jim Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 4 hours ago, StefanAVFC said: We'll see in 2 weeks. Have you even played it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) Played the beta. Which by all accounts is the same game with game modes (which are the same modes rehashed) and maps (based on 4 planets) if it wasn't Star Wars it would be panned. Pretty much all the reviews I've read and my own experience with the beta; it's a beautiful game with fantastic Star Wars flavour but lacks any sort of substance. A ten a penny shooter with a gorgeous face. Give me shit looking, Battlefront 2 any day. And that it's a full whack game is insulting to fans and players. Edited November 23, 2015 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) This made me so happy. Made a shit game? Just pay as many famous people as possible to say that it's great. **** you, EA. Edited November 23, 2015 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Probably could have just given it to someone who would have enjoyed it. y'know, rather than doing something purely for likes in Facebook.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) Exposing their shitty business practices is well worth doing IMO. It's one thing to have 'celebrity endorsements' in ads, where everyone knows the score. They're in your advert, we all know they're being paid. Sending the game out, unsolicited, en masse to a huge number of streamers and non-gaming celebrities offering to pay them to say they enjoyed the game is just pathetic. Edited November 23, 2015 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Who is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 What's all this about Battlefront being a 'casual' game, and that being a bad thing? Is this some sort of shoot-em 'up fanboi rule? Played the beta. Which by all accounts is the same game with game modes (which are the same modes rehashed) and maps (based on 4 planets) if it wasn't Star Wars it would be panned. Pretty much all the reviews I've read and my own experience with the beta; it's a beautiful game with fantastic Star Wars flavour but lacks any sort of substance. ...and this is why I take no notice of your opinions of Battlefront, Stefan. The beta is not by 'all accounts the same' game/ modes/ maps, at all. It differs from the beta as much as an online multiplayer game can, in my opinion. By which rule, Battlefront, Battlefield and COD are all the same, except for the latter two having a campaign mode (which, thinking about it, I didn't even try on the last two COD games I had). Droid Run wasn't on the beta and that's currently my favourite game mode. 6v6 battling for 3 moving droids, which you have to claim and defend in the time limit. Most of these matches end in less than 3 minutes because it's a fast, frantic game mode. Nothing like the modes on the beta, which just seemed like an all-out war. Heroes vs Villans is not like any of the game modes available on the beta either. You have 6v6 consisting of Luke, Leia, Han and 3 rebels against Palpatine, Boba Fett, Vader and 3 storm troopers, and the objective for each team is to kill the opposition heroes/ villains. The three players which get the characters then get to spend the game using the unique powers and abilities that the heroes have. That's a bit different to the beta map where you might get a Darth Vader pickup for 60 seconds if you're lucky. As for the maps, there was the survival Tatooine map on the beta, which isn't in any of the multiplayer game modes, and two others available. There are at least another 9 maps in the multiplayer game modes (I haven't counted or read up on it, but there are AT LEAST 9 more). There are also 4 survival maps in total on the full game. The Endor maps weren't on the beta, and they're definitely my favourite maps, I'll add, seeing and hearing Ewoks swinging from the trees while you sprint between ponds, trees and Ewok tree houses. There's also the Jawa Stronghold Tatooine map, which is fun, where you can see little Jawas running for cover under their transporters. It's clear for everyone to see that I like this game. But unlike a number of people who have written it off, I actually have it, and I'm not basing my opinion on the beta and a bunch of reviews. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Who is it? Someone who thinks its a 'peice of shit', evidently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Rob182 said: What's all this about Battlefront being a 'casual' game, and that being a bad thing? Is this some sort of shoot-em 'up fanboi rule? ...and this is why I take no notice of your opinions of Battlefront, Stefan. Droid Run wasn't on the beta and that's currently my favourite game mode. 6v6 battling for 3 moving droids, which you have to claim and defend in the time limit. Most of these matches end in less than 3 minutes because it's a fast, frantic game mode. Nothing like the modes on the beta, which just seemed like an all-out war. Did you play BF2? Total waste of time compared to that. And droid run? 6v6? Claiming and defending? Sounds exactly like a game mode where you claim and defend drop pods within the time limit... Edited November 24, 2015 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 As I said, it's as different as a game aiming to be an online multiplayer game can be. What else were you hoping for, other than 'more planets!!!!11111' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) Hardly. But 4 is pathetic considering BF2 which is over 10 years ago had 18 maps over 17 planets, with an extra 15 space maps. With a lore and universe as big as Star Wars, 4 planets is pathetic on release. Other no single player, no galactic conquest, no space battles, no solider classes etc etc. Massive step back. Spent too long on making it pretty (which they have done to be fair) but in the process, killed the franchise. Edited November 24, 2015 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Killed the franchise for the hard-to-please BF2 purists maybe, but they said (maybe as a result