"OH NO NOW SPACE BATTLES" Sure, that sucks. That doesn't mean it won't be good though, the infantry/ground vehicle combat may be phenomenal.
Could be, but it's still removing a large portion of the gameplay. Space battles were an entirely different set of tactics, and despite the small level space, the area felt massive and everything was epic.
Players could dog-fight in space, take out capital cruiser systems from the exterior, or infiltrate and take out the command ship from the inside. Even though it wasn't a space game in and of itself, Battlefront was up there with the likes of Freespace. The fact of the matter is that, until EVE Valkyrie and No Man's Sky both launch, we don't have any other space combat games, and we have no way of knowing if they can get the formula right like Battlefront did.
"ATAT ON RAILS" Sucks if true, but its only one map/set of maps presumably. Besides, if they are it wont matter all that much anyways as they aren't mobile enough to change it very much.
What do you mean "aren't mobile enough"? They might be slow, but they're loving OP. I remember in one of the campaigns you take control...it was epic.
"NO PREQUELS" The only good things out of the prequels were Ewan Macgregor as Obi-wan, Darth Maul/GG/Count Dooku, and the aliens (excluding Jar-Jar).
Don't be a loving idiot. This isn't about people wanting the prequels. This is people wanting variety. I MUCH prefer Republic vs. CIS. The special troop types were a little more interesting (on the CIS side), and I just think they're more visually appealing. People want MORE variety, not less.
EA already pulled this kind of stuff with Sims 4. In order to reduce development times, they're asking their developers to cut out features. I don't even think they'll be DLC.
"DLC!!!!!" Only harms the quality if they cut out content that would have been in the game anyways, a la ME3.
You read the article. DICE said this game is multiplayer-focused. That means there's a chance DLC could be P2W-orientated, such as a "time-saver pack" or new unlocks that are powerful.
WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN GAMEPLAY YET, HOW CAN ANYONE SAY THAT IT IS BAD OR GOOD AT THIS POINT?? Just stay off both the hype train and the anti-hype train, both are silly.
Because this is 2014, and since we've seen a lot of how EA handles its titles, we can look at previous patterns to guess how this game is going to release. All signs are pointing towards a game too focused on graphics for the sake of money, and therefore a Battlefront title that is substantially weaker than its gameplay-focused ancestors.
Should note; I try to stay fair and balanced with all publishers, because they're companies trying to make money and I don't think companies are trying to be "evil". That doesn't mean I'm not going to criticise poor decisions, especially when a company like this should know better.
