you guy should watch Vikkstars playthrough of the game, an entertaining player that knows how to play the game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyRZ9S_taI8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyRZ9S_taI8
-
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
Sephiroth503
Member
Battlefront 2 had a campaign.
TheOhrenberger.
Banned
10 hours is plenty of time to judge a game. if a game needs more than 10 hours to get good or give off any sort of impression then that is a problem. 10 hours is a very long time.
Ninja Sharingan
Banned
Nearly every review has said it is lacking content. I am tempted to believe them.
Solidsoul
Banned
As always, not interested in a game without campaign. Somebody needs to look at what Creative Assembly did creating Alien: Isolation, a game that is not only very true to the original Alien but actually a very good game.
I'd love to see that level of care and authenticity to craft a Star Wars campaign.
I'd love to see that level of care and authenticity to craft a Star Wars campaign.
Moff
Member
I know this is not a great multiplayer game.
I know this does not have a single player campaign, which is why I don't think it's worth full price, which is why I ordered it on GMG and need to wait for a key now, which is completely fine, that's the risk I take for a cheaper game.
I am still looking forward to play it, beta was fun, shooting a blaster has never felt this good in a star wars game ever and with the star wars craze going on currently this game is the only one that somehow can satisfy that need.
so yeah, I won't refund, I am still in.
I know this does not have a single player campaign, which is why I don't think it's worth full price, which is why I ordered it on GMG and need to wait for a key now, which is completely fine, that's the risk I take for a cheaper game.
I am still looking forward to play it, beta was fun, shooting a blaster has never felt this good in a star wars game ever and with the star wars craze going on currently this game is the only one that somehow can satisfy that need.
so yeah, I won't refund, I am still in.
Souless Squirrel
Member
It also had Galatic Conquest a way for the players to fight against AI or friends to conquer the galaxy. Loved that game mode.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
The game looks pretty stellar. No campaign also probably hurts this. I'll be getting this at some point but if I had a OC running this would be a day 1 no matter what.
down 2 orth
Member
Front-loaded to make way for DLC confirmed. While its kind of rough that there's no single player, I might still get the GOTY edition later on down the road.
10 hours is absolutely not enough time for a professional review to base its score on that directly influences a lot of people's job situation. Not even close.
You can look up my first couple of posts in this thread where I explain why it's not enough.
bobs...onGaf
Member
I hate to be harsh but you could probably fully experience the game is less than 8 hours pretty handily. 10 hours is like an eternity for a game with such little content
That's not a bad thing in itself - I hate games that pad their length - but this game really doesn't require more than 10 hours for a review
There is a laundry list of MP game modes
There is the split screen missions
Is the price of $60 really that much of a deterrent for an online only game?
I suggest you also look up my posts, this is simply not true.
SpaceHorror
Member
I've never been bothered about no campaign. I put hours into Battlefront 2 and never really touched it. I'm more disappointed at the lack of Galactic Conquest.
Still, I'm not surprised, as soon as I saw Eurogamer's article about it being more old school with lack of a ton of progression like Call of Duty, I figured it would get 7-8's. Which shouldn't be bad, but man, some of those snippets read like the game really sucks. I mean, look at the Good/Bad on Gamespot, is that really a 7?
Personally, I'm fine the concerns raised about content. I haven't given a shit about "meaningful" progression in a long time. I never played Battlefield 4 to progress, I played it to hop into fun MP matches for an hour or so every now and then. Battlefront sounds like it's perfect for that.
Plus, it's Star Wars.
Still, I'm not surprised, as soon as I saw Eurogamer's article about it being more old school with lack of a ton of progression like Call of Duty, I figured it would get 7-8's. Which shouldn't be bad, but man, some of those snippets read like the game really sucks. I mean, look at the Good/Bad on Gamespot, is that really a 7?
Personally, I'm fine the concerns raised about content. I haven't given a shit about "meaningful" progression in a long time. I never played Battlefield 4 to progress, I played it to hop into fun MP matches for an hour or so every now and then. Battlefront sounds like it's perfect for that.
Plus, it's Star Wars.
PodcastFips
Member
It took me countless hours on Hoth Walker Assault alone (beta), until I figured out the most effective ways to attack and defend as well as memorize which places certain pick-ups spawn in. 10 hours for a review is almost a joke.