of people claiming it's watered down) that it's aimed at Star Wars fans, and there's still more than enough for a Star Wars fan to get excited about in this game. When you consider the depth and beauty of the maps that are available, it's understandable that there aren't 17 playable planets. This isn't a rough and unfinished-looking PS2 map that we're talking about. Galactic conquest and space battles weren't in BF1 were they? So it's a step back in one respect, but in the same way that BF2 was a different game to BF1, this is also a different game to the previous. Aimed at online multiplayers, with mostly ground-based combat, with just a bit of air-combat, and a huge focus on the look/ sounds and feel being genuine. There seems to be a lot of pant-wetting just because it's not a newer version of BF2. No single player? Well, there is, you have tutorial missions (fun for one run-through, but fairly basic) and there's the survival mode which you can play, fighting off wave after wave of Empire troops and vehicles on your choice of the 4 planets. But yes, it's not in the campaign/mission style of previous games. I don't think they wanted soldier classes with the usual preset weapon selections, because the point of the Star Cards is that you make your own choices of which weapons/perks you purchase and equip. Unless you're on about the player skins, in which case there are lots to chose from, but you have to unlock them with credits you earn by killing opponents and achieving objectives. I was watching a review earlier which also said it was decided that you only get 2 different sets of Star Cards (grenades/ perks/ rocket launchers etc) that you can take into a battle, to avoid revenge kills. If you got killed by a sniper in the distance, a revenge-killer could just respawn as a sniper/with a sniper gun card and get revenge. But the idea is that you go into your battle with your set choices on weapon selections, and I like that. I really don't think it's as big a step back as some people are making out. Actually, here is the review I mentioned, because I think it's a bit more reasoned than a lot of the reviewers who appear to be jumping on the 'It's so shallow!!'-bandwagon. He acknowledges the good and the bad. Of which, he does mention the latter in depth. But he also goes on to say that he's sunk in over 30 hours and still wants more. I'll fully admit, as I have before, that Battlefront has its downsides, but the enjoyable parts are currently more than enough to make up for it. I'll be getting the season pass for all the DLC as well. It's only money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 i played walker assault on that lava planet for 2 hours last night, think i joined in on the last bit down the bottom, one walker had been destroyed, not sure if it was glitched, my team couldnt turn off both uplinks, their team couldnt do whatever they had to do, one guy had 600 kills when i threw in the towel its not as bad as i originally thought, do like how the maps are different depending on the game mode, still think the guns are shite and some of the spawn points are horrific and it has the usual battlefield frustration (IMO) of running for 2-3 minutes to where the action is only to run in to 20 other players and it be near impossible not to be killed, for such open maps it seems to have bottle necks which i dont really understand they do seem to have put a ton of effort in to making it look absolutely stunning rather than filling it full of options, there isnt any reason to put 100 hours in to this game, the guns arent getting better, my character isnt getting better, dont even think the stats system that becomes addictive on the likes of CoD is that good think i'll give it until the jakku maps are out and then make a decision on whether or not to trade it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubbs Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 These were my thoughts on BF4 when it came our. Traded it in, Dice made a shit load of improvements and I ended up buying it again. I'd suggest keeping it for a few months then seeing how you feel about it, even if you don't play it for weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 DICE listen to their community, and keep a careful eye on statistics. If they are seeing 50% deaths are a result of grenades, and forum goers are saying the same, then it will change. 11 guns wasn't a great mistake to make, but i suppose the games based on a very finite source (3 films). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 its not so much the limited number of guns its the difference between them and the "meatiness" thats disappointing, they seem to be much of a muchness and not have a good feel through the controller, there are no custimisation options for sights and gear etc (unless im missing something) lots of players running round with pistols like i said, theres no reason to put 100 hours in to it, compare it to CoD, you get 100 kills and unlock a laser sight, you get 1k kills and get to change the colour of the gun to blue...its incredibly simple and yet the majority of players will do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 I imagine that would be a fairly easy thing to add V4E, but I wonder whether them wanting it to be as true to the films as possible has prevented them from allowing players to have coloured guns? Or... they'll include those add-ons in one of the DLCs. I saw that EA posted that the Battle of Jakku will be the 'first' free DLC for Battlefront, possibly indicating that there will be other free DLC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 There won't be, unless the community decides to upsticks and leave this to die within a year (happened on DICE developed game called Battlefield Hardline). Then it's free DLC for all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 There won't be what? More free DLC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 highly unlikely to be free dlc, yea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts