Since it was developed by DICE, its quality is probably on par with most Battlefields' single player campaigns. Which aren't good. As much shit as people give Call of Duty for whatever reason - justified or not - most of the CoD games' single player campaigns range from decent to very good.

Getting back to Star Wars: Battlefront 2, the biggest problem with it is still the loot boxes based progression system. Which is still "Pay to Win" at launch. Best to read the whole article which is short than just a quote, but for those who prefer TL:DR.

EuroGamer - The price and state of Star Wars Battlefront 2 loot crates at launch - Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

"As you can see, EA might have removed the top tier of Star Card from loot crates but you are still at an obvious advantage decked out in blues or even greens - or simply by having more cards in your collection."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-11-09-the-p...

Need for Speed: Payback also has a similar problem, where the progression through the game by levelling up your cars, unlocking performance upgrades and customization items has been slow down to insure that the player spends a really huge amount of time grinding or straight out buy them with a system more reminiscent of "Free-to-Play" mobile games.

EuroGamer - Need for Speed Payback review - Sin city.

"There's an element of levelling up your car, though progression is slow and matched to an unsatisfying card collection game that makes little sense. You could always speed things up by buying a loot box, of course, which may well contain in-game currency."

"Its open world is a little too vast, its events too thinly spread and the sense of progression is slow enough to make it all feel like an absolute slog. There's vehicle customisation here - enabled, performance-wise, by a card system that's been sloppily and unwisely appropriated from the world of mobile, while cosmetic enhancements are now locked until you've managed a number of in-game achievements - but it takes an age to achieve anything, and well over half a dozen hours until your garage begins to flourish. Latter events require a soulless grind, and given the presence of loot boxes and microtransactions it's easy to be cynical of why exactly your progress feels wilfully stunted."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-11-08-need-...

Thanks for the info.

Edit: Star Wars: Battlefront II was co-developed by 3 studios: EA DICE, Criterion Games and Motive Studios. I found out which studio was responsible for the single-player campaign, it was "Motive Studios, who are developing the single player mode".

Wookieepedia - Star Wars Wikia - Star Wars Battlefront II:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Battlefro...

Still, DICE doesn't have a good track record with single-player campaigns. Their best and very good ones were the ones in the 2 Bad Company games, which were exciting, funny and had some serious moments as well. But it seems they weren't responsible for the single-player campaign in Star Wars: Battlefront II.

Thanks for those videos, I was so looking forward to getting a good glimpse of the SP. The game looks really good visually. I hope there is going to be some Naboo video, too (maybe with PC or PS4 coverage if you have time for that), this environment looks stunning from what we saw in trailers, but I want to see it in GSY quality bitrate... :)

Any chance we can get some PC video?

Holy Fuck...Horizon no longer the best looking console game i guess.

Not even Grift is defending this one, so that alone says A LOT

It looks great considering it is 60fps, but the game doesn't impress me graphically in the fps/tps sections as much as I expected.

Everyone has different expectations of what the discussions are there for, so just to balance that a little bit, I can find comprehensive posts interesting, and even if the topic doesn't concern me or I don't have enough time, it's easier to skip reading than to get annoyed about it.

Very impressed this can be done at 60 fps on a console. Too bad the SP sounds boring and the progression system will most likely really hurt the MP

Great summary Driftwood. My thoughts exactly "Only 3 chapters are proposed at the moment, and so far it's mediocre at best. Image quality is great, with detailed textures and clean graphics overall, but when it comes to gameplay, it is a very generic title whose story doesn't seem particularly appealing. We truly hope the rest of the campaign can prove us wrong, but for the moment, there is no reason to be interested in Battlefront II if multiplayer isn't your thing. " I am hopeful, that it improves as you go on through the single player, but you would think the first few missions would be the strongest. It looks spectacular and has a great vibe. I can't put my finger on what is the problem with it. A lot of FPS have been suffering as of late for single player campaign modes. I think overall they were better 5 years ago.

They more likely did the opposite to that, the same way COD does it. They adapt SP areas into MP maps so there are themes that run through both modes and ties them together. We already know there are worlds in the SP not seen in the MP. At least at launch.

The issue with this game is the microtransaction BS surrounding it. The fact review copies apparently required less to unlock heroes than the retail version. And How it apparently takes 40 hours of grinding to unlock vader and luke...unless you cough up some extra cash of course...EA can go to hell tbh.