Frogfreak
Sr Member
yeah, i was hoping they would've done an N64 classic, too!
The Video Game Thread - anything and everything...
- Thread starter KrangPrime
- Start date
Today's update of Star Wars Battlefront II is the last. Supposedly they will keep the servers running for years, though.
No announcement on what they're doing with Star Wars for the next gen consoles late this year. EA's contract with Disney is still good for years, so they're bound to have something going.
No announcement on what they're doing with Star Wars for the next gen consoles late this year. EA's contract with Disney is still good for years, so they're bound to have something going.
If they had any brains, they would adopt LucasArt's business plan from their latter years where they accepted ideas for games from many developers and then published them. It wasn't perfect, but at least we had a handful of good SW games vs. two games in 5 years.
JediMichael
Master Member
So I'm at the final boss of this FF7 remake. As I've said before, it's enjoyable to a point, but there's just too much that annoyed me.
So now another game I've waited for 26 years comes out tomorrow. Streets of Rage 4. I'll wait to finish more of FF7R first, but I am hoping SoR4 is good.
So now another game I've waited for 26 years comes out tomorrow. Streets of Rage 4. I'll wait to finish more of FF7R first, but I am hoping SoR4 is good.
Solo4114
Master Member
For what it's worth, I've actually found Jedi: Fallen Order to be surprisingly fun. And at the roughly $30 mark that I paid for it, worth the price.
BAttlefront 2 was a massive disappointment. BFV is ending development, too.
I think the bottom line is this:
DICE or EA or some genius suit in one of the two organizations bet the farm on loot crates as a revenue stream. That faceplanted spectacularly, and it killed revenue -- meaning development dollars -- for at least 1.5-2 years for each game. And the end result is that nobody is willing to continue investing in either, leading to both having their development end well before they should have.
In my opinion, this is ample reason not to trust DICE again. Their management of games is terrible. The core gameplay is usually pretty good, but the ongoing management of them is just...garbage. Hot, wet, sticky garbage. And it's been this way for ages. For probably about 5 years, I had the approach to DICE games that I never, ever bought them until they dropped below $30. I took a gamble with Battlefront 2 and bought it on release. Never again.
One thing in games that bugs the hell out of me is when they force you to backtrack through a level. That's the one thing I don't like about Mass Effect Andromeda so far. I completely finish a planet and takeoff to go to another and then I get an email saying I have to go back to make a video call with someone. WTH?! Just tell me while I'm still there! Similar things have happened about 5 times so far and I'm maybe half way through.
Paul Andrew
Master Member
Fallen Order has indeed been fun. I don't really dig the Battlefront games though. The shooting is fine and they look beautiful, but something about them just never clicked with me. I think I just like guns that feel like guns instead of blasters. I didn't connect with the BF2 campaign at all, and BF1 didn't even have one.
I would like nothing more than a RPG again, though the odds of that get lower each year.
HanSolo2187
Active Member
I look to other games made by DICE (Battlefield 1) and why they couldn't translate that gameplay/gunplay to the Star Wars universe. It may be all about having the gameplay center around the Third Person perspective, versus focusing on First Person. That said, I never felt that the gunplay was skill-based, but more based on what weapon/character you happen to be using.
That said, I did think they did an amazing job with certain levels/maps (Geonosis, Kamino), but others were pretty bad (Jakku, Endor).
Solo4114
Master Member
The real issue that DICE has is that they are atrocious at ongoing game management. And they always have been as far back as BF1942. They have the capacity to make genuinely fun, interesting games, but they botch it with godawful ongoing support. The life cycles for Battlefront 2 and Battlefield V have really highlighted this, too. I honestly don't trust them as developers anymore. Sadly, as long as EA has the Star Wars license, we're probably stuck with them for any Star Wars themed shooters for a long while to come.
And as far as "What matters is the gun you're using" I find that to be true in virtually every game with unlocks, especially the most recent DICE games. Unlocks are horrible for games. They're just a really bad idea. They make games top-heavy and way more difficult for new players to get into, and especially as designed currently, they give a significant advantage to whoever has the unlock. In a battle of evenly-skilled players, the player with the unlocked upgraded weapon is almost always at an advantage. I've come to really despise them.
