IGN is the first online gaming site that gave battlefront a REVIEW..not a preview. They gave it a 7.8 or something like that.
They say some interesting stuff, but they need to get their head's checked, cause they mostly complain about AI in Single Player. Hello? This entire game is MP based..just like BF42 is. Do you know ANYONE that plays BF Single Player? So, they wasted a lot of space, and have given the game a low overall score for something is a total non issue.
I've broken down a few of their comments here:
IGN talking about bots:
"It's not uncommon to see the fools commandeer star fighters, tanks, and walkers, and then just circle the map without direction, or fly straight into the nearest canyon a building, or repeatedly take off and land, neglecting to actually fire their weapons at anything that needs a good shooting."
OIS: Well, I hope the bots aren't so goshdurn smart that human players have no reason to play. You can give bots an unfair advantage easily, it's been done in tons of games. If the bots were too smart, you might as well just watch the whole thing bot vs bot. And in many games AI guys are Waaayyy smarter than your average noob. Take COD for example...this is one tough single player game. The AI is excellent. But that is Single player where you just keep playing til you beat it. You sure don't want to get your ass handed to you over and over by a bot in MP. GG IGN NOT!
IGN: "In multiplayer, there are also bots. The choice to have them is up to whoever hosts the match, but in general, you'll want 'em. Yes, they are stupid."
OIS: So you think the bots are the most stupid thing ever? Then why do you want them in MP? Oh, you have an explanation, let's see that that could be....
IGN:"In addition to looking cool while occasionally stealing craft and running amok, the bots add a level of hero vs. hero action that's pretty fantastic...when you run into an actual human who happens to be commanding a small quad of bots to follow him, it's almost like running into a heroic general in charge of a larger force.
So, despite their obvious singleplayer weaknesses that do carry over to multiplayer, the bots manage to add significantly more to multiplayer than they take away, because they help the game feel like two armies are actually clashing against one another -- two armies led by real people."
OIS: Well, crap that sounds pretty good to me. And this was the thing you spent 2/3rds of the review complaining about...bot intelligence? Again, I say to you...would you want the bots kicking every noobs ass over and over and over. Adding a third party bot to this BF format, sounds like fricking genius to me, but they sure could have gone too far. I want to kill humans, not much bragging rights to kill bots...soooo..what you describe sounds about right to me. Look at the big picture IGN!
IGN:"The massive walkers and tanks of Battlefront are devastating. Most are so powerful, in fact, that it's literally impossible to take them down alone."
OIS: You're kidding right? You want the MASSIVE walkers being able to be taken down by ONE Guy? Please go back to smoking your crack pipe!
IGN:"Without a great deal of cooperation and coordination in taking these stronger vehicles down (the Imperial and Republican walkers, especially), it's practically impossible to win maps...The only way to take down a walker is to tow it into the ground, and the only way to do that is with teamwork"
OIS: You say this like it's a bad thing. Like teamwork is a nasty word or something. OMG, teamwork? WTF is that? Is IGN a buncha DOOM3 NOOBs that want to just run around rambo style killing everything. Hey, they probably loved the M60 when BFV came out!
IGN: "The primary focus of the game are these larger vehicular battles"
OIS: Vehicular emphasis is where it's at baby. What do you think made BF so great? Infantry? If you want uber infantry game, go play COD. Again, in the article, this is said almost like it's a bad thing...jeez-
IGN: "Now it gets tricky. Battlefield and Unreal Tournament 2004 on PC provide a wealth of options to players as far as how they choose to go about winning missions. But, because Battlefront is so heavily influenced by the films and so scripted -- that kind of power vs. finesse balancing -- far fewer approaches are available"
OIS: What do you say? Star Wars had to fit the game into the movie's content? No shit sherlock. Unreal tournament could be a loose as they wanted to be. BF is only limited by WWII..not exactly limiting. Thank god, they stuck to the Star Wars movies..it's called STAR WARS battlefront you noobs! again, IGN, check your crack pipe at the door!
IGN: "e.g. On Rhen Var, there's only one way to win for the Empire and that's to walk the walker just outside of the main Rebel base and begin ranged bombardment. Conversely, the Rebels can sneak through the ice caves and take the primary Imperial base. That's it. Trying something else is futile"
OIS: Man, you must be one 1337 Ass gamer. You must be uber. How long have you played the game? A few days, a week maybe? I'm sure you've come up with EVERY tactical option and nuance for entire game. In the two year history of BF, the only map that comes close to be able to be talked about this way, is Omaha beach. And I know a lot of people, including myself who love to pub that map, due to the score whoring for axis, and the challenge of being allies. NOT to mention: Hey, they might just release more maps....duh
IGN: "You'll find in many of the maps success is more realistically determined by the team that more closely follows a very exact plan."
OIS: You'd have to see the whole article..cause again, they say this like it's a bad thing. A team needs to be organized to win? Holy crappola batman, I sure hope so. Clan league play ought to rock then right? How can this be a criticism? Cause pub guys will have to learn to work as a team?
IGN: "Aside from being the cleanest of the three, the PC version also sports a great deal more flora in its environments. On PC, the already wooded Endor changes into an overgrown nightmare replete with a thousand camping spots."
OIS: You can't win can you? If the games looks like barren like BF, it gets criticized. If the terrain has too many good hide spots a la BFV you still lose. Ever occur to you that again, teamplay will overcome any terrain advantage, and that hiding in a forest is probably the best thing to do? Teams that get camped always deserve to have it happen to them in the end
IGN: "There simply isn't enough content to keep the game going for months or years after its release"
OIS: OMG..now this guy is also on the Psychic friends network. Years you say? BF 42 has lasted two years, but it was a phenonemon. What other game has lasted longer than that? CS...gimme a break. Take away prize money and you have a POS game. Two years means two full Christmas releases of new games. With advances in computing all the time, two years worth of new games is a lot for any game to contend with. Besides, you are supposed to be reviewing the game we have in front of us. Do you know how many patches they'll release. Do you know how many extra maps they'll release? Don't games that sell well, always put out expansion? OMG...this was the most stupid they said.
All in all, the things they didn't like I thought were exactly why I will like the game. Every game has it's issues, but IGN didn't bring up any that made much sense, except for AI intelligence in Single Player sucks. Ok...remind me to not play SP...since I'll never play SP anyway.
And funny how you release your half assed review 3 days before the game comes out. Is that because people will all be having fun come Tuesday with the game, and couldn't care less what you have to say about it. Well, in terms of generating publicity for it, you got that right! Thanks!
GG IGN ...NOT!
Klik om te vergroten...
