Sorry, but... you guys are all a big f'king drag. Seriously.
I guess I should expect rampant negativism/skepticism/criticism that is totally unjustified and unfounded on any sort of facts from the SW fan community, but, man... What a bunch of buzzkills y'all are.
...
Hahaha.
No.
The character models, maybe. The vehicles models... eh, they could possibly pull it off without too much downscaling. The frame rate? Impossible. The foliage? Pipe dream. All of that subtle source lighting? Not on this generation of hardware - maybe the next.
Here is a handy trick that anyone can do to figure-out if a publisher is selling you a bill of goods on how good the graphics of their upcoming game is:....
Ergo, the presentation is fake.
Already it is fake.
The trailer is at 1080p.
Sorry, but... you guys are all a big f'king drag. Seriously.
I guess I should expect rampant negativism/skepticism/criticism that is totally unjustified and unfounded on any sort of facts from the SW fan community, but, man... What a bunch of buzzkills y'all are.
I haavent really red anyone elses comments. What I wrote down is true. Dice lied when they said SW BF 5 / SW BF EA is the first game too have Sullust, SW BF 3 / SW BF Renegade Squadron was the first too have Sullust.
The 7th gens also did have the best space battles, story mode, and ground battle maps. I am tired of fighting on the same ol OT planets. Both the 6th and 7th gens, esp the 7th, had maps of places never seen in the movies, and for a time, shows.
The only opinion I cant be 100% sure of is the character customization. I am 80% sure the weapons and selectable gear in SWBF5 wont be as good as SWBF3&4. It was great being able to pick your own squadron colors and symbols as well as dressing as a Dark Trooper Commander. My weapons of choice was the turbo laser sniper rifle and c arbonite freeze gun.
Based on dices goals for SWBF5 most the things I really liked that I wrote above wont be showing up. I am not saying i wont like SWBF5 but I know already it wont be as good as SWBF3&4.
http://ps4daily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/battlefront-features.jpg
Here's a handy little link comparing Battlefront 2 to the new Battlefront. I have yet to hear a single compelling thing about it, or see a single believable thing.
I'm confident it's gonna be trash, and DICE needs to provide something, anything to convince me otherwise.
Yeah, no, that's ridiculous. I'm 100% with TIE Pilot on this one. 'Not everyone enjoyed the space battles' would be the most diplomatic way of putting it, of course the PC version will be moddable (what game isn't these days? Freaking Homeworld, one of the most notoriously modder-unfriendly games ever published, was modded to the nines), of course there will be drivable vehicles - it's a freakin' DICE product, and there's been little to no information released about map numbers or classes. A class in Battlefront was just a weapon selection and special ability; how is that different from a loadout, aside from being less flexible? It's like claiming that Fallout 2 lacked in content or character customization because, technically, it had no traditional RPG classes - just a handful of pre-generated characters. Also there was only one playable race! Truly horrible customization!
And yeah, A.I. 'only in one game mode'. Which is exactly the same as the old game (well, as long as 'all single player / local play options' are lumped into 'one game mode'). For some reason I doubt that competitive multiplayer folks would want a bunch of bots running around on their team during a match.
EA has earned every single vowel of ire spoken or written against them, but nobody needs to stoop to this level of cynicism for the sake of cynicism.
I dont care for EA bull choices like not having space battles, no story, low player population, AT-AT on rails.
Dice / EA also lied about this SW game being the first game too have Sullust. The first SW game too have Sullust in it is the real Star Wars Battlefront 3 / Renegade Squadron. IG-88 D is hired by the IMPs to defend their base from Renegade squadron. Renegade Squadron easily had the best space battles, better ship mechanics and hero starfighters. They also had space stations you could capture and the would spawn assault fighters, TIE Defenders or B-Wings.
The true SW BF 3 and 4, Renegade Squadron and Elkte Squadron easily had the best story modes and maps like the Sithh ome world and Vaders castle world. It sucks that this 8th gen SW BF 5 is easily beat out by two 7th gen hand helds and in alot a ways put down by the 6th gen SW bF 2.
Empire at War beat Renegade Squadron to Sullust.
I dont care for EA bull choices like not having space battles, no story, low player population, AT-AT on rails.
All three are decisions made to make the game better, not cheaper. AT-ATs suck to steer in SWBF1 and SWBF2 and they need to be on rails to work the way they've been implemented. The player population is again a design decision: more players doesn't always mean more fun. Starfighter battles are in the game, they're just on a planetary backdrop.
As for Sullust, their Sullust doesn't look like the Sullusts I've seen in previous games. They've redesigned it.
