YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play. Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 18:10:17 22288d No. 14264
So the trailer for the new Star Wars Battlefront just went up, lets see if we can discuss how bad this will probably be without resorting to meaningless shitposting or nonsense statements like>Its Battlefield: Star Wars edition!
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 19:03:55 113999 No. 14274
>Battlefield: Star Wars edition
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 19:14:05 84795b No. 14277
Any idea what the minimum requirements are going to be like?
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 19:17:04 628507 No. 14278
Well seeing as it's all in-engine shit and no in-game content for me to look at, I can't judge it on the trailers aspect of shown "gameplay". What it does show that would have any implications in gameplay is>Vehicles >Jetpacks on normal soldiers >Heroes & villains make a comeback >Bubba Fett >customizable troops >Deployable equipment
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 19:39:18 22288d No. 14281
>>14274 I think any oversimplification like that is a terrible thing to do, and undermines any legitimate discussion on the issues.
>>14278 I'm pretty mixed, the trailer does show off some good potential gameplay elements like jetpacks and deployable tech like shield generators. While the game is obviously not going to look nearly that good come release I do like the style they are running with. I also like the bright, clean, and colorful visuals seem; really hope they don't pull a 180 on that and bring back the terrible blue filter.
However I see them continuing trends that EA/DICE have been running with since Bad Company 2. More and more equipment grind, more maps cut out of the base game to sell as DLC, the whole squad thing, and netcode that keeps getting worse with every game. The way that rebel soldier called in a Y-Wing strike also has me a bit paranoid that they are bringing in CoD style killstreaks or something, but it could just be them continuing to demo BF games as if proper team communication is something that actually happens.
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 19:47:01 9315af No. 14282
>>14264 >implying starwars isn't the O.G. battlefield. I still think my childhood game is going to be desecrated by EA.
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 20:00:01 22288d No. 14285
>>14282 Battlefield came first, though. While they made the gameplay in Battlefront faster and more action oriented, it was still pretty much lifted right from Battlefield 1942 wholesale.
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 20:08:52 ff6930 No. 14287
I'm too jaded. Anything published by EA can't be good. It just can't.
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 20:25:19 2c4fcf No. 14289
Not much gameplay seen… Hope it doesn't blow.
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 20:59:19 e8a5f1 No. 14294
And here come the shitposting nostalgiafags in full force.
>>14274 >Battlefield is just Call of Duty now which I base solely on the fact it came out after 2007 XDDXDDDXDDDDXDDD like fucking clockwork
>>14278 >like it was trying to be a military shooter Yeah remember that military shooter with fast-paced gameplay aspects like speeder bikes and jetpacks with people barely taking cover at all?
>>14281 >more maps cut out of the base game to sell as DLC Yeah, CUT OUT. Let's ignore the fact that every Battlefield since BC2 had more maps at launch than Bad Company 1. (and that Battlefield 2's most maps were so shit that it was Karklandfield for most of its time)
However, mappack DLCs are bullshit that just serves to divide the playerbase.
>and netcode that keeps getting worse with every game Battlefield 3's netcode was better than BC2's, which was on par with BF4 at launch in terms of delay but more noticeable because it worked differently. Now it's the best in the series. But that's complicated, I understand.
>The way that rebel soldier called in a Y-Wing strike also has me a bit paranoid that they are bringing in CoD style killstreaks or something Yeah like how in the Battlefield titles I came across a tank that exploded before it could kill me. MUST BE KILLSTREAKS. No wait, it was a jet flown by an actual player. Or the commander calling in an artillery/rocket strike.
>>14287 Battlefield 4 is good. Titanfall is decent. But what do I know, they came out after 2007 so they can only be terrible, CoD clones, putrid shit etc etc
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 21:06:00 9eff60 No. 14295
>"in-engine" footage >implying that there's anything "in-engine" about it I want you boys to peep the following two videos. The first is one of the trailers for Star Wars Battlefront 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a_R6uzN2AE All of the footage was from what they had going on in development and sure lots of things changed from the time this trailer released, but it was a clear indication of exactly
what we're going to get from the game.
The second is Star Wars Battlefront 2. Slightly more cinematic in nature but chock full of what we set to expect from the game. Actual footage, not some movie that is supposed to "represent" what the game is supposed to be like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilwPny3tvOE Sorry, OP, but until we get something that actually says that this isn't going to be a consolized trash cashin, I'm still going to call it Battlefield: Star Wars edition.