TBiddy
Member
Exactly. Perhaps if we're talking a large scale open world like Fallout, Elder Scrolls or The Witcher, 10 hours is not enough.
But for a rather generic online shooter? Sure. A Formula 1 game? Why not? FIFA 16? Absolutely.
Reviewing a game isn't about mastering it. It's about telling how good/bad the game is.
AmaterasuOni
Banned
Well, this is it then. I was uncertain about the game, but I guess it's not worth the 100 euros (with season pass). Good, there's enough games coming in Q1 2016. I'll skip for now.
This is the only important question I have about this game
bobs...onGaf
Member
Mind linking me I skimmed up but couldn't find them
I own the game and had played a match in every mode and played as every hero within 3/4 hours
Other than unlocking the late game unlocks (which according to someone I know doesnt seem to take that long anyway) I feel as though I have really played enough of the game to have a pretty sound opinion after just 3/4 hours
It's true that after a few matches in each mode I had hardly perfected the tactics and that I probably didn't touch all the power ups But I honestly think I have a good idea of how the game plays and really doubt the power ups I didn't touch would be game changing on a fundamental level
And how do you do that when it's literally impossible to see everything the game offers in 10 hours?
Ninja Sharingan
Banned
I just personally think, with what i have seen, That there is an issue with pimping the season pass so much etc. I am a huge star wars fan, and I understand the appeal, the gameplay looks like simple excellent FUN, but I wont be buying it at full price. We are all free to choose our jumping in price
It's exactly what I thought it would be from the beta and the EA access time i spent with it. Thats fine, but not at full price for me.
TheOhrenberger.
Banned
What if a game is only 3 hours long? In the case of battlefront there technically is no end. What then? You can experience everything a game has to offer in 10 hours usually, and if you don't know whether or not you like the game after 10 hours of play then you probably shouldn't be reviewing games professionally. Someone's job security, or lack there of, is irrelevant.
And in the case of battlefront you don't need to play every map on every game mode to be qualified to say whether it's a good game or not. I can assure you that most reviews even outside of the 10 hour EA access didn't do that.
PodcastFips
Member
I'm trying to say, these maps and thus the gameplay has a lot more depth than some of these reviewers will ever make out.
TBiddy
Member
If we take that logic and apply it to other games;
How many hours would you need to review FIFA 16 before you've seen it all? 500 hours? 1000 hours? There's a ridiculous amount of content to be found in that game.
What about Fallout 4? You'll need to play both as melee, as ranged and as stealth. Also as both man and woman. That's probably something like 4-500 hours as well.
Thing is, you don't need to see "everything" in a game in order to give a verdict. Especially not when it's just an online shooter.
That probably depends on how competitive you are, though.
TheOhrenberger.
Banned
This is a totally fair point and is true about every single multiplayer game. We won't know if a multiplayer game is really good or not until months down the line when all of the quirks have been figured out. No review around launch will be able to give you that perspective for multiplayer. But for a launch review 10 hours of gameplay is enough to determine whether or not it's fun.
1 match in every mode. You don't think a reviewer needs to play all maps several times in all/most of the modes in order to judge map variety and how they work in the different modes?
The SP/co-op missions also take up a good chunk of time, especially if you need to judge how good they are on the 3 difficulties.
Jump pack is unlocked at level 13. This is an unlock that changes up the game a lot and this one took another poster on here 8 hours to unlock. Then there's a lot of other unlocks after that one.
LordOcidax
Member
This is a solid 75 game, 65 without the star war theme.
Always-honest
Banned
God it looks so good... Such a shame it's mostly multi player. I'm just not that interested in MP for long.
Not sure if i can resist. Al them StarWars feels.
Not sure if i can resist. Al them StarWars feels.
Dreamwriter
Member
Don't forget we are getting two more maps in like 3 weeks
PodcastFips
Member
For FIFA you don't need as many hours because usually, the reviewers played all of those games before and are able to make out differences very quick.
For Fallout, they should at least spend a couple of hours into the different builds or whatever, I don't know much about that game.
For Fallout, they should at least spend a couple of hours into the different builds or whatever, I don't know much about that game.
Maintenance
Member
Damn, game is getting rekt.
I completely agreed with you. I played the Alpha, and Beta, and got a good feeling for what this game would be. And what it wouldn't be. Frostbite, DICE, Starwars. Awesome graphics, 60fps shooter, incredible starwars sounds. The gameplay was certainly more casual than I'd hoped, but it was still FUN. Fun enough to make this sale.
