Star Wars: Battlefront 2, yet another decent game that got destroyed

[DynamiteCop 2,109]

The campaign is not bad, it reminds me a lot of Dark Forces and Star Wars games of old. I know the lootbox thing got out of control but overall it's not a bad package if you're not super invested in it. The campaign seems to be a decent length, the environments are great. The sound is fantastic, the core gameplay mechanics are quite good, the graphics are excellent and the story is very Star Wars.

 

Honestly that lootbox shit escalated out of control on both sides, sure it was a shitty move the way it was done but the reaction to it was also equally ridiculous. Hopping into this is like hopping into any Dice created game. Dice completely reworked the MT system and quelled all of the concerns. I mean you hear a ton of uproar for things initially but when things are fixed no one acknowledges it. You don't see reviews updated even though this was all worked out in a timely manner, you see few articles and little attention paid to the matter.

 

This is why I don't take reviews at face value, there's so many decent games to experience that have been lambasted by critics who will slam something yet when rectified say nothing. Gaming media is a joke. It's sad more of you don't branch out and instead just eat up what other people say without self investigation or attempts to try games yourself.

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2018 by DynamiteCop!

[Twinblade★ 4,061]

It’s still a game i need to play. I thought the first battlefront was pretty fun and got way more hate than it deserved....I’m disappointed that they removed the heroes vs villains mode in 2 though. That was the most memorable part of the first game’s multiplayer.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Twinblade

[DynamiteCop 2,109]

6 minutes ago, Twinblade said:

It’s still a game i need to play. I thought the first battlefront was pretty fun and got way more hate than it deserved....I’m disappointed that they removed the heroes vs villains mode in 2 though. That was the most memorable part of the first game’s multiplayer.

I paid $10 for it, after what I've played I would have paid $30. There's so many decent games out there to experience that people refuse to even try because it didn't score this or people are saying that, and it just ruins gaming. I miss the days before the internet where you'd try a few minute demo or just base your purchases on a few things you've seen in magazines. Some of the best experiences I've had playing games were going in mostly blind, now I'd say that while more information can be good it's also a huge detriment to peoples abilities to expand out with their gaming experiences. They take in too much external information which manipulates their abilities to make their own decisions. 

Edited November 25, 2018 by DynamiteCop!

[Hot Sauce 2,756]

The progression system overhaul didn't happen until March of this year. That's four months after the game came out. Timely matter my ass.

 

Edit: March, not May.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Hot Sauce

[DynamiteCop 2,109]

11 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

The progression system overhaul didn't happen until March of this year. That's four months after the game came out. Timely matter my ass.

 

Edit: March, not May. Four months is better, but still not timely.

It was fine though because they removed the entire system almost immediately and it took them as you said four months to rework it and reimplement it in a way that didn't negatively impact anything. It's almost reminiscent of the Xbox One 2013 stuff, like something that didn't actually get put in place swayed people regardless of its implementation or not. A bunch of people freak out about something, it's handled immediately and then they still cry about it for months and still don't buy the game. Like how retarded can you be? Your feedback fixed the problem you bitching about, buy the game, play the game, they fixed what you didn't like...

 

This online mob mentality is certifiable retardation, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. I don't even understand how developers don't just close the doors and say fuck you to this entire industry. It's nothing but a bunch of whiny entitled people who have no semblance of tactfulness or ability to humble themselves and try to get things worked out in decent manner. It's like a bunch of SJW's.

Edited November 25, 2018 by DynamiteCop!

[Hot Sauce 2,756]

10 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

It was fine though because they removed the entire system almost immediately and it took them as you said four months to rework it and reimplement it in a way that didn't negatively impact anything.

They didn't remove the entire system almost immediately, they just removed the ability to buy loot crates with money. The issue was the underlying progression system of randomized loot boxes and the removal of a payment option is acknowledged in the reviews in the midst of their skewering of the game for the progression system that went unchanged until that overhaul in March.

 

Now, four months isn't ultimately that long and games are becoming more service based even when they don't have developers frantically trying to right the ship, so a traditional review is becoming more and more useless. I agree with that aspect of the criticism, but I don't see how the blame lays at the feet of gaming media. How do you keep up with the onslaught of new games and check every game that gets an update? It's not like they didn't cover the overhaul either as there's plenty of coverage. Shit, IGN alone has 3 videos uploaded on the day of the announcement dedicated to it.

[jehurey 3,313]

This guy is finding the bright side of games..................that just happened to have been "X enhanced".

[madmaltese★ 2,701]

1 hour ago, DynamiteCop! said:

 It's sad more of you don't branch out and instead just eat up what other people say without self investigation or attempts to try games yourself.

 

You're talking about games that a lot of us have already played. This being another one (just like Andromeda). So you're the one that's actually taken this long to give it a go. 

[DynamiteCop 2,109]

23 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

They didn't remove the entire system almost immediately, they just removed the ability to buy loot crates with money. The issue was the underlying progression system of randomized loot boxes and the removal of a payment option is acknowledged in the reviews in the midst of their skewering of the game for the progression system that went unchanged until that overhaul in March.

 

Now, four months isn't ultimately that long and games are becoming more service based even when they don't have developers frantically trying to right the ship, so a traditional review is becoming more and more useless. I agree with that aspect of the criticism, but I don't see how the blame lays at the feet of gaming media. How do you keep up with the onslaught of new games and check every game that gets an update? It's not like they didn't cover the overhaul either as there's plenty of coverage. Shit, IGN alone has 3 videos uploaded on the day of the announcement dedicated to it.

From launch they continued to adjust the balance and systems of the game and the way progression was handled through updates, after reading your post I looked into it and the change logs for all versions leading up to 2.0 more than provide enough information as to all the tweaks and changes they made. 2.0 was just the biggest one and the reimplementation of MT's, but they had made several efforts before 2.0 went into effect so it being a problem from MT removal isn't exactly accurate. 

 

Think of it like a retraction printed in a newspaper, the main story that was damning will be on the front page and the focus of attention for weeks and weeks while a retraction will be printed somewhere in the back of the paper sometime after, it will be small and it won't be pushed. That's kind of the long and short of what happens in the game industry in terms of media and attention, problems are pushed for weeks but when they're fixed or changes are made they get limited attention. Sure relevance has to be taken into account but it should be made more informative and better broadcast so people understand that this product we trashed for weeks and weeks is no longer problematic.

 

7 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

 

You're talking about games that a lot of us have already played. This being another one (just like Andromeda). So you're the one that's actually taken this long to give it a go. 

I'm sure few actually played either around here. I purchase games at my own pace and in no particular order. I still don't have God of War or Horizon but I bought Detroit, Tetris and Astrobot the day of release. 

 

[madmaltese★ 2,701]

1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said:

 

I'm sure few actually played either around here. I purchase games at my own pace and in no particular order. I still don't have God of War or Horizon but I bought Detroit, Tetris and Astrobot the day of release. 

 

No one is telling you to not play games at your own pace. Play what you want, when you want, but all your posts are so far up your ass. This is your definition of 'talking about games' but all these threads of yours have just been excuses to shit on something or someone that has nothing to do with the game. 

[DynamiteCop 2,109]

2 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

No one is telling you to not play games at your own pace. Play what you want, when you want, but all your posts are so far up your ass. This is your definition of 'talking about games' but all these threads of yours have just been excuses to shit on something or someone that has nothing to do with the game. 

Do you think it's undue or something? Do you know where you are? The people you're around? The way they talk about any game that doesn't hit a certain threshold whether critically or commercial yet I'm the one out of line for pointing it out?

 

Are you on drugs kid?

[madmaltese★ 2,701]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

Do you think it's undue or something? Do you know where you are? The people you're around? The way they talk about any game that doesn't hit a certain threshold whether critically or commercial yet I'm the one out of line for pointing it out?

 

Are you on drugs kid?

'but all your posts are so far up your ass'

 

Thanks for proving my point.

 

It still amazes me you can't tell the difference between SW trolling and actual real discussion here. Probably cause you take it all so seriously.

It's not hard.

Sales thread = SW style thread talking about numbers in a SW way

Review thread = only thing that matters is the score given and 'ownage' is assigned based on it

etc

 

then there is:

WDYPT thread = real thread, everyone talking properly about what they play (a thread you never visit)

OT threads like RDR2, GoW, etc = all proper threads where ppl talk seriously about their impressions on the game, no SW style talk. 

etc

[Hot Sauce 2,756]

16 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

From launch they continued to adjust the balance and systems of the game and the way progression was handled through updates, after reading your post I looked into it and the change logs for all versions leading up to 2.0 more than provide enough information as to all the tweaks and changes they made. 2.0 was just the biggest one and the reimplementation of MT's, but they had made several efforts before 2.0 went into effect so it being a problem from MT removal isn't exactly accurate. 

Which patches in particular applied to the progression system? I checked the 1.1 and 1.2 patch notes and all that had was map changes, gameplay balancing, and new game modes.

 

19 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Think of it like a retraction printed in a newspaper, the main story that was damning will be on the front page and the focus of attention for weeks and weeks while a retraction will be printed somewhere in the back of the paper sometime after, it will be small and it won't be pushed. That's kind of the long and short of what happens in the game industry in terms of media and attention, problems are pushed for weeks but when they're fixed or changes are made they get limited attention.

A retraction is made for factually incorrect information. A video game changing over time isn't factually incorrect information and framing it as such is ridiculous.

 

1 hour ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Sure relevance has to be taken into account but it should be made more informative and better broadcast so people understand that this product we trashed for weeks and weeks is no longer problematic.

They already do. As I mentioned, there's plenty of coverage with regards to patch 2.0. One of the aforementioned IGN videos is a six minute discussion about whether the reviewer thinks the changes will fix the game (he does).

 

And why is that expectation on the gaming media? Fix the game, slap a 2.0 on it, cut the price in half, and have a trailer/press release/free weekend that gets a new entry in the CMS feed for the game and have people decide for themselves if the update is worth it. Traffic will decide if the games media should dedicate resources to it because they're not obligated to shill for game companies that can't get it right with version 1.0.

[JonDnD 2,818]

I like when the fanboys say they aren't fanboys lol

[Goukosan 2,335]

4 hours ago, jehurey said:

This guy is finding the bright side of games..................that just happened to have been "X enhanced".

[JonDnD 2,818]

Is it on EA access yet? Ill play the SP then.

 

Graphics are amazing in that game, SP seemed ok from what I played in the demo.

[Remij 4,824]

4 minutes ago, Jon2B said:

Is it on EA access yet? Ill play the SP then.

 

Graphics are amazing in that game, SP seemed ok from what I played in the demo.

It's on EA Access Premier I know that much.  Not sure about regular Access though.

[JonDnD 2,818]

Meh I don't have that. It should include xbox and PC for one price with all of the overlap.

[Mr. House 3,371]

The game got a lot of shit for it's microtransctions fiasco. But it still got okay scores and sold million of copies (?). Dinocrap is talking about Battlefront 2 like is some niche underrated/under appreciated game. lmfao

Edited November 26, 2018 by Ramza

[Hot Sauce 2,756]

1 minute ago, Ramza said:

But it still got okay scores

It's below Sea of Thieves and State of Decay 2 on Metacritic.