It's not a bad score, but nowadays with the average high scores reviewers give to games it actually is a really bad score. If it stays around 7, that means it is in the same category as games like Zombi, Just Dance, Mad Max, Ride, Grow Home, etc.
That's just not fair.
While I admit that content wise it could have been better, it is really not that light on content.
If you compare the game with the most recent shooter, Call of Duty: Black Ops III:
- They both have 12 maps, Battlefront has even 14 in two weeks
- Yes Black Ops III has more weapons, but it's not that all the weapons feel so different. If the game had 15 weapons instead of 40, you would barely notice it. And still, how much variety do people expect from 'laser weapons'?
And please don't come talking that black ops III has a zombie mode (that's only 1 map...) or the terrible singleplayer campaign.
And ow yeah the upcoming Rainbow Six Siege has if I am not mistaken 11 maps and not a decent singleplayer campaign. Will people also complain about the lack of content with that game?
Battlefront isn't going to be a multiplayer game that you play hundreds of hours, but it still provides fun for dozens of hours, even without the DLC. I also don't get why Battlefront gets an bad score because of content, but a singleplayer only game with 8 to 10 hours of gameplay gets a free pass and great score.
The main modes in Battlefront only have four maps.
Black Ops 3's weapons do feel drastically different. There's a huge difference in feel between the assault rifles, never mind the snipers, SMGs, LMGs, and shotguns. From what I played of Battlefront's beta, the only really "different" weapon was the LMG type.
That "terrible" single player campaign is actually pretty good, plus you can play it in splitscreen/4P online coop, as well as replay each level with differing abilities and loadouts. The zombies map, while not great, is a decent size. There's also a bunch of bonus content with Dead Ops and the freerun stuff. So yeah, I wouldn't use Blops 3 as your measuring stick here for content, as that's asinine. It has the most varied content in a day one $60 package that we've seen in a while.
I've been upset with Ubisoft since we learned how much content R6 was going to have.
MP games and SP games have inherently different values when it comes to content. I'll happily pay $60 for 8-10 hours of great gameplay that doesn't overstay its welcome. For an MP only game that I'm going to hopefully play for 20-30 hours, there needs to be enough variety to keep things fresh.
There is nothing wrong with criticizing Battlefront for its lack of content, as it doesn't meet the standard set in 2015 set by its competition that came out a week and a half ago.
And it isn't just the lack of maps and guns. The ACG review called out Battlefront for the shallow GAMEPLAY experience. That is a problem. The movement system, for example. Why is the only movement addition locked behind a level 13 star card? Movement drastically changes the way the game is played by offering different paths through maps. That's why I didn't have as much of an issue with Titanfall's lack of content- the jetpack stuff and titans offered a fresh gameplay experience that ensured no match would ever play the same.
All that being said, my DE is in the mail (had to have that box art). I'll buy the season pass once the planets are announced (Coruscant please). I made my peace with the lack of content because I love the franchise. But it's more than fair for reviewers to point out said lack of content for others who don't have the same love of Star Wars that I do and want to know how Battlefront holds up as a multiplayer shooter.