Electronic Arts announced the release of "Star Wars: Battlefront II," the sequel to their re-release of the 2004-2005 series that was rebooted in 2015. Electronic Arts also confirmed a testing beta for the new edition, coming out next month on October 6th.

But is “Star Wars: Battlefront II” worth the Pre-order? Simply put: no. Electronic Arts has had a terrible track record in recent years when it comes to developing quality gaming experiences, and I don’t see why this title will be any different.

The 2015 release of ‘Star Wars: Battlefront’

Electronic Arts' original release of the rebooted “Star Wars: Battlefront” series released in 2015 was a massive disappointment. While critics gave the game solid rating similar to that of the original games released in 2004 and 2005, the game fell far short of its predecessors.

With no campaign and a relatively short multiplayer character-leveling design, “Battlefront” failed to offer the same playability as the original, which was released eleven years prior.

The original “Battlefront” offered multiple offline play modes, character classes, multiple factions with distinct characteristics, over sixteen separate maps, and still featured online play as well, and no expansion packs were required to finish the game.

“Star Wars: Battlefront” circa 2015 had a limited offline mode amalgamating to a training exercise and a survival-based game mode, character-level and weapon-upgrade schematics similar to that of “Call of Duty,” and maps and game modes requiring five separate expansion packs in order for the game to be played in its entirety.

Even with my pre-order status, I didn’t stand a chance against other "Battlefront" gamers online. With many player’s characters reaching level 60 within a day of the release, and months later with DLC providing new characters and weapons to players who paid for them, I was severely disadvantaged.

If “Star Wars: Battlefront” had more offline features, I might have kept playing, but the focus was clearly online competitive gameplay, and as a result I was turned off from the game entirely.

'Mass Effect: Andromeda'

Let’s not forget about the other massive train-wreck Electronic Arts released earlier this year: “Mass Effect: Andromeda.” The game looked even worse than “Mass Effect III,” which came out five years earlier than this year’s title.

The graphics had not changed in any noticeable way, the game mechanics often left character’s faces and forms disfigured, and the story didn’t hold a candle to the previous “Mass Effect” games, which held a legendary story-telling status due to their continuity from one title to the next.

Mining and developing skills and weapons in "Mass Effect: Andromeda" took an extremely long time, taking the character out of the main quest constantly just to mine resources in order to keep up with the AI in each progressive segment of the campaign.

Side quests felt more like chores than exploring exciting new parts of the “Mass Effect” universe.

In the end, I played the entire "Mass Effect: Andromeda" campaign without leveling up or changing my starting weapon once. I upgraded my initial assault rifle to level 2 and procured some kind of blade for melee, but that’s as far as my customization would go. After that, working on my character’s load-out was a hassle and a nuisance.

The moral of the story

While “Star Wars: Battlefront” was a let down, “Mass Effect: Andromeda” was a kick in the stomach. I pre-ordered both, and regretted it each time. I wasted $120 on pre-orders for these titles and have not played either of them since the initial week of their release.

I then removed their data from my hard drive to make room for games that are actually decent.

Take it from me and Wait. Do not pre-order “Star Wars: Battlefront II.” Listen to what the community has to say about the game before clicking “buy.” Electronic Arts has taken in many gamers, myself included, by rebooting popular titles and then delivering only a fraction of what the title could have been. Don’t fall for it. Rise above and wait.