IGN being IGN...

I think in this case, though, he was trying to say "too many game modes for the sake of having game modes." There's only two modes anyone is ever going to be playing, honestly...

In general, most reviews are simply reiterating that the core game feels empty after a few hours of play.

Such a sham this game is. It's like the full game is priced 2 times the normal cost. Learned ones will be staying away from it. Sadly the hardcore fans and the uneducated ones will gobble it up.

I was quite close to buying this game on PSN then i saw the Deluxe version where they added the DLC also. I got pissed just looking at that. Anyways I bought the Bloodborne DLC so I'm settled.

This Star Wars is a 7/10 game.

Yeah I played it on EA Access and I got bored after about 2 hours. Fighter Squadron was probably the most fun I got out of it. The combat feels like it plays for you and I'm not a fan of that and the lack of depth really hurt this game.

I'd much rather play any Battlefield over Battlefront.

Such a shame too since BF1 and BF2 were and still are legendary.

I have played every game mode more than once and I don't plan on stopping. This game is fun

Reminds me of Hardline. A bunch of game modes but some are never played.

'There's only two modes anyone is ever going to be playing, honestly... '

Right that's about the tale going around the Internet pretending only the content for those 2 modes 'counts'
Whatever

@nix
You complain about the price but you were going to buy from PSN? It's a lot cheaper on retail in case you don't know. Digital is a rip off for most games.

I am sure DICE will address some of the game modes once they start receiving good data. Plus other modes etc are on there way.

Honestly people only ever play 1-2 game modes and maybe 3-4 maps. When I played the shit out of BF3, I only did conquest and I only remember about 4 maps maybe.

I'd rather have balanced game modes and good maps than just content galore that sucks. The only thing that truly felt lacking in the beta was the character customization. They should have done a class sytem.

Funny how similar this sounds to Destiny.

@Jubez187- lol agreed. When I play BF, I actually only play rush and conquest. The other modes are not bad, just that I always sorta just focus on those 2 modes and I would put like 400, 500 hours in just those 2 modes lol.

Not saying more modes are not fun, merely that I'll be fine with supremacy and their version of CTF as now that I think about it, I've always sorta just played 1 or 2 modes in FPS MP titles anyway.

In COD4, I rarely played Search and Destroy, but when I did it was pretty damn fun. But I spent most of my time on domination and ground war (or really just Ground war since its actually both modes). I spent over 700 hours in COD4, just playing those modes, I don't think I spent much time in free for all or its other modes.

@nix
How can you review (score) a game you didn't buy?

I'm actually loving the game! Can't stop playing!

Same here, and I never play multiplayer games. This was worth my money. And possibly even the added content depending what it is.

This is bullshit - you're oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of no longer adding anything to the discussion.

I could tell this via the first gameplay footage.

Even after watching 2-3 matches I was bored.

The game will sell because it's Star Wars, but it will also be heavily traded in which will lead to a reduced price sooner than later.

My god Fox you hate this game with a passion.

I hate shitty practices what this game does a lot of...plus ruining Battlefront in the process

Stop supporting games like this, publisher looses money, they'll finally learn their lesson...it's the only way and it stops them doing it to other franchises old and new

He is right mate. This game has the exact same issues as Evolve and it doesnt have enough to deserve an 8/10. Just like Evolve and how IGN gave that game a 9/10 still blows my mind.

Totally spot on. They ruined the name of battlefront.

@foxtrot You can hate the game all you want, but they didn't "ruin battlefront." The originals are still there, you can still play them. You're just whining like every battlefront thread because the game isn't how you would want it.

It deserves to be hated. EA are money grubbing SOB's, it's pretty clear to everyone it's a rushed game, charging full price, $50 season pass, and they're ALREADY talking sequels. It's disgusting...

I can understand why. If he's anything like me, it means the only titles in a franchise he has held dearly will be nothing like what he enjoyed so much. Then you have clowns telling you to go back and play the older games because the title fits their flavor of the month.

@Garrett

I didn't say "Go back and play the old ones." I said the new ones don't ruin the old ones, they are still there. I don't see how you guys are taking this as some huge gaming sin. Battlefront was DEAD. It has been resurrected, albeit in a different form. You were getting nothing before, but getting something now. You aren't LOSING anything.

@DarkOcelet:

No, sorry, your comparison is very, very wrong.

You are asking people not to buy the next iphone.

We're not talking about Apple or mobiles we're talking about games

I sense a tinge of regret and buyers remorse. Let those tears stream down your face. Delicious.