I get why DICE includes them, though. Most players would lose interest in their games if there wasn't a constant hamster-wheel of grinding for the next attachment, the next level, etc. Towards that end, I think they should do cosmetics as unlocks (as long as the cosmetics don't also confer an advantage, like, say, forest camo for stormtroopers on an Endor map...). I'm sure they'll still keep cranking out games with unlocks, though. I'm just ready for the design paradigm for these types of games to really change, though, and move away from unlocks and back towards something of a more level playing field for all players.
I don't think any of the unlocks in Battlefield 3 & 4 gave you any advantage. I had more kills using the M4 (what you start out with) as an engineer than any other unlock. In Battlefield 3, many classes started out with the best weapons in the game. I remember the Medic class had the M16 and it was the best assault rifle in the game. If you go find XFactorgaming (former pro gamer) on Youtube and look back at his BF3 or BF3 videos, he could take any gun, even "crappy" guns, and dominate the whole game. You're never going to take a mediocre player and give him an unlock weapon and make him a superior player. It just couldn't happen unless you gave them god mode.
Solo4114
Master Member
Unlocks always give an advantage. Always. Sometimes that advantage is greater than others, but it's always an advantage.
A stock weapon with no attachments unlocked at all is at a disadvantage against a player with a bunch of the attachments unlocked. Is it an insurmountable one? No, not necessarily, but it still helps. It's still a finger on the scale. Same story with having access to a variety of tools and weapons. Maybe the base gun is just fine for you, but if you can also play with a bunch of other weapons that operate differently at different ranges, or which play to your strengths more, then you're at an advantage.
And if you've ever considered (and I'm not saying you have) that it's bad for people to be able to "buy" ranks/unlocks in games like this, then you likely understand that unlocks give people a leg up.
In BFV and Battlefront 2 this was far more on display, especially with vehicles. They get extra weapons, improved performance, etc. as they unlock things. It's horrible design.
I have my starships unlocked on console in Battlefront 2. I got the Celebration edition for, like, $10 during some sale on PC and because you can't transfer account progress across platforms (which is also frikkin' stupid), I'm at a significant disadvantage to the players who have all their gear unlocked.
In BFV, which I got for free with my PC, I've tried flying and there's just...no point. None whatsoever. You're toast against guys who have full unlocks that include things like better altitude, more guns, bigger bombs, and additional armor. They're not just unlocks, they're upgrades.
A stock weapon with no attachments unlocked at all is at a disadvantage against a player with a bunch of the attachments unlocked. Is it an insurmountable one? No, not necessarily, but it still helps. It's still a finger on the scale. Same story with having access to a variety of tools and weapons. Maybe the base gun is just fine for you, but if you can also play with a bunch of other weapons that operate differently at different ranges, or which play to your strengths more, then you're at an advantage.
And if you've ever considered (and I'm not saying you have) that it's bad for people to be able to "buy" ranks/unlocks in games like this, then you likely understand that unlocks give people a leg up.
In BFV and Battlefront 2 this was far more on display, especially with vehicles. They get extra weapons, improved performance, etc. as they unlock things. It's horrible design.
I have my starships unlocked on console in Battlefront 2. I got the Celebration edition for, like, $10 during some sale on PC and because you can't transfer account progress across platforms (which is also frikkin' stupid), I'm at a significant disadvantage to the players who have all their gear unlocked.
In BFV, which I got for free with my PC, I've tried flying and there's just...no point. None whatsoever. You're toast against guys who have full unlocks that include things like better altitude, more guns, bigger bombs, and additional armor. They're not just unlocks, they're upgrades.
Last edited:
cboath
Master Member
that completely describes EA for the most part, too, and that's a hefty majority of the entire console market right there.
If you want that, then go watch the Unreal Engine 5 PS5 reveal video....
Pretty damn incredible.
The Brahma Bull
Sr Member
I didn't like the reveal. There might be some games a lot of people are looking forward to but I have to say that there's nothing that get's me. They not even announced the price. Just showed a trailer of a Spider-Man game which isn't even a new game just the bad Arkham clone from the PS4 with some DLC.
Similar threads