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 21:49:34 22288d No. 14298
>>14294 >And here come the shitposting nostalgiafags in full force. Hey, come on now.
>Yeah, CUT OUT. Let's ignore the fact that every Battlefield since BC2 had more maps at launch than Bad Company 1. Yet still far fewer than Battlefield 2 or 2142 had, and I wouldn't agree most of them were bad. Now vanilla BF3 had some pretty shitty maps, yet almost every one of the DLC maps was pretty good. Makes it feel like they purposefully moved most of the maps that were getting the best testing feedback to DLC. I never got around to playing BF4 aside from the beta, so can't comment on the quality of the vanilla maps there.
>Battlefield 3's netcode was better than BC2's I don't know about that, I have similar amounts of playtime in both games and BF3 seemed to have so many more issues. Getting shot around corners constantly, blowing up from a rocket or grenade that exploded somewhere I was 5 seconds ago, and incredibly shoddy hit detection at long range. BC2 just seemed to work a lot better when it came to this stuff, though the maps in that were smaller and had fewer players so that could be expected. Again, no experience with BF4 so if they have fixed things up that is great.
>Yeah like how in the Battlefield titles I came across a tank that exploded before it could kill me. MUST BE KILLSTREAKS. No wait, it was a jet flown by an actual player. Or the commander calling in an artillery/rocket strike. I said right in the next sentence that it could be just that, it just seemed weird to me how they presented it in the trailer. Endor as a map also doesn't seem optimal for fighters at all, I mean where would they even launch from or land for repairs? Its what kind of had me thinking Killstreaks in the back of my mind.
>>14295 Unfortunately it has been proven time and time again that this kind of trailer is what generates the most sales, not ones that showcase gameplay. I hope we get to see some real gameplay at E3.
>Sorry, OP, but until we get something that actually says that this isn't going to be a consolized trash cashin, I'm still going to call it Battlefield: Star Wars edition. Or, how about you actually explain what your potential gripes and concerns are instead of throwing around nonsense like "Battlefield: Star Wars edition" as an insult, as if that isn't what Battlefront always was from the very beginning.
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 22:07:25 30e30a No. 14301
They cut the single player right? So it's basically paying full price for a multiplayer subscription that ends when people get bored with it.
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 22:22:34 22288d No. 14303
>>14301 Not really going to miss that personally, all of the best Battlefield games have had no singleplayer content, and Battlefront 1&2 had pretty lousy singleplayer stuff. People seem to have a lot of nostalgia for BF2's 501st campaign but it never did anything for me. When you get down to it, that was just bot matches with gimmicky objectives and a little bit of narration between maps.
The more resources that go into the actual meat of the game the better. Whenever I think about how much development time and money was wasted for the campaigns for the last few Battlefield games I get pretty annoyed. The Bad Company campaigns were alright I guess, but 3 had a god awful one, and I haven't heard anything better about 4's. Either way it is something that most people never touched, and at best got 5 or 6 hours of playtime out of it. Everything that went into making that ~6 hours of singleplayer campaign could have instead been spent making hundreds of hours of multiplayer content.
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 22:37:54 b81d74 No. 14304
>>14303 What's the point of paying for a multiplayer game?
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 22:43:44 9eff60 No. 14305
>>14298 >>14303 >Or, how about you actually explain what your potential gripes and concerns are instead of throwing around nonsense like "Battlefield: Star Wars edition" Battlefield: Star Wars edition is an all-encompassing term for everything wrong with Battlefield following 2142.
- Terribly designed maps that are filled with nothing but easy-to-spam chokepoints and hallways. Map size doesn't mean anything if the entire map is just one enclosed block with a bunch of hallways
- Wholly generic gunplay with a leveling system to keep people playing so that they can play with a full loadout and later discover that there are almost no differences between the weapons they've unlocked
- DICE's famous "we made an aesthetically good looking level so LET'S ADD A GAUDY FILTER AND MOVIE EFFECTS TO IT"
- Hitreg that is somehow worse than anything made on '06 Source
- Lots of haptic feedback across my screen telling me "GOOD JOB YOU SHOT SOMEWHERE NEAR MAN HERE 100 POINTS GOOD EFFORT"
- EA's inevitable pre-order "bonuses" and "premium" DLC plan
- EA's distaste for anything involving single player since everything they've tried since 2011 has fallen flat on its face because they didn't put the effort into making it good
It wasn't. SWBF has always been a much more arcade-y series than Battlefield and has a completely different design philosophy when it comes to differentiated roles and abilities, as well as the role of vehicles and their effectiveness. SWBF2 space battles were also a totally different beast from Titan mode in 2142.
Good job you just described a lot of single player FPS games in the most soul-sucking way imaginable.
FEAR 1 had multiplayer that held on for years. Sure it's dead in 2015 but it lasted a long time after release - hell, it even outlived Monolith's support of FEAR 1. 40k Space Marine had a single player campaign that was detracted from by a peer2peer multiplayer component. The MP died precious few weeks after the game released. You can easily find it in bargain bins for less than $7. Crysis Wars was multiplayer-only and refined to be not as open and retarded as Cysis 1's MP was. It simply did not last. Wolfenstein TNO was incredibly average despite MachineGames saying that they weren't going to have multiplayer so that they could produce an excellent single player experience. This is a shitty argument because it's all about the quality of work put into something. Sure you can call the user-driven campaigns in SWBF1 and the narrated campaigns in SWBF2 "gimmicky" but people remember them
fondly , not just historically like the Battlefield campaigns. I can't even remember the campaign for BC1 outside of "they went to rob gold". I can't remember the premise for BC2 period, same for 3 and 4. The SWBF1 campaigns were very ambiguous because if you watched the SWBF1 trailer I linked, it was all about the player experiencing the major and minor battles of the Star Wars universe. For SWBF2, it was all about stepping in the shoes of the 501st and experiencing even more major and minor battles.
Watching the new trailer is awful because it doesn't tell me anything. SWBF1 wanted to take me into the wars. SWBF2 wanted to take me back to the wars but also into the wars in the stars. What this trailer tells me is that they want people to be hyped by lots of screaming, explosions, and an arms race that ends with Darth Vader drawing his lightsaber against a lone Rebel infantryman. Minus the Darth Vader part, that's about the same deal with BF3 and 4 and the footage associated with those games. Even BC2 was pushing it with the direction they wanted to take me, and DICE thinks that BC2 is their worst game.
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 22:45:21 a406d7 No. 14306
>>14264 I bought Hardline with a friend.
My last EA game and mistake.
Game is born dead with only 4000 players at day on Pc (BF4 is at 22000), a shittier netcode after the promise of implementing the CTE update, and game breaking weapons and bugs.
If Battlefront is on Frostbite, it will happen the same fucking shit.
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 22:55:57 628507 No. 14307
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play. >>14281 Yeah I had the same worries. We'll have to wait until we see gameplay.
>>14294 >Yeah remember that military shooter with fast-paced gameplay aspects like speeder bikes and jetpacks with people barely taking cover at all? Like I said, the trailer was just in-engine cinematics and no gameplay, we have no idea how any of that will translate to gameplay.
You remember that military shooter trailer with a dude screaming over explosion set-pieces with no gameplay?
Oh wait that's all of them. Rather than engage me on a comment I made on the inconsequential matter of the trailer themes, you could engage with me on the rest of my post that speculated upon the game itself.
Also battlefield went to utter shit after BF:BC2, and Titanfall is a casual attempt at being an arena shooter with interesting concepts.
>>14295 I agree with you there except there's one thing that you're likely wrong about.
In-engine doesn't mean in-game, it just means that the CG trailer was made within the engine of the game using high poly/quality assets that won't be in the game. For example, L4D's trailer was in-engine on the Source Engine, in the SFM program. It's an entirely cinematic trailer with no gameplay in it. But it's probably not a good comparison, because even this cinematic trailer showed the gameplay mechanics you'd expect in L4D.
>>14306 Unfortunately it's probably still on Frostbite.
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 23:30:44 22288d No. 14313
>>14305 >Terribly designed maps that are filled with nothing but easy-to-spam chokepoints and hallways. Map size doesn't mean anything if the entire map is just one enclosed block with a bunch of hallways That would describe most of the vanilla maps in BF3, but not the DLC maps which is the bigger concern I have. DICE is still more than capable of making great maps, but somehow these ones are always ending up in the DLC and not the base game. Reeks of an attempt to sell more DLC to me, and I think that is even worse than them being unable to make good maps at all.
>Wholly generic gunplay with a leveling system to keep people playing so that they can play with a full loadout and later discover that there are almost no differences between the weapons they've unlocked Never had a problem with the gunplay itself, but the grinding required for leveling and unlocking gear is a horrible way of doing things. My hope for Battlefront would be that since Star Wars has a much smaller set of weapons and whatnot to work with than a real world arsenal that this shit can be reined back in. Seems unlikely though, I can see them just making up more blasters to pad everything out.