It shouldn't have space battles. Let them make X-wing vs Tie Fighter, not try to stick it in a game that is something else entirely.
X-wing beat them all... well, you were in the sullust system in the first tour of duty.
Just saying.
Star Wars Battlefront: Producer Trailer & Debunking Misconceptions
Edited by Imperial Advisor Arem HeshvaunMYTH : There will be no single-player aspect to the game; all gameplay is online multiplayer only.FACT : While multiplayer is the focus of the game, “Battlefront Missions” allow the player to partake in a single-player campaign of sorts (which can also be played in multiplayer). Furthermore, the existence of a splitscreen mode for co-operative and competitive play confirms that local gameplay is an option, and that there will be CPU units in some capacity, accommodating for those without internet connections to their systems. There’s also an optional partner system for local multiplayer.
I do love that it will have split screen local co-op. I hate how this has left most shooters.
Agreed. I will play with my kids or they can play with each other without it causing "issues".
Looking back, SWBF2s space combat wasn't terrible - as long as you played it on PC. The Autoturret dickery that was on the xbox just wasn't there due to mouse being a more unpredictable way of maneuvering.
Also mods gave us the TIE Defender.
I dont care for EA bull choices like not having space battles, no story, low player population, AT-AT on rails.
Dice / EA also lied about this SW game being the first game too have Sullust. The first SW game too have Sullust in it is the real Star Wars Battlefront 3 / Renegade Squadron. IG-88 D is hired by the IMPs to defend their base from Renegade squadron. Renegade Squadron easily had the best space battles, better ship mechanics and hero starfighters. They also had space stations you could capture and the would spawn assault fighters, TIE Defenders or B-Wings.
The true SW BF 3 and 4, Renegade Squadron and Elkte Squadron easily had the best story modes and maps like the Sithh ome world and Vaders castle world. It sucks that this 8th gen SW BF 5 is easily beat out by two 7th gen hand helds and in alot a ways put down by the 6th gen SW bF 2.
Empire at War beat Renegade Squadron to Sullust.
Yes but did it have the same level of detail as what was depicted in Star Wars Battlefront Renegade Squadron?
Ether way Dice / EA shouldn't be bragging about a false fact that has too do with a game feature that other SW games have had, some apparently even older than Renegade Squadron.
I dont care for EA bull choices like not having space battles, no story, low player population, AT-AT on rails.
All three are decisions made to make the game better, not cheaper. AT-ATs suck to steer in SWBF1 and SWBF2 and they need to be on rails to work the way they've been implemented. The player population is again a design decision: more players doesn't always mean more fun. Starfighter battles are in the game, they're just on a planetary backdrop.
As for Sullust, their Sullust doesn't look like the Sullusts I've seen in previous games. They've redesigned it.
That doesn't mean it will make the game better. If people like having a story mode in their shooter game they will already be disappointed in this SW BF because it has none.
The people that made the last five SW BF games tired to make the capabilities of the in game vehicles, weapons, powers, as true too canon as they could. AT-AT walkers are not supposed to turn on a dime, even then spinning the thumb stick real fast that turns the walker will make it turn faster. If they wanted to make a game type were you cant drive the atat but instead escort it is fine... But taking away the ability to drive it all together takes away the SW immersion experience.
All the shooter games I have played that had a huge population have been fun. SW BF1-5 had the max you could have at the time of their creation on the system they were on. The only justification for purposely having a smaller population is if they play on making the maps real small. Otherwise I will point out that Planet Side 2 can have up too 2000 players on one map and I don't hear people complain about the population in that game. If anything SW BF 6 aka SW BF EA should be a lot like planetside.
The Sullust in other games are just different parts of the same planet.
Looking back, SWBF2s space combat wasn't terrible - as long as you played it on PC. The Autoturret dickery that was on the xbox just wasn't there due to mouse being a more unpredictable way of maneuvering.
Also mods gave us the TIE Defender.
Thats not exactly true, we had fun on the xbox version of SW BF 2. The key was too engage the enemies from a distance and not in the line of fire of the auto turrets. SW BF 3 perfected the space battles. In that game you could used TIE Defenders if you captured space-stations. Thrawn was a hero character in conquest mode.
Yes but did it have the same level of detail as what was depicted in Star Wars Battlefront Renegade Squadron?
Probably.
And both are beaten by the new Battlefront.
That doesn't mean it will make the game better. If people like having a story mode in their shooter game they will already be disappointed in this SW BF because it has none.
It does have a story mode. The missions are simply independent of each other rather than presented as a campaign.
The people that made the last five SW BF games tired to make the capabilities of the in game vehicles, weapons, powers, as true too canon as they could.
As someone with a lot experience modding the Battlefront games, this simply isn't true at all.
Go boot up Battlefront 2 and fly a TIE fighter. Or a V-wing.
But taking away the ability to drive it all together takes away the SW immersion experience.
So the Star Wars Immersion Experience is missing from every game where you cannot drive an AT-AT?
You can't steer it. I imagine you can control the head but they put it on rails because they decided it was more balanced and more fun for it to follow a path to its objective than to get stuck on trees all the time. To be honest, the AT-ATs in the first two Battlefronts might as well be on rails for all the difference it'd make.
All the shooter games I have played that had a huge population have been fun.
Forgive me if I trust the people actually designing and testing this game over you on whether playing a mode is fun or not.
SW BF 3 perfected the space battles. In that gaIme you could used TIE Defenders if you captured space-stations. Thrawn was a hero character in conquest mode.
I fail to see how that constitutes perfecting space battles.
For that matter...what is this SW BF3? Isn't the EA game that everyone apparently wants to hate SW BF3?
BKL is counting the two handheld games (Renegade Squadron and Elite Squadron) as Battlefronts 3 and 4.
The new one's a reboot so it shouldn't be considered an incremental release: it's DICE making a Battlefront-type shooter, not Pandemic style Battlefront 3.
why did they show the whole 2 min when all anybody needed was the first 30 sec.
Probably.
And both are beaten by the new Battlefront.
If your trying to say it makes them non-canon it doesn't. Planets are huge and not all of them have the same exact terrain and weather conditions every square inch.
It does have a story mode. The missions are simply independent of each other rather than presented as a campaign.
Thats very lame I don't count playing battles that have missing storyline between them as story mode.
As someone with a lot experience modding the Battlefront games, this simply isn't true at all.
Go boot up Battlefront 2 and fly a TIE fighter. Or a V-wing.
As someone that made it 7th out of 200,000+ nation wide in space battles, and was feared by all the top players in that game type, I can tell you they got it as close too canon as they could. TIE Fighters and Interceptors can carry ordinance pods that do not effect its performance besides the fact they are slightly a bigger target. Its written into the lore, the first appearance I believe is the Stele chronicles.
The V-Wing could just be a alt package type not commonly seen. Just like FFG has been allowed to add too the lore back in the day the people that made SWBF2 added lore to the canon, like the alt type Dark Troopers with the Lightning casters. They ended up in other material.
But of universe it didn't help things when GL had the developers rush an unfinished game out too match the release date with EP III or come close too it.
So the Star Wars Immersion Experience is missing from every game where you cannot drive an AT-AT?
You can't steer it. I imagine you can control the head but they put it on rails because they decided it was more balanced and more fun for it to follow a path to its objective than to get stuck on trees all the time. To be honest, the AT-ATs in the first two Battlefronts might as well be on rails for all the difference it'd make.
Its been playable in every Battle Front except 5 maybe. They are taking features away that were common in the past 4-5 Star Wars Battlefronts. This is one of a few series of SW games that pretty much lets you experience every aspect of combat in varying degrees in the SW universe. As of now piloting AT-ATs is not one of them.
I promise you it wont be fun seeing a bunch of trap, or players waiting to ambush you and you cant do anything about it because you are stuck on a rail.
Rhen Var Harbor is what Ill use for my example. When rail free I have a choice if I will go into the harbor. If I detect crap loads of Rebs behind cover and I know they can make concussion cannons I know it will not be safe too go into the harbor.
On rails as I am forced too walk into the harbor I notice there no more Rebs too shot at. They are behind the walls waiting for me too walk by... The Rebs have waited long enough till the are in my blind spot, as the AT-AT walks ahead lots of Reb troops drop land mines rignt in my path, darn... Lets say I survived the pile of land mines now I am in the center of the harbor, two out of the three concussion cannons can fire at me with worry of me returning fire while I am also still being attacked by loads of Rebs who just waited for me to walk into a position I can do next too nothing about, at least with the AT-AT.
Forgive me if I trust the people actually designing and testing this game over you on whether playing a mode is fun or not.
The same people who are going too say anything so they get your money... The same peoples whos publisher published Dead Space 3, as well as pay IGN to give ACM a bad review, even lying about things involving the game like "there no easter eggs in the console versions," just too make DS3 look better since they came out he same week / month... EA also published Mass Effect 3, Battlefield 4, and some kind of Cops and Robbers Battlefield game that is basically a hollow version of "Counter Strike." Because of ME3 and Battlefield 4 EA has gotten the reputation as the "Games Workshop" of the video game industry.
