Well, This Is One Way of Getting Round an Exclusive Advertising Deal...

Nice,EA Access were doing enough advertising through social media for MS last week anyway announcing it was playable first on Xbox One and one month codes were flying around the gaff 😊

Hmm...the subtle approach. Gave me a laugh on a Friday afternoon.

This game is getting poor reviews from Amazon customers...

Lol whoevers the head of Xbox adverts at MS needs a promotion

"Feel the Force, savour the fun / Available now on Xbox One"

It even rhymes!

This is frickin' hilarious. I love it.

@Captain_Chao5

Yea the game is getting extremely mixed reviews all over the place. I am not buying it because I am tired of the endless stream of online multiplayer focused shooters & the fact that the game has a RIDICULOUS $50 season pass that will fracture the gamer-base.

If they would've actually released a complete game (single player campaign included) instead of this piece-meal garbage, I would be interested. Too many better games to play this holiday.

@KelticDevil Yeah. That's pretty much what the reviews said. Not enough SP and the MP was limited to four (?) maps. That and an extortionate season pass cost.
I was keeping an eye on it as it is visually stunning, but I'm more of a campaign person on shooters. If I play MP, I'm cannon fodder. LOL

I have Star Wars: BF and whilst I do think it looks and sounds great as well as the game-play is 'good' I can't see this having longevity unless EA add more content and I don't mean via DLC.
The game itself plays well and as I said the maps and audio are great but the content doesn't seem to add that much variety. The unlock progression system doesn't offer much reward either as it gives you 'credits' which are used to buy cards, weapons and character customisation options.The problem is that there isn't enough here to drive you on - both CoD make you want to play those extra few matches to unlock the next attachment or two, some camo, badge or emblem etc.
The HUD and mini-map are different enough from Battlefield but the game feels a bit like it in the movement, flow and some of the character animations.
What it does offer, it does well but even myself as a FPS and Star Wars fan struggle at the moment to see how it will keep the interest of many players.

@Captain_Chao5 There is 12 maps (I believe) - certainly more than 4. I don't know if all of the maps are available in all modes. Some content can be played Solo or even couch co-op but those aren't that great. The wave based content is only 15 waves so I think will have limited appeal - its not like 'Zombies' on CoD which is unlimited and can always try to beat your highest level

@Captain_Chao5

I hear ya. I am not bad at online FPS's myself, but I am primarily a single player campaign guy. So between that & real life stuff, I can't dedicate the time it takes to get insanely good at these online shooters like other people do. Then I go on & either do decent or get destroyed. Lol.

Especially ones that reward you with unlocks the more you play. For the above reasons, that puts me at a disadvantage with inferior weapons & gear. That's why I do like Counter-Strike. Everybody starts every game on a level playing field, other than natural talent or gaming skills, of course.

@BAMozzy

Thanks for the insight into the game. It's appreciated.

One of the things you talked about is one of the problems I have with online shooters today......a progression system. One one hand, I love leveling up in games & unlocking new stuff. But on the other hand, the whole system puts newcomers at a huge disadvantage & I think some games use it as an addiction crutch....so to speak.

Shouldn't an online shooter have good enough gameplay to make it addicting regardless? I know progression systems in FPS these days aren't going away & I probably sound like an old fart, but I remember playing Doom, Quake, Counter-Strike, even the original Halo (even though it wasn't online), along with countless others......all were great without having to level up to get the best weapons. It made for a game based more on skill than who can grind out the most kills/points/etc. to unlock <insert weapon name here>.

I would actually give Battlefront props if it has a more streamlined, simple progression system. It sounds like a few big bonuses in the game (vehicle pickups & hero usage) are pick-ups found on the battlefield, as opposed to something you unlock. I would actually like that better myself.

I do see your point, though. And I am not buying the game regardless (bc of my previously mentioned reasons), but it's just something to think about.

This game is fantastic yes it has its proplems but everybody is still buying it if your a star wars fan its a must buy game.

