Two was good, but you know what? 1 is under appreciated.

Also: Columns soundtrack.

I liked it, played for a loooong time yesterday night. It has been a while since I sat and played a video game for over 5 hours straight.

My biggest gripe is it seems impossible for the Rebels to win the Hoth map unless they are totally ROFL stomping the Empire. Like seriously owning them. There are simply too many Imperial Vehicles/Weapons on that map that are 1/2-shot kills. I think the AT-ATs (and maybe vehicles in general) need to have less health or be seriously damaged when the Y-Wings are summoned successfully. The map is still fun, but when you play the Rebel side, you basically know you are going to lose and just try to rack up kills instead of really worrying about the mission too much. It takes away from the theme a bit.

My only other gripe is the random spawns. Every once in a while on the Drop-pod map you will spawn and then a new pod will be coming and 3 opposing guys will spawn 5 feet from you, or spawn directly behind you. I know why they are doing Random spawns, but I wish they separated it a bit so you would't spawn, get wrecked immediately from behind/the side, and be forced to spawn again. I suppose this is something I can play around, just a minor thing that happened a few times and was a little frustrating.

Those are my complaints. After about 8 or 9 matches on Hoth I have yet to see the Rebels win. I've seen them get close, but not be able to get it done. I have seen good Imperial teams simply slaughter Rebel teams. I once got 35 kills to 5 deaths and I was fourth on my team in score.

I got a 16 kill streak on hoth but then again i was chin gunning an ATAT and after that stopped pretty much instantly found an ATST

the grenade launcher on the AT-ST is awesome.

The M1 garand was a game changer during WWII. Far greater killing power over the modern M-16. Wonder why all the soldiers dont cary one on their back to complement their arsenal?

For a start:

its heavy

the ammuniton is heavy (compared to the m16s 5.56)

and lastly until recently in afghanistan nobody was shooting at each other at the 'mile away' distances the old bolt action and battle rifles of the 40s and 50s could engage at and they were massively overkill.

when the m16 came out, despite it being utter garbage for years, it was very light, you could carry far more ammo, it didnt warp if it got wet, it didnt rot and most importantly it was incredibly cheap to make.. so no one really minded that its effective range was around the 600 metre mark as engagement ranges had dropped off in modern warfare at the time.

Back to battleground. Frustratingly i was just about to get to rank 5 before the beta ended so didnt get to try the cycler rifle.

I see no problem with a 'cooldown' longshot though and i got knocked out by them a few times but not so much that i'd be thinking 'those are annoying'.

I really liked the beta (playing on ps4) but i was a bit frustrated with the starfighters, that delay before starting up was a pain and by the time i'd figured out the controls i was shot down!

I feel the need to say that I was able to win the Hoth map as Rebels a few (~5) times before the beta ended. It is possible if people try to do it.

If you have someone who knows where the snowspeeder power-ups are and is good at the mini-game they can basically auto-win it for you. Especially if the imperials aren't using the fighters or aren't good with them. Even killing one AT-AT this way goes a LONG way toward victory.

The trick is to ignore your kill/death ratio and go for the mission. The times I've won the top player on our team was something like 15-20, If you keep the y-wings coming and blast the AT-AT's with Orbitals/Imploders/Vehicles weapons they go down pretty fast.

I still think they should make it a little easier, but the times I was on a team that won felt like a big accomplishment.

Last day of beta I played Hoth 4 times. 2x Rebel and 2x Imperial. Won both times as Rebel and it seemed relatively easy. The rebels activated and defended the uplinks and then just unloaded (mainly with just our blasters) on the AT-AT when they were vulnerable. We usually had over 5 Y-Wings called in. I'm not sure how the game worked exactly, the more Y-Wings the easier it is to damage the AT-AT?

Never won on the Rebel side even once before that...

Y-wings will hit and damage the walkers when they do their runs. You need to activate the beacons and hold them for a certain amount of time before the Y-wings attack. You can get them in a couple times in if your side is doing well. Each time hits that walker and knocks them down.

