Shadow1980 said:
That comparison chart is hyperbole, a product of an overly-cynical internet gaming culture, which has a habit of exaggerating things and accentuating the negative and looking at things through an obvious nostalgia filter, plus since EA is involved that paints an even bigger target on the game's back. First off, if you ever played the old ones on console, some of those entries are meaningless. I think the Xbox version of BFII was capped at 16v16, for instance, plus even if the Xbox or PS2 versions had 32v32, well, more doesn't necessarily equal better, anyway. 20v20 max is fine. No mods? Not an issue for consoles, as mods will void your warranty and get you banned from online anyway, and considering the possibility for people to use mods to do douchey things in multiplayer, it's not a huge loss.
And a lot of the other complains are largely baseless. No campaign? Did the author of that chart actually play BFII? The "campaign" barely qualified as a proper single-player campaign. Just a bunch of standard missions no different from the standalone missions, strung together with a bare-bones narrative. It was a campaign in only the most basic sense. The new game is not online-only, and it apparently has plenty of single-player stuff to occupy one's time with. No space battles? Again, did he play old-school Battlefront recently? So there's not a starfield backdrop. Whoop-dee-doo. It still has fighter-vs-fighter action. Fewer maps? Maybe, but the new game's maps are more complex and detailed. Fewer classes? How many of those classes in the old games were unique enough gameplay-wise to warrant their own existence? No prequel era? So? Are Star Wars games now all obliged to take place across both trilogies because BFII did it? "But they did all that stuff 10 years and two generations ago!" And? Video games were cheaper to make and were far less sophisticated on sixth-gen hardware.
Just because the new Battlefront isn't a carbon-copy of BFII doesn't make it a bad game. Play it yourself or at least wait for the reviews to come in before judging it. I played the beta, and it seemed like a ton of fun. In terms of core gameplay, it reminded me a lot of old-school Battlefront, except it had a gorgeous new layer of current-gen paint on it. Most of the complaints about Battlefront seem to be just another case of people making a mountain out of a molehill. |
You're telling me a lot of things I suspected.
I've looked at footage of BFII and I don't get what people are talking. Visually, it looks terrible even for 2005. Probably because it was desigend for PS2 in mind. Its easy to offer a lot of content when it all looks like ass I guess.
The argument about 64 players versus 40 players is just dumb. More players doesn't inherently mean more fun. Its all about balance, size of map, etc. People mocked Titanfall for being 5 vs 5, yet its not difficult to find action in that game. Especially if you're playing a mode like CTF or Domination.
As far as the campaign goes... BFII looks like a very basic 3rd person action game. Which would be unacceptable to today's standards, mediocre for 2005 as well. People want a more ambitiuos campaign kinda like the Battlefield games, but it doesn't look like the Battlefront offered anything like that.
I played the BF Beta on X1 and I really liked what I saw. I don't think I'll pay $60, but its fun.