@KelticDevil In the latest CoD for example, the starting weapons are not 'weak'. The Kuda for example is probably the best all round SMG in the game. However the basic version doesn't come with any attachments and these are unlocked just by using them - same as Battlefield. Also just by using them you unlock camos and player cards too. Just by playing you get 'Cryptokeys' which are used to get additional customisable options. Its not that the game-play itself isn't good enough its these things though that keep you playing longer than you should or intended. By that I mean instead of turning off, you play 1-2 matches more bexause you are close to that next unlock - if you are anything like me that turns into 1-2 more hours as you are never far drom an unlock. It also feels more rewarding than the old-school games as well as in SW:BF which does have a leveling system.
I think the biggest problem that puts newcomers at a disadvantage is Map Knowledge. In games like CoD with its levelling system, a relative newcomer can have more weapons unlocked than some much higher level players due to the prestige system. If they are at level 20 for example the newly prestiged person starts back at level 1 with all those level 1 only items unlocked. The newcomer is at a disadvantage because they haven't necessarily got the map knowledge. Those newcomers though got 'something' from the match - whether its an attachment, camo and/or level progression.
Old FPS style games also had there issues - particularly for newcomers as it was down to who got the 'power' weapon drop which again came down to Map Knowledge. As much as I loved some of those old school FPS games, I do find them somewhat repetitive and lacking now.
The problem with Star Wars BF though is in what you can unlock and the variety in the game. It feels like it will have similar issues to Titanfall inthat after a while, the majority will have seen and achieved everything - the 'credits' will be pointless as everything will be unlocked. Its definitely a case of style over substance. I know that it can be good fun and enjoyable in the early days - when its all new. For Star Wars fans its full of iconic areas, sounds and sights and that will keep them coming back longer than the game play itself will.

@BAMozzy

That's a great point about map knowledge. When I played Counter-Strike, I got SO much better once my map knowledge went up. I went from being a scrub to an almost tournament level player (I did actually play in one. My team got destroyed. Lol.). That is in addition to the normal skill improvement by getting better with certain guns, etc.

I hear ya about Battlefront, though. A lot of reviews are saying exactly what you are. It's too bad. But EA has many more Star Wars games to come, so maybe they'll release one that's more my cup of tea, so to speak.

@KelticDevil Map Knowledge is more important in faster paced games and and those with quicker kill rimes. Most of the Blasters in SW:BF seem to feel a bit similar- obviously you get a bit of difference in rate of fire, cool down and damage but they all seem to kill in similar times. The faster firing have lower damage but the DPS is similar to the higher damage slower firing Blasters.
With other games, you get to pick more of a load-out. CoD for example lets you pick a primary from 5 different categories, a secondary from 3 (in the latest) as well as different options in your Lethal/Tactical. Its a similar story for BF too. Even when you start in these you often get to pick from a variety of set-ups or class builds - CoD has 5 default class builds with each of its 5 different primary options, BF has different classes too from Assault or engineer to recon or support and each feels different and has different roles too. Battlefront used to have 'classes' too.
Apart from the Primary, in SW:BF, all these are in the form of Cards but to have a Jet Pack means you have to go without a grenade or Rocket Launcher - something that is ideally needed in the bigger modes with the vehicles. The only things to spend credits on is the Blasters, Cards and customisation of your character. As there isn't many options in this, and the fact that the limited variety in weapons mean that there isn't that many ways to build a class to suit a different playstyle. CoD and Battlefield allow you build a class to suit you - whether thats a more defensive or aggressive role. It also means that all the battles play similarly and there isn't much you can do to change the flow.
In some ways its a lot like Titanfall in that after a while you felt like you had seen and done everything the game had to offer. Like that, it was crying out for more content - which in fairness did come but for many it came too late. Hopefully thogh Dice will dd something before its too late for this and the community has moved on.

@Utena-mobile Good taste. Can't fathom picking this over those with all of the DLC. 50 bucks for a season pass on top of that little content on disc is ridiculous.

@Tasuki How is the new Battlefront a Battlefield clone? Cause it's made by DICE?

@Captain_Chao5 yeah, new Battlefront is dull back to the originals for me.

@Tasuki not to mention the lack of content.