Players as ships can also damage the Walkers. I wasn't into that too much, but if your side has the better pilots, they can smash the walkers pretty well.

At the end of each stage, the walkers shields go down and you can hit them with any weapon. Ion weapons do more damage. Ships do a lot. I never really found the cannons to do much damage to a walker.

I found you need to really have some dedicated players to either activate or deactivate the beacons for Hoth. If you had a group that was better at it, then you could succeed. I can some players working together on voice doing well there. You needed to watch out for enemy infantry, as well as AT-ST's, AT-AT's, and even Tie Fighters. Getting upgrades really helped. Getting one of those portable shield gens near a beacon was great to then hide in when orbitals or walkers were nearby.

Let's be brutally honest here people.. Not 1 person praising this game would feel the same if this wasn't star wars and it didn't have the name "battlefront" on the title screen.

This is a dumbed down, generic shooter with aging gameplay and features. Not 1 thing about this game stands out or is even competent outside of the awesome graphics, sound and star wars coat of paint.

Its a pure money grab. Nothing more.

And did someone mention free DLC? Lmao. It's EA. Your free DLC is going to boil down to maps and weapons that should have been included at launch. Wait until they hit you with there season pass nonesense. After all is said and done, this complete game will cost $200

and still won't be as good or feature complete as the last battlefront made over a decade ago.

I'm just curious here, whatever happened to customers who respected their money and held companies accountable for selling products that are both high quality and fairly priced? It's sad we live in an age now where people throw money at corporations and don't give those corporations any incentive to get better and put out better products.

Consumer sheep is beyond the perfect expression.

/Climbs off soap box

Let's be brutally honest here people.. Not 1 person praising this game would feel the same if this wasn't star wars and it didn't have the name "battlefront" on the title screen.

This is a dumbed down, generic shooter with aging gameplay and features. Not 1 thing about this game stands out or is even competent outside of the awesome graphics, sound and star wars coat of paint.

Its a pure money grab. Nothing more.

And did someone mention free DLC? Lmao. It's EA. Your free DLC is going to boil down to maps and weapons that should have been included at launch. Wait until they hit you with there season pass nonesense. After all is said and done, this complete game will cost $200

and still won't be as good or feature complete as the last battlefront made over a decade ago.

I'm just curious here, whatever happened to customers who respected their money and held companies accountable for selling products that are both high quality and fairly priced? It's sad we live in an age now where people throw money at corporations and don't give those corporations any incentive to get better and put out better products.

Consumer sheep is beyond the perfect expression.

/Climbs off soap box

Not to start the debate all over again but yes, the game is competent at what it does. It is a tested (and overdone) formula that works. The Star Wars coat of paint has immense value to me, as I don't care as much if the game isn't top notch when it manages to immerse me well enough, and for me it does that. It also helps that you can have a great impact on the game if you have a communicating team, especially on Sullust.

I can say fun was had.

I can say fun was had.

And in the end, this was all that matters. And fun is very subjective. Not everyone likes the same games.

Let's be brutally honest here people.. Not 1 person praising this game would feel the same if this wasn't star wars and it didn't have the name "battlefront" on the title screen.

This is a dumbed down, generic shooter with aging gameplay and features. Not 1 thing about this game stands out or is even competent outside of the awesome graphics, sound and star wars coat of paint.

Its a pure money grab. Nothing more.

And did someone mention free DLC? Lmao. It's EA. Your free DLC is going to boil down to maps and weapons that should have been included at launch. Wait until they hit you with there season pass nonesense. After all is said and done, this complete game will cost $200

and still won't be as good or feature complete as the last battlefront made over a decade ago.

I'm just curious here, whatever happened to customers who respected their money and held companies accountable for selling products that are both high quality and fairly priced? It's sad we live in an age now where people throw money at corporations and don't give those corporations any incentive to get better and put out better products.