Really confused...1. I have never once bought an apple product. 2. I am enjoying battlefront.3. I thought my analogy was pretty good...

The point was people will buy what they want to buy.

The truth hurts. This game would be considered a tragedy if it didn't have the Star Wars IP to give it easy allure.

The Star Wars authenticity is what the game does really well. Of course that gets counted in the score. That's a major draw of the game.

With solid game play it gets the 8 it deserves.

Most of Multiplayer only games have these issues, like TitanFall, Evolve and now Battlefront.
MP only games aren't worth full price at all.
In this case the Star Wars name is helping it a lot, that's why I'm buying it, the Star Wars fan in me is winning lol, and because it has split screen (mandatory for me!) so I can play with the GF

"Ruining Battlefront" it's as if people think the old games were the best games ever... They weren't, it's nostalgia talking.

The problem with these games is that they are good but don't have enough content, Titanfall for example is a brilliant fps yet it lacks content same with Evolve great concept but lack of content.

From what I've seen Battlefront does seem to have more content than both but it's still not enough especially compared to Battlefield.

People will buy this and like it, you just have to deal with that.

Some people have got bigger rose tinted spectacles than Elton John!

If you took out the Star Wars bits out the movies theyd be shit too

I'm not saying this game is perfect because it's definitely not. However to say "if this wasn't Star Wars the score would be lower" is just ridiculous. You could use that logic for almost any game that isn't a brand new IP. This is a Star Wars game, so it gets graded as a Star Wars game. In fact the Star Wars aspect of the game is the only part most would agree they did perfectly right. If they completely butchered and betrayed the Star Wars license people would be grading them lower and you'd have complaints like "if this wasn't a Star Wars game the number would be higher". Yes, we grade this in relation to the subject of the game, not just the general genre. And we should do that. Would a new IP get the same score? Probably not. But a new unrelated IP also wouldn't help me or other consumers relieve childhood memories of battling in the Star Wars universe, that's why it gets more credit.

Typical IGN, they wouldn't dare give an overhyped game from a rich game company a lower score, they are ass kissers.

Eh, if this game received a 10/10 you would still be dumping on it.

This game is still averaging out to be a good game but haters talk about it like it's abysmal failure receiving all 4s and 5s.

"Evolve was new and they ignored that games missing content"

? Missing? How can something be "missing" of content that was never promised in the game in the first place? You know what is "missing"? Something that was marketed to be in the final product, only to play it to find out its not there, that is false advertising and against the law.

Is that what happened or are you now merely assuming what you "think" should be in the game and counting it as "missing"?

Lets get this straight, its wrong to advertise or market a title to have something in it, that for a fact it doesn't.

Do either of these titles lack content that was promised, yet not featured upon release? As it sounds like your whole argument is based on what you "think" it should release with vs what it actually is.

That is like me getting mad at Mario Kart and Nintendo because its not a FPS game.

@Antz- because they can't stand that others like the game, that millions will buy the game and that DICE will now be the developer in charge of the MOST successful Battlefront series.

They can't take that DICE will be known for Battlefront by MILLIONS MORE then Pandemic and they live with rose tinted glasses. Your talking about folk that are mad at a game for being something it was never even marketed to be.

The level of intelligence that might get mad at Call Of Duty for not being an RPG, something it was never stated to be lol

Such a dumb post.

What it really should have said was

+Huge sandbox "for Star Wars fans"
+Great co-op missions "for a couple of hours"
+Spectacular multiplayer "VISUALS"

-Some games modes are pointless
-Needs more maps, not behind a $50 paywall

Also it's VERY casual friendly, which makes sense and allows all kinds of fans of Star Wars to come in and not feel like they completely suck at shooters, but it does make it a bit too easy IMO.

"Spectacular multiplayer VISUALS"

Does that mean you don't like the gameplay? Just curious to know - I only had limited time in the beta so I don't know for sure how good/bad it was

In regards to being very casual friendly, the old Battlefronts were also well known for being very casual friendly, so I don't feel that's the best point to make

Look at the positives man, they make no sense or are clutching for straws

"Huge sandbox" - Like it's an open world game or something

"Great co-op missions" - No many though...won't be great after the 30th time in under a week.

"Spectacular multiplayer" - Can't even find anything else to say so they just sum up the entire multiplayer, the main thing about the game as it's a multiplayer title...basically "the game is good"

Don't forget to add other buzzwords like "Visceral", "World Building", and "solid." None of these words have any real conclusive description yet they get tossed around reviews and game descriptions day in and day out.

