StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Been playing this on and off the past week, been pretty fun so far. The visuals and sound effects really capture the feel of the original trilogy IMO and a diversity of game modes keeps things interesting. Nice big maps too so the action doesn't feel claustrophobic. Vehicle controls seem a little too fiddly though, especially aiming.

Not too disappointed there isn't a single-player campaign, although there is single-player content (manly just surviving increasing waves of enemies). For a Star Wars game especially I'd prefer if a lot of attention was given to any campaign mode so that justice was done to the setting. If Dice/EA had tried to do that I fear it would've been little more than the milquetoast crap so common to a lot of recent shooter games.

I'm an addict. So much of the sound and visuals are just spot on. The blasters and laser cannons are goddamn perfect. There's even the occasional Wilhelm scream - I even got a multi-Wilhelm once. I'm so sick of games that pay varying levels of lip-service to their source material, that a game that is this committed to being "authentic" (minus the odd bit of gameplay balance concerns) is a breath of fresh air.

Not that there aren't flaws, mind you. Vader's voice is awful, and the Stormtroopers are unconvincing - they sound just like the Rebel troopers but run through a very, very mild filter. The explosive bolt / blaster cannon impact effects are also unimpressive and gamey-looking.

Gameplay-wise, it's hugely fun, and I actually enjoy the relatively arcadey shooter play (coming from someone who generally prefers the likes of Red Orchestra). Blasting Rebel scum is incredibly satisfying, and the DL-44 in particular is brutally punchy. The flight controls have somehow gotten wonkier since the beta which can make flying harder than it really needs to be, and something about the standard TIE fighter in particular makes it fly funny when strafing ground targets. Dogfighting is also a little problematic, but that's hardly new, as the Battlefield series has had pretty stupid, simplistically silly dogfighting play since 1942, and Battlefront isn't really any different in that regard. A lot of people complain about the "easy" lock-on lasers, but I love it - it's right out of A New Hope and gives it a Star Fox feel which I think works very well.

Balance... of course, there's balance problems. I have a stupid amount of hours in the game already, with all blasters and cards unlocked. The DLT19 seems to have been nerfed into the ground since beta, and is easily one of the worst blasters right now. Pretty much every other blaster is good in its own way, and I've topped the kill board with every single one except the DLT19, the silly Jawa gun, and the T-21B (which I don't care for, but seems fine enough). Starfighters still have some issues. The A-wing is the undisputed king of the sky (and killer of ground targets). The TIE interceptor doesn't really shine, and I'm not even sure how it differs from the standard TIE fighter. The X-wing is pretty lackluster, and bizarrely lacks the firepower the A-wing has in spades (despite having twice the laser cannons...).

Map balance is problematic too. I love Endor, but the developers seem to have not considered the difference between a team garbed in drab greens and browns and a team which parades around in gleaming, shiny white plastic from head to toe. I don't mind playing Empire on Endor, but there's a very clear difference in performance based on which team I'm on. Rebels' camouflage works in the exactly intended way, delaying my reaction time by precious fractions of a second and I lose a lot more firefights. That the Supremacy version of Endor has twilight lighting certainly doesn't help.

Walker Assault is particularly egregious. They listened to the whiners during the beta and tinkered with the Hoth map, to the point where it really ought to just be called Go Fuck Yourself, Empire so that the players at least know what they're playing that round. Endor is a godawful shitshow, and I've only ever seen the Empire win it once - most games end with the single(!) walker dying during Stage 2. Tatooine, by contrast, has a clear Imperial edge, with extremely unfavorable sight lines for the Rebels and difficult uplinks. Sullust seems to be the only well-balanced Walker map.

IMHO this isn't a game so much as an expanded demo. It has just enough content to get you into the game, but not enough to have much replay value unless you buy the inevitable DLC. If this game had come out 10 years ago it would have been shredded for its overall lack of content and replay value. Consider that in SW Battlefront 2 you had:

1) a full single player campaign
2) galactic conquests
3) space battles (a bit hockey, but at least it was there)
4) 64-player matches
5) 4 factions across two different eras
6) 18+ different maps with various scenarios

Whatever their flaws, at least the first two SW Battlefronts were complete games from the start. Of course, they were made during a time when developers generally had to release finished products because they made their most of their income by selling physical discs: the PS2 did not come with a built in network adapter, and there were far fewer people online in general. They pretty much had one shot at getting it right.

Unfortunately these days its pretty much standard practice to sell very basic games at full price, then expect users to shell out even more money for game features which would have been standard just a decade ago. IMO this game is no exception. It may have pretty graphics and a good Star Wars feel, but "as is" I will not be buying it anytime soon. IMO it's one of those games I'm content to play on occasion... over at my friend's house. It was a good thing my friend was dumb enthusiastic enough to get it right away and I got the chance to try it out. There's no way I'm going to pay $80+ CAD for it, let alone all the extra money I'd have to spend if I wanted more features and replay value... though I might reconsider after awhile if its more fully fleshed out and there's a big sale / discount or something.

EDIT: As a perfect example of where this game is headed you already have to pay an extra $10 for the "deluxe" edition if you want to fully unlock all of the weapons and features. Ridiculous.

I decided to buy a PS4 when I saw it came as a bundle with Battlefront. I very much enjoy it so far but I agree with Tribble it feels kinda limited and I wonder about the longevity.

TotalBiscuit weighs in:

huh - I had enough problems with the lack of content to even go into the actual gameplay problems, of which there are many.

I like TB, and he's usually pretty on point with his reviews, but in this case he's full of shit.

Now, it's true that the game has some issues, and I'll be the first to talk about them. Walker Assault has map balance problems, the grenade spam is getting out of control, a few of the blasters need tweaks, the A-Wing is stupidly overpowered, and various and sundry bugs that need to be addressed. And so on and so forth. Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in their lack of a 1-week patch, given how sensitive games like this are to on-going balance problems.

But with that said, there's some things in that video where TB is just talking out of his ass.

- "There are only four maps."

This is just blatantly, factually wrong even in the most literal sense, counting re-purposed versions of the same map as the same map (which is silly, for reasons I'll go into). Even in the strictly literal sense, yes, there are 4 maps for the big modes (with a 5th one being released this Tuesday), but the smaller maps are not "chunks" of the large maps. Some areas are familiar - one of the small Sullust maps makes use of a hangar bay similar to the large Sullust map's hangar bay, for example - but that's ignoring the fact that there's another Sullust map which is a completely unique area unlike the large map in any way. Same for Endor, Hoth, and Tatooine - Tatooine has 1 large map and 3 small maps, and the 3 small maps bear no resemblance to the large map other than the fact that they're Tatooine. Endor and Hoth both have 2 small maps each, which again have nothing to do with the large Walker Assault/Supremacy maps.

Then there's the divide between Walker Assault and Supremacy big maps. Yes, technically they are the "same" map, in that every trench, bunker, tree, snow drift and sand dune is in the same place, but calling them the same in terms of being a unique area to play in is disingenuous. Supremacy and Walker Assault occur in completely different areas of the map, with completely different game flow, areas fought over, spawn points, objective locations, etc. They might as well be different maps entirely, because you just don't fight over the same areas in the same way. For example, on Walker Assault Tatooine, Rebels have to hold the canyons with a big sandcrawler, and gradually get pushed back all the way to a spaceport and fight inside it. An entire section of the canyon network and an Imperial drop zone go effectively unused in Walker Assault, but become critical areas of the map to fight over in the Supremacy version.

- Progression and Customization

I'm not sure what TB is going on about here. Having a gazillion hair/face/gender/ethnicity options isn't good customization? That's a hell of a lot more than I remember Battlefield 1942 or Battlefront 1 and 2 having (hint: it was zero). He's complaining about having a newly added feature that the series never had before! I mean wrap your brain around that. How petulant and juvenile do you have to be to get something new that there was no expectation of ever having and then piss on it because it's not as overdeveloped as you demand? It's like never having had a birthday cake in your life, and then when someone gives you a slice of birthday cake for your birthday, you throw it on the ground and have a tantrum.

"I can only change face and hair, but not the uniform!" My god, the horror, how do you sleep at night. It's a goddamn uniform, and I'm actually kind of glad DICE only put in limited options to change it. Now, I would like to see more variety to the customization eventually added, with Imperial officers and such, but it's an absolutely ridiculous thing to pan the game over, given, again, that the previous two Battlefronts had precisely zero player customization of any sort. Goddamn spoiled twats.

- Blasters

Now, whether you like the "feel" of the blasters or not is a subjective thing and comes down to personal preference. Personally, I love the blasters. I think they fire a little faster than they ought to, but otherwise I think DICE have made the most 'authentic' blaster-related Star Wars game ever made.

But TB spews a lot of bullshit about the blasters, regardless of whether or not he personally finds them blastery. "A crapshoot"? I mean, I hate to trot out the "be less bad" line, but you're doing something wrong if you think blasting people is a crapshoot. And it doesn't seem to mesh with his video, even - from what I saw, he was shooting people pretty consistently with the RT-97. Now, that blaster specifically tends to spray inaccurately at longer ranges, but if that's the basis for his critique of blasters then he's not doing his job. I can get consistent kills and win most firefights out to long range if I'm using an appropriate blaster, and TB is either being disingenuous, lazy, or deliberately stupid.

Oh, and "The Scout Pistol is useless!" Look, I get that reviewers often don't have time to really delve into every nook and cranny of a video game, but once again - disingenuous, lazy, or deliberately stupid. The Scout Pistol is amazing, but like many games with (gasp!) depth, it requires you to know how to use it. Not that I'm necessarily hailing Battlefront as the deepest game ever made or anything, but it clearly has more depth than TB is willing to see.

--

Really, the whole thing reeks of the same sort of bullshit promulgated by prequel-haters. He wants to hate it, and there's no arguing with that mentality. Battlefront has its issues (most of which are balance things which need to be fixed promptly), but so much of the criticism being leveled at the game ignores the legitimate issues and instead focuses upon absurd, arbitrary grievances born of being unable to appreciate something for what it is.

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:- "There are only four maps."

This is just blatantly, factually wrong even in the most literal sense, counting re-purposed versions of the same map as the same map (which is silly, for reasons I'll go into). Even in the strictly literal sense, yes, there are 4 maps for the big modes (with a 5th one being released this Tuesday), but the smaller maps are not "chunks" of the large maps. Some areas are familiar - one of the small Sullust maps makes use of a hangar bay similar to the large Sullust map's hangar bay, for example - but that's ignoring the fact that there's another Sullust map which is a completely unique area unlike the large map in any way. Same for Endor, Hoth, and Tatooine - Tatooine has 1 large map and 3 small maps, and the 3 small maps bear no resemblance to the large map other than the fact that they're Tatooine. Endor and Hoth both have 2 small maps each, which again have nothing to do with the large Walker Assault/Supremacy maps.

Then there's the divide between Walker Assault and Supremacy big maps. Yes, technically they are the "same" map, in that every trench, bunker, tree, snow drift and sand dune is in the same place, but calling them the same in terms of being a unique area to play in is disingenuous. Supremacy and Walker Assault occur in completely different areas of the map, with completely different game flow, areas fought over, spawn points, objective locations, etc. They might as well be different maps entirely, because you just don't fight over the same areas in the same way. For example, on Walker Assault Tatooine, Rebels have to hold the canyons with a big sandcrawler, and gradually get pushed back all the way to a spaceport and fight inside it. An entire section of the canyon network and an Imperial drop zone go effectively unused in Walker Assault, but become critical areas of the map to fight over in the Supremacy version.

That sounds like lazy level design to me. Only four planets, even if they have a few different zones each, isn't what we should expect from a triple-A game. Think back to Battlefront 2 and it had more vehicles, factions, and maps at launch not to mention space combat. It sounds like DICE is hiding behind the excuse that 'making modern games is hard' and would rather sell us map packs for additional cash than release a full game. Frankly I expect better from game studios.

- Progression and Customization

I'm not sure what TB is going on about here. Having a gazillion hair/face/gender/ethnicity options isn't good customization? That's a hell of a lot more than I remember Battlefield 1942 or Battlefront 1 and 2 having (hint: it was zero). He's complaining about having a newly added feature that the series never had before! I mean wrap your brain around that. How petulant and juvenile do you have to be to get something new that there was no expectation of ever having and then piss on it because it's not as overdeveloped as you demand? It's like never having had a birthday cake in your life, and then when someone gives you a slice of birthday cake for your birthday, you throw it on the ground and have a tantrum.

"I can only change face and hair, but not the uniform!" My god, the horror, how do you sleep at night. It's a goddamn uniform, and I'm actually kind of glad DICE only put in limited options to change it. Now, I would like to see more variety to the customization eventually added, with Imperial officers and such, but it's an absolutely ridiculous thing to pan the game over, given, again, that the previous two Battlefronts had precisely zero player customization of any sort. Goddamn spoiled twats.

Other modern shooters offer more customization than any of those games. Is it not fair to compare this version of Battlefront to modern AAA games instead of games from a decade ago? CoD and Battlefield have even figured out character customization at this point. The old games lacked customization but still had more in terms of gameplay and maps than this game does at launch. Is it wrong to expect a game to launch feature complete?

You also ignored the card system that hurts new players. Would it have been so hard to make traits as side-grades or to offer a limited selection of load outs to start with?

Really, the whole thing reeks of the same sort of bullshit promulgated by prequel-haters. He wants to hate it, and there's no arguing with that mentality. Battlefront has its issues (most of which are balance things which need to be fixed promptly), but so much of the criticism being leveled at the game ignores the legitimate issues and instead focuses upon absurd, arbitrary grievances born of being unable to appreciate something for what it is.

It sounds like you're just too forgiving of the flaws in modern games. I've shit all over better games than this (MGS: TPP and Fallout 4 recently) and I fail to see how a game this limited is worth full price. It's basically an arena shooter that is lacking in arenas, weapons, and, from the look of things, a PC player base.

Jub wrote:That sounds like lazy level design to me. Only four planets, even if they have a few different zones each, isn't what we should expect from a triple-A game. Think back to Battlefront 2 and it had more vehicles, factions, and maps at launch not to mention space combat. It sounds like DICE is hiding behind the excuse that 'making modern games is hard' and would rather sell us map packs for additional cash than release a full game. Frankly I expect better from game studios.

Have you seen the levels? "Lazy" is the last word that comes to mind. The only legitimate way to criticize the map situation ultimately boils down to a Quantity vs Quality argument. If you really want to plant a flag in the Quantity side of the line, fair enough, but I'm not sure I subscribe to it. DICE clearly chose Quality, and that's fine by me. And again, there's a 5th/6th (apparently there's two new maps, split between several game modes including a new mode) coming out in 4 days.

Not that the existing maps don't have their issues, but that's a balance discussion, not a criticism of fundamental design choices.

Other modern shooters offer more customization than any of those games. Is it not fair to compare this version of Battlefront to modern AAA games instead of games from a decade ago? CoD and Battlefield have even figured out character customization at this point. The old games lacked customization but still had more in terms of gameplay and maps than this game does at launch. Is it wrong to expect a game to launch feature complete?

What does Battlefield 4 have? It's been awhile since I've played it. Dogtags? Player portraits? And camo patterns, I think? Battlefront has player portrait type stuff (your Origin avatar, plus your profile backdrop if you care about such things). Really, I'm not seeing the issue here. It's such a bizarre and asinine thing to complain about. Do I wish there was more customization? Sure, I'm a sucker for that stuff. But I'm pretty happy with what's already in the game - I wish there were more Stormtrooper variant options, but on the other hand I never expected to be able to have so many face/hair/etc options. It's not an RPG, and expecting it to have RPG levels of character customization is a bit silly. For a Star Wars shooter, its options are pretty good.

You also ignored the card system that hurts new players. Would it have been so hard to make traits as side-grades or to offer a limited selection of load outs to start with?

You're right, I totally forgot to talk about this. I can sort of see where TB is coming from, in that I agree with him that Traits should be more accessible at lower levels. But this is an insanely minor issue - yes, they are objectively better than no Trait at all, but the bonuses they provide are pretty minor. My favorite, and the one I find the most useful, does nothing more than prevent you from alerting the minimap/scanner gizmo while sprinting (and shooting if you're on a killstreak, but if you're on a killstreak they probably don't need the scanner gizmo to guess where you are). The others are things like a small chance to drop a powerup on a kill, or slightly faster cooldowns whenever you score a headshot. They're very situational play-style enhancements, not major boons, and in that sense I can see why DICE placed them later in the progression since a newbie won't even know what his play-style is yet and how the Traits interact with each other. Still, I do think they should be available a little sooner. Though it's not like it takes very long to level up to the mid-level stuff anyway.

And the partner system allows a newbie to piggy-back off a higher-level player's loadout anyways, though I'm not sure if that includes Traits or not.

It sounds like you're just too forgiving of the flaws in modern games. I've shit all over better games than this (MGS: TPP and Fallout 4 recently) and I fail to see how a game this limited is worth full price. It's basically an arena shooter that is lacking in arenas, weapons, and, from the look of things, a PC player base.

Hey, if you don't think the game presented is worth the price, that's fair, and that's your business. No problem. But it's a bit vexing when 90% of the 'criticism' leveled at a game is complete bullshit, particularly when there are perfectly legitimate issues to criticize instead. By all means criticize the game, but if you're a professional reviewer (which TB is), it behooves you to be fair and honest in those criticisms. TB was presenting a very distorted view of the game - he even openly stated that he was ignoring almost everything except Walker Assault. He has a point when he says that Fighter Squadron is a bit shallow, that's fair (though it was saddled with "It's not in space!" which is another inane, vacuously arbitrary criticism), and some of the smaller modes aren't much to write home about (Heroes vs Villains is fantastic, though). But Supremacy is far more representative of the game as a whole, and it's silly to completely ignore mid-sized modes like Drop Zone.

I saw this same kind of toxic idiot-criticism leveled at Alpha Protocol which seriously hurt an excellent game. Now, I'm not comparing Battlefront to AP, nor am I suggesting that EA needs the charity, but slinging bullshit at a game you've preemptively set yourself up to hate is an infuriatingly self-destructive behavior in this hobby. If the game isn't your cup of tea, or not worth $60 to you, cool. All I'm asking is that people (professional reviewers in particular) stop riding the hate-train like it's some kind of badge of honor to drag a game that's fashionable to hate through the mud. It's petulant, and it makes gamers (muh peeps) look like spoiled, whiny little brats. Criticize the game for its actual flaws, not for "Waah waaah, EA/DICE didn't give me my bottle, waaah, terrible game!" I'd rather see EA taken to task for its season pass shenanigans, its lack of respect for end users, its deluxe edition stupidity, etc., not because a "AAA" game requires [arbitrary value] Content Units to constitute being "complete." But maybe that's a larger discussion.

Yeah my death/kill ratio is .15 I die like 8-10 times for every kill I make. I know I suck as multiplayer shooters. Still fun though

I bought this on a Monday, went on holiday from Thursday to Monday, then returned it on a Tuesday.

This game was a great idea half realised. They managed to recreate the feel of Star Wars, but that was about it. It was fun to use the guns and run around the levels. It was great to run around as Vader or shoot Han Solo. Even the air combat wasn't bad. But ultimately I felt as though I was playing a demo for a great game. Then it turned out that unless I had bought the super deluxe set, I was locked out of content for a while. I decided "fuck that" and returned it. Apparently I wasn't the only one doing such a thing.