Well now you can spend your time being furious.

Well now you can spend your time being furious.

Is this satire?You're missing multiplayer maps.
You're missing value for your dollars

Satire?Is this satire?![]()
Well yeah if the multiplayer is really dope. That's why people buy these games. People spend 6 hours with the campaign and then like 200 hours with the multiplayer.Satire?
No
12 maps and 20 on 20 with no single player is value to you?
Well yeah if the multiplayer is really dope. That's why people buy these games. People spend 6 hours with the campaign and then like 200 hours with the multiplayer.
wowAre you gonna try to tell me what I said ISNT true for games like Battlefield and Call of Duty? That 95% of the time people spend with those games is in the multiplayer?

But 12 maps for 60 dollars and tax is not value.Well yeah if the multiplayer is really dope. That's why people buy these games. People spend 6 hours with the campaign and then like 200 hours with the multiplayer.
i think you're purposely ignoring Mowgli's point.Are you gonna try to tell me what I said ISNT true for games like Battlefield and Call of Duty? That 95% of the time people spend with those games is in the multiplayer?![]()
But 12 maps for 60 dollars and tax is not value.
If u think it is, that's u.
The fact games like bf4 come with 10 my maps and a campaign shows how Lazy the devs making this game are
Bf4 campaign was fun and so was the multiplayer.Lazy? BF4 is a rehash of BF3, first off, both gameplay wise and graphically. Battlefront looks a generation ahead of it graphically. And Battlefront's gameplay is supposed to be quite different too.
And again, people get these games mainly for multiplayer, so in a way 2 extra maps is better than some meh campaign tacked on. If you like DICE FPS campaigns, then I understand why you're bummed. But again, I don't think most gamers don't buy CoD/BF games for the campaign. So for most people, getting 12 maps for a MP FPS they're gonna play for a year is good value. The campaign is usually some obligatory bullshyt that people play through and never touch again.

So I'll take this new Battlefront game over BF Hardline / BF4 / the next CoD any day. It's got fresh gameplay (an FPS with no iron sights
), next-gen graphics, and a dope ass setting. Star Wars >>>>> generic military shyt that's been played out. Like shyt, I bought CoD: Advanced Warfare in the week it came out and LITERALLY sold that shyt a day later. It had a campaign and a bunch of maps and a billion unlockables, but the gameplay was stale, the map design and spawns were terrible and overall it was just meh. I didn't get any value out of that game no matter how much bullshyt they tried to pack into it.
Lazy? BF4 is a rehash of BF3, first off, both gameplay wise and graphically. Battlefront looks a generation ahead of it graphically. And Battlefront's gameplay is supposed to be quite different too.
And again, people get these games mainly for multiplayer, so in a way 2 extra maps is better than some meh campaign tacked on. If you like DICE FPS campaigns, then I understand why you're bummed. But again, I don't think most gamers don't buy CoD/BF games for the campaign. So for most people, getting 12 maps for a MP FPS they're gonna play for a year is good value. The campaign is usually some obligatory bullshyt that people play through and never touch again.
If The Last of Us 2 came out and it was multiplayer only, then yes by all means lose your shyt. Because Naughty Dog's "campaigns" (stories really) are amazing and the reason you pay the $60.
Good Lord...... That chart is a bad look
I can't defend this shyt
![]()
