5 hours ago, TasteTheRainbow said:Still no actual gameplay details??
8 hours ago, Imperial Advisor Arem Heshvaun said:Single Player Story Mode Set after events of Return of the Jedi .
Game will be on Consoles, PlayStation and Xbox.
Game can be played in VR on PC and PlayStation 4.
Ability to customize and modify fighters, flightsuites and helmets as “players move up in the rankings.”
Starhawk, Hera with General ranking.
It looks sexy, sounds like a 5 v 5 multiplayer match which is cool.
Not going to break my EA boycott for this, though. If I could pass up Mirror's Edge 2 , I can pass on this, too.
Like, I loved the first Mirror's Edge on a spiritual level, but EA needs to go.
8 hours ago, Imperial Advisor Arem Heshvaun said:
Yea that doesn’t tell me if it’s like Rebel Assault or X-Wing:Alliance. One of those would be my primary game maybe for years, the other I wouldn’t purchase.
18 hours ago, Imperial Advisor Arem Heshvaun said:
Game will be on Consoles, PlayStation and Xbox.
Last time I checked, PlayStation and Xbox are consoles.
40 minutes ago, TasteTheRainbow said:Yea that doesn’t tell me if it’s like Rebel Assault or X-Wing:Alliance. One of those would be my primary game maybe for years, the other I wouldn’t purchase.
If anything it will be more like the newer Battlefronts then Rebel Assault, it won't be a shooter on rails. I doubt we get the true "Flight Sim" mechanics of the X-wing series of games and I am guessing it will be just a deeper version of the BF2 flight model. It does look like there is power management (shields, weapons, engines), but to what extent is or how much control you have over that remains to be seen. I do hope that it will be a bit more skill based than BF2, not to say that game didn't require skill, but it was too heavy on upgrades and gimmicks for my liking. Please no hero ships either, that just ruins balance too much.
Hopefully a lot of questions will be answered soon:
QuoteEA won’t be revealing gameplay until the company’s EA Play Live event on June 18th at 4PM PT / 7PM ET, but it promises a variety of multiplayer modes, including “Fleet Battles,” where the goal is to work with your teammates to destroy a capital ship, as well as more traditional dogfighting mode.
Edited by Jo Jo
2 hours ago, Jo Jo said:I do hope that it will be a bit more skill based than BF2, not to say that game didn't require skill, but it was too heavy on upgrades and gimmicks for my liking. Please no hero ships either, that just ruins balance too much.
This. ^
Hera
B-Wing
6 hours ago, Imperial Advisor Arem Heshvaun said:B-Wing
It's a classic, but not yet in the game. 😞
I really hope they will include this ship later, paired with the TIE Brute or TIE Defender, in a new ship class/role ("Assault"?).
Heck, the game has squadrons of 5 people, why not adding a 5th ship for each side?
Edited by OdananThe gameplay reveal looks like a general refinement and revision of the fighter modes from the recent pair of Battlefront games. Or maybe just a cosmetic change. Looks entertaining enough though there was an annoying amount of shaky-cam in all those cutscenes.
It also looked a bit like the game keeps you stuck in that no-man's land of Battlefront II (2017) as far as the controls. Neither arcade nor flight-sim because space wizards reasoning. Lots of barrel rolling instead of just being able to invert the ship. Like the game will try to intentionally disorient you. Also seems like it wants to force an "up" on you. Seems like Starfighter Assault mode expansions they just kept out of Battlefront II (2017.)
I'm a little skeptical in general, but the lead developer listing X-wing and TIE Fighter as his main inspiration, and the game fully supporting HOTAS makes me cautiously optimistic.
Also, he explicitly talks about FFGs X-wing as something they mined for inspiration.
Edited by Indecisive Mogwai46 minutes ago, Indecisive Mogwai said:I'm a little skeptical in general, but the lead developer listing X-wing and TIE Fighter as his main inspiration, and the game fully supporting HOTAS makes me cautiously optimistic.
