-
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
That obviously depends on the game. I haven't played Battlefront yet, but I know from another poster that the jump pack doesn't come into play until 8 hours, so this is already outside what a strictly EA Access review can reach when they by my account need to spend some good time with the missions too, and if you look in the companion app or on the website then there's still a lot of later unlocks after that to change up the game.
dragonfart28
Banned
Forget the reviews.
The game earns the ability to belong in the 'excellent' category.
And it cannot be overstated what a technical achievement this is on PC.
The game earns the ability to belong in the 'excellent' category.
And it cannot be overstated what a technical achievement this is on PC.
lolosgolos
Banned
For me below 75 scores are not necessarily bad games but more of a budget filter. This one will probably land in my EA access games collection whenever it comes through
It's not that bad. I played for 2 hours and I'm lvl 9. And I'm not good so far lol.
If you like Star Wars you will like this game. I have a hard time imagining a fan not liking it. It's full of Star Wars style moments everywhere. Even if your bad it's still pretty damn fun. Don't like Star Wars I would stay away.
dragonfart28
Banned
Yea it seems you can level up quicker compared to the beta and I think it has to do with some of the other modes available.
I'd give it an 8-7.5 only because of the content yeah. I think the 6's are the pile on reviews that feel they need to take a stand against bare bones games coming out. Same Thing that happens to destiny and other DLC heavy games.
ByWatterson
Member
The question that I think needs asking is, "If it weren't a Star Wars game, would anyone care?"
I think the answer is obvious. This is a competent, beautiful, but otherwise unremarkable shooter that would not be worthy of any hype were it not for the nostalgia factor which, while significant, is not something that will give this game what shooters fans typically look for today - longevity.
I think the answer is obvious. This is a competent, beautiful, but otherwise unremarkable shooter that would not be worthy of any hype were it not for the nostalgia factor which, while significant, is not something that will give this game what shooters fans typically look for today - longevity.
TBiddy
Member
I doubt that will change the main complaint about the game - the longevity. Sure, you can unlock a few cool items, but what then? More offline battles against bots? I don't think that's what people want to do.
No, it's not. You might be using the whole numerical 1-10, but realistically things aren't scored that way in game reviews. A 7.5 is roughly average, if you're scoring under that with the amount of games that get released you're below average bordering on bad.
AHA-Lambda
Member
Yeah how dare people take a stand for value for money for the consumer.
ByWatterson
Member
Not if you apply schooling standards, which most do. 50% is a failing grade, 60% is barely passable, 70% is average, 80% good, and 90% and above excellent.
I've never understood the AAA scale gripe - it's the same as schools, and the same applied by Rotten Tomatoes.
In practice this isn't true. Almost all games are in the 6-10 range, and few, if any AAA games are below 6, and most are above 7. You'd have to believe that all AAA games are average-good to perfect in order for what you say to be true. Hell, genuinely broken AAA games have gotten better than 6.
JimiNutz
Banned
The thing is, there is actually still quite a lot of content here. Bare bones is definitely an overstatement. Sure there could be more maps and better customisation. For sure the season pass is expensive, but if you just buy the base game you can still easily get 30-40 hours out of this at a minimum and that isn't bad.
TBiddy
Member
ArkkAngel007
Member
That's what feature pieces and editorials are for IMO. Basing a score to make a statement just rubs me the wrong way.
If the game truly feels like a 7-6 title on content, that's fine. But if it doesn't, then score accordingly and expand (make lots of noise) about it in other pieces. It's like the reviews for Dead Space 3 knocking the microtransaction system when it was probably the least offensive aspect of the game when you consider the encounter design, pacing, and story.
Backfoggen
Banned
Choose the score you want, round upwards and your mind can be at peace.
Coffee Dog
Banned
If you look at how games are reviewed (thanks metacritic!) you actually see that he average score is in the 70s. Games reviews do not use the full scale for a variety of reasons, and everything 5 and below are varying shades of terrible.
I played the beta for 20+ hours
I don't think there's ever been a game with the exact same score across every review, so yes, you do choose the score you want.
Pathfinder
Member
I played the beta for 20+ hours
So, it's fair for you to give us your review of a game after playing 20 hours of a beta, but it's not fair for a reviewer to give their review of a game after playing the actual final code for 10 hours?
Just trying to understand.
OrlanisWorks
Banned
Only four planets is pretty unfortunate. That and the generally shallow feeling I got from the beta lead me to waiting on purchase. Seems worth a good $30-40 for me (PS4). I'll be waiting. My view and experience is agreeing a lot with giant bomb.
Where have I given my review?
RedAssedApe
Banned
Spoiled with content you mean.
TBiddy
Member
I played the beta for 20+ hours
So the whole "I haven't played Battlefront" was.. uhmm.. yeah. I don't get it.
Bottomline, though, is that 10 hours is a reasonable amount of time to review an online shooter.
To be fair, they basically used the COD loadout system... I'd give them more credit if they didn't do the level-up/unlock gig. But they did, so the comparisons are justified.
Backfoggen
Banned
I'm talking about the aggregate. And optimally you shouldn't "want" any score.I played the beta for 20+ hours
I don't think there's ever been a game with the exact same score across every review, so yes, you do choose the score you want.
It was... immediately explained after the comma why I mentioned that I haven't played the full game yet. I don't have first hand experience of how quickly you can unlock things, I just know roughly how long it takes you to unlock the jump pack.
I'll just continue to strongly disagree with you on the 10 hours thing.
The way it tends to work now is the game will go into the Vault (EA Access) and they will then try to sell you the season pass
kriskrosbbk
Member
Yeah those punks from EA decided to release it tomorrow in EU.Thats why.
Xan Kriegor
Banned
So the general consensus is that the game is fun but content is lacking? That's not too bad！
Triggerhappytel
Member
We'll be tracking on OpenCritic: http://opencritic.com/#!game/1511/star-wars-battlefront
First batch (20 reviews in)
Game Informer announced they're holding off until servers come up, and PSU mentioned it later in this thread. Not many other publications weighing in though, which is pretty interesting... I guess not many attended the review event? Or others are waiting on servers as well. Battlefield 4 wasn't exactly the best launch, heh.
I like your website a lot and I think it's good that we don't just have to rely on Metacritic (largely because I find their 'weighted scorings' to be bullshit), but it always strikes me as a little disingenuous when I see 6/10 scores given such a dark orange colour - let's not forget that 6/10 is still above average which implies it's worth your time, and 5/10 should be the baseline every review works from. I would say that high scores should be coloured with green, average scores should be yellow, and bad scores should be red. Making scores which are average or close to average dark orange or red seems a little unfair, unless you're working from the '7/10 is average with most publications' line of thought.
There are also concerns about the perceived shallowness of the core game itself. Most often I've heard that the game is fun, but it has a very low skill ceiling. There's not much to being really good at it.
That's kinda how I felt with the beta. Had 40+ kills in several matches with only a few hours at most of playtime.
thursday in EU, not tomorrow
I got in a Walker Assault game, but it hung mid match. Xbox One with latest patch.
Impulsor
Member
Yeah, after like 3 days from early access, you could see the population fall. Yesterday on PC it was sometiems nearly impossible to find a Walker Assault match with people in it, and when you did, tyou had to wait.
Why is that a bad thing though?
The fact of the matter is, no review sites uses the 0-10 scale when judging AAA games, and even fewer use a 5-10 scale.
Some folks get bored with games once they feel like they've figured them out. The challenge and sense of accomplishment you get when playing fades. With SW Battlefront, it seems as if there's not a whole lot to figure out.