By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - [Review thread] Star Wars: Battlefront

Chazore on 17 November 2015
binary solo said:

Fact of the matter is CoD is still the biggest selling FPS game, ever, and they still make an effort to put in a SP campaign. Why would they do that if they thought the games would sell as well and be more profitable without it? Activision and it's CoD minion studios know that an SP campaign helps with sales.

Oh yeah COD still manages to throw one in but each time the games are still remembered and played far more for their MP than their SP and at times their SP is mostly small and takes little effort/time to complete.

If anything EA should do a Star Wars Rebels game since that's Disney's latest SW animated series that actually followings through from the Galactic Empire's early days with Vader present for the first animated series for him to appear in (in current times not accounting for flashbacks or visions), he also has a batch of Inquisitors to do his work hunting the Rebel cast of the series, I game with a focus on that could suffice easily.



Mankind, in its arrogance and self-delusion, must believe they are the mirrors to God in both their image and their power. If something shatters that mirror, then it must be totally destroyed.

Around the Network
MoHasanie on 17 November 2015

Woah, much lower than I was expecting. I think Destiny got similar scores.



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

LipeJJ on 17 November 2015

I expected mixed reviews after I played the beta... I actually liked it, but will wait for a fair price. I can wait a lot, I'm not starving to play it anyway. :P



Bet with Teeqoz for 2 weeks of avatar and sig control that Super Mario Odyssey would ship more than 7m on its first 2 months. The game shipped 9.07m, so I won

Snoopy on 18 November 2015
Bryank75 said:
Snoopy said:
Looks like Halo 5 is the best fps this year going by reviews.


The Taken King?!


I was refering to new games rather than expansions/dlc. 



Maraccuda on 18 November 2015

Pretty much what I expected. Although I tend to agree with User Scores more so than Critic Scores, but even that seems too low.

Will still pick this game up.... just not anytime soon.



Australian Gamer (add me if you like)               
NNID: Maraccuda              
PS Network: Maraccuda           

 

Around the Network
tokilamockingbrd on 18 November 2015

6 hours in. It's alot of fun. I still kinda suck at it (.8 KD). How the hell do I get to use a hero? 25 matches or so and still have never been the hero.



psn- tokila

add me, the more the merrier.

Normchacho on 18 November 2015
tokilamockingbrd said:
6 hours in. It's alot of fun. I still kinda suck at it (.8 KD). How the hell do I get to use a hero? 25 matches or so and still have never been the hero.


You have to pick it up just like with vehicles.

Yeah, played about 6 hours as well. Having a really good time so far.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Naufraguito on 18 November 2015
Shadow1980 said:
Teeqoz said:


Since when was 74-77 an awful metascore?

Many gamers seem to regard review scores as if they were scores for school assignments, i.e., 91-100 is an A (excellent), 81-90 is B (good), 71-80 is a C (average), 61-70 is a D (bad) and anything 60 or below is an "F for failure." Just look at how many gamers call a game with a Metacritic average of 7 as "bad" or "mediocre," or just recall the meltdowns over GameSpot giving The Twilight Princess and 8.8/10. Realistically, an honest ten-point scale should be centered on a 5/10 being "average." Hell, even Metacritic themselves feed into this notion of a "four-point scale." For movies, TV, and music "mixed or average reviews" has a range of 40-60, but for video games that range is 50-75. So, an average movie is just that, while an average game is bad, and to be considered "great" it has to be at least a 9/10. It's kind of sad that gamers put so much more stock on review scores and have an impossibly high bar for what gets considered "good." They've probably denied themselves more than one really fun experience because it didn't get a Metascore of at least 85-90.

A huge budget game, based on the Star Wars Universe, published by one of the biggest companies (EA), previous to a new film, a metascore below 80 of course is awful.

EA is going to burn the wallet with ads on the same sites that are reviewing the game! and is still below 80! And even with the advantage of nostalgia factor! 

If "Star Wars" wasn't on the box of the game, the score could be even worse.



Tim and The Princes...

Panama on 18 November 2015

Bought it and have been playing it for a couple of hours, honestly just makes me want to reinstall Battlefront 2 hah.



tokilamockingbrd on 18 November 2015
Shadow1980 said:

So, it seems the general consensus among reviewers is that it's a fun and accessible game, and its biggest sin is not having as deep of a player investment system as, say, CoD or Battlefield. Well, seeing as I was never a big fan of those investment systems (they're pointless Skinner boxes design to provide the illusion of meaningful progression), that's not really a downside to me. A 77 review score average (PS4 version) is pretty good, all things considered. After playing the beta, it reminded me enough of old-school Battlefront to make this worth a purchase. And the litany of complains lodged against the game by other gamers isn't going to dissuade me. I mean, let's be honest. The old Battlefront "campaigns" barely qualified as such (they were basically "Instant Action" missions strung together with a bare-bones narrative), the space battles weren't anything to write home about (Rogue Squadron it wasn't), and much of the rest of the complaints (player counts, no mods, etc.) are largely non-issues for console gamers.


your spot on. Its clear the dev is not trying to compete with COD or make this a Star Wars version of Battlefield. To me it harkens back to shooters like Timesplitters 2 where you could just jump in and play. They designed it to be fun for just about anyone. Not that good at it? Going 3 kills 15 deaths, well guess what you still get to fly the X-Wing or jump in an AT ST and have FUN. I agree the game should be a 75-85 tier game, because game ratings are targeted for core gamers, and for a core game this game will be fun, but wont give the the hundreds of hours they expect from a good FPS.

I used to be really into CoD and was pretty good at it, using the Osprey gunner was fun and rewarding, but guess what? Most people simply were not good enough to ever get to use the Osprey gunner.

While this game still rewards skill(the good players consistently dominate stat wise), it lets the people who are not as good get to experiance some of the highs. I am fine with this. We have plenty of other games that are more competive focused. I work some 40 some olds who bought a PS4 to play the game because they love Star Wars. I want them to enjoy it and not just get mowed down by some 16 years at their peak of quick twitch reflexes.

I love the fact this is a shooter anyone can enjoy. Its Star Wars, it supposed to be for everyone.

Another fact. Reviews wont mean shit for this game. The audience it is targeting does not go to gaming sites. My Gamestop had 75+ people lined up to get it last night, a guy I work with said the line was out of the store and wrapped around a couple of times.



psn- tokila

add me, the more the merrier.