however, also possible to
spec a support ship with two of the following: a repair and resupply probe,
seeker mines, and a turret drone. Sound familiar, Warcarrier and B-4D Legion
flyers?
Squadrons is the only one
of these games to feature skill-based matchmaking, although even if GSF did
have it implemented the player-base is too small nowadays for it to take
effect. When a player reaches level five, they gain access to a special version
of Fleet Battles which is a ranked game against another team of players.
 |
| My position in the rankings will not be changing any time soon. |
Although I do not intend to take part in it, I am interested to see what becomes of this ranked mode if it gets going properly. Since there does not appear to be a way for the game to differentiate between solo-queuers and group-queuers I can imagine that more than a few players will give it up if they constantly get put against pre-made groups.
Despite my lack of interest, I feel it would be quite fun to have a Star Wars game as part of the e-sport line-up as that could attract quite a decent audience.
The curious thing about the ranked mode is that it is the only online mode which does not allow players to choose a faction. Dogfight and Fleet Battles vs. AI both ask you to set which faction you would wish to play as alongside a "random" option, but there is nothing of the sort for ranked play. This is something which I can imagine throwing a fair number of players who choose to spend time levelling up their favourite faction, as they could enter their first ranked match and be put on the side they haven't spent any time upgrading ships on.
Not much of an issue for some people, perhaps, but almost certainly something which will catch more than a few players out.
 |
| Since unlocking a ship paintjob only unlocks it for one ship at a time(!), it is safe to assume that most of these rewards will be pilot options like helmets. |
By contrast, GSF is very rigid with its daily mission structure as all its missions ask you to do is play a certain number of matches (two for the daily, ten for the weekly; wins count twice), and the rewards are the same each time. I personally prefer the consistency of GSF, but I like the fact that Squadrons is incentivising players to try new and unfamiliar things.
Components
Similarities
Aside from a high amount of
personal experience, this aspect of GSF is a primary reason why I would
always have chosen it as a comparator to Squadrons.
GSF and Squadrons
both feature a similar components system on a base-level. Shields of differing
hardness, hulls of different weights, guns with unique firing systems, and so
on. It is nice to have the ability to make your ships feel drastically
different even from their base selves. For example, your Flashfire could become
a really fast and nippy fighter with the hull that gives you the highest
evasion chance and your BTL-A4 Y-wing could become pretty tanky with extra hull
HP and a specific shield type which exchanges ammo for a brief and
nigh-invincible barrier when depleted.
For a comparison of how the two
games lay out their ships’ components, see below. Italicised categories are
those which do not appear for all ship types.
GSF:
Major Components (always five
present):
- Primary Weapons
- Primary Weapons (2)
- Secondary Weapons
- Secondary Weapons (2)
- Systems
- Shields
- Engines
Minor Components (always four
present):
- Armour
- Capacitor
- Magazine
- Reactor
- Sensors
- Thrusters
Squadrons:
- Primary Weapon
- Left Auxiliary
- Right Auxiliary
- Countermeasures
- Hull
- Shields
- Engines
I mentioned earlier that not
every ship in GSF gets access to a system ability. This is because there
are several ships per faction which replace the system component with either a
second primary weapon or a second secondary weapon. In these instances, the
system ability allows these ships to switch between their alternate weapons.
Auxiliaries in Squadrons are basically a combination of the secondary weapons and systems categories from GSF. This is where you can find missiles, torpedoes, repair droids, targeting beacons, and all that. While no category is truly exempt from them, this is where class-restrictions apply the most in Squadrons since these are mainly what give the classes their own distinct roles in a team setup.
You can choose two auxiliaries which, depending on choices made, can either be reminiscent of a GSF player flying a ship with either two secondary weapons or a secondary weapon and a systems ability. Unlike in GSF, it is possible to both choose two systems-type abilities on certain ships and, if two missiles are chosen, lock-on with both at the same time.
Components shared by both games
include such things as burst-fire cannons, rapid-fire SMG-style cannons, remote
turrets, resupply drops, seeker mines, proton torpedoes, and self-repair
abilities. Unlike GSF, applying components does not also visually change
some parts of your ship to reflect what you have done. There is one exception
to this: an automatic ion cannon for the New Republic adds the little turret on
top of the cockpit of the Y-wing where otherwise there is just a little unused
podium.
Both games allow ships access to
components which restrict or totally lock down an enemy’s movements. In GSF,
ion weapons do this by default by draining engine power, some bombers can fire
a drone that slows all enemies nearby, and some scouts can launch a probe which
attaches to an enemy’s hull and completely prevents their boosting and turning
for the duration. Squadrons again has ion weapons, but it also gives
support ships a tractor beam as a possible loadout option. While useful in
theory for trapping faster enemies, its usefulness is completely
nullified by the dampener hull which can be equipped by all ships except the
support itself.
