Star Wars BattleANTICLIMAX

So I haven't read this entire thread (only the last 4 pages because it's 2long4me), but from what I'm seeing - and I quote this very crudely - people are saying things such as "SWBF is bad! and you shouldn't like it" then "Bla bla bla I like this game so whatever and I should be able to judge my game tastes however I want."

Well sure, you can judge if you like a game or not, that's up to you. But, that's not really the critical issue here now is it? Putting technical issues and personal preferences aside, the big issue is that this SWBF is not a sequel to the previous games. Sure it's got Battlefront and Star Wars in it's name, thus making it a sequel, but anyone with the rights to a franchise can do that; the question is whether or not it built upon the previous games and whether or not it's actually a "Battlefront" game. If anything, this latest installment in the franchise is nothing short of a step down from the original series, except with pretty graphics. At least from what I've seen and heard.

In some ways you could reference this Battlefront game to the fact that an RTS is not a Moba, and an Arma game isn't Call of Duty. Yeah yeah, it doesn't really get the point across but I like metaphors so cut me some slack

wow has this thread been dead two years?
well I dunno if "Hype" is a-propos anymore.

do with this what you will :
http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/03/29/ea-confirms-battlefront-2-reveal-for-star-wars-celebration

It's an okay casual shooter. I hear the other ones were action RPGs. If so, it's a step down (or in another direction at least). It's not even a really feature-filled shooter tbh. Has basic weapon diversity, powerups (like killstreaks without snowball but based on map control and scouting), a few juggernaut search-and-destroy modes using the Hero characters. Very bare number of maps.

Really, EA put the least amount of arse into it, but it's still a functional shooter of a Star Wars theme.

My favorite mode, favorite not said with excitement because it's really not a terrific game, is Heroes vs Villians. 6v6, 3 heroes vs 3 villains, both teams get 3 regular rebels/troopers, heroes or villains do not respawn but spawn instead as regular rebels/troopers, and the goal is to eliminate the other team's VIPs while protecting your own. Heroes and Villains both have a bit of class diversity and faction diversity.

Heroes have:
Leah, as support, healer, shield generator, suppressive fire.
Han, as long range offense, high damage, some pep in his step.
Luke, as meleer, deflects lasers, "jungles" and "hit and runs".

Villains have:
Palpatine, as support, healer, enemy slower, has limited range and only one attack, does have high mobility for jungling and escape and hit-and-run.
Boba Fet, as long range offense, with close-quarter high-dps tools and jetpack for jungling and hit-and-run/escape.
Vader, as slow meleer, with massive defense and strong mid-range attacks, but little mobility.

Both have various utility extra-unlockable heroes and villains.

Heroes:
One land-mine laying jaggoff.
One slightly more diverse Han.
Chewbacca, a high damage shotgun tank-character.

Villians:
One grenade-tossing jaggoff.
One massive-dps chaingunner with few other abilities.
Probably one that's so underpowered, it's never used. Greedo? Idk...

says battlefront 2 ... makes me dead inside ... well consider me more skeptical than ever ...

I still enjoy jumping into Battlefront games. They really got the feel of the game right for me.

I won't be rushing to buy the sequel like I did the first one (available funds more than anything), but I will definitely still be following it with interest.

Too soon for a sequel. Nowadays that updating games is so easy, they shouldn't rush sequels than much.

this

As this game kinda sucked, I'd say it's never too soon.

that's the thing though. making quality content requires time. If you pump 'em out like they're on an assembly line how can you expect any of them to have any worth.

this is why so many IPs started going down the shitter : COD, Battlefield, assasin's creed, Mass effect ect. EA and ubisoft are like making a contest at who can shove the most games out the door and this pissing contest is against the interests of developers and gamers alike.

W

Well I know, but my point was assuming that the prequel would actually be good.

To get something constructive out of this (hahahaha this is a video game it's never constructive), what "sucked" with Battlefront?

It had free weekends, four pieces of DLC (featuring vastly different maps and variant bits of content like the Hutt Contracts), multiple balance passes, and the usual performance bugfixing associated with a modern dev. cycle. From that perspective I can't really criticise it.

The normal criticisms seem to revolve around how it wasn't Battlefront 1: Remastered, or Battlefront 2: Remastered, depending on which fanbase you talk to. I was surprised at how many classic Battlefront purists there are, though I do think heroes were done a lot better in the new Battlefront compared to the classic SWBF2.

1) The vehicle/powerup system is horrible. You have to find random tokens on the map to get a vehicle or character lol
2) No space combat until DLC
3) Not enough vehicles
4) DLC should have been in original game
5) published by EA

Mostly 1 and 4

Space combat in SWBF2 was hardly what you'd call "great"; it's a game I sank so many hours into but those levels were an absolute snooze.

But yeah, it seems a lot of pushback is characterised by general anti-EA sentiments rather than any actual game features (or lack thereof). Not just on here, but you give a good example of it. It ties into "DLC should've been in the original game" kind of thing; you don't believe that it was done on a normal development cycle, where the main product had no time for the content produced in the DLC, because you possibly (and others certainly) believe that it was intentionally cut to be sold later.

The powerup system is better in some aspects, worse in others. Sure, there's an element of randomity to it, but it encourages learning maps for the spawn points. This is enforced scarcity, which isn't always great, but it's certainly better than "get a killstreak and unlock a hero that lets you get a ton more kills". Or the limited-availability physical vehicles that took an indeterminate amount of seconds to respawn (most noticeable on the space maps, again - that's where a lot of the flaws of SWBF2 were visible, imo).

Some of these things, there's no arguing. It's what you prefer in a game vs. what I, or others, prefer in a game. But at the very least, I don't think this alone makes the game "suck". It just makes it "not for you". Then again I suppose that can be the same thing.

I enjoy it; as in, I still do. I don't buy games that often, and I still don't have any of the new Battlefront game's DLC (can't afford it, ergo, I don't buy it). But the game and what they've done with it is good for me. Functions a helluva lot better than its predecessor, which I still have installed and boot up from time to time.

remember how the trailer for battlefront 1 was untold levels of awesome and beauty and it said gameplay footage and the gameplay ended up looking nothing like that?

Cautiously optimistic at this point.