Considering the majority of those copies were on PS4's I'd say this was a very lucrative holiday season for EA and Sony.
Shame what kind of generic crap people will buy just because it has a good theme.
[QUOTE=Keychain;49447089]Shame what kind of generic crap people will buy just because it has a good theme.[/QUOTE]
I just bought it.
All the reviewers are bogging it down because it's not some super in-depth thing, or included a menu that started bot versions of multiplayer matches with slight modifications- oh wait I'm sorry- [I]"Battlefront Singleplayer"[/I]
At the end of the day it's a multiplayer shooter. I think people forget that. By nature games in this genre are repetitive and doing the same actions over and over again. Battlefront is no special exception to the case.
You go around, you shoot other real-life dudes in an arcadey Star Wars setting. In that regard it gets the job done perfectly. And you know what I'll eagerly wear the title of dumbass if it means actually enjoying a game nowadays.
Wouldn't buy @ $60 but it was $30 during the holidays and hell it's still $45 at GMG and I'd say that's worth it.
[QUOTE=General J;49447144]I just bought it.
All the reviewers are bogging it down because it's not some super in-depth thing, or included a menu that started bot versions of multiplayer matches with slight modifications- oh wait I'm sorry- [I]"Battlefront Singleplayer"[/I]
At the end of the day it's a multiplayer shooter. I think people forget that. By nature games in this genre are repetitive and doing the same actions over and over again. Battlefront is no special exception to the case.
You go around, you shoot other real-life dudes in an arcadey Star Wars setting. In that regard it gets the job done perfectly. And you know what I'll eagerly wear the title of dumbass if it means actually enjoying a game nowadays.
Wouldn't buy @ $60 but it was $30 during the holidays and hell it's still $45 at GMG and I'd say that's worth it.[/QUOTE]
If DICE wanted to make a super casual shooter that lacked anything resembling depth or a skill ceiling/floor then that's okay. The market will decide how worthy it is. I just think it's pretty cynical to call this shooter Star Wars Battlefront when it fails to live up to the Battlefront name in pretty much every way possible. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have fun with the game but it's no where near as compelling as Battlefront 2 was, itself being a fairly casual shooter experience. Compared to contemporary games like Rainbow Six, CSGO, Overwatch, or even Call of Duty it's sad.
EA only had them call it Battlefront for Brand Appeal, had they not called it Battlefront some of the reactions would have been different.
People would still compare it to the old ones though.
[QUOTE=General J;49447144]Wouldn't buy @ $60 but it was $30 during the holidays and hell it's still $45 at GMG and I'd say that's worth it.[/QUOTE]
Well, people usually say a multiplayer only game isn't worth 60$, so you are good.
[QUOTE=General J;49447144]I just bought it.
All the reviewers are bogging it down because it's not some super in-depth thing, or included a menu that started bot versions of multiplayer matches with slight modifications- oh wait I'm sorry- [I]"Battlefront Singleplayer"[/I]
At the end of the day it's a multiplayer shooter. I think people forget that. By nature games in this genre are repetitive and doing the same actions over and over again. Battlefront is no special exception to the case.
You go around, you shoot other real-life dudes in an arcadey Star Wars setting. In that regard it gets the job done perfectly. And you know what I'll eagerly wear the title of dumbass if it means actually enjoying a game nowadays.
Wouldn't buy @ $60 but it was $30 during the holidays and hell it's still $45 at GMG and I'd say that's worth it.[/QUOTE]
It's not that anybody forgets that it's a multilayer shooter, it's that people wanted it to Battlefront, [I]not[/I] a generic Multilayer Shooter with a star wars theme. That's exactly what he was talking about.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49447181]If DICE wanted to make a super casual shooter that lacked anything resembling depth or a skill ceiling/floor then that's okay. The market will decide how worthy it is. I just think it's pretty cynical to call this shooter Star Wars Battlefront when it fails to live up to the Battlefront name in pretty much every way possible. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have fun with the game but it's no where near as compelling as Battlefront 2 was, itself being a fairly casual shooter experience. Compared to contemporary games like Rainbow Six, CSGO, Overwatch, or even Call of Duty it's sad.[/QUOTE]
Battlefront 2 was compelling to me because of nostalgia goggles. Fuck yeah I have some of the best gaming memories with that game- but only because that was one of my very first online game experiences.
By itself it just really didn't hold up when I tried to revisit it. Sure it had tons of maps, factions, and classes- but combat is finicky, slidey, and even more "repetitive-boring" than this Battlefront. And I don't think the addition of "more vehicles" saves that :v:
Sure- I would have loved space battles as much as the next person, but I think it still survives without it. It will probably return as DLC, [B]which isn't justified,[/B] but if you were a smart shopper you would have gotten this on sale and I don't mind buying said pass because some content for it will be out by the next time (the season pass) is on sale and I can make a more informed purchase by then.
I know I'm treading into opinions here, but as a shooter I don't think CSGO is a very good example, and hell I'm hyped for Overwatch but I wasn't a streamer so I didn't get a key- and the release date of "Early 2015" is vague as ever. Was very split between this and Rainbow six. Almost flipped a coin.
