@Fandango_Letho: The same criticism applies to the Cybertron visual style. Just because they added detail to the textures of the bots doesn't make them as distinctive as the G1 versions. Sometimes cleaner and simpler is better, especially in animation.
I got the first Cybertron game when it was released and I wasn't impressed by its visual style or its gameplay. I got bored with it quickly and didn't even finish the game.
Devastation looks like the Transformers game I've always wanted. It looks the way I fondly remember the cartoon series, which is why I prefer its visuals to all others.
@tom_cat_01: Totally agree. This is what Transformers should look like!
I just wish there were more than just 5 playable Autobots. It's great that there are so many Decepticons in the game, but only 5 Autobots is really disappointing.
I have a terrible suspicion that there will be DLC bot packs with new playable characters, milking fans out of our money for $5 per bot. Or a "Season Pass" for only $40.
@Fandango_Letho: Couldn't disagree more. The G1 style Transformers are infinitely more stylish and distinctive than the Michael Bay abortions. CG and ridiculously complex doesn't make them good.
That said, the original animated series didn't look anywhere near as good as this game. Transformers was my favourite cartoon series, by far, but looking back at it, it's so damn ugly! Bland colours, cheap animation, and terrible action. Transformers only looked great on the box art -- that's what the game looks like, and it's perfect!
What they should do is reboot the G1 animated series with CG animation exactly like this game. I would definitely watch it!
Dammit! I knew I should've pre-ordered Battlefront for my PC. My gaming rig would have no problem running Battleground at 1080p 60 fps on ultra settings. 900p on the PS4 is BS! How the hell are the PS4 and Xbox One considered "next-gen" consoles when they can't even achieve 1080p!?
The only reason I pre-ordered Battlefront for the PS4 was because I was worried about another Arkham Knight debacle. Can't win.
@g-rombo: Could you be any more of a hater, troll?
You bust on Star Citizen's funding model because backers have the OPTION of spending hundreds or thousands of their hard-earned money on a video game. Whereas games for next-gen consoles are $10-20 more expensive than last gen, then there's always are "special editions" ranging in price from $10-200+ more, and season passes for $30-40. So to buy a "full game" nowadays can cost over $120.
Star Citizen will cost you $45. That's it. That's all anyone ever has to pay to get it on the fun. :)
@Strychnine: Funny, I didn't hear anyone complaining when Nolan North replaced Peter Dinklage's weak VO work on Destiny.
What's the point of hiring a "minority" voice actor if he's going to phone in his performance!? QUALITY trumps PC-forced diversity IMO.
That said, it would've been great if James Earl Jones, Morgan Freeman, Samuel L Jackson, Keith David, or Dennis Haysbert had been part of Star Citizen's cast. They have fantastic distinctive voices.
If Star Citizen is the huge success that it's on-course to be, I'd wager there will be yearly updates (like Destiny's The Taken King), with new campaigns featuring new characters voiced by new voice actors. Star Citizen already has "Luke Skywalker" in it, so all it needs is "Darth Vader"!
Reavern's comments