I am sure the game will be fun but it wont be as awesome as most of the 6th and 7th gen Star Wars Battlefront games.
I fail to see how that constitutes perfecting space battles.
You would know if you played it. The controls are much easier too use, landing is more automated, although if your in a hurry you can still manually land. Auto turrets almost never if not ever shot down their own forces. Every fighter was retooled to be more effective while preforming actions outside their class. All the maps were designed too be better than the maps in SWBF2 and they were successful. even if you didn't care for piloting fighters, SWBF3s maps added space stations that are meant to be captured and if your team did they had access too a spawn point close too the enemies cap ship, they also had access to turrets and spawning TIE Defenders or B-Wings. The turrets actually had a good computer assisted aiming feature. Unlike in SWBF2 if every component of the enemy cap ship is destroyed its a game over victory for you. You also had access too squadron / clan colors and markings too tell others apart. The interiors of the cap ships were also much closer too canon and were very fun to fight inside. Lastly we had access too hero fighters, which could land so you could actually use the hero in space in the docking bay / space station. All that on top of custom load outs made SWBF3 and 4 the nest in the series over all when it came to space battles and or campaign story mode.
.
Edited by cutpAs someone that made it 7th out of 200,000+ nation wide in space battles, and was feared by all the top players in that game type, I can tell you they got it as close too canon as they could. TIE Fighters and Interceptors can carry ordinance pods that do not effect its performance besides the fact they are slightly a bigger target. Its written into the lore, the first appearance I believe is the Stele chronicles.
I can upload the Object Definition Files if you don't believe the X-wing and TIE fighter are mechanically the same ship in Battlefront 2.
Forgive me if I trust the people actually designing and testing this game over you on whether playing a mode is fun or not.
Okay, now you've lost me again.
You haven't even talked to those people to hear their opinions, and I doubt that those opinions are uniform. All you've heard is what the PR reps are saying, and of course they said that it was a 'design decision' made to 'make the game more fun'.
This video is overly cynical, but it's still fundamentally true:
The designers & staff you're putting on a pedestal are mostly code & art monkeys sitting in cubicles who wish they had made different choices in life. By the time most testers are done with a beta, they are so sick and tired of the game that they cannot realistically tell you how fun or not a given component is (this is why in recent years some studios have actually been rotating their products through multiple outsourced third party testing companies, to varying degrees of success) - only what things will trigger which bugs. Design & production staff and testing staff often lock horns somewhere along the process, as the testers load the desks of the production crew with long lists of bugs that they have to perform triage on because they can't realistically fix all of them, while the production staff schedules test after test for a game that the testers have become tired of.
Take whatever you hear from the bunch of liars that produced that fake trailer with an enormous grain of salt. They might talk about elements of play as though they went through some sort of extremely rigorous Q&A to boil down the essentials of what makes the experience fun, but it's just very unlikely that anything of the sort happened. More likely that the production team and testers got sick of trying to get the AT-AT to walk freely around a complex map, said, "**** this stupid thing," and put it on rails to make their jobs bearable.
You haven't even talked to those people to hear their opinions, and I doubt that those opinions are uniform. All you've heard is what the PR reps are saying, and of course they said that it was a 'design decision' made to 'make the game more fun'.
I trust someone who's played the game's judgement on which player count for that game is more fun over someone who hasn't played it.
I watched the trailer: A+++
will game play be as good? have no idea
are my kids (20, 18, 5, 2) totally excited? yes! (yeah, 3 girls)
me? yes!!!
will it get a ton of play? yep!
buying it? 100%
loving it? 100%
complaints! 0%
(I'm a fan, not a game designer...)
take a step back: we're in a SW golden age...(even if game is imperfect...which we don't know yet)
the overall content we're getting is better than any other IP!!!
(now I'm channeling JBR7...)
happy...
PS re-paint those models!!!
See, it's possible to still have a pulse and not be an utterly unpleasant stick in the mud when something isn't absolutely perfect!
We need more this-guy ^ attitude around here.
Also, on the matter of PR, yeah, they'll big it up, but nowhere near as hard as the EA Hate Mob are trying to tear it down for having those two letters on it. And while DICE will try to spin things to look better, they're not allowed to outright lie. The hatemob's actually making things up.
The problem is that DICE thinks Single Player really only exists as a tutorial for Multiplayer.