The dampener hull offers no protection from ion lasers or missiles if they successfully make contact, however, so its effectiveness will only go so far. Additionally, tractor beams from enemy flagships will still be able to immobilise any ship regardless of loadout.
 |
| Mash! Those! Buttons! |
 |
| If on the green-pink button you click, only pain will you find. |
Both games have a currency called
Requisition which can be used to unlock various components. However, GSF’s
currency is a fair bit more layered than that of Squadrons. Firstly,
components have a stacking cost as more upgrade tiers are purchased, ranging
anywhere from 500 to 7,500 depending on the component and upgrade tier.
Secondly, there are two types of Requisition: Ship Requisition, which is each
ship’s own stash of Requisition, and Fleet Requisition, which can be used to unlock
anything. This includes other ships, crew members, and even components of
individual ships if there is nothing more prevalent to spend it on.
Additionally, there are multiple ways of earning Requisition for GSF compared to Squadrons just requiring you to level up. Ship Requisition is awarded at the end of each game to ships which you use in that match, and the amount they earn is dependent on how long you played them and how many points you earned. Additionally, each ship has a bonus pool of 500 Requisition available to them each day.
Grants for both Ship and Fleet Requisition can be earned by playing matches and completing the daily and weekly. Using the Ship Requisition grants gives the currency to all ships which you have unlocked, meaning that they are particularly useful as a ship-levelling tool. Furthermore, these grants can be purchased
for a third type of currency, Fleet Commendations, which can be acquired via
the original space missions, GSF missions, and as loot if at least one
Starship Booty amplifier is equipped on a character’s actual gear set.
 |
| In this instance, converting all this currency would cost me almost £70. |
Finally, Ship Requisition can be
converted into Fleet Requisition for real money. 1 Cartel Coin will allow you
to convert 25 of one ship’s Requisition into the Fleet variant, meaning that it
is possible for someone to play one type of ship exclusively and then simply
pay to use that ship’s currency to completely max out another. While you still
need to have truly earned that currency in the first place, it is still a bit
ridiculous that ships can be power-levelled in this way.
Components in both games are
locked between factions. In GSF this is because hangars are unique to
each character, even within the same faction, so sharing components is not
possible. This is something which I feel would surprise and disappoint more
than a few Squadrons players as component-sharing is possible
within the factions themselves. Having to unlock the same component twice for
your RZ-1 A-wing and TIE/IN Interceptor may be more than a little bit tedious
to some.
Happily, you earn multiple Requisition
points each time you level up your profile. You initially earn two
Requisition per level, apart from level five, which gives seven to coincide with
unlocking ranked Fleet Battles, and fifteen, twenty-five, and thirty-five which give four as well as an additional loadout slot. As such, it is possible
to equally distribute upgrades between factions if you would like. It only
costs one Requisition for a ship upgrade, so each level will unlock multiple
ship components at a time.
Once a player reaches level forty,
they will have earned enough Requisition to have unlocked every component in
the game. I had all the components I believed I required by level fifteen, but
every player’s definitions of “required” will be different.
~
Differences
 |
| This path is long and grindy, but satisfying once complete. |
GSF’s components come with
multi-tiered upgrade options. The final upgrade tiers of the major components
allow you to specify whether or not your repair drone replenishes shields or
ammo, whether your lasers deal more damage to hulls or to shields, whether your
engines have higher speed or greater turning rate, and so on. Components in Squadrons
are a one-time purchase and do not allow for deviation within that component’s
capabilities, resulting in a more powerful all-in-one package.
The six minor components (armour, capacitors, magazines, reactors, sensors, and thrusters) in GSF are purely passive boosts to a ship. These augment such things as weight of hull, rate of fire for lasers, generation of power for the weapon energy pool, detection range for sensors, regeneration rates of shields, and turning rate of engines.
Squadrons
mainly lumps in these passives with separate components, but sensor detection
and dampening aspects are technically part of some classes’ available
auxiliaries as an active ability. Interceptors can choose a targeting jammer
which temporarily hides them from enemy radars. Support ships can choose
targeting beacons, which mark all enemies and makes them easier to take down,
and the team-cloaking squadron mask I mentioned earlier. Considering that the
sensor aspects of GSF are undoubtedly its most confusing thing when it
comes to working out just how much difference augmenting them makes, it is nice
to see Squadrons handling them in a somewhat more direct manner.
 |
| GSF: much to comprehend, there is. |
 |
| I wouldn't be surprised if Gault was actually bluffing about his usefulness as a co-pilot just for some extra Credits. Seems like the sort of thing he'd do. |
While Squadrons only has pilots as a cosmetic option (more details below), GSF makes crew members have an actual mechanical impact on the various ships in a similar manner to standard components. Each crew member has two passive perks which augment things like firing arcs, weapon accuracy, shield strength, engine power draw, and so on.