Consumer sheep is beyond the perfect expression.

/Climbs off soap box

Nothing new and everything aging? IDK about you but I've never seen that card system before.

From what was presented in the beta, the card system wasn't anything more than buying and item to unlock it and selecting it to equip it. They just dressed it up. Not saying good or bad, but it isn't anything revolutionary. I don't even know if I'd call it a card system for that matter.

-Cal

The game is Battlefront 3. It's not claiming to re-invent the FPS. It's just a more improved version of it's previous versions. I played Battlefront 1 and hated it as it was terribly unbalanced to whichever side had jetpacks. It seemed liked a ripoff of BattleField series. Now, the proper people are building the franchise in the right way. Still....even if you want new things, I can think of a few.

The Card system is just a different way of using upgrades. I do like the idea of buying what upgrades you want instead of just getting them at x level. I do like that. That part is new.

Also, the many different game modes are new. I have played the Battlefield series since the beginning and there are numerous new things with this game. The whole Walker Assault mode is new. I've played the Assault levels of BF where you attack the MCOMs and try to blow them up. The "defend the walker" when you are attacking is actually pretty unique and interesting. That part is new and I like it. It's kind of like defending when you are attacking.

I also like the Pod game mode. I've not played a version of BF where you have to capture the escape pods. I like that. That is new. It's not capture the flag or capture the base. There are mobile "bases" that need capturing.

I can say fun was had.

And in the end, this was all that matters. And fun is very subjective. Not everyone likes the same games.

100% agree. I felt like this game was much much more interesting to me than any other FPS I have played since Half-Life 2..

Sure, it's not revolutionary. But it doesn't need to be. The game drips Star Wars and captures the feel really, really well. I thought both sides were fun to play on the missions and I expect the other game modes we have yet to play will feel great, Some would say that the Walker Assault mission should be really tough for the Rebels, and I partially agree.

I agree that so many games these days are re-hashes or lame compared to games made in my childhood (at least partially because of nostalgia), but this one stands out as one I can come home, play way longer than I anticipated to, and enjoy every second. Sure, it's a bit more expensive and isn't the greatest game I have ever played or anything but it is great at what it does, and well worth the money. If you consider an old fart gamer that rarely buys games these days (like me) can sit down and enjoy it for 5+ hours straight, and not even regret going to bed late or missing a meal because of how awesome it was, that says a LOT

If that costs me $200, then so be it. I can afford it. I never anticipated it would win Game of the Year or anything. So far, it has exceeded my expectations, and that's great.

I have a question about the Season Pass. It's not mandatory to play the game, right? So these people going on about a $200 game sound like they are exaggerating.

I would have to say that it exceeded my expectations by a fair margin. While not revolutionary, it was certainly done well, had a good star warziness to it. Visually looked great and played smooth. I felt like I was on hoth, very immersive.

My one complaint would probably be the fighter system. it felt tacked on and not very good to me. Never been a fan of behind the vehicle camera view. In my view, that could use some improvement. did like the fact that there was a throttle, however.

I'll definitely be picking it up.

I have a question about the Season Pass. It's not mandatory to play the game, right? So these people going on about a $200 game sound like they are exaggerating.

Not likely to be mandatory. Just like Taken King isn't for Destiny.

It's $50 divided by the four expansions, so $12.50 a map pack. That's not terrible I suppose.

I don't necessarily like pre-paying when I don't have to but it does come with early access 4 times and an emote (how useless are emotes in the game?)

I didn't even know there were emotes in the game at all, and never saw one - nor would I intend to use it. They're not exaggerating, just stating that the whole game and all the map packs are already created, but they're only going to give you some of them to start with the core game for $60, then you can pick and choose expansions that were removed from the game for $12.00 or get a discount to buy all of them for $50, then if they have a second season, that will also be $50 or maybe less. These kinds of things don't feel like expansions more than they feel like witholdings that you must pay for. Will I buy the core game? Yeah. Will I buy any map packs? Maybe. I'll likely pick the set no one plays and waste my money.

Gone are the old days where it legitimately "expanded" on the game - Borderlands for example. That was an entire game, and there was a lot to play, and there was multiplayer and the whole bit; the expansions were about $10.00 and had small objective based expansions, which were coupled with a bunch of weapons, new enemies, new stuff in general and had a few hours each of stuff to do. I didn't feel like these things were excluded from the game, but rather - added. Zombie island of Dr. Ned? That was several hours of additional content.

My one complaint would probably be the fighter system. it felt tacked on and not very good to me. Never been a fan of behind the vehicle camera view. In my view, that could use some improvement. did like the fact that there was a throttle, however.

I'll definitely be picking it up.

There was a cockpit view that could be switched to.

The M1 garand was a game changer during WWII. Far greater killing power over the modern M-16. Wonder why all the soldiers dont cary one on their back to complement their arsenal?

For a start:

its heavy

the ammuniton is heavy (compared to the m16s 5.56)

and lastly until recently in afghanistan nobody was shooting at each other at the 'mile away' distances the old bolt action and battle rifles of the 40s and 50s could engage at and they were massively overkill.

when the m16 came out, despite it being utter garbage for years, it was very light, you could carry far more ammo, it didnt warp if it got wet, it didnt rot and most importantly it was incredibly cheap to make.. so no one really minded that its effective range was around the 600 metre mark as engagement ranges had dropped off in modern warfare at the time

Exactly my point. Thank you for providing supporting detail.

The Cycler rifle may have been great at some time...but long since replaced with better laser guns...just like the M1. Yet in this game soldiers on both sides are carrying these rifles in abundance. That is just as silly as a group of marines in Afghanistan carrying M4's/M16's and have a M1 strapped to their back.

The M1 garand was a game changer during WWII. Far greater killing power over the modern M-16. Wonder why all the soldiers dont cary one on their back to complement their arsenal?

For a start:

its heavy

the ammuniton is heavy (compared to the m16s 5.56)

and lastly until recently in afghanistan nobody was shooting at each other at the 'mile away' distances the old bolt action and battle rifles of the 40s and 50s could engage at and they were massively overkill.

when the m16 came out, despite it being utter garbage for years, it was very light, you could carry far more ammo, it didnt warp if it got wet, it didnt rot and most importantly it was incredibly cheap to make.. so no one really minded that its effective range was around the 600 metre mark as engagement ranges had dropped off in modern warfare at the time

Exactly my point. Thank you for providing supporting detail.

The Cycler rifle may have been great at some time...but long since replaced with better laser guns...just like the M1. Yet in this game soldiers on both sides are carrying these rifles in abundance. That is just as silly as a group of marines in Afghanistan carrying M4's/M16's and have a M1 strapped to their back.

Does everything have to be hyper-realistic?

They wanted to add a sniper rifle and allow both sides to use it. The fact that it shoots projectiles differentiates it from your normal weapon. It also makes sense that an older, more crude weapon would be somewhat unaffected by defenses designed for 'modern' laser-based technology.

I have 0 problem with it. In fact, I kind of like the inclusion of a projectile weapon in the game, since while not in widespread use, there are plenty of examples of these types of weapons being used in the Star Wars EU/Legends..

And it does feel pretty cool to use!

The M1 garand was a game changer during WWII. Far greater killing power over the modern M-16. Wonder why all the soldiers dont cary one on their back to complement their arsenal?

For a start:

its heavy

the ammuniton is heavy (compared to the m16s 5.56)

and lastly until recently in afghanistan nobody was shooting at each other at the 'mile away' distances the old bolt action and battle rifles of the 40s and 50s could engage at and they were massively overkill.

when the m16 came out, despite it being utter garbage for years, it was very light, you could carry far more ammo, it didnt warp if it got wet, it didnt rot and most importantly it was incredibly cheap to make.. so no one really minded that its effective range was around the 600 metre mark as engagement ranges had dropped off in modern warfare at the time

Exactly my point. Thank you for providing supporting detail.

