It is when you consider that score inflation has gotten to the point where a 7/10 is considered "bad".
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Star Wars Battlefront II Review Thread
- Thread starter Sargerus
- Start date
Nowadays, with that IP involved? Everything under 80 is a critical failure.
A score for the experience up to that point, with the expectation that it could increase/decrease in the future. I don't imagine it's any more complicated than that.
After 2015 and the beta I knew I wouldn't bother with the mp, but not even being worth a rent for a sp play through is the stinger.
This franchise and IP deserve so much better.
Zero interest in this game, but I'd like to see it crash (critically at least) and burn due to the shitty practices.
It'll sell bucket loads, undeservedly, though.
It'll sell bucket loads, undeservedly, though.
Production value™.
This is everything wrong with AAA and its receptions. Reviewers and fans would easily dismiss the cons of these games because the production value is there. It's AAA.
A reminder at how little time they had to make it tho. (._. )
They fucked up the campaign. Jesus Christ, it can't be that hard. The first 3 missions in the trial were boring to me already
"But the game overall is weighed down by an overbearing and convoluted progression system that doesn't value the average player's time, obscuring an otherwise solid Star Wars experience." -Gamespot
Well, I guess the system is bad enough to affect reviews. Good. A lot of times reviewers tend to gloss over these things. To be fair, usually it doesn't rear it's ugly head like this system does.
Well, I guess the system is bad enough to affect reviews. Good. A lot of times reviewers tend to gloss over these things. To be fair, usually it doesn't rear it's ugly head like this system does.
I suppose you're right, and it's not like it's not well crafted it's just surrounded by shit which brings it down to average/above average (5/6) whereas below 5 should be reserved for truly truly bad
I still think 7+ for this is kind of a joke
Maybe they got extra loot boxes. Kidding aside how can a game with those compliants get beyond a 3 on that scale
Get used to it. The Star Wars paint will make up for most of this game's issues. Lackluster campaign? Messy multiplayer? Who cares when I'm IMMERSED IN MUH STAR WARS.
Take most reviews with that context in mind.
Uh oh thats not a great start.
Wait even the campaign is bad? That was like the only thing i hoped wasnt bad.
Just wow
If this wouldnt be Star Wars it would get even worse reviews.
Wait even the campaign is bad? That was like the only thing i hoped wasnt bad.
Just wow
If this wouldnt be Star Wars it would get even worse reviews.
Well at least Battlefront team (if they have different teams inside of DICE?). Battlefield 1 reviewed very well last year and sold a ton so as a whole I would think they are fine.
Here's the thing, reviews have to take EVERY aspect of the game into account before giving a score. Sure each reviewer is going to rate by whatever experience they had with the game, but every day-of-release feature and aspect of the game should be taken into account for the review.
Microtransactions and multiplayer modes included. Power parity and game balance based off of purchases vs no purchases, time to purchase ratio (how long does it take to acquire the X$ equivalent star card). EVERYTHING. If a game has even a slight stench of Pay 2 Win, it should nuke.
Microtransactions and multiplayer modes included. Power parity and game balance based off of purchases vs no purchases, time to purchase ratio (how long does it take to acquire the X$ equivalent star card). EVERYTHING. If a game has even a slight stench of Pay 2 Win, it should nuke.
The funny thing is it already got a pass in 2015 bc of it, you would think DICE sound and visuals wouldn't be enough to overcome the negatives of a sequel, but you'd be wrong.
The trial effectively told me to skip this entry. EA has yet to make a true Battlefront game for modern systems.
Eurogamer reviewer says about the P2W shit:
The fact that it's also poor design doesn't make it any less cynical.
Jesus wept, how apologetic. Of course it's fucking cynical. The game balance and progression is deliberately compromised by needless P2W mechanics, in a $60 game no less.Eurogamer said:
The fact that it's also poor design doesn't make it any less cynical.
Well the campaign was clearly an afterthought in reaction to a celebrity's tweet so it's no surprise that it blows.
Maybe they thought the positive vibes from reducing hero cost would net them higher scores
TheSixthAxis might have that covered lol. That is if they don't want EA emailing them like 2K.
Press Start - "The multiplayer is P2W, there's no server browser and autobalancing is broken, there's no voice chat in a team-based game, and the campaign wasn't all that great. 8/10"
Guess I shouldn't have bother to hope for the SP. Would have been nice, especially with it following a squad of Imperial Special Forces, but alas.
DICE Stockholm IS the Battlefront team. Battlefield DICE are elsewhere I believe
This is what I pictured all reviews being.
The production value on these loot boxes is insane!! 4/5
(best value)
It probably is when you're trying to string multiplayer assets (locations / levels / game mechanics) into a campaign, which seems to be the prevailing case in the footage I've seen of multiple missions of the game.
Those never really work out, but based on the reviews so far it actually seems that Battlefront 2 has done a better job than most.
You can't expect too much from the games media. Their standards aren't nearly as high as every other industry, so a 6 or 7 for a hyped game like this is considered a statement.