You can fill four unique positions with select characters: offensive,
defensive, tactical, and engineering. A co-pilot is then plucked from these four
individuals and grants you access to an additional active ability. These
abilities include Hydro Spanners (a powerful self-heal), Concentrated Fire (a
respective 36% / 16% buff to primary and secondary weapon critical chances),
and Wingman (a 20% buff to user’s and two nearby allies’ accuracy).
Each character can start with a
maximum of twelve crew members depending on how much story that character has
done. There are four generic crew members who were created specifically for GSF,
and each class has their five unique companions available to them for free as
well as their ship droid and the companions HK-51 and Treek if they have them
unlocked. Starting or skipping past Fallen Empire will lock away all class companions besides HK, and Treek, meaning that they will need to be purchased (potentially for a second time) using
Fleet Requisition.
Co-pilots will also provide
commentary when your ship is in dogfights, executing an engine manoeuvre, or
near-death. While it is just a little bit of flavour rather than anything
specific you can interact with, it’s quite fun to listen to as all co-pilots
have their own unique lines of dialogue as well as, of course, voice-actor. All
20 companions per faction can be selected, as well as four GSF-only characters
per faction and the universal HK-51 and Treek. Altogether this means that,
apart from the single astromech droid per side, both factions have access to 25
different voice actors who can provide co-pilot commentaries.
 |
| These are two scout ships with different loadout capabilities: Spearpoint on the left, Flashfire on the right. |
Countermeasures in GSF all
have the same end-function: they break any locks currently fixed on them and
prevent any enemies from locking onto the ship for a few seconds afterward.
While they mainly come part-and-parcel with any engines which enable manoeuvres,
they can also be found on certain system abilities as well as the
power-converter engine component. The latter can be particularly useful for
certain bombers which have no other way of breaking locks. It is possible for a
ship to be completely devoid of any lock-breaking capabilities if they are
specced a certain way.
Worth noting that in GSF
breaking locks is a crucial survival tool, as missiles cannot be outrun
or be forced to collide with terrain like they can in Squadrons. Once
fired, they will always hit their target if the intended victim has no way of
avoiding them for whatever reason.
The countermeasures in Squadrons are their own separate component, so therefore every ship has them. However, unlike in GSF, these tools have an ammunition count of their own. It is therefore especially important for players to manage exactly when they use them, especially as they can be fired even when no projectiles are trailing them.
All four
ship classes have access to three unique types of countermeasure. First are a
series of seeker warheads that can be fired behind a player’s ship which
intercept any hostile projectiles. Second is a cloud of chaff particles which
breaks locks and blocks all incoming projectiles if the player continues to fly
straight immediately after deployment. Third is a sensor jammer, which functions
similarly to lock-breakers in GSF, that breaks locks and prevents any
for a few seconds afterwards.
The interceptor gets a unique countermeasure
which I can see being particularly nasty when used in the right hands. Their
sensor inverter will redirect a hostile projectile back towards the attacker,
although it will only work if the missile is within 300m of them when the
inverter is activated. It is possible for two interceptors to play "missile ping-pong" with one another, although this can only happen once per missile due to the long cooldown of the inverter.
In GSF, shields and
engines are not purchased because of the passive benefits they allow (e.g. top
speed, turning rate, shield strength, shield regeneration, etc.) but because
they each have a specific active ability. That engine will allow you to convert
some of your engine power-pool to weapon or shield power, that one will allow
you to do a barrel-roll, that shield can give you a very strong barrier at the
cost of bleeding damage through to the hull, and so on. Squadrons just
gives these components passive benefits with no active abilities tied to either.
One of the “shields” available to
two ships per faction in GSF is the repair drone afforded to the
Spearpoint / SCC-4 Bloodmark scout and Warcarrier / B-4D Legion bomber. These
ships still have actual functioning shields, but the probe just takes the place
of any shield-related active ability like charged plating or
directional-shield.
Speaking of the repair drone, there are significant differences between those in GSF and the resupply probe in Squadrons: the repair drone in GSF can target multiple allies with a heal-over-time and can be consciously targeted by enemy players. The resupply probe in Squadrons can only be picked up by or delivered to one ally, cannot be used by the player who launched it, and it delivers all its healing and supplies at once (50% hull HP and 100% munitions).
