Timmeh wrote on Oct 21, 2016, 11:40:
Flak wrote on Oct 21, 2016, 11:22:
Second Battlefield game that I don't play/own on Day 1 (next to Hardline).
The beta was pretty fun, but the balance seemed way off (are higher level players still hugely advantaged with kit selection?). It's also hard to justify paying $60+ (and DLC) for essentially re-skinned games year after year.
Maybe once this hits the $30 range, which knowing EA's track record with Battlefront and Hardline, will probably be the case by Christmas.
This seems a lot more than just a reskinned game.
Because the graphics are nicer?
Bad Company 2 had better destruction. No evolution or any kind of advancement on that front aside from 'dynamic weather' (which they've been speaking about since BF3). The weapon/vehicle balancing is way off. Conquest is largely rendered useless based on the game play decisions they decided to go with (at least in beta). Nothing has really been done to further promote squad play.
The only redeeming factor to the game aside from fresh content, is the fact the network optimization isn't complete garbage like it normally is for the first 6 months of any DICE multiplayer game.
I'm sure it'll be a fun title for years to come, but after spending $60+ on every Battlefield game I can ever remember, this one feels largely the same with some 'ohh, that's shiny!' moments.
Reskinned was probably a harsh characterization since DICE actually tried with this title, I just don't see it as a full-priced purchase. My loss I guess.