I'm glad i bought BO 3 over this. My wallet will go to BloodBorne The Old Hunter and Just Cause 3. A game with full content will make me happy, but this one is not.

blops3 is amazing.

A game that is packed with content. I know its PR talk but when they said its 3 games on one they are right. Campaign, multiplayer and zombies. Battlefront is a joke.

8/10 is the lowest score their overseers allow them to give it after their checks clear.

Just image the check they had to get after the Evolve fiasco.

It's got more content than Black Ops 3 MP side of things and it to has a $50 Season Pass, short derivative campaign but nobody is complaining about that game... why is Battlefront suddenly put on this pedestal above every other shooter. It's launching with more content than BF4, another game nobody complained about lack of content for.

Whether you like the gameplay or not is completely subjective. It's designed to be arcady like the previous games... if your not into that in a shooter then that's your prerogative but it's trying to be Battlefront not a cutting edge shooter like Battlefield. And as a result some people will get bored after a few hours and that's like a lot of shooters nowadays anyway.

If this game had a 5 hour story (which would result in less content on MP) and a Galactic Conquest mode the reviews would be more favorable. Even though everybody just plays the MP and that's where all the value is.

"if this game had a 5 hour story and Galactic Conquest mode..." it would be getting 10/10 scores all round. Those two factors would have substantially increased the value proposition of the game, and are the two biggest things that people wanted in the game.

You see content as what? Maps? Or? I fail to see how this game has more content than BO3 and Battlefield.... Both of those games have lots of weapons, lots of load-outs, classes, a strong tier of progression, tons of community features, and so on. Battlefront has none of that. (BO3 is missing a few things and people ARE picking at it)

BO3 also has a full fledged Zombie mode AND single player. People keep saying "if Battlefront had SP it'd hurt the multiplayer" yet the multiplayer is clearly lacking anyways, so what did they add that would otherwise be cut? The season pass? Plus Battlefield has had SP for a couple games now and still has a massive multiplayer....

Facing facts here Battlefront has always had a somewhat lackluster content package, and yet DICE couldn't even get to all of that let alone make a complete experience.

LOL at SW Battlefront having more MP content than Blops 3. Blops 3 has more (and MUCH deeper) MP content, plus 1000x more Co-op, plus two campaigns.

Look at the ad space EA bought on IGN....follow the money.

So did you play this for 10 hours? Let's face it Evolve failed because the 4 on 1 chase mechanic was very boring. This game is literally nothing like that.

No it's not like evolve. This is false and inaccurate.

Get boring after 10 hours ?
Did you play this game ?

The game isn't "broke" at all. It runs perfectly. Does it lack content? Sure. Does it have some game modes that are less that spectacular? Yes.

Does the game deserve to be panned for anything other than that? No. Its a great game. It just slightly missed the mark with some of its modes and it needs more content.

Just think what a Galactic Conquest mode by itself would have done for this game. Again, its not a bad game. It just needs a bit more.

I'm sorry but let me ask you this as a consumer I have a choice to make. Now I don't like Bops3 but the game have a Single player, a zombie mode and a great multiplayer and it score around 8 to 9 as average

Now someone please explain how just a robust multiplayer with no single and 10$ more pricey = same rating meaning same value?

Sorry but unless the Mutliplayer would have been miles ahead of Halo or Bops 3 then I don't see how this game can score as high!

@Pete

All the value is in the MP. Most people spend about 50-100 hours plus in the MP and a campaign can only offer you a short experience. Please tell me how a short 5 hour derivative campaign, which would result in less content in the MP likely, would give you much more value to the game. If anything it'd be taking value from the game.

And this game does have a single player with the offline mode which are training, survival and Battles (against A.I.)

I want a campaign as well but DICE are just not that good at Single Player Story so is it a huge loss ? I don't think so... as a result there is more MP content there than BF4 or Hardline (the last 2 EA shooters) and yet everyone is complaining about lack of content.

