Strange comparison
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Star Wars: Battlefront | Review Thread | A disturbance in the force
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
Great, thanks. If I buy a 12 month pass I reckon I can get my 10 hour fill, and there's a good chance it'll be in the vault (sans DLC) before the year is up!
Hah.
ArkkAngel007
Member
What makes it nonsense? Short map rotations, not much variety in character models (most of which are the helmet-less troopers instead of simple decals...why?), fairly simple approaches to match flow and gameplay, and player base splintering practices on top of it. That doesn't mean that's all inherently terrible in execution (pretty excited to see what they can make me jump for in DLC and love the arcadey presentation), but it's pretty ignorant to wave off reasonable frustrations as concern trolling as if no one has played the game or knows what is being offered.
Fix The Scientist
Member
Halo is not a great comparison, halo had serious depth.
Considering how well this plays and how much dice supports their games i don't think that's a problem but whatever ignore the fact destiny is still a pretty short game. In my experience casual players don't give a flying fuck about quantity but quality something both destiny and battlefront excel at.
The game could really use more maps, but as a guy who played multiplayer games since Quake, i'm having a lot of fun, the most fun i've had in an online game since a long, long time.
It is EXTREMELY polished, it plays like a dream.
I'm hoping for a lot of support.
If you like MP games, don't skip this.
It is EXTREMELY polished, it plays like a dream.
I'm hoping for a lot of support.
If you like MP games, don't skip this.
It does feel sorta like a game outside it's era. Except for the regenerating health that is.
ArkkAngel007
Member
Eh, it was still decent on XBO. Helped with the free mode updates keeping the community together. I just wish the new maps were stronger in design and features (ex. useless shock room).
The huge front end should curtail shrinkage enough to allow the DLC and updates to set the course of success down the line. Not sure how favorable that will be though with a busy early 2016 and DLC bringing folks back to other titles like BLOPS3.
True the free dlc helped and the sales it has had but its unlikely we get the same thing here.
Although to clarify I will be getting this game, it is just that depth and longevity are a genuine convern.
The difference is that this is Battlefront, not Battlefield. Previous Battlefront games had awesome singleplayer content (like Galactic Conquest in BF2). Is it so weird to want some of that back?I can understand people bitching about server issues or latency, etc. I know it's a bit hyperbolic but it's weird when quite a few people said "why even have a campaign?" for Battlefield a few years ago and then when Dice actually scratches it they get scorned for "lack of content"
Kind of reminds me of the old Miyamoto 4chan meme
RedAssedApe
Banned
You say that like it's a bad score though. I agree though. I think that's what I'll do.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Even assuming reviewers are using the full 10-point scale, a 74 is probably stuck somewhere in the range of "good."
So then comes the question of value. When there are plenty of "very good" and "great" games out there, is a game that's merely "good" worth your $60?
Simply Sami
Member
People were expecting this to be the new most popular online game. I don't see it overtaking GTA, Destiny or COD in the long run.
Those above games have a lot of content. Black ops 3 puts this to shame contents wise.
Those above games have a lot of content. Black ops 3 puts this to shame contents wise.
When most of the direct competition is raking in 85+.
When 74/100 stopped meaning "good" relative to the phrasing found in 74/100 reviews.
When one stops looking at the number and starts reading the actual content of the player's impressions.
When we have historical evidence of a publisher only awarding bonuses to a game if it makes an 85 or higher.
When OpenCritic assigns 74 the color red.
74 is alright. But games seem to be more problematic at middling scores than movies at around the sane benchmark. A 74 isn't what EA was hoping for, I imagine. The game is currently lacking in acclaim from these folks. Hopefully you find a different story with Battlefront, because ultimately that's what matters of course.
Nope. What is being offered here is basically 2/3 of what the game should have, at twice the price ($110 USD).
I see OP is linking to the Xbox One Metacritic page. I thought we were always up in arms when it's discovered that a reviewer hasn't spent much time with the game before giving it a score and in this case these Xbox One reviews are based on 10 hours of play.
I saw someone say in the OT that he got the jump pack unlock (lvl13) after 8 hours. Last unlock is lvl32, so there's no way these Xbox One reviews have unlocked everything. They also need to judge the Missions, which only give credits and not xp towards ranking up.
Not to mention it's the worst version between PC, PS4, XB1.
There's been a review event with the PS4 version and the outlets that agreed to go to this received a review copy of the PS4 version to play without time restrictions. The PS4 reviews should have more weight.
Currently it's 77 (PS4), 72 (XB1).
I saw someone say in the OT that he got the jump pack unlock (lvl13) after 8 hours. Last unlock is lvl32, so there's no way these Xbox One reviews have unlocked everything. They also need to judge the Missions, which only give credits and not xp towards ranking up.
Not to mention it's the worst version between PC, PS4, XB1.