While I am not entirely sure if it can be targeted by enemy players, I have seen one of my resupply probes be destroyed by an enemy - this could be because the player I had tried to deliver it to died just before it reached them, however. Not enough evidence on this one for me to be entirely certain about it.
 |
| Fortunately, it is not possible for a ship to have both of these equipped at the same time. |
 |
| The increased accuracy for primary weapons from the Koiogran Turn is rarely useful, but it's a nice idea. |
 |
| This is responsible for about 27% of my deaths as a Flashfire. |
 |
| Did somebody say "boom"? |
GSF’s component and
upgrade systems factor into why I still cite it as being a very painful
activity for newer players. There are just so many things to consider even with
your first ship and the entry-level Scout and Strike models are rather… naff…
in comparison to others. At least with Squadrons, even though different
components may make certain things easier for you, the entry level components
will still be more than decent enough to be getting on with. Even if you do
feel the need to change your loadout, it will not cost you an arm or a leg’s
worth of Requisition to do so.
Plus, at least in Squadrons
you can try out new stuff without being thrown into an unforgiving online
PvP-only experience. GSF is not quite so forgiving in that
regard.
Cosmetics
General
 |
| Magnificent, isn't she? |
Squadrons allows me to fly a blue T-65B X-wing! *Happy dance, happy dance*
I am easy to please.
~
Similarities
Both GSF and Squadrons
have separate currencies for applying cosmetics compared to acquiring upgrades.
Squadrons has Glory points, which are earned by levelling up, completing daily challenges, and at the end of each Operation (between 6,000 and 16,500 Glory depending on your final placing). GSF has… of course… the purchasable
Cartel Coins. There used to be a skin which you could only unlock for the
bomber in GSF by earning a unique currency within the flashpoint Kuat
Drive Yards but at some point BioWare made it possible to purchase
this with CC as well. You can still earn it by grinding the flashpoint,
however.
Both games allow you to customise
your ship’s basic paintjob, although Squadrons has its paintjobs with
their own pre-defined colours. Want to fly as part of the famous Red Squadron?
You can, but you cannot take the Red Squadron paintjob and turn it purple (you
can, however, choose to fly it in green, gold, orange, and even pink). Even the
little decals which you can choose to add separately from the paintjobs come in
pre-defined colours. I do not particularly mind pre-defined colours for
paintjobs and decals, as it does at least make it easier for the developers to
work on unique cosmetics without fearing that a player would turn them swamp green
and yellow or something disgusting like that.
I am writing this while looking
at the… ahem… eye-catching brown and orange colour module available for
Imperial ships in GSF.
~
Differences
If you are a player who dreads
the idea of “Technicolour Dreamcoat squadron”, Squadrons has an option
to disable player cosmetics. This gives every ship including your own the
default ship cosmetic, since the game treats all matches as being between Titan
and Vanguard squadron. To some this may not seem like much, as you only see
your squad-mates “properly” when the match starts, you choose to spectate a
match, and at the end if your team is victorious. To others, it could be annoying
that that one ship is pink squadron while the rest of you is blue squadron.
 |
| Again, not spending CC just for one blog post. |
I briefly mentioned colour modules in the above section, so I will just clarify how these function in GSF. These are little swatches of two preassigned colours (blue and orange, purple and black, you get the idea) which can then be applied to any of the ships’ available paintjobs. The colours can then be inverted, so the blue / orange module can then become an orange / blue module instead. This does, as I am sure you can imagine, result in some spectacularly garish ships.
 |
| Today on Pimp My T-65B X-Wing... |
That is not to say that garish or
silly colours are not available in Squadrons, especially for the New
Republic. The Convoy’s Courage skin turns a ship purple and yellow – it is
truly a sight to behold – while the Chromium Flash turns a ship bright silver.
Of note is the Luminous Being skin which gives ships a neon blue TRONesque
look. Imperial ship skins are not nearly as potentially flashy, although the
Radiance (red cockpit glass and lights on the radiation panels) and Emperor’s
Guard (bright red hull) skins are relatively notable.
