So I got Star Wars Battlefront recently...

[Paragon Fury]

I was able to pick it up for half price ($30) and I have to say...I'm not disappointed at all.

Literally the only two complaints I can really come up with are that there aren't any space battles, and that the Season Pass is so expensive. I can see why people would've been pissed when it came out @$60, but I don't see any of the actual gameplay complaints people seemed to have. The game looks gorgeous even on Xbox One, compares the look and feel of the universe damn near perfectly and is actually fun to play.

I feel like most of the points were directed at the price tag; if it had come out @$40 for base and $40 for the Season Pass, or $60 for the game including the Bespin/Outer Rim content and then the Season Pass just had two different DLCs in it (like an Episode VIII DLC for instance) I feel like EA would've been perfectly fine.

While I can understand people not likely the Prequels not being the in game, its likely a Disney decision, not an EA or DICE one, as Disney seems to be wanting to distance themselves from the Prequel as much as they while acknowledging that yes, they exist.

 

[JaKandDaxter]

Its actually a pretty good game. And plays nothing like BF4. So that was a stupid early on criticism likely from people who was just hating. Or lacks the IQ to see the difference in gameplay mechanics from those two games.

I was pretty addicted to fighter squadron battles (rented it). And was destroying the competition in the air, as the vast majority likely skipped the tutorial. Biggest issue is the season pass price, and an Ultimate/GOTY edition may not come out with the last expansion expected early next year. Sure the original games had way more content. But if you enjoy the game and get it for the right price, there's lots of fun to be had. So I likely will pick up a copy later this year once a sale comes around for the season pass; or the bundle with the pass. Playing SWB made me regret getting the Uncharted Collection over it when I brought my holiday PS4. I already knew I didn't want the UC, but I wasn't planning on getting PS Plus and was skeptical of Battlefront. But oh well.

 

[Saelune]

Here is an important question, have you played the real Battlefronts? Because most of the criticism is that this game weren't as good as those were.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Here is an important question, have you played the real Battlefronts? Because most of the criticism is that this game weren't as good as those were.

I did play them.

Gameplay wise, they're probably on par with each other. Content wise they're not close, but that is probably one of the few real issues.

 

[Saelune]

Here is an important question, have you played the real Battlefronts? Because most of the criticism is that this game weren't as good as those were.

I did play them.

Gameplay wise, they're probably on par with each other. Content wise they're not close, but that is probably one of the few real issues.

You don't need a lot of issues. One or two major issues can sink a game on its own. People wanted a Star Wars: Battlefront 3. This game was not that. I think it is a perfectly fair criticism.

 

[Hawki]

Here is an important question, have you played the real Battlefronts? Because most of the criticism is that this game weren't as good as those were.

I did play them.

Gameplay wise, they're probably on par with each other. Content wise they're not close, but that is probably one of the few real issues.

You don't need a lot of issues. One or two major issues can sink a game on its own. People wanted a Star Wars: Battlefront 3. This game was not that. I think it is a perfectly fair criticism.

I can sympathize with that type of criticism, but whether it's "valid" is another matter.

Only played the first two Battlefronts, but on the principle that "games a and b conform to traits of x, while game c conforms to traits of y, ergo game c is bad," it isn't a principle I think holds up. No-one was in the dark as to how the new Battlefront would be in first person, and the phrase "Star Wars Battlefront" tells me in of itself that this is a game in the Star Wars setting that involves battles. In theory, that's all the developer has to deliver.

So, it's a criticism I can understand, but I think it's far better to judge a piece of media based on its own qualities rather than pre-supposed qualities, even if it bears a similar namesake.

 

[Saelune]

Here is an important question, have you played the real Battlefronts? Because most of the criticism is that this game weren't as good as those were.

I did play them.

Gameplay wise, they're probably on par with each other. Content wise they're not close, but that is probably one of the few real issues.

You don't need a lot of issues. One or two major issues can sink a game on its own. People wanted a Star Wars: Battlefront 3. This game was not that. I think it is a perfectly fair criticism.

I can sympathize with that type of criticism, but whether it's "valid" is another matter.

