{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/2/2015 3:37:31 AM
3
I normally respect Joe as both a critic and a true gamer, but lately his biased fanboy side is starting to show. His Halo 5 review was filled with moments where he would outright ignore gameplay and instead focus on how he hates microtransactions, as well as more than a few moments where he insulted 343 for doing something that he somehow didn't know they were going to do. Like really Joe, you somehow never found out they weren't adding splitscreen? But I digress. His Fallout 4 review was very good, showing that he can still be an actual critic who doesn't let their emotions get the better of them. Then his Battlefront review came out. Let me just show you something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3VvqsO77qQ
This is Joe and Joe reacting to the Star Wars VII trailer. Now, go to 32:10 on Joe's Battlefront review.
https://youtu.be/Malmvi6GwDA
Now Joe suddenly thinks that Battlefront will release yearly, alongside the movies. Again we see a strange trend of Joe's surprising lack of research, as well as strange contradictions. In the first video, Joe is extremely, yet cautiously excited. Yet in the review, Joe seems to have no hope in Ea nor Disney.
http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/star-wars/241723/full-star-wars-movie-release-calendar
Reading this article, there will technically be a new Star Wars film every year, however, this is not true if you're just looking at the main anthology films.
There were more than a few moments in this review that felt like Joe had done a lack of research, or had just let his bias towards EA as well as his love of the original Battlefront games get in the way of giving this game a fair review. Like I said, I usually like Joe's reviews and respect him as a gamer and a critic, but lately he's been much more biased and has acted more like a raving hater/fanboy than an actual critic. Because of this, I will have to start trusting his reviews less until he can be more professional when he tells people what to spend their hard-earned money on, because I don't want to avoid a potentially great game because Joe whines about how it isn't as good as its predecessors.
English
-
The game isn't great, the game isn't good, I feel that calling it "average" is a tad too generous. If we ignore the predecessors, a short review would look something like this: For $60, the game is underdeveloped. For one, it doesn't have a campaign. It's single player is bare bones, only having two modes and small maps to play on. There's almost no narrative, which will make the game mode get dry very quick. Add in the small amount of infantry, small maps and pre-selected load outs and the single player is there just to say you have one. The multiplayer, is pretty good. If running at top efficiency, one can have a lot of fun in the multiplayer. Add in the graphics, sound, and feel of Star Wars and you can see the game has some pretty good potential. However, that's where the good ends. The spawns are god awful. Customization is bare. Weapons are limited. Star Cards and weapons are unbalanced. Hero's are limited. There's only 9 modes and four maps for the two main modes. There's a lot of grinding involved to get the cool stuff. (It's not even cool, it's just different). Modes feel uninspired. I mean, I played the game substantially, have a 2.45 KD in it and I agree with all of Joe's points. Even when not comparing it to its predecessors, the game leaves a lot to be desired and doesn't incline you to play other than to get a feel for the Star Wars universe. The game has loads of potential and if it was given a proper game cycle, it probably wouldn't be as scrutinized as it is now.
-
I'd pay $60 for a remastered Battlefront 2
-
[quote]I'd pay $60 for a remastered Battlefront 2[/quote] I'd pay $60 for Battlefront 2 with these graphics.