Unlike in GSF, engine and
laser colours in Squadrons are not separate cosmetics. Engines remain
the same colour no matter what component you select, and lasers only change
colour if you choose to make them ion cannons (blue lasers). It is easy to
understand why this is the case as this era of Star Wars has very
defined boundaries for faction-based colours (i.e. red lasers for the New
Republic and green for the Empire). To allow people to choose a green laser as
an X-wing could allow for a lot of potential confusion among Imperial pilots as
well as just not being lore-accurate.
 |
| Tuggtar: Kettch's spiritual successor. |
Since the cockpit-view is enforced, Motive have allowed players to make themselves feel more at home within them by adding in various purchasable cosmetic items that are then added to the cockpit. This is something which I do not believe any Star Wars game has done before, but somebody please correct me in the comments if I am incorrect in this belief. Among the numerous objects you can decorate a cabin with are a crystal from Crait, a porg wood-carving, an Ewok plush toy, and images of Darth Vader, a Mantellian Savrip dejarik piece, and a Kowakian Monkey-Lizard. Basically, fun little things just to make your cockpit more personal to you, just as a real pilot might do.
Depending on the given “rarity”
of the items in question, the cost of these cosmetics ranges from about 200 Glory
points to 1,200. The rarity identifier is just part of a currency sink and
means nothing else practically (i.e. not a lootbox mechanic).
Thankfully.
I personally will not be
decorating any of my cockpits, or at least not right away. Not because I “hate
fun” or crud like that, but just because I do not want something to get in my
way and distract me while in-flight. I have seen some footage of pilots having
these dangly things flapping about in the top right-hand-corners of their
cockpits and that bothered me immensely even seeing it second-hand!
In GSF, your ship
is the only thing that matters as your character and class in SWTOR have
no bearing on your ship’s performance. Literally the only time actual
characters or account names can matter in either of these games is if you
recognise a friend on the opposing team and have some idea what strategy they
could be using or what their general skill level is, although meta-gaming is of course a beast which can affect
every game.
In Squadrons, they have
taken the concept of the pilot and just let it take its own path. Not only can
you customise your own pilot, including a choice of face (albeit only presets),
some species for New Republic pilots, body type, helmet, flight suits, emotes, and
voice packages, but you can also see and hear what other players have done with
theirs.
 |
| Anybody for a quick round of pazaak before we fly? |
Both modes feature a little briefing room where you can meet your team and watch an optional strategy holo-vid for Fleet Battles. This is to give you time to theoretically formulate a strategy, even if you have that one teammate who only communicates via emotes. During games, your pilot will receive communications with others whenever they save them from an enemy or are on a killstreak, but you will never hear your pilot automatically make any of these statements. At the end of the match, there is also a little victory screen where pilots from the winning team will be shown off doing a little pose.
 |
| Disappointingly, the victory poses used by my character (centre) and the person on her left do not yet incorporate unlocked helmets like the flashy red-and-gold one on the right, even if the character in question has a specific one selected (in this instance that other player was wearing an A-wing helmet). |
Incidentally, one of the voices behind an Imperial voice-package is none other than Darin DePaul, the man behind Valkorion, General Daeruun, and Junker Jott in SWTOR. Imperial Ace B even sounds a lot like Daeruun, which is quite surreal to someone who is used to hearing that voice come from a Republic character.
This is the sort of thing which I absolutely love about how Motive have done Squadrons. They have taken an old but beloved concept and just added several extra layers to it, and I love what has been done.
That said, while it is great to be able to get our characters to look the way we want, players can only see their own avatar in select situations beyond the victory screens. They take turns to be seen on the main menu alongside the ship you last played as for their faction, you get a glimpse of them from behind whenever they do an emote in the briefing room, and there is only one instance of their face appearing in a story cutscene. Most of the time, you are within your character's head.
All this still “doesn’t matter” from an
actual online gameplay perspective, of course, but it just adds a whole new
layer to the personal experience. While a player character does not matter as much in this game as much as they would in SWTOR, it is still nice to be able to tailor a character's look to our liking. The customisation is disappointingly limited, but as the characters used actual face-models I would not expect to be able to do much to them. More alien skin colours and human hairstyles would be nice, though.
However, this is a somewhat crucial part of the story. Rather than give us the next Iden Versio or Cal Kestis, Squadrons gives players the first modern-day Jaden Korr, Meetra Surik, and Revan. The character customisation I mentioned above also applies to the story mode, and customising the main characters is one of the first things you must do upon initial launch! Additionally, any changes you make to your pilot for multiplayer (i.e. changing flight suits, voices, etc.) will also carry across to the story-mode. Although initial customisation is limited, this retroactive character-update should make it possible for a player to eventually get, say, a Twi'lek as their New Republic story pilot.
However, even if you do have other species unlocked, restarting the story will still force you to choose a human. While you can still have them be an alien retroactively, this means you will never have a cutscene showing an alien head.