Also, he explicitly talks about FFGs X-wing as something they mined for inspiration.
On the one hand it I'm optimistic as well. On the other some of that was a little worrying to me. I inferred a whole lot of "Because Space Wizards!" from some of that.
3 hours ago, Frimmel said:I inferred a whole lot of "Because Space Wizards!" from some of that.
...wut?
23 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:...wut?
Perhaps I misunderstand but I got a kind of "physics don't matter" from the way some things were described. The way he was talking about going faster and turning faster but also not turning faster with some of the power usage description. I may simply not be correctly understanding how the game works.
On 6/19/2020 at 9:34 PM, Frimmel said:Perhaps I misunderstand but I got a kind of "physics don't matter" from the way some things were described. The way he was talking about going faster and turning faster but also not turning faster with some of the power usage description. I may simply not be correctly understanding how the game works.
Ah, gotcha.
I think they were basically just pointing out the difference between starfighter combat in Star Wars - which has traditionally been presented as WW2 fighter combat - and the current crop of space simulators like Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen.
From the gameplay trailer it looks like it's going to be a mid-way point between the simulation style of the X-Wing PC games and the arcade-style action of the Battlefront games. i.e. deep, but not too deep to be potentially off-putting for newcomers.
The bit that res onated with me was trying to find ways to avoid the Toilet Bowl of Doom, which is a big problem with a lot of combat sims. If the energy management system lets you break out of that loop, so much the better.
Incidentally, the talk of boosting, disabling the boost long enough to flip 180 degrees... why, hello there Koiogran Turns and Segnors Loops!
Edited by FTS GeckoOne minor nit is the use of the MC75 vs MC80 in Fleet battle. I would think an MC80 is the more appropriate (and more iconic) ship to go toe to toe against an ISD. Don't get me wrong I like the MC75 but I would have preferred a proper MC80.
Overall it looks impressive, but I am still wary of this being a letdown. Primarily with lack of content right off the bat.
Edited by Jo Jo1 hour ago, Frimmel said:Perhaps I misunderstand but I got a kind of "physics don't matter" from the way some things were described. The way he was talking about going faster and turning faster but also not turning faster with some of the power usage description. I may simply not be correctly understanding how the game works.
I think that was in referencing in how they want the ships to be able to "drift" in space, which Star Wars defies physics. The key being him referring to Poe's attack run in TLJ.
Edited by Sithborg
2 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:Incidentally, the talk of boosting, disabling the boost long enough to flip 180 degrees... why, hello there Koiogran Turns and Segnors Loops!
And according to the interview, you can even pull off Poe's Talon Roll from Last Jedi. At least I've always viewed that as a Talon Roll.
2 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:
The bit that resonated with me was trying to find ways to avoid the Toilet Bowl of Doom, which is a big problem with a lot of combat sims. If the energy management system lets you break out of that loop, so much the better.
I liked that bit as well. It sounds at least like they want it to be fun. With all of those perks and such it sounds like you should be able to set stuff up that works best with your skills.
1 hour ago, Sithborg said:I think that was in referencing in how they want the ships to be able to "drift" in space, which Star Wars defies physics. The key being him referring to Poe's attack run in TLJ.
I am not sure it quite defies the physics as it is a bit underexplored. In any case it seems at least a fresh choice for this sort of thing.
On 6/19/2020 at 10:36 PM, Jo Jo said:One minor nit is the use of the MC75 vs MC80 in Fleet battle. I would think an MC80 is the more appropriate (and more iconic) ship to go toe to toe against an ISD. Don't get me wrong I like the MC75 but I would have preferred a proper MC80.
The interview with Motive's Creative Director talks about the space battkes in Rogue One being a big influence for the game. That, coupled with the playability of the U-Wing and the TIE Reaper would seem to explain why the MC-75 is featured, I guess. Even if the campaign is set post ROTJ.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a sucker for classic Mon Calimari ships myself (especially the Liberty, finest ship in the fleet), but as we haven't really seen the Profundity featured in a game like this before, it makes a change. I guess.
