Huh. Could this be a return to a decent EA? This is reminding me of the EA games I played as a kid, before they completely lost sight of their fan base.
I really want to get this game, but I can't justify $60 yet. Unfortunately I doubt it'll go on sale. Maybe Christmas.
Also I hear a common problem is that it is very repetitive, and that there is no incentive to actually level up and continue unlocking shit. Pretty much confirms our suspicions.
[QUOTE=redBadger;49133499]I really want to get this game, but I can't justify $60 yet. Unfortunately I doubt it'll go on sale. Maybe Christmas.
Also I hear a common problem is that it is very repetitive, and that there is no incentive to actually level up and continue unlocking shit. Pretty much confirms our suspicions.[/QUOTE]
Ah, that's unfortunate. I wonder if this would benefit at all from having everything unlocked at the start, or if this is more just the gaming community getting bored of shooters.
In the original Battlefronts, after all, you didn't unlock anything. Everything was just given to you at the start (or achieved within the first five minutes of a match), there were never any new maps, and you only had what shipped on the disk. If anything was repetitive, that was, and yet it's still one of the greatest team shooters of all time.
[QUOTE=woolio1;49133450]Huh. Could this be a return to a decent EA? This is reminding me of the EA games I played as a kid, before they completely lost sight of their fan base.[/QUOTE]
Nah.
[QUOTE=woolio1;49133450]Huh. Could this be a return to a decent EA? This is reminding me of the EA games I played as a kid, before they completely lost sight of their fan base.[/QUOTE]
When they start selling games at 60$ with every released dlc being free. They might be able to redeem themselves but a 40$ season pass is not the way to go.
People call Rockstar Games greedy when they took down the mp alternatives to gta v but its because they don't release 10 games per year.
[QUOTE=woolio1;49133450]Huh. Could this be a return to a decent EA? This is reminding me of the EA games I played as a kid, before they completely lost sight of their fan base.[/QUOTE]
Just cause the PC version is well optimized doesn't mean the game isn't overpriced as fuck.
[QUOTE=redBadger;49133499]I really want to get this game, but I can't justify $60 yet. Unfortunately I doubt it'll go on sale. Maybe Christmas.
Also I hear a common problem is that it is very repetitive, and that there is no incentive to actually level up and continue unlocking shit. Pretty much confirms our suspicions.[/QUOTE]
$90 for me. I can't possibly justify that right now. Which is a shame, I mean I want to give it a go despite it taking out alot of what I enjoyed from 2.
But 90 for the base game, and 160 for the Ultimate. Yeah not happening now.
[QUOTE=gdfsgdfg;49133757]When they start selling games at 60$ with every released dlc being free. They might be able to redeem themselves but a 40$ season pass is not the way to go.
People call Rockstar Games greedy when they took down the mp alternatives to gta v but its because they don't release 10 games per year.[/QUOTE]
Except EA/DICE has always done this. Not DLC, but Expansion packs. More specifically the Battleifields. Nothing much has changed from their expansion packs of ol' and the paid DLCs now. A few new maps, a few new weapons, and boom. While its a shame its happening to battlefront, its kinda expected because thats dice's business model. Also, at least they dont have day 1 DLC. And their preorder exclusives dont release the same day as the game so its not as shitty as most
It's lacking content like you wouldn't believe, It'll die quicker than Titanfall.
To risk being on the wrong side of the argument, the game is amazing and totally worth the price. There are 9 unique gamemodes with coop survival too, so it's not exactly that content lite. There's not the most in terms of unlockables, but the game is fun enough that I don't see it getting old soon
[QUOTE=minilandstan;49136353]It's lacking content like you wouldn't believe, It'll die quicker than Titanfall.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Icedshot;49136676]To risk being on the wrong side of the argument, the game is amazing and totally worth the price. There are 9 unique gamemodes with coop survival too, so it's not exactly that content lite. There's not the most in terms of unlockables, but the game is fun enough that I don't see it getting old soon[/QUOTE]
Basically this. At present, it seems gun unlocks stop at 25, cards at 32 and skins at 50, so on top of the 9 MP modes and several other co-ops like Icedshot said, there's quite a bit of content for now and it's exceedingly fun, especially Fighter Squadron. My only complaint right now is the one Walker mode seems incredibly stilted.
I was on a map as Rebels and we had ourselves as some turrets to defend nodes and the Empire had TIEs, , AT-STs and AT-ATs. We lost pretty quickly because none of us really could do anything against the walkers and fighters, but i'd imagine that'll get better when everyone is higher rank.
[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;49136886]Basically this. At present, it seems gun unlocks stop at 25, cards at 32 and skins at 50, so on top of the 9 MP modes and several other co-ops like Icedshot said, there's quite a bit of content for now and it's exceedingly fun, especially Fighter Squadron. My only complaint right now is the one Walker mode seems incredibly stilted.
I was on a map as Rebels and we had ourselves as some turrets to defend nodes and the Empire had TIEs, , AT-STs and AT-ATs. We lost pretty quickly because none of us really could do anything against the walkers and fighters, but i'd imagine that'll get better when everyone is higher rank.[/QUOTE]
That's still more guns and skins than Battlefront I and II combined. I wonder if we look at those games with nostalgia goggles.
[QUOTE=woolio1;49136907]That's still more guns and skins than Battlefront I and II combined. I wonder if we look at those games with nostalgia goggles.[/QUOTE]
I don't think so. I don't think the first 2 games needed more guns than they had. The way the classes worked I feel was fine with the limited selection of guns. Everyone had a role to fill.
Now they changed that. And customizing your loadout would require a larger pool of items to choose from or else it'd be edging on pointless. I haven't played this so I can't comment on how it works, but I think you're comparing 2 entirely different game styles in the same series.
I think the problem is largely that people expected a new, fresh Battlefront game with the same scale and epic feel as the first two games had, but with better graphics, gun game, and perhaps more game modes. While I won't argue that I would've bought this in an instant if it was more reminiscent to Battlefront 2, matter of fact is that this is a re[I]boot[/I], not a remake. Things change, and this Battlefront just seems to be more focused on smaller scale combat (with some larger maps).
[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;49137094]I think the problem is largely that people expected a new, fresh Battlefront game with the same scale and epic feel as the first two games had, but with better graphics, gun game, and perhaps more game modes. While I won't argue that I would've bought this in an instant if it was more reminiscent to Battlefront 2, matter of fact is that this is a re[I]boot[/I], not a remake. Things change, and this Battlefront just seems to be more focused on smaller scale combat (with some larger maps).[/QUOTE]
Max players is 40 depending on the game mode but you really can't tell. Respawn is instant so you're constantly in action and in Fighter Squadron, where the max size is 20, they suppliment it with some pretty decent bots.
[QUOTE=Icedshot;49136676]To risk being on the wrong side of the argument, the game is amazing and totally worth the price. There are 9 unique gamemodes with coop survival too, so it's not exactly that content lite. There's not the most in terms of unlockables, but the game is fun enough that I don't see it getting old soon[/QUOTE]
I'm on the side that says it's not about content and people calling for more content would still criticize the game once it had more content because the gameplay is too simple. CSGO doesn't draw players for 1000s of hours with maps and unlockables, it has complex and nuanced game mechanics, I'm not asking for Battlefront to be the next CS but it still may be a little [I]too[/I] simple.
Counterstrike has complex game mechanics beyond bomb defusal/placement and shooting people in the face?
I'd say that's in the meta rather than the actual game, myself.
[QUOTE=redBadger;49133499]Also I hear a common problem is that it is very repetitive, and that there is no incentive to actually level up and continue unlocking shit. Pretty much confirms our suspicions.[/QUOTE]
Whenever I hear this, I think how games can't just be fun anymore. You [b]need[/b] a skinner box system to keep gamers engaged.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;49139196]Whenever I hear this, I think how games can't just be fun anymore. You [b]need[/b] a skinner box system to keep gamers engaged.[/QUOTE]
And even then, there are cases where that's not enough.
Game development needs an ideological reboot.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