It has been so long since we have
had a mainstream story-based Star Wars game allow us to change the look and
name of the main character(s). We last saw this back in 2011 when SWTOR was
released. If you discount SWTOR as a “single-player experience”, then
2004’s Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords is the last game which
had this option. Whether this gap be nine years or sixteen years, it has been far
too long since we have had the option to customise the main character within a Star
Wars game’s storyline.
More, please!
 |
| Those pesky Abednedo get abso-bloody-lutely everywhere! They'll be in SWTOR next! |
Alongside Twi'leks, the other alien species available to New Republic pilots are Abednedo, Duros, and Sullustan. Each species can only wear one of the four helmet types which are more typically associated with various craft: Abednedo get the A-wing helmet, Duros the X-wing, Sullustan the U-wing (hence the game’s very peculiar design for the species) and Twi’lek the Y-wing. Each of these species corresponds with some notable New Republic, Rebellion, and Resistance pilots across films, games, and TV shows: C’ai Threnalli and Ello Asty for Abednedo, Shriv Suurgav for Duros, Nien Nunb for Sullustan, and Hera Syndulla for Twi’lek. I am not aware if this is confirmed to be deliberate or just a happy coincidence.
Other species seen elsewhere in the game are Mimbanese, Mirialan, Mon Calamari, Quarren, Rodian, and Trandoshan. It would be quite fun if we got other species down the line, and I have seen more than a few requests for Chiss as an Imperial species.
The character customisation
separates gender from pretty much every option, except for some facial hair for human heads and the cone-ears for the Twi'lek head. Your character can have a “feminine”
voice and head attached to a “masculine” body, or vice-versa, and since the
body-types are indistinctly-gendered while in uniform (the most noticeable differences being gain or loss
of muscle-mass) several different combinations can work quite well.
As I say, I would love to get more Star Wars games in the future which include this sort of thing. Defining who or what our characters are is a pretty great thing to be able to do in any game, and I wish that some of the other recent Star Wars games had included it. Oh well. At least we now have one more to add to the smallish pile.
~~~
Discussion
At this point, the questions are inevitable: if you play and really enjoy either of these games, should you check out the other? Similarly, for players looking for a decent starfighter experience, which of these two games is the better option?
If you are someone who has been playing GSF for a while because you absolutely love the mode, I would recommend giving Squadrons a shot. If you have been playing Squadrons and have not yet played GSF, I cannot easily recommend this mode unless you are already playing SWTOR. I will happily recommend SWTOR as a game, but it is not worth playing exclusively for GSF as there are so many other things to try your hand at. Plus, if you are a console-only player then SWTOR will not be available on any platform other than PC.
For players who have not played either mode, I would more easily recommend Squadrons over GSF. I would still recommend SWTOR if you are just looking for an all-round good Star Wars experience rather than something as specific as Squadrons or GSF.
“Skill floor” and “skill ceiling”
are two terms which I have seen been thrown about a fair bit on the official
subreddit when it comes to Squadrons. These dictate how accessible a
game is and the highest level of skill a player is potentially able to reach.
You can have a game with both a low skill floor and a low skill ceiling, a game
with an intentionally high skill ceiling but a really low floor to compensate,
and a game which has both a moderately high skill floor and a high skill
ceiling.
Squadrons is the game with
the intentionally high skill ceiling, although the skill floor will depend on each
player’s experiences with other games. If you are used to “proper” space
simulators such as Elite Dangerous or are a long-term veteran of the X-Wing
series (et al.) there will be a lot of things which you will feel relatively
comfortable with right from the get-go. If you have primarily played modes like
Battlefront II’s Starfighter Assault, then the skill floor will
feel relatively high as there are just so many extra layers in Squadrons. If you are going to be brand-new to any game like Squadrons, the skill-floor here will feel relatively high at first but there are multiple points of entry to help ease you into it.
The skill ceiling of Squadrons, despite being the highest of these two games compared to its floor, may also end up being the easier to reach depending on your point-of-view. This is courtesy of the offline, co-op, and practice modes which enable players and teams to figure out what loadouts, setups, and playstyles suit them best in "safe" environments. Even if their forays into the PvP modes indicate that they still have more to learn, they can try and use their experience in the various PvE modes to adapt and adjust their strategies.
However, it is worth noting that the AI in Squadrons' co-operative and solo Fleet Battles mode is ridiculously good even on "easy" mode. Adapting and adjusting can only go so far if you find yourself constantly being shot down by Jem Blessage or Mora Veil. Even the AI corvettes are an absolute menace: numerous times I've flown out of the MC-75 hangar in a fresh ship only to be immediately greeted by a fatal barrage of laser fire from a nearby Raider while trying to help defend my fleet. All the skill in the world will not easily help you recover from firepower of that magnitude.
