Thoughts on Battlefront II?

What are everyone's thoughts on Battlefront II after playing it this weekend? With all the negative press, I "almost" canceled my pre-order, but I went ahead and got it anyways and I really haven't been disappointed.

In one of my first MP matches, I did Heroes vs Villains and I got annihilated by players who had a lot of epic star cards. However, after getting out of this mode, the rest of the modes seemed to be a lot more grounded and I would rarely see another player who was fully stacked with epic star cards. Over the course of the entire weekend, I have gotten to level 13 and I have gotten all of my troopers to level 12. I have also gone through about half of the story which I am actually enjoying.

So here are my thoughts:

Battlefront II (as expected) does almost everything better than its predecessor: the already great graphics of the original have been improved and the game play feels so much better. I really like the class system and so far the maps have been fun and I can't deny that it is an awesome MP experience. It is unfortunate that EA got so much negative press with microtransactions and hopefully all the controversy surrounding EA's business practices will be resolved. I am also pretty hyped for prequel trilogy content which will include some new heroes and villains (General Grevious, Count Dooku, Obi-Wan, Anakin, Padme, Jango Fett and possibly more.) I am also definitely looking forward to the Last Jedi content and Rogue One content as well. It is also pretty awesome that all of this content will be free for players. I feel like all of the negative press and bad reviews were EXTREMELY overblown, but hey, that is just my opinion.

Pre-ordered BF 1 and quickly returned it. The gameplay absolutely sucked. Beautiful graphics and sound, about the most boring gameplay imaginable. Won't be buying BF 2 at all. And after pre-ordering the epic embarrassment that was ME Andromeda, I'm done with EA.

Beyond the micros and the fact that it's better than its predecessor(which is not really all the hard to be) it's a rather unremarkable game and somewhat imbalanced. Once all the star wars lustre wears of it kinda shows. And I do feel that blinds people into the game's issues.

If I have to talk about its micros, I kidna got the feel that it wasn't just progression that was build around the loot boxes, but also that maps were build around star cards.

It's not just better than its predecessor, its vastly superior to its predecessor. Also, what is somewhat imbalanced because the first game was very imbalanced, especially with heroes. This time around, EA has made a game that is much more balanced. Have you actually played the game aside from the beta? Have you put a considerable amount of time with the game? Its definitely a very good shooter and the multiplayer is pretty epic.

I would agree with you if it was the only FPS around.

@Enragedhydra: So another dummy who has damned the game without even playing it. How can you say its play to win when microtransactions have been removed since launch? If you played the game and didn't like that is one thing, but don't spread false information.

Focusing on the 20 man battles worked well until I started getting decent star cards. Those games were more, IMO, readily accessible in the initial stages. Star Credits are stupidly easy to obtain or in other words, credits are an easy currency to obtain in order to purchase them. Between playing the SP and MP, credits are plentiful.

The maps are decent but I'm bummed without Dagobah.

Even if it didn't have MT I still wouldn't have bought it because it doesn't deserve to be called Battlefront. Battlefront was always a Battlefield Rival before EA took over and now it has turned into a casual, linear game.

@mighty-lu-bu: people have had access to the game before release if they had a subscription to EA access. That's only available on PC and Xbox if I remember. If you're playing on PS4 then everyone has been on an even footing.

I remember telling you something similar to this recently with Dragon's Dogma, as you stated something alone the lines DD was a bad Dark Souls rip-off.

Oh the irony

With that, will just be up front and state haven't played this game, very unlikely to ever. However!

What makes this a good death match game over something like, I dunno PlayerUnknown or Titanfall2?

Or is the 'it's Star Wars' cosmetics the sole reason you're giving this game credit when it seemingly deserves none

Well, I bashed Dragon's Dogma because I am not a fan of the game. I played DD extensively on the PS3 and I just wasn't a fan. Well I agree that the combat, to a certain extent, was the best part about DD, everything else was just meh. The menus were clunky, the world was not an interesting place to explore, both the story and characters were overly boring, and the enemies got boring after fighting the same ones over and over again. It isn't exactly a carbon copy, but you can definitely see that Dark Souls was the inspiration for Dragon's Dogma.

Anyways, what makes this a good death match game? Well for starters, the game completely immerses you within Star Wars universe. The details of each map are meticulous and it shows that DICE really cared about this project. I enjoyed the first game enough, but there was so many problems with it that I only thought it was good, but not great. Luckily, most of the issues that I had with the original were ironed out with this version. The multiplayer battles are epic and if you are even remotely a fan of Star Wars you will definitely enjoy this game. It is legitimately a great game, but there is so much negative press on it that gamers just now overly assume that its a bad game. There are three main reasons why people say it is a bad game- microtransactions- which have been removed, the multiplayer progression system- which isn't nearly as bad as people say it is, and the story- which is probably the best story we have ever had in a Battlefront game ever, yet people say eh nothing special. Did I also mention that EA did a complete 180 from Battlefront II's predecessor and is offering all the DLC for free? They did almost everything right, but a couple small mistakes made most critics dismiss this game and made a bunch of idiots review bomb it which is absolutely ridiculous.