>Hitreg that is somehow worse than anything made on '06 Source Would be the fault of the awful netcode, since hit recognition works fine in the singleplayer and co-op content.
>Lots of haptic feedback across my screen telling me "GOOD JOB YOU SHOT SOMEWHERE NEAR MAN HERE 100 POINTS GOOD EFFORT" Never had a problem with this sort of thing really, would be nice if you could turn UI and feedback features off for people that don't like them.
>EA's inevitable pre-order "bonuses" and "premium" DLC plan I've already mentioned this, totally agree.
>EA's distaste for anything involving single player since everything they've tried since 2011 has fallen flat on its face because they didn't put the effort into making it good Shoehorning singleplayer campaigns into a series that had been multiplayer only before was a terrible decision, I'm glad they are finally open to reversing it.
Battlefront was faster paced and had an arcadeier feel to the gunplay, that is pretty much where the core gameplay differences end. The maps and gametypes are set up in pretty much identical ways, the only differences in how the vehicles handle and play are derived from the fact that they are totally different from anything in the real world, the setting gave them more gadgets play around with and give to classes for more variety there (Something the trailer implies they are making use of as well.) I also loved Titan mode, far more than the space battles in BF2. Which were honestly pretty disappointing to me, a lot of wasted potential there.
> Good job you just described a lot of single player FPS games in the most soul-sucking way imaginable. Jesus Christ, how could you in any way infer I was decrying every campaign in any FPS ever? Battlefield is a series that has always been and always will be about the multiplayer, trying to make something singleplayer out of it is a waste of resources. It is just as stupid as trying to shoehorn multiplayer into something that is primarily designed as a singleplayer experience. Developers should play to the inherent strengths of whatever gameplay they are working with, and not include something other feature at the expense of that strength just to tick a checkbox.
I get that people remember them fondly, but that is something that is much better accomplished through the multiplayer. Fighting the Battle of Hoth against incompetent bots you steamroll while you accomplish some gimmick objective just doesn’t compare to doing the same against human opponents where anything could happen. The gameplay of these series' is best suited to multiplayer, every attempt to make a singleplayer experience out of the setup has produced at best mediocre results.
>>14306 Hardline looked like complete shit from the moment they announced it, never had a bit of interest there.
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 23:41:19 1c5f01 No. 14315
There's a lot of bad news within the recent announcements for this game, such as the game having no single-player campaign or space battles. While I understand that this is a multiplayer focused game first and foremost, I feel like single player content is important so that new players can learn the game's systems and quirks in a pressure-free environment. No space battles is just a minus no matter how you look at it, that was one of Battlefront 2's most fun and unique features. Add to that the fact that there's no content related to the prequel trilogy either and you have a game that looks like it's a step backwards in scope from it's predecessor - a game that's a decade old. They could have reassured fans by showing off some gameplay footage, but they couldn't even manage that. I have literally no reason whatsoever to expect this game to be good.
Anonymous 04/17/15 (Fri) 23:50:48 22288d No. 14318
>>14315 They really have no excuse for the lack of space battles, they could have just copy pasted in Titan mode from 2142 and reskinned them as Star Wars ships, that would have satisfied most.
Bet we get exactly that in a DLC. There is an argument to be made there, but I don't know. For the most basic elements of gameplay sure, but I mostly see it just teaching players bad habits. What works against the bots probably isn't going to translate to what works on human opponents. So you have people who steamrolled the singleplayer content jump into multiplayer for the first time and get curb stomped. You basically have to relearn the game all over.
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 00:05:28 662fb2 No. 14320
Never played the original Battlefronts: how well are speeder bikes accommodated?fucking forest on something that moves like greased lighting looks fine in the movies, but I'm guessing there's going to be large "tracks" through the woods, or you're going to be falling off and/or exploding a hell of a lot…
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 00:21:24 bc9c82 No. 14324
I don't care about no single player, single player in battlefield is god awful, I'm more worried about the usual EA stuff finding its way to this game, like a premium service giving queue priority to people who pay up, really awesome shit cut out to sell as DLC.
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 00:27:38 22288d No. 14328
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play. >>14305 The Endor maps in the original Battlefronts were set up with a few wide trackways the speeders could easily move through, and all foliage except for the big trees you would clip right through harmlessly. If you actually tried darting through the parts with dense tree coverage chances are pretty good you would crash. Even lightly tap something while at speed and you would explode.
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 00:54:35 567d90 No. 14334
>>14264 No campaign and DLC announced before Ep.7 Premiere.
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 01:10:10 22288d No. 14337
>>14334 Everything else that can go wrong with this game aside, I really hope it isn't a repeat of the Battlefront 2 situation where it was horribly rushed out to cross-promote a movie release.
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 01:17:01 567d90 No. 14338
>>14337 But it is, DLC before Ep7 which is when? this year?
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 01:19:49 9eff60 No. 14340
>>14313 >>14318 >>14328 >That would describe most of the vanilla maps in BF3, but not the DLC maps which is the bigger concern I have. So how is this a good thing? Why do you trust EA to
not make that a reality?
>Star Wars has a much smaller set of weapons and whatnot to work with Even within the non-EU Star Wars universe there are a lot of weapons that can be cycled and sifted through.
>I can see them just making up more blasters to pad everything out. So once again, how is this a good thing? Your points seem to be in line more for defending shitty practices and just covering it up by going "oh yeah I totally agree that DLC sucks" like retards in youtube comments who parrot things that they hear are bad just to say that they're on the moral side of things.
That's because for single player you are playing on a local server. There is no disconnect between you and the server because you ARE the server. Co-Op content doesn't have to handle 64 entirely unique clients, either.
That's part of the point. There's also Engineer repair speed, projectile speed for the tanks, overall mobility per vehicle (mobility != speed), etc.
SWBF1 had lterations to the factions, for instance Republic Engineers got Arc Casters to stumble droids, CIS Battle Droid Engineers got Radiation Launchers that worked like grenade launchers and dealt slight damage over time, etc. SWBF2 had incredibly homogenized classes except for the faction unique class. The Battlefield games are very homogenous class-wise outside of BF2142 and BC2.
This happened in UT3. That is the only game that I can honestly say has actually shoehorned in a campaign into a game that is multiplayer-only.
SWBF1 wanted to take me into the wars. Having a local server with bots does not in any way challenge or defeat this purpose. In fact once you have the framework for the multiplayer completed, it is particularly manageable to recreate what SWBF1 and 2 offered.
Fighting on Hoth while a bunch of retards who don't own monitors get steamrolled is not a positive thing, either. In fact at that point you'd wish for bots. There is no reason to not have a single player campaign through the different maps. Removing a component doesn't automatically mean that money and/or manpower hours are shifted towards improving the multiplayer if the last 3 or 4 years of EA have shown us anything.
Everything does not revolve around DM. Important things that come from being able to play on a local server are:
- Getting a feel for each individual map. Being lost in a bot match doesn't suck nearly as much as being lost online and it sucks for a whole lot more than one person.
- Getting a feel for how weapons work. You can boil it down to "rooty tooty point & shooty" but the usefulness of the Arc Caster for the Dark Trooper in SWBF2 "stumbling" people takes a bit of experimentation
- Learning armor weak points. SWBF2 had a tutorial as part of the whole 501st campaign and one of the aspects that they improved on from SWBF1 was detailing weak points on armor.
- General fucking around with map positioning; where's a bad place to hang out, where's a good place to hang out, etc.
- General fucking around with vehicles; flying doesn't come naturally to a lot of people, for example.
That's engine limitations from 2004. It's not like SWBF1's maps are totally perfect (see Cloud City but even then there's a lot of space to work with) but I have zero faith in DICE to make a map that isn't a series of corridors and hallways to objectives.
There is
very little, if anything, to be excited for when it comes to something from EA/DICE in 2015.
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 01:32:12 b20abb No. 14342
>>14264 >No campaign, no galactic conquest. No thanks
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 01:54:44 2c4fcf No. 14351
>>14342 Without Galactic Conquest, what's even the point of playing?
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 02:13:50 b20abb No. 14356
>>14351 I don't even know. Seems like a waste to me. Also, no space battles? I'll probably end up just pirating it if there's an option for offline vs bots. If not, well, saves me a d/l.
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2015/04/17/star-wars-celebration-battlefront-does-not-have-a-campaign
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 02:16:21 22288d No. 14357
>>14338 The game is coming out November 17th, and that DLC a week before Episode VII. However unlike Battlefront 2 which got like 6 months of development time, this has been in the works since like late 2012. We'll see if that is enough time for it to not be rushed and be an outright disaster like Battlefield 4 was at launch.
>>14340 Firstly
>Your points seem to be in line more for defending shitty practices and just covering it up by going "oh yeah I totally agree that DLC sucks" like retards in youtube comments who parrot things that they hear are bad just to say that they're on the moral side of things. The point is that nothing here is black and white, an outright great wonderful thing or absolute irredeemable shit. Battlefield 3 can be a lackluster game for having terrible DLC practices, tedious weapon and gear grinding, and awful netcode; but that doesn't mean DICE is an outright shitty developer incapable of producing anything good whatsoever. They can still make good maps, but they are locked away as DLC. The gunplay is fine on its own, but it is hampered by the bad netcode. I agree that this game is probably not going to turn out good compared to the original games, however that doesn't mean it can't possible have any redeeming features. Boiling everything down to an oversimplified point like "Its shit" is a fucking stupid thing to do.
There wasn't a really huge selection of weapons that appeared on screen in the movies. Nothing like the arsenals in the later Battlefield games where you have enough samey weapons to fill every possible niche 3 or 4 times over, which results in the horrible grind. So unless they pull in weapons from the old EU, or make new ones out of their ass, I can't seem them even coming close. Which I can see them doing, because for some reason they just love making that grind.
Ah, I see what you mean now. Faction diversity also comes down to the setting really, in modern real world setting there isn't much difference between armies. Unlike WWII or Vietnam historical, or 2142's sci-fi setting. Battlefront 2 was probably homogenized as a result of the insanely short development time. If DICE actually ships this game, which only has two factions now that it is OT period only, with the Rebels and Empire being homogeneous that would probably be their biggest failing as a developer ever.
How is Bad Company any different? I suppose you could say it was designed from the group up around having a campaign, but I would argue the concept of putting a campaign into a Battlefield game is shoehorning. Taking away from the multiplayer to have a game with a campaign hurt the core gameplay experience.
What?
>Removing a component doesn't automatically mean that money and/or manpower hours are shifted towards improving the multiplayer if the last 3 or 4 years of EA have shown us anything. Remains to be seen, as far as I know Titanfall was the only multiplayer game they have published lately where they didn't force in a singleplayer campaign. It also shipped with a good deal more maps than most games do these days, but the game itself wasn't very interesting so it died a quick death.
(Broke character limit)
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 02:16:31 22288d No. 14358
>>14357 >Everything does not revolve around DM. Important things that come from being able to play on a local server are: All pretty good points there.
I'd say less engine limits and more a limit of human dexterity. It just isn't really possible to maneuver through a dense forest going 200+ MPH like that.
>I have zero faith in DICE to make a map that isn't a series of corridors and hallways to objectives. Except they have made maps that aren't that, the DLC maps in BF3 were all pretty good.
As I said before, nothing is absolute. BF3 was a pretty nice experience overall once you got past the ridiculous DLC practices and grind, which I did by snagging the game+premium off a russian key site for like $20. If Battlefront can be the same situation, I'll do that again. If whatever good qualities it has are overshadowed by the bad, I'll skip the game and move on. Like I skipped Battlefield 4, because even after they supposedly fixed it the game just seemed too much like more of the same.
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 02:51:45 a5d42b No. 14363
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play. These fags apparently got to see a behind closed doors presentation of actual gameplay that was shown off in Stockholm. Sounds pretty scripted, but some pretty interesting information if anything here is true:>Apparently had the same graphics as the publicly shown trailer >Was running on a PS4 at 60FPS >Can swap between third and first person cameras on the fly >HUD elements include a minimap and four slots for deployable equipment >There is an Ewok village on the Endor map >Weapons don't have any ammunition, uses an overheat system similar to Mass Effect 1 >The Y-Wings in the trailer were radioed in by a rebel player via equipment, they were not player piloted >Following the AT-AT being destroyed the rebels go into the bunker, apparently to complete an objective >Player controlled heroes/villains are in, you get to control them by finding hidden power ups on the map >Players also don't seem to spawn with equipment as a loadout. You have to find things like the shield, bombardment radio, jetpack, and rocket launcher on the map. >Game has splitscreen multiplayer >No singleplayer campaign, but there is some kind of Co-op campaign/missions >Episode VII DLC is free
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 03:16:04 9eff60 No. 14366
>>14357 >>14358 >but that doesn't mean DICE is an outright shitty developer incapable of producing anything good whatsoever Things change. DICE wasn't always but now they are; the EA koolaid has been ingested.
Bad Company 1 was promoted
with the campaign in mind. In fact that was one of the defining points of the game when it came to advertising; it was something different from your typical campaign "beat the bad guys" fare, although not too far away from it.