Quite honestly, at times it feels like many of the players I have come across are easier to kill than the bots. That is not an indictment of several of these players' skills - the AI can sometimes just be that good. A welcome change from the Starfighter Assault bots, at any rate.
Additionally, while the game is pretty good at holding your hand with some of the mechanics and specifically takes time to introduce others in the campaign, the main Squadrons website has an entire page dedicated to gameplay tips and default control setups. Lots of good stuff there!
Galactic Starfighter is the game which I feel has the higher skill floor for brand-new players. They have access to only one ship type per class by default unless they were a subscriber at the time of its launch, in which case they get a second free gunship. After working out what each of the base components will allow them to do and the sort of role which they are likely to fulfil, they give it a go. After a couple of games, they find that their chosen ship is not as good as they think it can be. They then have a difficult choice: do they keep upgrading that ship as they at least have a vague understanding of what it is like, or do they try another ship or set of components? They then need to learn what that new ship or component does, what it allows them to do, and so on and so forth.
The point is, GSF will
happily throw new players into the deep end very, very, quickly. They will
experience an extensive and costly component upgrade system, many crew members
to choose from, a lack of glossary for more confusing elements, and absolutely no
skill-based matchmaking alongside trying to play the actual game. They may get
lucky and be placed with a decent team and, despite dying a few times, are able
to score the occasional kill after a more experienced player softens up some
targets. Or they may find themselves being absolutely melted like butter no
matter what they try as the game has decided to put them against some of the
best dogfighters in the server.
All the ships also have
quite different playstyles to one another, even within the classes themselves. Some bombers, as implied earlier, can
have a very passive playstyle as they are not built for dogfighting or trying
to actively take objective points, whereas scouts and strikes are far more
active and versatile. Gunships are a particularly rogue element and they are
just so unique compared to anything that Squadrons has to offer with its
own ships.
They are sniper ships.
 |
| Oh, how I hate this view. |
Using the gunships’ railguns puts a pilot into the typical scope-view commonly associated with shooting games, giving them a very narrow field-of-view when monitoring the playing-field. If you are already used to tracking and sniping moving targets then you would probably do alright with this, but you would still have to know to adjust for the different axes in space when finding a defensible position. It’s not uncommon to see a gunship position itself at the highest point of a given map and face downwards as this often gives them a good vantage point where they can see many potential approach vectors an enemy can take to reach them. If you are not okay at sniping moving targets or rely “too much” on hitting weak spots (as ships in GSF have none) to deal fatal damage the gunship really will not be the class for you.
GSF does not really have a
single skill ceiling. I view it as having at least twelve incremental ones due
to the number of differing playstyles for the various ships. The best Flashfire
flyer might be absolutely rubbish at handling the SGS-45 Quarrel or vice-versa,
as mastering one results in only the barest of transferable skills to the
other. This is one of the most extreme examples, as there are many skills which
can be transferred between several of the other ship types and classes.
I do not want to say whether I
believe GSF has a higher average skill-ceiling compared to Squadrons,
although I would certainly say they are relatively comparable. This is mainly
because I have not seen all there is to see in Squadrons yet, but I have
got a lot of matches to catch up on before that comparison becomes anywhere
near feasible. Having played well over 1,000 matches of GSF I have seen
a lot of things in this game which I would consider to be “expert” level play.
Thus, I have a rough idea of where I would put each ship class’s archetype in
relation to one another. I am sure that I shall be seeing a lot of expert
trends emerge from the woodwork in Squadrons over the next few months,
but right now I just don’t have the same level of exposure to them as I do in GSF.
Added to which, there is only one
way to play GSF as an actual game: using a keyboard and mouse. Squadrons
brings in the controllers and joysticks, meaning that there is not just a skill
ceiling for the game itself but also a skill ceiling for using additional
equipment. You may already be very used to controllers or HOTAS / HOSAS setups and
can just make your fighter fly in ways you couldn’t with a mouse or you may
only ever be used to the keyboard and mouse setup so trying to upgrade to a
joystick would be an incredible step-up in difficulty. VR will also present its
own challenges irrespective of the type of controller used alongside it.
It also needs to be stressed that
Squadrons has a markedly different design philosophy behind it
compared to GSF. This is a respectable attempt at a space-simulator
whereas GSF is a more arcade-like shooter with a few space-sim elements
thrown in. I imagine I’m likely to get a couple of comments proclaiming that I can’t
compare these games because of this, but I’ve still gone ahead with it because,
design philosophies aside, comparisons like these can be a usual benchmark for
people. If I hadn’t had my eyes set on Squadrons for months – I had started writing this post at the end of July when specific gameplay
details were first coming out and been amending it gradually ever since – this is the
sort of thing which I’d personally be looking to find out.