@mighty-lu-bu:

Dark Souls was the inspiration for Dragon's Dogma

Actually false! I read into it and Dragon's Dogma was pitched after seeing the success of The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim. Hiroyuki Kobayashi and Hideaki Itsuno san had an idea to make an RPG structured like Skyrim with combat similar to Action games like DMC.

Well for starters, the game completely immerses you within Star Wars universe

So cosmetics, which is fine, not something I'd buy a game solely for but let's see what else you got.

Luckily, most of the issues that I had with the original were ironed out with this version

Not listing any I see, nor have you in the entire thread. But, let's for conversation-progression suggest the first game wasn't good at all. Does ironing out really improve the core gameplay? No. Seems it's just ditching the added weight. If the gameplay was already 'meh' it's still, 'meh'.

if you are even remotely a fan of Star Wars you will definitely enjoy this game

That's just repeating the earlier praise. For someone who can think of ten reasons to dislike Dragon's Dogma, (some of which are very good points). It would seem you're being a bit of a Star Wars fanboi.

It is legitimately a great game

If you enjoy it? Have fun. But it would help if you had better reasons to support your very aggressive tone for enjoying the game many, and I mean many, are seeing as one of 2017s biggest loads of garbage.

Nothing you've listed indicates it's "great" what-so-ever.

For the subject of the game in question, let's pretend the microtransaction issue doesn't exist, based on what you've told us, it's still just getting a dumb free-pass for being Star Wars.

It's Kinect Star Wars all over again_

I've been watching this fiasco and I had to add my 2c here. Then again, WTF do I know.

The game is decent. I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10.

All the hate being flung at this game, the death threats to the devs, the rage this game has incited, is absolutely unwarranted. The microtransactions and pay to win are indeed frustrating at times, but not new, and not unfair. The devs had a problem trying to circumvent the $60 price point ceiling: make a good game but make it profitable, just like any other product on the market. So the devs tried something new: online FPS with a business and game mechanics model that has been powering CCGs for years. Example: Hearthstone. You can, and must in some cases, pay to have better cards to win more games. But you can win in many other ways. Magic has been doing this for almost a quarter century. Its a proven and sound business model. So they gave this a shot, and it backfired.

However, I like the dynamic it has created in the game. It's different, it severely limits choice, adds a minute amount of strategy, but still mainly relies on your ability to play FPSs well. It gets a few things wrong, but its an interesting mix of two entirely different genres.

I've been playing it, and it's rough around the edges. BF1 had the same "awkwardness" to it that this game has (it doesn't have that FPS "smoothness" that games like Destiny have mastered). It has some balance issues. I've been beat up in a few matches, but in general it has been by better players, not ones with better cards. But overall, I'm enjoying it, and I think I'm going to get my $60 out of it. As for buying cards, I've sunk MUCH more money in games like MTG, Hearthstone and Netrunner, and I'll probably drop a few $$ in this once EA updates its pricing model.

In short, don't be a part of the hate wave. Make up you're own mind on the game. Keep an open mind. If you don't like, don't play and move on, and stop bashing people who are enjoying themselves.

And say goodbye to the $60 AAA video game price point. It's going to be an ugly death.

I wanted to avoid the game, but when EA announced that they remove Microtransactions and only return them after overworking them I said f it, I'll buy it to test my new PC. It looks really, really nice on my new Pc. The dynamic resolution doesn't seem to work good enough, I had some huge drops in FPS at what seems like random points.

The gameplay is about average and the maps are horrible balanced which is a no-go on an online shooter (you usually know who's most likely to win based on what side you play on). The randomly gathered cards can affect the game way too much. I prefer MP games to be all about skill and while skill does have an impact, the impact of luck and how long you played the game is too big IMO.

I'll probably go through the story, play a few more rounds and leave the game forever. If I had to score it, it would be above average thanks to the graphics and nostalgia only, so about a 6 or a 7. However, it will drop a lot if the new Microtransaction system is still crap.

@shwaycat:

the death threats to the devs, the rage this game has incited, is absolutely unwarranted

This is at least true, the game is published by EA after all, the same place that makes those Soccer games riddled with microtransactions.

Personally after reading into the matter I believe the hatred was due to both the developer and company being silent about the added microtransactions till the Beta showed public what was really happening. PR was pandering to the fans stating this game "was made for improvements in mind". And then with the added paywalls, comes across as EA assuming the customer base if filled with idiots. Nothing annoys a customer base more than feeling they've been scammed. That as much we all should agree on. Regardless, yeah people shouldn't be throwing death threats.