Only played the first two Battlefronts, but on the principle that "games a and b conform to traits of x, while game c conforms to traits of y, ergo game c is bad," it isn't a principle I think holds up. No-one was in the dark as to how the new Battlefront would be in first person, and the phrase "Star Wars Battlefront" tells me in of itself that this is a game in the Star Wars setting that involves battles. In theory, that's all the developer has to deliver.

So, it's a criticism I can understand, but I think it's far better to judge a piece of media based on its own qualities rather than pre-supposed qualities, even if it bears a similar namesake.

Its about promises and expectations. If you call something X and yet give us Y, well that's misleading. Even if Y is good, its not what was promised by calling it X.

Even Fallout 3, a game I love, I would not fault anyone who had wanted it to be like Fallout 1 and 2. I still think its a great game, but I love The Elder Scrolls, and Bethesda did turn Fallout into TES with guns. So even for a game I love, I think the criticism is valid. If the next Elder Scrolls game was made like Fallout 1 or 2, Id be upset.

There are plenty of Star Wars games. They could have just made a Star Wars war game, and not called it Battlefront. Maybe comparisons would be made, but atleast then it wouldn't have suggested a promise it didn't keep due to its name.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Its actually a pretty good game. And plays nothing like BF4. So that was a stupid early on criticism likely from people who was just hating. Or lacks the IQ to see the difference in gameplay mechanics from those two games.

God I hated people who said that... One guy I asked on YouTube said it he "can't explain it, it just feels like it". Suuuurrrreeeeee... The only thing that I hated more was when people said it only had four maps. Yeah, it only had four maps on the larger modes, but when you consider the smaller modes and the offline maps, the game has more than 10 maps, easy.

OT: It's not a horrid game. It's a very beautiful but unfortunately simple game. And as everyone predicted, the DLC is pretty much fixing the game, and that's a problem.

But hey, they have been adding significant updates to the game. You can do combat rolls, they have added 3 new maps, allowed offline mode maps in online matches, and most excitingly, you can now play online modes offline with bots.

When the season pass is like 5 or 10 bucks I will certainly pick it up.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip.

As has been mentioned: most of the complaints about the game came from comparing it to the previous games...particularly BFII.

BFII had space battles, prequel factions, a pretty decent little campaign, and galactic conquest mode. This game had none of those things. The other issue was that - at least at launch - there were Pay To Win aspects built into it. Hell, people that pre-ordered the game instantly got a pistol that's the last weapon you unlock through regular progression...and evidently this post is (or at least was) objectively the best weapon in the game due to it's accuracy at long ranges.

Then there were the balancing issues (again: these are just the complaints for the game at launch, they could have been fixed by now, but I haven't really been paying attention to the game and it's updates). Apparently on the Walker Assault maps - which, at the time, were the most fun ones to play - the Empire had a noticeable advantage.

Like I said, the game could be great by now, these are just some of the bigger issues that people had with the game when it first came out.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

For thirty dollars it's a fine game. I bought it at full price--refuse to touch the season pass until everything is out and then I'll think about it--and I accepted it for what is was: A shell of a game with a very pretty coat of paint. I had fun playing it, no doubt, and even after getting the platinum I still boot it up from time to time just to feel like I'm in the middle of a battle, but the game really was bare bones basic at launch. And THAT, I think, it what most of the people were upset about. There really wasn't much there to justify spending sixty dollars unless you are a die hard Star Wars fan--which I admit I am. There was no single player, which ticked off a lot of people because even though Battlefront and Battlefront II were nothing to write home about, at least they were there (this is made even more odd by the fact that missions were included and have their own cutscenes, showing what could have been). There are no classes, so it does seem like a bit of a dumbed down version. Space battles, something that apparently a LOT of people enjoyed in II and I liked as well, were cut out and replaced with a rather mediocre dogfight mode that, while still fun, could certainly be improved on.
And the icing on top was EA saying that there was a season pass that cost the same amount as the actual game. In other words, in order to get the complete version of this game, you have to buy the game twice.

That is where the anger comes from I believe. The game isn't bad by most stretches of the imagination, but knowing what it could have been--and honestly what it SHOULD have been--and then being told you had to pay extra to even get the full game is what ticked off a lot of people. The original price for what we got was not worth it.

 

[Hawki]

Even Fallout 3, a game I love, I would not fault anyone who had wanted it to be like Fallout 1 and 2. I still think its a great game, but I love The Elder Scrolls, and Bethesda did turn Fallout into TES with guns. So even for a game I love, I think the criticism is valid. If the next Elder Scrolls game was made like Fallout 1 or 2, Id be upset.

Which is pretty much my point. I think it's quite understandable to say something's different from what I'm used to, and therefore don't like it, but to say it's bad because of said reason is another matter.

 

[Saelune]

Even Fallout 3, a game I love, I would not fault anyone who had wanted it to be like Fallout 1 and 2. I still think its a great game, but I love The Elder Scrolls, and Bethesda did turn Fallout into TES with guns. So even for a game I love, I think the criticism is valid. If the next Elder Scrolls game was made like Fallout 1 or 2, Id be upset.

Which is pretty much my point. I think it's quite understandable to say something's different from what I'm used to, and therefore don't like it, but to say it's bad because of said reason is another matter.

Doesn't mean the game shouldn't be criticized for not being what it should have been though.

 

[Hawki]

Even Fallout 3, a game I love, I would not fault anyone who had wanted it to be like Fallout 1 and 2. I still think its a great game, but I love The Elder Scrolls, and Bethesda did turn Fallout into TES with guns. So even for a game I love, I think the criticism is valid. If the next Elder Scrolls game was made like Fallout 1 or 2, Id be upset.

Which is pretty much my point. I think it's quite understandable to say something's different from what I'm used to, and therefore don't like it, but to say it's bad because of said reason is another matter.

Doesn't mean the game shouldn't be criticized for not being what it should have been though.

Well then I have to disagree again. Granted, I'm the wrong person to be discussing Fallout with, but while I've heard plenty of gripes about the style of FO3, that hardly counts as objective critique. It's a Fallout game set in the Fallout universe, and as far as I'm aware, there was never any duplicity as to the style of game it was going to be (first person open world RPG). Not saying that it's immune to critique, but saying "it's not like Fallout 1 & 2" is hardly a criticism in of itself.

To use an example I'm more knowledgable in, there's the Resident Evil series. First one I played was Nemesis, and I'd played all the major installments and a number of spin-offs prior to RE4, which is where the series shifted in nature to be more action focused. Can I say that RE4 is in the same spirit as the previous games? No. That spirit is more intact than, say, RE5, but it's a noticable shift. Is it reasonable to say "I don't like RE4 because it's different? Yes, that's fair - I've admitted to being put off by RE5, which to me, was a shift too far into the action end of the spectrum. Do I think that's an objective criticism in of itself? No, because it's a criticism based on expectation and conception rather than execution. RE4 is actually my favorite installment in the series and RE5 is, appropriately enough, the #5 game for me. Because evaluating RE4 on its own terms, it is, IMO, an excellent game, and even RE5 is very solid when looked at on its own terms. I'm far more concerned with what a product is than what it's supposedly meant to be - same reason I consider Halo Wars to be superior to Halo 4 and ODST, even though those two are "truer" Halo games (FPS rather than RTS.

 

[Saelune]

Even Fallout 3, a game I love, I would not fault anyone who had wanted it to be like Fallout 1 and 2. I still think its a great game, but I love The Elder Scrolls, and Bethesda did turn Fallout into TES with guns. So even for a game I love, I think the criticism is valid. If the next Elder Scrolls game was made like Fallout 1 or 2, Id be upset.

Which is pretty much my point. I think it's quite understandable to say something's different from what I'm used to, and therefore don't like it, but to say it's bad because of said reason is another matter.

Doesn't mean the game shouldn't be criticized for not being what it should have been though.

Well then I have to disagree again. Granted, I'm the wrong person to be discussing Fallout with, but while I've heard plenty of gripes about the style of FO3, that hardly counts as objective critique. It's a Fallout game set in the Fallout universe, and as far as I'm aware, there was never any duplicity as to the style of game it was going to be (first person open world RPG). Not saying that it's immune to critique, but saying "it's not like Fallout 1 & 2" is hardly a criticism in of itself.

To use an example I'm more knowledgable in, there's the Resident Evil series. First one I played was Nemesis, and I'd played all the major installments and a number of spin-offs prior to RE4, which is where the series shifted in nature to be more action focused. Can I say that RE4 is in the same spirit as the previous games? No. That spirit is more intact than, say, RE5, but it's a noticable shift. Is it reasonable to say "I don't like RE4 because it's different? Yes, that's fair - I've admitted to being put off by RE5, which to me, was a shift too far into the action end of the spectrum. Do I think that's an objective criticism in of itself? No, because it's a criticism based on expectation and conception rather than execution. RE4 is actually my favorite installment in the series and RE5 is, appropriately enough, the #5 game for me. Because evaluating RE4 on its own terms, it is, IMO, an excellent game, and even RE5 is very solid when looked at on its own terms. I'm far more concerned with what a product is than what it's supposedly meant to be - same reason I consider Halo Wars to be superior to Halo 4 and ODST, even though those two are "truer" Halo games (FPS rather than RTS.

Ok, I will put it this way. Just because its good on its own, doesn't invalidate the criticism of it not being what it should have been.

It would be like ordering a Burger at a restaurant, then getting a salad. Was a great salad, but you ordered and wanted a burger. Then someone tries your salad, and is like "Why are you complaining? Its delicious!"

 

[Hawki]

Ok, I will put it this way. Just because its good on its own, doesn't invalidate the criticism of it not being what it should have been.

It would be like ordering a Burger at a restaurant, then getting a salad. Was a great salad, but you ordered and wanted a burger. Then someone tries your salad, and is like "Why are you complaining? Its delicious!"

I'm aware of the salad vs. burger analogy. I think it's a pretty poor one for the context.

A better context would be ordering a medium-rare burger and getting a well done one. You find that it's a perfectly well done burger, but you might prefer it in the medium rare style. And even that's stretching it.

Problem with the salad analogy here is that, as far as I'm aware, there was no duplicity on Bethesda's part. Correct me if I'm wrong by all means, but by the analogy, they're advertising a salad (FO3) that's different from a burger (FO1/2). Now, maybe the salad analogy works if someone goes into FO3 completely in the dark, without having being exposed to any advertising or even looking on the back of the box and saying "wait, this isn't isometric," but at some point I think a publisher/developer is alleviated from the burden of information provision.

And finally, there's also the problem of "what it should have been." The answer of what anything "should be" is going to elicit a variety of responses. As I stated, I'm in no position to declare what a Fallout game "should be," but I'd be wary of dictating that to anyone.

 

[Saelune]

Ok, I will put it this way. Just because its good on its own, doesn't invalidate the criticism of it not being what it should have been.

It would be like ordering a Burger at a restaurant, then getting a salad. Was a great salad, but you ordered and wanted a burger. Then someone tries your salad, and is like "Why are you complaining? Its delicious!"

I'm aware of the salad vs. burger analogy. I think it's a pretty poor one for the context.

A better context would be ordering a medium-rare burger and getting a well done one. You find that it's a perfectly well done burger, but you might prefer it in the medium rare style. And even that's stretching it.

Problem with the salad analogy here is that, as far as I'm aware, there was no duplicity on Bethesda's part. Correct me if I'm wrong by all means, but by the analogy, they're advertising a salad (FO3) that's different from a burger (FO1/2). Now, maybe the salad analogy works if someone goes into FO3 completely in the dark, without having being exposed to any advertising or even looking on the back of the box and saying "wait, this isn't isometric," but at some point I think a publisher/developer is alleviated from the burden of information provision.

And finally, there's also the problem of "what it should have been." The answer of what anything "should be" is going to elicit a variety of responses. As I stated, I'm in no position to declare what a Fallout game "should be," but I'd be wary of dictating that to anyone.

Was talking more Battlefront than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 didn't really pretend to play like Fallout 1 or 2.

As for should be's, well, it should relate to the series as it has been. If The Elder Scrolls decided to become an RTS series, Id be upset, as would tons of other people. There is wiggle room, but genre jumping for the main game in a popular series isn't a good idea. But there is also things that often define a game within a genre that neglecting that is a bad idea.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Ok, I will put it this way. Just because its good on its own, doesn't invalidate the criticism of it not being what it should have been.

It would be like ordering a Burger at a restaurant, then getting a salad. Was a great salad, but you ordered and wanted a burger. Then someone tries your salad, and is like "Why are you complaining? Its delicious!"

I'm aware of the salad vs. burger analogy. I think it's a pretty poor one for the context.

A better context would be ordering a medium-rare burger and getting a well done one. You find that it's a perfectly well done burger, but you might prefer it in the medium rare style. And even that's stretching it.

Problem with the salad analogy here is that, as far as I'm aware, there was no duplicity on Bethesda's part. Correct me if I'm wrong by all means, but by the analogy, they're advertising a salad (FO3) that's different from a burger (FO1/2). Now, maybe the salad analogy works if someone goes into FO3 completely in the dark, without having being exposed to any advertising or even looking on the back of the box and saying "wait, this isn't isometric," but at some point I think a publisher/developer is alleviated from the burden of information provision.

And finally, there's also the problem of "what it should have been." The answer of what anything "should be" is going to elicit a variety of responses. As I stated, I'm in no position to declare what a Fallout game "should be," but I'd be wary of dictating that to anyone.

Well, I would say that the comparison to older games is valid when the new game uses the same name. That should indicate that the game has something in common with the older ones.

If you want to evolve your gameplay while staying true to the spirit of the series, that's okay. But if you want to branch off and do something really different, use a different name. I would say that the Mario games do that fairly well. Super Mario for platformers, Paper Mario for RPGs, Mario Party for... well, party games. Even if they want to make a sports game spin-off, they put that in the title, as they should.

If Nintendo had called Paper Mario or Super Mario RPG something along the lines of Super Mario Bros. 4, of course people would have been confused at best, because they have certain expectations about a mainstream Mario game.

If you have similar gameplay, but devolved or simplified it in such a way that it doesn't compare to the original favorably *cough* Battlefront *cough*, then shame on you, but there is a simple solution to this: call your game something else!
If EA would have made "Star Wars: Frontlines" or something, then the complaints would have been very easy to adress: "The game is not like Battlefront 3 should be? Well, we are not making Battlefront 3, do we? Our game is called something different." See how easy this is?

Basically, if you want the name for brand recognition only, but refuse to put in the work, effort or money required to make a real sequel (or if you misunderstood the brand entirely. "No one would play a campaign", I mean christ...), then any criticism regarding the old games of the series is as valid as it gets.

 

[Liljumpman]

What really sucks about battlefront is that you have to unlock the guns as you play because that's what games do I suppose.

All I really wanted was a newer better Battlefront game but instead got an FPS with a StarWars skin. No space battles, very little vehicular action compared to 2 and inability to use the guns you want from the get-go.

I played it for like two hours, ended with an insanely high K/D destroying pretty much every match, hoping it would be enough to have earned a shitload of points and unlock pretty much whatever I wanted but no unfortunately a lot of it is level based and no way was I getting anywhere close to it so I just stopped and gave my copy to my cousin so he didn't have to waste money on the game himself.

Honestly I knew it might be pretty different with all the pretty damning reports pre-release, but I still have been waiting for a new battlefront for a long time so thought, eh, even if it's close it might be good but it wasn't even close to be honest. I think if it was released as just a star wars shooter and they weren't pretending it was a true sequel maybe it wouldn't have been so bad, it looked nice and the gameplay seemed reasonably tight, servers were pretty good too even at launch. Unfortunately the crushing disappointment that it didn't even come close to measuring up to the Battlefront title killed it for me prematurely.

 

[Saelune]

Here is an important question, have you played the real Battlefronts? Because most of the criticism is that this game weren't as good as those were.

If someone's going to use that as the key aspect to rate the game poorly, then they're essentially saying "I refuse to judge the game on its own merits".

Saying game X isn't as good as game Y isn't a valid criticism. Just because it's inferior, doesn't mean that it's not still a good game.

If you made Halo and called it Legend of Zelda, people will be pissed, and rightfully so. I think Halo is a great game, but a terrible Legend of Zelda game.