That said, I do honestly feel
that the argument could easily be made that an experienced GSF player
will have little trouble adjusting to Squadrons. They have their distinct
differences, of course, but there is also a fair amount of similarity between
the two games in more than a few places. If you enjoy spending hours at a time
playing GSF, then I would advise at least checking this out and seeing
it for yourself.
~~~
Conclusion
Squadrons is a game which
I imagine was not really anticipated when it was initially leaked. While Battlefront
II players had been asking for updates to the neglected Starfighter
Assault for over two years by this point, I daresay these were the loudest
voices asking for anything “new” relating to starfighter game content.
Despite this, Squadrons
promptly became the focus of a lot of people. It attracted the space-sim crowd,
the VR crowd, players nostalgic for X-Wing games and the like, and people
like me who just appreciate pretty much anything starfighter-related in Star
Wars. Admittedly, part of the draw for me is that the game has more than
the most basic of offline-compatible play. I can imagine in a few years’ time
when the servers are down (and assuming nothing more recent has taken its
place) that I would still look to boot this game up and launch into battle.
The icing on the cake, especially
when some microtransaction-laden games today are fetching over £60, is
that Squadrons is “only” £40. Still more expensive than its
equivalents would have been ten or twenty years ago, of course, but in
comparison to some of the obscene prices today? As far as I am concerned, this
is something of a bargain.
That said, £40 may just be the
beginning of a more costly expenditure for some players. Add in the VR and
joystick compatibilities and I can imagine that somebody can happily spend over
£500 just getting the best possible equipment to play it with full
immersion if they do not already possess what they need. Ouch.
The developers have also been
treading very carefully in making Squadrons an online game. It could
have been so easy for them to have made it a service game, something that they
would have content ready for but not finalised in time for launch and then
released later. Worse, it could have been something which had microtransactions
or which would probably have had an extra-expensive deluxe edition. It avoids
all of these. Squadrons is meant to have been complete at launch, with
any additional content depending purely on how well it sells. Everything
in-game can be earned with not even the option to purchase cosmetics with
microtransactions. That is just beautiful to see.
While I am slightly disappointed
that it is restricted to only one era, I can completely understand why this is
the case. With what we know about them, trying to apply the game’s systems to
the other eras just does not work comfortably for the time being. I have no
doubts that it would be possible for some enthusiasts to come up with a
“fool-proof” way that the other eras could be included, and I look forward to
seeing anything they can come up with.
Despite its various similarities
to several previous games from years past – I’m sure there’ll be countless
people comparing how this feels to the games I didn’t feel I could cover
effectively – Squadrons is a game which I think will be remembered as
its own beast. It will tick all the right boxes where it matters for certain
players, but even for veterans of X-Wing and Rogue Squadron there
will be something new to get to grips with here.
The one thing I cannot hope to
personally comment on in how “effective” it feels is the VR support. I hope
that it gives people who do own a headset the experiences they were hoping for
but, as I do not own one, I cannot say how the game feels in this regard. I
would very much like to, though, as VR is something which fascinates me
in general – I am just not in a good enough financial state to splash out on
any equipment yet. Someday…
I personally do not understand
much of the hype behind the B-wing, as just even imagining how that thing will
handle gives me concerns. It is the widest of these ships by far and its
extreme asymmetry and rotating cockpit could make it quite easy to forget where
you are in relation to the rest of the ship. I have also seen a lot of people
worried about how much of an impact it could have if it were introduced, as it
is commonly seen as a more powerful alternative to the Y-wing. I will be happy
for its fans if it were to make it in-game, but if it does it is one ship which
I personally will not be investing much if any time in.
I would be quite happy with the
game receiving no future updates, but I can understand why people feel that it
should. I think there is a slight danger that this game could fall into the
same trap as EA’s Battlefront II and have “too many” game modes,
and thus just eventually die a long and drawn-out death as more and more things
fall out of popularity. At least this game has some significant offline play
from the start which will keep this game living on even beyond its eventual
demise.
This is mainly why I loathe
EA’s Battlefront II’s handling of offline starfighter play. There
are now decent offline objective modes available for ground combat, yet
starfighters are purely relegated to the tedious deathmatch and onslaught
scenario arcade modes. Not worth the effort, really, so scratching the
“starfighter itch” in that game will never really be as satisfactory as it had
the potential to be.
This game, however? It feels like it is going to be scratching that itch for a long while yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment