Star Wars Battlefront [PS4, XO]

Scott_Arm · Nov 18, 2015

I will agree with @steveOrino about paying up front. I've been burned, most recently by Destiny (season pass content was awful, though Taken King was great), so I'll no longer put down money for content that hasn't been evaluated by anyone. I'd like to at least see some reviews for DLC. I trust the quality of DLC less than I trust the quality of a retail game.

Deleted member 13524 · Nov 18, 2015

Rangers said:
I honestly dont trust Dice anymore. The shine is off them and their last few games have been clunkers IMO.

Well maybe you can blame DICE for the core gameplay decisions, i.e. making this an arcade-ish kiddies game when Star Wars is definitely better appreciated by grown ups nowadays (videogames or otherwise).
I certainly hate the vehicles-as-a-power-up system since it breaks away the otherwise spectacular visual/sound immersion the developer achieved.

But you probably can't blame DICE for deciding to sell 20/30€ worth of content for a price of 60€. It's not a full game compared to all other multiplayer FPS releases we've had for years and they know it.
I'm pretty sure that part was the publisher's decision.

goonergaz · Nov 19, 2015

Well I'm looking forward to it, maybe the simplistick gameplay is something some of us 'elder' star wars fans might like

And as for people kicking dice, they have released quite a bit of free content on BF4 so I don't doubt this will be supported. Having said all that I wouldn't have paid full price (this should have been a £40 game IMHO) and DLC will only be purchased if I'm loving it (or in sales)

ultragpu · Nov 19, 2015

God damn! This game's graphics is something else on a high end pc.

Clukos · Nov 19, 2015

Reminds me of the original Crysis jungle all those years ago :smile:

Globalisateur · Nov 19, 2015

goonergaz said:
Well I'm looking forward to it, maybe the simplistick gameplay is something some of us 'elder' star wars fans might like

And as for people kicking dice, they have released quite a bit of free content on BF4 so I don't doubt this will be supported. Having said all that I wouldn't have paid full price (this should have been a £40 game IMHO) and DLC will only be purchased if I'm loving it (or in sales)

It's a 40£ / 50€ game at amazon though, even before release it was.

goonergaz · Nov 19, 2015

I mean RRP so more like £30 on Amazon

Sigfried1977 · Nov 19, 2015

ToTTenTranz said:
Well maybe you can blame DICE for the core gameplay decisions, i.e. making this an arcade-ish kiddies game when Star Wars is definitely better appreciated by grown ups nowadays (videogames or otherwise).
.

Pretty sure SW is huge with kids actually. It's also huge with their parents. I think BF is exactly the right game for the kinds of people who grew up on Star Wars yet only have thirty minutes or maybe an hour's worth of time they can dedicate to gaming every couple of days now these days. That is probably a pretty big market right now. One that is incredibly underserved. Unlike with most other AAA shooty games, you do not have to dedicate your life to it in order to get some enjoyment here. BF's biggest weakness might turn out to be its greatest strength.

Billy Idol · Nov 19, 2015

I don't mind the simplistic gameplay. The beta felt great, I liked it.

However, people report that after 10h you have unlocked everything essential and there is nothing that motivates to play more.

It is not about the graphics, not about gameplay. It is the lack of content in relation to the full price and the season pass strategy, again for full price.

Shoujoboy · Nov 20, 2015

Clukos said:
Yes, nobody should take away anything from what DICE have achieved on consoles/PCs. Even if it comes at a cost (reduced resolution, non-interactive environments, reduced player count, reduced level size etc.). The overall visual package is pretty amazing, especially so at 60hz. I am very much looking forward to that single player Star Wars game on the same engine and at half the refresh rate :smile:

I'm not sure if SW:B totally falls under "Non-interactive environments" after playing a match on Endor a few minutes ago, I felt there
was an acceptable level of interactivity (the foliage sways when you walk past, smaller trees break apart and fall down, inside the bases you
can shoot consoles/boxes) so although it may not have the level of destruction we've come to expect in the battlefield series it has enough surface level
interactivity and destruction to satisfy my tastes.

bgroovy · Nov 20, 2015

For decades people managed to play shooters because they were inherently fun before CoD4 introduced a progression system.

Shifty Geezer · Nov 20, 2015

Was there any progression at all in Warhawk? You unlocked paint jobs, but no perks or such. It was more about achieving ranks as you played the game. If there's a constant flow of new maps and stuff, it can be kept fresh. However, I do think tastes have changed. The conditioning to progress in modern gaming (mobile as well as console) means a lack of progress tastes a little plainer.

goonergaz · Nov 20, 2015

Well I had some fun last night - I'm loving it, a game where I don't get powned is nice! lol

So I have BF4/TLoU for more serious online and SW:BF for fun online

By the way, my daughter (who is at Uni) messaged me and wanted to watch me playing as she doesn't have it (and I didn't go digital so couldn't share) - so inititally she watched me play a level, then I 'gave her the controller' so she could try it out and dispite her saying the controls 'felt heavy' (due to lag obviously) she managed a 1:1 K

ratio. We then tried the split-screen which was interesting and fun, the 30FPS really shows, it's similar to the effect when you lock TLoU to 30FPS, I also seemed to be getting a similar laggy feeling so I'm not sure if the game was compensating or if that's a side-effect - I've not tried local split-screen - but it worked really well and we had a good laugh!

Edit - oh and man is this game pretty, sure it would have been nice native but it rarely shows (IMHO) and it's sooo smooth (Endor is a great looking map!)

Deleted member 13524 · Nov 20, 2015

Billy Idol said:
It is the lack of content in relation to the full price and the season pass strategy, again for full price.

bgroovy said:
For decades people managed to play shooters because they were inherently fun before CoD4 introduced a progression system.

Shifty Geezer said:
If there's a constant flow of new maps and stuff, it can be kept fresh. However, I do think tastes have changed. The conditioning to progress in modern gaming (mobile as well as console) means a lack of progress tastes a little plainer.

The game's problem is the lack of content together with the lack of a rewarding progression, both of which are limiting replayability. There are only 4 (four) maps that support Walker Assault - which is the only mode that anyone wants to play because of the higher player count and vehicle availability, save for the curiosity of trying the other modes once or twice.

Battlefield 4's initial vanilla release in comparison brought 10 maps supporting the equivalent "flagship" mode (64 players + air/water/ground vehicles). Moreover, the weapon variety was immensely larger than Battlefront's and each weapon was customizable through ranks and points. On top of that, the game has character classes (just like previous Battlefront titles) which have to be progressed independently. Plus, there was a single-player campaign.
Battlefront has none of it.
Between scarce map variety, lack of weapon variety, lack of classes, lack of weapon customizations, lack of vehicle variety and lack of single-player campaign, Battlefront's initial release has probably close to 1/4th of the cheer content that Battlefield 4 brought on day one.

In the end, EA decided to release a game that manages to please almost no one after the initial honeymoon period of 10-15 hours.
A pure online game on the mid/long-run is only as good as its player base. If there are no players in their servers, no one is going to buy the DLCs - which is where EA seems to think the golden eggs are.

Nisaaru · Nov 20, 2015

I loved the old class Star Wars FPS as they had a lot content and the atmosphere was there. Jedi Knight 2 for instance was a great game without just copying film scenes. I also had a great time with the first Knights of the Old Republic but since then I've not seen any released title where I had the buy reflex.

The pictures I've seen from the Star Wars 1313 had my full attention but we all know how that ended...

About BF4. I only bought it for the campaign back then and was bitterly disappointed. Just an alibi production to sell another instance of their Multi-Player game. A studio which doesn't seem to have the artistic resources to pull anything than MP titles.

Karamazov · Nov 20, 2015

DrJay24 · Nov 20, 2015

Another podcast said this game is "basically AT-AT assault, everything else is not worth playing", he then mentioned the Heroes vs Villains was something you would prototype and them throw out before release. My son was having a ball with that mode last night. Some of these professional critics are so disconnected from the target audience it's amazing.

Billy Idol · Nov 20, 2015

This guy has good points imo:

Rangers · Nov 20, 2015

^^ Ranting about game/DLC pricing, is their anything more tired, overdone, and pandering to the masses for views?

If Amazon charts are any indication this is finishing a distant third to Blops 3 and Fallout in sales the last few weeks.

DrJay24 · Nov 20, 2015

I'm not sure about distant, BF has two mainstream SKUs splitting its sales per console.

Star Wars Battlefront [PS4, XO]

Scott_Arm

Deleted member 13524

Guest

goonergaz

ultragpu

Clukos

Bloodborne 2 when?

Globalisateur

Globby

goonergaz

Sigfried1977

Billy Idol

Shoujoboy

bgroovy

Shifty Geezer

uber-Troll!

goonergaz

Deleted member 13524

Guest

Nisaaru

Karamazov

DrJay24

Billy Idol

Rangers

DrJay24

Similar threads