Battlefront 2. All that lootbox outrage was just plain silly considering every game does the same thing
English
-
I thought it was still a bad game even without them. The PS2 games are far better.
-
OG battlefront was the best, they should just add everything that was left out from there (especially jawas running around it's always fun killing them)
-
All DICE had to do was make a good Battlefield game with a Star Wars skin. I would have liked no health regeneration, limited ammo, all classes and heroes unlocked, but you still have to earn them in matches. No star cards, instead either attachments or mods to weapons or just do what the PS2 Battlefront 2 did to where you got an upgrade to a weapon or ability if you did something. Both EA Battlefront games are far too casualized for my tastes. EA BF2's story was also a joke and showed that OG BF2's was far superior. Split screen is also incredibly lacking in content for both EA games and only single player for online is silly.
-
[quote]Battlefront 2. All that lootbox outrage was just plain silly considering every game does the same thing[/quote] Yeah, god knows I don't hate murders because other people murder. Something isn't wrong if more than one group does it.
-
In this case it's like getting outraged about one murderer while not caring about the 12 other murderers who have been murdering all year
-
Horrible game the first one was better
-
Every aspect of bf2 was better than the first one in my opinion. I can see how people wouldn't like the class system though
-
The first one was better in terms of customization (there actually was customization) and the inclusion of walker assault but other than that i don't see how it's better
-
Heroes vs Villains is better, a campaign, Starfighter is better, free dlcs. There's still customization, it's just less
-
Starfighter shit is amazing in 2. By customization i meant like the ability to be a dude sniper (why are all snipers girls these days it's weird)
-
Strafighters is basically the only great thing about the game. The twin stick controls are amazing. Now if only a whole game was made around them...
-
Even though I never played it, I'm inclined to agree. Garden Warfare 2 is another EA game with lootboxes, and their significance is greatly blown out of proportion. I will say though, what EA did to the original Plants vs Zombies is inexcusable.
-
Battlefront's loot boxes were different in that progression was locked behind them, making character improvements both random and pay to win.
-
Even after it released with a simplified system people still acted like it was super evil
-
Not true, bf2 wasnt pay to win. Nothing was locked behind a paywall, you could play to get better stuff, like i and most other people did. Its a misconception by people WHO didnt play it, that it was p2w
-
If you bought loot boxes you'd have stronger classes and heroes than people that only played to earn loot boxes, because you'd have more. How is that not pay to win?
-
You couldn't buy loot boxes. It was impossible to spend money on loot boxes after launch. Not pay to win
-
They were gonna let you buy them but then the backlash happened
-
Very true. That means it was going to be pay to win, but that doesn't make the game pay to win
-
[quote]You couldn't buy loot boxes. It was impossible to spend money on loot boxes after launch. Not pay to win[/quote] Yeah, but it was possible to buy them if you had the game on EA access. The system itself without money involved also ruined the game. Battlefront isn't a looter. It was a competitive multiplayer game but by the time players like me got around to playing it I was outclassed. Not because players could out gun me not because they were better players but because they had cards that made me inferior in everyway. I wasn't about to slog through EAs shitty progression system just to have a decent time.
-
I came in late too. I found that if you were better you would win. If it was even, the person with the better cards won. That being said I totally agree with your view