There's been a review event with the PS4 version and the outlets that agreed to go to this received a review copy of the PS4 version to play without time restrictions. The PS4 reviews should have more weight.
Currently it's 77 (PS4), 72 (XB1).
The Xtortionist
Member
I don't plan on sticking solely to Supremacy/Walker Assault, so I'm looking forward to a decent variety of maps to play on. Hoping to get 20-30 hours out of this.
I don't think they could have easily done that at all.
Those campaigns are the most expensive to create portions of these games.
I would like to have seen a campaign as well, of course, but it's clear that they wanted to get this game out for the holidays in as good a condition as possible. It's a streamlined but very polished game.
DICE is also working on Mirror's Edge Catalyst - wonder if the guys that could have created a SP campaign for Battlefront are instead working on that?
Silky smooth (60 to 70 fps) at 2560x1440 ultra details, but i got a decent PC (i7 4770, gtx 980)
It runs great, very surprised at the performance and theres a big boost from the beta.
thekiddfran
Member
Surprised by the reviews to be honest. I loved the beta and thought the netcode was perfect
drotahorror
Member
Like, every DICE PC game has ran solid at launch. Even the Star Wars BF beta ran @ 60+fps most of the time on my 4 year old pc.
Also, Destructoid being pretty rough on games lately. They're like the "Edge" of the internet. Not that I don't agree with their rating or anything, I have little interest in Battlefront.
TBiddy
Member
I'd argue, that for a online shooter, 10 hours is probably enough to get a pretty good idea on how good/bad the game is.
Ninja Sharingan
Banned
This could work out well. Poeple looking at metacritic will see the 77 for the ps4 version. It's normally the ps4 version getting reviewed isnt it? especially a game with a large marketing deal with said company. Looks like the PS4 version might dodge some of the more negative reviews, due to this.
Backfoggen
Banned
Battlefront doesn't excel at anything except for audiovisual aspects.
dragonelite
Member
Expectation for the IP and the developer.
You expect more from DICE especially with an IP like Star wars.
Edit: I'm glad dumbing down games too much with little content also get punished by reviewers
Gives some hope for the new BF game.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Destiny. This game will still have outstanding sales.
For a Triple AAA game that has been highly marketed, that's not quite good.
Kinda knew this game would get average-mediocre reviews. Nothing about it was really good honestly besides the sound effects and the musics. The flying was god awful, content was very little (no single player or space combat like the previous Battlefront games), gunplay was not fun at all for me. I hated running for those damn stupid tokens to try to get anything I want like spaceships. Lack of a class system and instead forced to unlock stuff.
Couldn't believe how much and how fast this game bored me in the Beta. Especially as a guy that loved Battlefront 1 and 2. EA fucked up badly with this game and its potential IMO. All they had to do was follow the same formula as Battlefront 2 but just with updated graphics, sound effects, and more match types and we would be good.
Pathfinder
Member
The OP linked to the Xbox One score because it was first to show up on Metacritic.
Besides, does it really matter? You can easily get a good idea about how good a game is by playing it for 10 hours. Unlocking every single thing is not a requirement.
If someone's curious about what scores the game got on each console, they can click the links on the website to find out. There's no conspiracy to rob the PS4 version of its glory.
Ours: http://nextgengamingblog.com/blog/star-wars-battlefront-review/
7.5 - "I find your lack of content disturbing"
7.5 - "I find your lack of content disturbing"
Exception not rule.
Brilliantly. The game would look and run well on a toaster.
LifEndz
Member
Read the excerpt for the gamespot review and it read like something the new hire Mike wrote. Checked the review and sure enough, it's hi. They're giving that guy all the triple A games this year. So far, I think he and I have somewhat similar tastes in gaming. Thinking I'll give this a rental just to see the other stages.
About what I was expecting from the scores due to the amount of content. I honestly would have probably passed on it if I didn't have a gift card to use toward a game. Game still seems like a ton of fun, and it's also Star Wars, so I'm still very much excited to play it when I get home from work in a few hours.
The jump pack and other later unlocks change up the game a lot. Like for example the whole Traits card category is locked out until you hit lvl15, which is next to impossible when they also need to spend time with the missions.
So yes, I do think it matters that the Xbox One reviews are based on only 10 hours and the PS4 reviews are without time restrictions. Notice how IGN is saying that they've spent 30 hours with the PS4 version and haven't given a score yet.
Yeah opinions and all but that was fucking weird to say from Mitch Dyer.
I don't know what spin he was expecting from a classic team death match mode..
The other reviews are largely based on a "review event" EA organised, you went to a venue and they gave you a max of 12 hours access to the game.
That said, it only takes a few days to unlock every item.
Heavy_D206
Member
I believe Battle of Jakku DLC is free, with 1 week early access for people who pre-ordered the game.
They are based on said time restricted review event and a review copy with no time restrictions.