Explain how the garbage campaign that was BC2's super-forgettable storyline detracted from the overall multiplayer experience. It didn't stop DICE from pumping out the DLC expansion for Vietnam that was cool for a bit and then flunked hard. It never stopped updates. Now do the opposite for Quake 1; did QuakeWorld make the experience of playing Quake shit?
It's a pretty straightforward analogy for playing with retarded people.
>Remains to be seen You just mentioned Titanfall and explained how it was all but forgotten as that one now-dead FPS made by ex-Infinity Ward guys with wallrunning. If you really think that chopping shit off automatically means that other things will improve, I don't know what to tell you except play more bad games or something and make a concerted effort to find out what the fuck happened during that game's development. Go play Wolfenstein 2009.
No I'm pretty sure that clipping on random shit that looks like something you can pass over/through and then taking 90% vehicle damage is an engine limitation which has, since 2004, been easily rectified in newer games. The speederbikes in SWBF1 went pretty fast but that's why you never went fast constantly. Finer controls are also easier to implement in 2015.
They are easily not a majority if for one they are hidden behind a DLC paywall.
This is the tried-and-true old /v/ analogy of eating shit and telling other people "BUT IT TASTES GOOD IF YOU PUT KETCHUP ON IT WHAT ARE YOU TOO POOR TO AFFORD KETCHUP?". You had to jump through a third-party retailer to get a key+premium for cheap and saying "b-b-but it'll be good!" because you can get it for cheap through the Russians is incredibly stupid and still rewarding shitty buying and business practices.
There are lots of gray areas in the world but there are still moments of black-and-white right-and-wrong choice. This is one of them.
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 03:49:27 22288d No. 14369
>>14363 >The Y-Wings in the trailer were radioed in by a rebel player via equipment, they were not player piloted I fucking knew it. As for everything else, there is some odd stuff in there. Would never have expected them to go with no ammo and overheating for the blasters, and hiding hero powerups/gear pickups on the map seems incredibly strange… Still, if that means no class gear grind I'm all for it no matter how stupid it sounds.
I wonder if those co-op missions will be anything like the co-op levels in BF3, those actually weren't half bad.
>>14366 >Explain how the garbage campaign that was BC2's super-forgettable storyline detracted from the overall multiplayer experience. Because every man hour spent designing and scripting the single player campaign levels is a man hour that could have been spent on multiplayer content. It shows, because ever since they started throwing in singleplayer campaigns the vanilla games have shipped with a much smaller selection of maps compared to the multiplayer only ones. Even after the DLC selection of maps is still smaller.
Even a complete retard on a bad day is generally more capable than the bots. The bots do not play the objectives, they are incredibly passive in combat and have terrible aim, they do not defend the special objectives like the shield generator on Hoth or the Bunker on Endor, they make terrible use of vehicles especially anything airborn. Even a retard can and will do better.
Even if they controlled perfectly fine, and you had no collision issues whatsoever, I still don't think human dexterity would be up for recreating the speeder bike chase in Episode VI.
Yet they still exist, so you can't claim modern DICE is incapable of making good maps. They can and do, the real issue is they get moved to DLC.
God damn this analogy makes me so angry. Playing a terrible video game is not in any way comparable to eating shit, it is a terrible fucking analogy.
>You had to jump through a third-party retailer to get a key+premium for cheap and saying "b-b-but it'll be good!" because you can get it for cheap through the Russians is incredibly stupid and still rewarding shitty buying and business practices. BF3's only biggest core issue was that the vanilla maps were bad, remove that issue by adding good maps and yes it becomes a good game. This is not analogous to putting ketchup on shit, it is analogous to throwing away the shit plate but using the same utensils you were given to eat the replacement meal. By going through a shady third party retailer I am also not rewarding EA for their awful practices, they don't see a cent of that money.
I heavily disagree.
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 04:58:39 9eff60 No. 14380
>>14369 >Because every man hour spent designing and scripting the single player campaign levels is a man hour that could have been spent on multiplayer content You are still under the blind and uninformed assumption that somehow removing the singleplayer would have actually gone towards making better content for multiplayer.
Ok, now you're seriously grasping for straws here. Have you played anything multiplayer in 2015?
For designing a game you have to make the speederbikes fast but not too fast or have a high-speed chase completely scripted. Why would that explicit scene
have be recreated scene-for-scene in the first place when combat is dynamic? Hell, even having the speederbikes in SWBF1 not up to the impeccable standard of the ep.VI scene the person on it is still faster than someone on ground and the purpose is fulfilled.