The Cycler rifle may have been great at some time...but long since replaced with better laser guns...just like the M1. Yet in this game soldiers on both sides are carrying these rifles in abundance. That is just as silly as a group of marines in Afghanistan carrying M4's/M16's and have a M1 strapped to their back.

Which pretty much happened.

In afghanistan they were unable to engage insurgants with most small arms when they (the insurgants) were using old lee enfield .303s or SVDs firing *big* rounds that will travel over a mile and still kill you (in the case of the lee enfields)

So the squads started having one guy get an old M14 or M21 rifle that had been 'accurised' out of stores and that guy acts as a 'designated marksman' using an essentially obsolete rifle because the 'cutting edge' stuff struggles to reach out and touch people at the ranges you are being engaged by. (the M14 and M21 BTW are essentially modified M1 Garands at their core, the M14 being the 1950s fully automatic successor to the M1 and the M21 being semi auto the sniper variant)

Same thing happened in chechnya with the russians. They were finding that the 5.45 AK74 wasnt dropping rebels who were hyped up and drunk or on drugs so they got old 7.62 AKMs out of the armoury as they tend to ruin someones day with one shot.

Granted we're not talking about a guy running around with an m4 or an AK74 with an obsolete rifle on his back in 'addition' but in recent conflicts we've seen squads with one or more guys carrying a 60 year old 'cold war relic' rifle around until someone could invent a decent DMR rifle to be carried.

The M1 garand was a game changer during WWII. Far greater killing power over the modern M-16. Wonder why all the soldiers dont cary one on their back to complement their arsenal?

For a start:

its heavy

the ammuniton is heavy (compared to the m16s 5.56)

and lastly until recently in afghanistan nobody was shooting at each other at the 'mile away' distances the old bolt action and battle rifles of the 40s and 50s could engage at and they were massively overkill.

when the m16 came out, despite it being utter garbage for years, it was very light, you could carry far more ammo, it didnt warp if it got wet, it didnt rot and most importantly it was incredibly cheap to make.. so no one really minded that its effective range was around the 600 metre mark as engagement ranges had dropped off in modern warfare at the time

Exactly my point. Thank you for providing supporting detail.

The Cycler rifle may have been great at some time...but long since replaced with better laser guns...just like the M1. Yet in this game soldiers on both sides are carrying these rifles in abundance. That is just as silly as a group of marines in Afghanistan carrying M4's/M16's and have a M1 strapped to their back.

Which pretty much happened.

In afghanistan they were unable to engage insurgants with most small arms when they (the insurgants) were using old lee enfield .303s or SVDs firing *big* rounds that will travel over a mile and still kill you (in the case of the lee enfields)

So the squads started having one guy get an old M14 or M21 rifle that had been 'accurised' out of stores and that guy acts as a 'designated marksman' using an essentially obsolete rifle because the 'cutting edge' stuff struggles to reach out and touch people at the ranges you are being engaged by. (the M14 and M21 BTW are essentially modified M1 Garands at their core, the M14 being the 1950s fully automatic successor to the M1 and the M21 being semi auto the sniper variant)

Same thing happened in chechnya with the russians. They were finding that the 5.45 AK74 wasnt dropping rebels who were hyped up and drunk or on drugs so they got old 7.62 AKMs out of the armoury as they tend to ruin someones day with one shot.

Granted we're not talking about a guy running around with an m4 or an AK74 with an obsolete rifle on his back in 'addition' but in recent conflicts we've seen squads with one or more guys carrying a 60 year old 'cold war relic' rifle around until someone could invent a decent DMR rifle to be carried.

Long range effectiveness is never obsolete, as the theater of War is ever changing- much like the meta of games like XWMG.

I do love the M-14. So very, very much. Such a great weapon.