The devs had a problem trying to circumvent the $60 price point ceiling: make a good game but make it profitable, just like any other product on the market

Wrong, many games make profit with bigger budgets. Without the added paywall on a full priced AAA game. 2017 can show this very clearly with many sale success stories.

And the matter is this game was Star Wars, it was going to sell real well regardless. You've got to be quite the fanboi to assume this game wouldn't be profitable without microtransactions. EA is simply looking to get as much money as they can from your pocket.

Example: Hearthstone. You can

Bad example, Hearthstone is a free game with microtransactions. If you grabbed the game and didn't really enjoy it? You spent nothing.

Magic has been doing this for almost a quarter century. Its a proven and sound business model

Another terrible example_

I didn't realise people need to put up front the funds of a full price game, and then add onto that just to have the privilege to play Magic the Gathering.

I've been playing Magic since I could walk and both my main decks barely dented my wallet outside of casing and card protectors. Most my rarest cards are won from local tournaments, which the Magic community does worldwide, so logically all you need is a starter deck and a handful of packs, in my case starting from the Stronghold selection, and jump right in testing your skills.

And you really don't get that option with this game do you? Battlefront II expects hundreds of hours to get your Luke, Darth Vader, and other franchise favorites. Or pay-up for instant success, on a game you already spent a sum just to play!

Overall, comparing full priced games with paywalls to Tabletop games is pretty crazy. They have completely different budgets and sale strategies, EA wants profit from both sides and they can only have one if they're going to try it like they have with Battlefront II.

Many games have microtransactions, that's not going anywhere, but how EA have handled this game, no one should applaud it, they're greedy, and they need to learn from it and not repeat such a stupid money grubbing tactic!

If Battlefront II was free-to-play with these crazy microtransactions? It would be ok. If the game was half the full retail price; with these crazy microtransactions? Again, my bet is the Star War loyalists would still be 'mostly' fine with it, because they could add the logic of buying some lootboxes for a complete retail budget.

@Enragedhydra:

So it seems like you are trying to form an opinion about a game you have never played? Also, sure you can by loot creates with credits (in game currency), but the loot drops are completely random. Sometimes you get good stuff and other times you get absolute crap. Star cards give a slight edge to troopers, but I would say that star cards matter a bit more with heroes / villains. Regardless, if you get good at the game it pretty much negates the star cards. When I first started playing multiplayer, I will killing players who had as least two epic cards and I had none. Its the same in COD when others have better perks than you, but you still wipe the floor with them because you are just better.

Spend some real time with the game and formulate an opinion for yourself.

Also, RSM-HQ you are wrong. You don't need to spend hundreds of hours to unlock Luke or Darth Vader- I have already unlocked Luke, Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine and Chewbacca and I have hit maybe 60+ hours total.

@mighty-lu-bu:

I have already unlocked Luke, Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine and Chewbacca and I have hit maybe 60+ hours total

Then the information I read was misguided, my apologies. Will make a comment on that towards the source, though I'm giving this game a lot of flack. I'm not someone who likes false information.

Regardless. Still think EA should heavily consider how they add microtransactions like this in the future to avoid such a backlash.

And still seems you're giving them a free pass for being Star Wars. That stance of mine hasn't changed.

The sleazy tactics for lootboxes is a good enough reason to stay away from it, but a decent single player campaign might have made me look past it. I've heard it's short and very mediocre though. So I probably wont play it. It's a shame since the game looks damn pretty.

Haven't played it myself, but it doesn't look too bad a game. It's like a stripped, dumbed down Battlefield game with a Star Wars theme. Not very interesting to me, as I already think Battlefield is dumbed down from the earlier ones. I don't want an even worse Battlefield, even though it has a Star Wars theme.

However, their business model for the game makes it a -2/10. Never in my life will I give a company that does this my money.

@RSM-HQ: Also, to reply to your earlier comments, everything has improved since Battlefront so let me explain.

One of the best things about EA Battlefront was the visuals (the sound was also fantastic), however, somehow DICE managed to crank the graphics up another notch with Battlefront II. The old game for some reason had this very clunky feeling to it and there didn't seem to be a lot of polish. Well, for whatever reason, that clunky gameplay has been smoothed out. One of the big complaints about the first game was that even though the weapons looked and sounded good, they didn't feel good. It didn't feel satisfying shooting enemies, but this time around the weapons feel a lot better. The space battles are far superior this time around and the controls for starships are just much better. The class system with the new star cards is superior to the custom system and the old star cards of the last game. In the first game, almost everyone would take a jetpack as a star card, so you would see tons of people flying around the map, but in Battlefront II it is class restricted just like the old Battlefront games on PS2. The new star cards also add a lot of variety to the gameplay which is very welcomed. Everyone also knows about the terrible balancing issues that plagued the first game, especially with heroes vs villains. Force users were extremely overpowered and ranged heroes were just overly weak. This time around that has all changed; you can kill force wielding heroes pretty easily with a ranged hero and vice versa. Regular troopers can also team up and take out heroes this time around, something that was a lot harder in the previous game.

Also, let's not forget that there was no campaign in the first game, but with Battlefront II we got one. I really enjoyed the campaign, but a lot of people have mixed feelings about it- they either loved it, hated it or were indifferent. Regardless, it was very well written, the voice acting was top notch and this is probably the best campaign we have ever gotten in a Battlefront game which is saying something. We finally have a working story that bridges the gap between Return of the Jedi and the Force Awakens which is an accomplishment in itself.

In a couple months, we will get the prequel trilogy content which will include new heroes (Obi-Wan, Anakin, General Grevious, Count Dooku, Padme, Jango Fett, and there could be some heroes/ villains from the Clone Wars animated series making their Battlefront debut) , new maps and new weapons. We will also be getting the Rogue One content which will include new heroes , new maps, and new weapons. Last, but not least, we will also be getting the Last Jedi content which of course will add new heroes, new weapons and new maps. The big difference between this DLC and the previous game's DLC is that this incoming content will be free which is a complete 180 when compared to the season passes of Battlefront.

Across the board, everything has improved dramatically and Battlefront II is the far superior game from a visual, gameplay and game mechanic standpoint. I don't think this game is a 6, but rather a solid 8+. Many review sites took 2-3 points off for the progression system which is weird because even though it has been steeped in controversy, the progression system is better this time around. Unfortunately, the critics have been overly harsh and because of it the game has a bad reputation, but I suggest you play it so you can formulate your own opinion.

From what I read this still doesn't deserve more than maybe a 7 by Gamespot standards, even without the micro transactions. If anything, you've just explained to me that the first Battlefront deserved a lower score, maybe a 5.

A lot of your praise outside of the balancing changes is the visuals. And state of the art graphics alone don't win people over anymore; you can chat with Crytek for why they're going bankrupt for more information.

But regardless it would seem it's still a more enjoyable game than the first if the wall of microtransactions wasn't an issue. Still I did go and read up on this. The campaign doesn't seem as enjoyable as you make it seem, even the voice acting is being heavily criticised during the campaigns objectives, and apparently a Luke section is the talk of much flack.

If you found Dogma for reasons repetitive, but not this game? well then you've got an issue known as double standards. You can criticise games you like, I do it all the time, but when you praise games in even areas that suck, that's when you've become a hypocrite.

You can gladly give this game a higher score, but in my view many games that got an 8/10 or higher are more worthy of people times, even from a glance, than this 'meh' deathmatch shooter. If anything if someone had a reasonably decent P.C.? I'd recommend going for PUBG without a shadow of a doubt. Or if someone grabbed a Nintendo Switch Splatoon 2.

And if someone doesn't have those options, and really likes Star Wars, try to hold off till EA gets themselves together. Perhaps give Titanfall 2 a go_

but I suggest you play it so you can formulate your own opinion

Think made it clear I'm not going to do that. For one I'm more interested in this subject because the business model could reflect what becomes the future of gaming, secondly nothing about the game is telling me that I should bother, if anything buying this game tells EA I'm ok with what they're doing. And lastly I mainly dropped in a comment originally because you was showing a case of double standards and wanted to see how you'd respond_

With all of the DLC content, I would give the first game a 7, but at launch I would have given it a 6 or worse. After all of the DLC, it became a good game, but it was never by any means "great". As of right now, I would give Battlefront II a solid 8+ (let's just say 8.5). Remember, there is still a ridiculous amount of free content that is coming in the next month and half. I also really hope that after there is more content (which there is already plenty), and after all this business with microtransactions and progressions is settled, that gaming sites give this game an updated review.

Anyways, you keep saying that all my praise for this game is solely based on visuals and that isn't true man. Sure, the visuals are better, but I went over all of the problems with the original and what was fixed in the sequel- they literally fixed all of the issues.

Again, you need to stop reading what other people say and experience it for yourself, if you don't care to experience it, then the discussion is over. You are just posting a bunch of I read this and I heard this or I watched this comments and those make your arguments invalid. You are also complaining about a business model that doesn't even exist in-game anymore and you are just joining the ranks of whiny gamers who are bitching just to bitch. I guarantee if this wasn't an EA title, both critics and the gaming community wouldn't be so harsh, but people love pointing out EA's mistakes, despite how minuscule they actually are. I have spent an excessive amount of time with this game so I have been able to formulate my own opinion, but I find it pretty ironic that most people who seem to bash this game have spent little to no time with it- or they like to complain about things that are no longer in the game...