The next Battlefront game would probably sell more since they might focus on the clone wars
[QUOTE=proch;49447222]It's not that anybody forgets that it's a multilayer shooter, it's that people wanted it to Battlefront, [I]not[/I] a generic Multilayer Shooter with a star wars theme. That's exactly what he was talking about.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand this though. Battlefront 2 was essentially a generic multiplayer shooter.
It had more content but less smooth gameplay/combat.
The point is that it didn't even try to rival the previous games. If you're saying that it's about as casual than the other games then it should've striven to be something more. It could've tried to defeat the nostalgia goggles and make an objectively better game, but it didn't.
[editline]3rd January 2016[/editline]
Of course it probably would've failed if it tried, as people are prone to knee-jerk reactions and nostalgia goggles. But if it did try then we could look back on it in a couple of years and say 'yknow this wasn't that bad, infact it's probably better'
[QUOTE=Tuskin;49447185]EA only had them call it Battlefront for Brand Appeal, had they not called it Battlefront some of the reactions would have been different.
People would still compare it to the old ones though.[/QUOTE]
Sure, yeah, but it just amplifies the problem when you make it a Battlefront title. You know you aren't going to live up to expectations because you are shooting well beneath them so you call it Battlefront to cynically coax the hardcores.
[QUOTE=proch;49447222]It's not that anybody forgets that it's a multilayer shooter, it's that people wanted it to Battlefront, [I]not[/I] a generic Multilayer Shooter with a star wars theme. That's exactly what he was talking about.[/QUOTE]
It's not even a generic multiplayer shooter if we are defining them in the contemporary sense because it doesn't really have any mechanics or variance of skill or depth.
[QUOTE=General J;49447252]Battlefront 2 was compelling to me because of nostalgia goggles. Fuck yeah I have some of the best gaming memories with that game- but only because that was one of my very first online game experiences.
By itself it just really didn't hold up when I tried to revisit it. Sure it had tons of maps, factions, and classes- but combat is finicky, slidey, and even more "repetitive-boring" than this Battlefront. And I don't think the addition of "more vehicles" saves that :v:
Sure- I would have loved space battles as much as the next person, but I think it still survives without it. It will probably return as DLC, [B]which isn't justified,[/B] but if you were a smart shopper you would have gotten this on sale and I don't mind buying said pass because some content for it will be out by the next time (the season pass) is on sale and I can make a more informed purchase by then.
I know I'm treading into opinions here, but as a shooter I don't think CSGO is a very good example, and hell I'm hyped for Overwatch but I wasn't a streamer so I didn't get a key- and the release date of "Early 2015" is vague as ever. Was very split between this and Rainbow six. Almost flipped a coin.[/QUOTE]
It's not even that Battlefront 2 had more vehicles, or classes, or space combat, or a campaign, or Galactic Conquest. It's not that Battlefront 2015 is missing one or any of these. It's that it's missing [I]all [/I]of these. When it was initially announced that space combat wasn't going to be in and they got slammed for it, I figured whatever. Space combat was cool but it only featured a couple maps and it was probably a lot of asset work on what amounted to little relative gameplay. It missing any one of these features would have been a footnote in a review. That it doesn't really have anything to do with previous Battlefront titles other than the name and it being a Star Wars game is just wrong.
Star Wars Battlefront looks great, runs well, and was probably DICE's smoothest launch yet. But as a Battlefront game and really just as a shooter it falls short imo. I love DICE so if they are working on a sequel after Battlefield 2016 I hope they see this as just an "oops" and build on top of what is a solid framework to deliver a deeper, more engaging game that lives up to the Battlefront name better.
Okay, that's fair. I respect the ideas of those who aren't satisfied with it.
It just sucks though, I wish every Battlefront fan could enjoy it as much as I am :(
[QUOTE=General J;49447499]Okay, that's fair. I respect the ideas of those who aren't satisfied with it.
It just sucks though, I wish every Battlefront fan could enjoy it as much as I am :([/QUOTE]
Same here
Idk I've been playing battlefront 2 a lot recently and it's really good still
I get why Battlefront gets so much hatred but I do enjoy it even if the content is very light at the moment. The gameplay is still very accessible and still very rewarding. I think a lot of the criticism is valid but some are pretty blurred. Especially when it comes to the singleplayer aspect, honestly the old battlefront games didn't have amazing campaigns to begin with and the galactic conquest mode was a huge gimmick. I see why people dislike this new one but it's a bit of a popular opinion bashing it.
[QUOTE=junker154;49448925]I get why Battlefront gets so much hatred but I do enjoy it even if the content is very light at the moment. The gameplay is still very accessible and still very rewarding. I think a lot of the criticism is valid but some are pretty blurred. Especially when it comes to the singleplayer aspect, honestly the old battlefront games didn't have amazing campaigns to begin with and the galactic conquest mode was a huge gimmick. I see why people dislike this new one but it's a bit of a popular opinion bashing it.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't help when it's sold with £40 with a £30 season pass, that's not like buying into an early access game where you know it'll improve anyway, but instead one where the rest of the content is paygated.