On 6/19/2020 at 10:36 PM, Jo Jo said:Ov erall it looks impressive, but I am still wary of this being a letdown. Primarily with lack of content right off the bat.
Got to give it the benefit of the doubt. We've been waiting for and asking for a dedicated space combat game for a long time now - when was the last one, again? I mean, Jump To Lightspeed is the last real attempt at space combat simulation I can remember, and that was a: an expansion to Star Wars: Galaxies, and b: was fifteen years ago.
I understand @kris40k 's stance on EA, but if we don't support projects like this, then we'll be waiting a long time to see them again.
Edited by FTS GeckoOn 6/21/2020 at 7:00 PM, FTS Gecko said:I understand @kris40k 's stance on EA, but if we don't support projects like this, then we'll be waiting a long time to see them again.
I stand by the mantra of "never pre-order, but if you like the reviews and the footage you see go ahead and buy in." People have every reason to be wary of EA. They can put out some good stuff but you need to be aware of their history of rushed products, studio closures, and especially their use of micro transactions and loot-boxes. I want a good star fighter video game, but I'm not gonna support this if it's sub par, or if progression is hundreds of hours of slog that can be bypassed by tossing tons of cash at the problem.
Edited by Hippie MoosenYeah, I would avoid EA games day 1.
Just want to say I am not nearly as excited about this as I would have thought I would be 10 years ago.
EA has done an atrocious job of their Battlefront fighter combat system, in the name of being fair I suppose. But I'm sorry, everyone who ever watched a Star Wars movie knows that X-Wings and TIE fighters are not even close to being the same kind of ships.
And you know, there's not even a great excuse for a video game having to be 'fair' to all players in its design. X-Wing vs. TIE fighter was super low tech, and if not for torpedo spam, was way more fun than the modern Battlefront EA Star Wars. Sure, it didn't look as good, and was more fun in every way possible.
To me, it's weak that games try to equalize Rebel and Imperial fighters because they want fair play. Straight money making there. One thing at least that FFG got right when it released this game for the first time is creating a game that represented what happened in the movies.
5v5 screams bad design to me, and that's why I'm not going to be thrilled about this game until I see it. If it's not great, I'll just keep Star Wars Battlefront II, which I got for my 10 year old and sometimes I play for laughs. It was $12 when I got it and that's about what it's worth
On 7/2/2020 at 12:53 PM, KelRiever said:Just want to say I am not nearly as excited about this as I would have thought I would be 10 years ago.
EA has done an atrocious job of their Battlefront fighter combat system, in the name of being fair I suppose. But I'm sorry, everyone who ever watched a Star Wars movie knows that X-Wings and TIE fighters are not even close to being the same kind of ships.
And you know, there's not even a great excuse for a video game having to be 'fair' to all players in its design. X-Wing vs. TIE fighter was super low tech, and if not for torpedo spam, was way more fun than the modern Battlefront EA Star Wars. Sure, it didn't look as good, and was more fun in every way possible.
To me, it's weak that games try to equalize Rebel and Imperial fighters because they want fair play. Straight money making there. One thing at least that FFG got right when it released this game for the first time is creating a game that represented what happened in the movies.
5v5 screams bad design to me, and that's why I'm not going to be thrilled about this game until I see it. If it's not great, I'll just keep Star Wars Battlefront II, which I got for my 10 year old and sometimes I play for laughs. It was $12 when I got it and that's about what it's worth
But who would actually fly Tie Fighters if they were easy to destroy? No one likes to play as a red shirt and just be cannon fodder for another player. Which I why I hate playing Battlefront 2 with all the hero spam. They have to make them fairly even, its a clear gameplay over lore here.
Edited by Jo Jo