@Petebloodyonion this is why game rating sites are complete rubbish! I don't even play COD multiplayer and I think BO3 is 3 times the game that BFront is. I don't know how anyone could have actually played both and given them a similar score. I mean BO3 even has a second campaign after you beat the regular one that's polluted with zombies. Plus the zombies multiplayer and the regular campaign. And if it's your thing it also has multiplayer. Battlefront has ONLY multiplayer! That's it! It's like a skinned bastardized version of Battlefield 4!

didn't you see any review ?! they say the gameplay become repetitive very quickly and the unlocks are just a few so after a while there is nothing encourage you to collect coins and XP ...
so maybe they can fix some of those , IDK how , but those are a game fundamentals so they must be fixed

I say wait until more potential free content drops (specifically maps), and more than likely a price drop.

The game isn't broken, and it's not bad, it just gets old fast due to the utter lack of content and casual play, and it's just no really worth $60.

If they release a lot more content (we're talking at least 4 more planets), and it drops to $40 then consider it.

They are still selling BF4 (+ Premium) for 50 bucks two years after release. I don't exspect a reasonable price for Battlefront anytime soon.

Janaric? 😂

I was impressed

Who the hell is Janaric? Never heard of that fellow.

Generic is what I tried to type but the auto correct chose otherwise so yeah fellow

Its a good rental like I said in another article, otberwise defintely wait for the price drop(s)

Exactly, and use 2 studios if need be.. Bioware for SP. Dice for MP.. It would have been of legend, like the original films

...DICE? Have you played Battlefield series single player? Wait for Bioware and Visceral. I have no clue why your expecting DICE to become this masterful single player developer when they have no history of doing that, the BF team anyway.

Their Mirrors Edge team is great, but great at Mirrors Edge lol I'm sorry Bathyj but that is just wishful thinking, that team has no history of making such things.

That is like the crap I remember hearing about Evolve as if TurtleRock had any history making single player games.

Your basically saying, no...don't waste Tekken on a fighting game, it could have been an RPG.

Sooooooo we are just ignoring the damn team has no history of doing this well huh? SO in your mind they would have made some single player that would rival Bioshock? lol

How well did BF4's single player do? People still talking about that epic, riveting story?

You can't just live in this "could have been" dream bud, the reality is this team has no history of ever developing such a single player.

Visceral does, Bioware does. I NEVER go into a Bioware game, expecting some level of MP equal to a Battlefield game....not even slightly. DICE is one of the best MP teams for a reason, Bioware is one of the best RPG teams for a reason.

You would never just expect either team to suddenly create a different genre or concept they they are use to or known for. It legit makes no sense. I'm fine with no single player as I don't even like the single player in the BF series, why waste time and man hours on crap?

I'll wait for Visceral and Bioware's Star Wars titles for a quality single player experience thank you..

I agree that game should have received 7 not 8.

If it had for example 24 maps + more vehicles then it would be 8

no different than any other shooter. Each mode has objectives, play the one's you prefer...

I play play bs cod I only play TDM

If I play BF I only play hardcore conquest or rarely hardcore TDM, nothing else.

A 8/10? Really lol?

Wait a month then message me what you would score this game.
Beside the pretty textures and star wars skin is there anything remarkable about this game?

Oh a crappy survival mode?A 12 map count with small recycled maps from the big maps? $60 dollars? Basic gunplay and mechanics? Generic class system that plagues every fps? And a 50 dollar Season Pass to top it off!!! And only two game modes that you will actually continue to play!

A 8 out of 10 for sure!!!

If you rated cod advance warfare or any cod around 7 then Fallout 4 is a 9999999999 out of 10 or pretty much any game that's not generic garbage.

fallout is pretty close to perfect, not sure what you're getting at...

But if I can play battlefield 3, 4, bad company 1, bc2, socom 2, 3, ca, confrontation and stick to the same modes for the several years they're out I think when I say I'll stick to this for it's entire life that I'm not joking.

The game is fun, you don't have any warp kills or lunge knifing or dying around corners or ridiculous aim assist/auto aiming like CoD.

I will play survival, but I don't care about it. Maybe you look for survival in games and that's why you would rate this lower, but for as much fun as it was in the 10 hours I played I can say this is a good game.

But of course, if you want to compare apples and oranges, meaning Fallout, then obvious fallout offers a lot more, but that's why it's rated higher...

"Wait a month then message me what you would score this game."

lol Ridiculous man. By that logic there should be no reviews about this game yet and no opinions can possibly be valid unless they agree with you. Sounds reasonable… smh

The game is a solid shooter with above average graphics and sound that totally nail Star Wars. I'll be playing most of the modes for a long time, not just two. The only one I don't like is Droid Run. There is no class system so I'm not sure you're even talking about the right game. Either way it was ridiculous to bring up Fallout in comparison.