No way EA would price this for anything less than full retail + the EA $10 game tax. (EA games are $10 more expensive here than every other game, for some reason). Which is ridiculous.
Starwars fever will get them the sales they are looking for. But within 2 months on Origin (PC) this game be $20-30 off, and within 4-6 months it will be $29.99.
I think ~$50CDN would be more price appropriate than $80, for what's being offered. At full mega EA prices, they had to know they'd take a hit on metacritic. They were not going to get 9s and 10s for full price witth no campaign.
But I have no regrets. If after 20-30 of hours of play I'm sick of it and never play another round, that would be disappointing (some would argue entertainment per hour but blah blah) . But I think it will have more legs than that.
Iriscomeback
Member
Ugh, looks like my biggest fear about this game is becoming a reality...
It's just a very, very pretty storefront for DLC.
Will wait for a definitive edition.
It's just a very, very pretty storefront for DLC.
Will wait for a definitive edition.
I thought this game was like games from simpler times? Why does it take so long to unlock the weapons and shit?
psychotron
Member
Doesn't it depend on the game? Ten hours of a single player game where the campaign takes around 7 to complete should give you a solid understanding.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
I don't think I've ever been more personally disconnected from reviews this generation than any other. Reviewers praise Fallout 4 despite everything but the gameplay being crap. Reveiwers knock Battlefront for being boring (read: classic).
barneystuta83
Member
I played the beta for a long time and still have my 10 hour free EA access trial to have a bash.
I will wait it out and see what comes in the next few months. Halo 5 has my full attention right now so introducing a new shooter would just confuse me, particularly as this is predominantly online. The same goes for R6 (enjoyed the beta of that too).
The perceived lack of content is a funny one to me. There are a decent number of maps, and a wide selection of modes. So it doesn't have 10 'different' variations of the 'same' weapon classes? That is not such a bad thing in my eyes.
What I do feel there is though, at least my experience, was a real lack of depth in the gameplay. While I never got to play every mode, weapon, or map... I get the impression that I would see little 'new' in terms of gameplay mechanics. The gunplay and movement is still pretty basic compared to its competitors.
I will wait out on my trial, I will definitely pick it up if it ever reaches the vault, but £50? Not while I am still playing Halo.
I will wait it out and see what comes in the next few months. Halo 5 has my full attention right now so introducing a new shooter would just confuse me, particularly as this is predominantly online. The same goes for R6 (enjoyed the beta of that too).
The perceived lack of content is a funny one to me. There are a decent number of maps, and a wide selection of modes. So it doesn't have 10 'different' variations of the 'same' weapon classes? That is not such a bad thing in my eyes.
What I do feel there is though, at least my experience, was a real lack of depth in the gameplay. While I never got to play every mode, weapon, or map... I get the impression that I would see little 'new' in terms of gameplay mechanics. The gunplay and movement is still pretty basic compared to its competitors.
I will wait out on my trial, I will definitely pick it up if it ever reaches the vault, but £50? Not while I am still playing Halo.
LordOcidax
Member
Same here, looks like the reviwers are taking more in consideration the franchise than the game itself.
The average review score is 73 across all reviews on OpenCritic. So I would not agree that a 6/10 is "above average."
A game getting 60/100 overall would put it in the bottom 16% of all games scored, as you can see here.
Vital Tundra
Member
Glad reviewers aren't giving its problems a pass like with Fallout (hype blinders were on just like MGSV). This is a step down from the past entry, for sure.
bobs...onGaf
Member
I think the reviewers should absolutely mention that later game unlocks may change the experience and increase enjoyment of the game
Devils advocate though - if I think the game is poor or light on content for the first 8 hours until I unlock perks that make the game better - would I recommend that game to people? I don't think many would want to grind 8 hours for perks - especially when there's no garuntee that everyone will want to use that perk
Junior Mint
Member
I'd honestly rather have Battlefront 2 remade with better graphics.
If it's an unlock that magically turns this game from a 7 to a 9, which is a ridiculous notion in and of itself, it probably shouldn't be stuck behind almost 10 hours of some half-hearted progression mechanic.
Vampirolol
Member
Sounds like the game for me.
Iriscomeback
Member
Couldn't agree more.
JumPeRJumPzZ
Banned
Uhm yes it is a great MP game.