I would legitimately trade this Battlefront with a Battlefront that's just BF4 with a Star Wars skin.
Hell, because of the smaller arsenal and vehicle variety, it could very well be the super accessible Battlefield lite that Bad Company/ BC2 was, and that's actually one of my favorite MP games of all time.
should have'd have 2 main mode basically a re skin of BF but with anw without heros
Is this game worth it? It's half price on the PS Store but from what I've seen and the reviews I've read, it would get really boring, really fast. The scale of battles looked only like those in Call of Duty, not even coming close to Battlefield, and at least Call of Duty has decent variety in multiplayer, a singleplayer campaign and zombies.
Also there's something about the faces of heroes, like Han Solo, which screams uncanny valley.
I would recommend that you take these numbers with a mountain of salt.
Micheal Pachter is never right about anything.
The microbes living in your toothbrush would make a better "industry analyst" than him.
i dunno i really enjoy battlefront. it's got it's flaws, the main one being it's maps range from 'okay' to 'awful', and there are so few to begin with. it is in serious need of good, new maps.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;49450253]i dunno i really enjoy battlefront. it's got it's flaws, the main one being it's maps range from 'okay' to 'awful', and there are so few to begin with. it is in serious need of good, new maps.[/QUOTE]
Maps only being "okay to awful" sounds like a horrible design flaw when there's less than a handful of maps.
[QUOTE=General J;49447144]I just bought it.
All the reviewers are bogging it down because it's not some super in-depth thing, or included a menu that started bot versions of multiplayer matches with slight modifications- oh wait I'm sorry- [I]"Battlefront Singleplayer"[/I]
At the end of the day it's a multiplayer shooter. I think people forget that. By nature games in this genre are repetitive and doing the same actions over and over again. Battlefront is no special exception to the case.
You go around, you shoot other real-life dudes in an arcadey Star Wars setting. In that regard it gets the job done perfectly. And you know what I'll eagerly wear the title of dumbass if it means actually enjoying a game nowadays.
Wouldn't buy @ $60 but it was $30 during the holidays and hell it's still $45 at GMG and I'd say that's worth it.[/QUOTE]
That's the thing though. It's a $60 title with $50 'Season pass' That's bullshit, and the game has $25-$30 in content, which is fine if that's what you bought it for.
For Battlefront, If you paid $60 then you're a sucker. If you paid $60 and then $50 for the season pass, then you're the reason everything has warning labels all over it
Bought it on day one, and honestly I'm still really enjoying it. Maybe I'm just a sucker for the amazing graphics, but it immerses me in a way that few other Star Wars games do. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's better or more in depth than other games, but it just makes me feel like I'm in a Star Wars battle more than any other game does.
[QUOTE=kyle877;49450268]Maps only being "okay to awful" sounds like a horrible design flaw when there's less than a handful of maps.[/QUOTE]
the gameplay itself is very fun though. it's a flaw, definitely. but it's one that could be fixed
[QUOTE=kyle877;49450268]Maps only being "okay to awful" sounds like a horrible design flaw when there's less than a handful of maps.[/QUOTE]
I would describe most of Battlefront 2's maps as "okay to awful", as much as people like to laud space combat the actual maps are fucking shit. Half the ground maps are terrible too where you have long corridors with no cover between CPs and little height variance. The best maps in Battlefront 2 are worse versions of BF1 maps because they took out the air vehicles to make their shitty space maps relevant.
I find it hard to take the complaint's about Battlefront 2015 seriously when people let their nostalgia cloud the massive flaws Battlefront 2 had. Battlefront 2 wasn't some deep, hardcore shooter with intricate mechanics, it was a Battlefield knock-off with a Star Wars skin and some hero characters. It's a good game, there's no doubt about that, but it's not the flawless master piece people claim it to be. The New Battlefront has issues, the lack of maps and they unlock system being not great, but it isn't the "Ugh, casual, console babby game with no depth" people claim it is.
In fact when I got Battlefront 2 on release I thought it was just a dumbed down version of the first game. They took out prone, they took out space vehicles from most maps, the new maps were mostly worse than the old maps, and the old maps were made worse by having their vehicles reduced. They also added a load of shitty classes that were too specialised to be useful outside of specific situations and removed the unique race classes some maps had in the first game. Battlefront 2 was a game made in 11 months and it shows, most of the good stuff is just a holdover from the first game.
[editline]4th January 2016[/editline]
Also, a bad or middling multiplayer game can be made better over time. Battlefield 4 was a buggy mess when it first came out, now it's a fantastic game and probably the best Battlefield game to date. Some of that comes from bringing back features they removed in BF3, but much of it was just the support the game had from DICE LA.
[QUOTE=General J;49447499]Okay, that's fair. I respect the ideas of those who aren't satisfied with it.
It just sucks though, I wish every Battlefront fan could enjoy it as much as I am :([/QUOTE]
Their loss tbh, its a great game and its what were getting for battlefield. There'll always be people who stay behind the curve when it comes to franchises.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