If the majority of the maps in a single game are filled with easy to spam spaces and hallways, there is something wrong in the competency department when it comes to map design. So no, they are not capable of making good maps. If a design group is capable of making good maps, then for all intents and purposes there will be a minority of bad maps in a generally good map pool.
It is an excellent analogy.
>BF3's only biggest core issue was that the vanilla maps were bad BF3 suffers from:
- guns that all posses an intolerable samey-ness outside of aesthetic looks and damage values; there's nothing unique about them that radically changes the class they're attached to
- majority of maps are trash (you cling to the idea that the map pool is good because DLC fixed it)
- suffered from performance issues early on
- From 1942 hitreg has only gotten worse and worse and has hit a low at BF3
- bugs that were in beta testing weren't hammered out until actual years after the fact
- the blue filter garbage
- ==ORIGIN==. How this is not an entire red flag on its own not to purchase Battlefield Star Wars is a mystery to me.
The Slav you purchased it from either jacked it or gave money to EA to get it. You paid money for it. If you have to go through a shady third party to purchase a game with all of its content at a reasonable price, you shouldn't be buying the game in the first place because there is nothing worth buying or playing at that kind of first-party pricetag.
You
KNOW that EA is already slapping on DLC before the game even releases and we've already got pre-order DLC. There's footage of people confirming that AT-ATs and Y-Wing bombings are 100% scripted. We're getting 4 maps on release that have 2 gamemodes per map. This is most definitely a black and white right and wrong choice, and you have been 100% wrong every step of the way. So no, it is indeed analogous to eating ketchup-covered shit and exclaiming "MMM THE KETCHUP REALLY SOLVED THE PROBLEM OF THIS SHIT TASTING LIKE SHIT".
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 05:56:50 22288d No. 14392
>>14380 >You are still under the blind and uninformed assumption that somehow removing the singleplayer would have actually gone towards making better content for multiplayer. This isn't an assumption, this is a clear conciliation and you would have to be blind to not see it. The presence of a singleplayer campaign has reduced the number of multiplayer maps present in games across the board. Titanfall shipped with a much larger selection of maps than most shooters do these days Of course that doesn't help that game at all since it is just bland and uninteresting, but it still managed to have more maps than it would have if it had a singleplayer campaign.
I seriously doubt you ever have if you think bots come even close to competing with even the worst examples of human players out here. Bots can barely handle simple deathmatch modes, they are totally incapable of competing in objective based gametypes.
Where did I say it had to? I just don't think the action of zipping through dense forests at fast speeds in any capacity is possible.
BF3 shipped with 9 maps, the majority of which were poorly designed. There were 5 DLCs which added a pool of 20 maps, and the quality of these were substantially better than the vanilla maps. Even if every vanilla map was complete shit, and they weren't exactly all that bad, that would be 31% that were terrible in a pool of generally good maps. Of course it isn't that simple, nor were the DLC maps perfect either. The point is modern DICE is not totally incapable of making good maps, that is a ridiculous claim.
That would be a consequence of the modern setting, aside from aesthetics there is not going to be much that will separate firearms meant to fulfill similar roles. It isn't like WWII where each nation had a substantially different set of weapons, or a fictional future setting where you can invent diverse weapons. The gunplay itself is otherwise fine, even if the weapon diversity isn't great. Guns have a good amount of kick to manage, the bullet physics make things more interesting than point and shoot, and the sound effects are outstanding.
>majority of maps are trash (you cling to the idea that the map pool is good because DLC fixed it) How is adding 20 substantially better maps to a pool of 9 lackluster ones not an object improvement?
>suffered from performance issues early on Okay, and?
>From 1942 hitreg has only gotten worse and worse and has hit a low at BF3 Hit recognition and other netcode related issues are the second worst problem the game has after the lackluster vanilla maps, but it isn't game ruining. As long as I played on a server with decent ping, I would only run into blatant netcode fuckery once or twice a match. It is a problem and DICE needs to address it, but it isn't game ruining bad.
>bugs that were in beta testing weren't hammered out until actual years after the fact That effects the game now how?
>the blue filter garbage Yes, it is disgusting compared to how nice the game looks with natural coloring, but that doesn't impact the gameplay at all.
>==ORIGIN==. How this is not an entire red flag on its own not to purchase Battlefield Star Wars is a mystery to me. Because it isn't any worse than Steam is as a client at this point, and doesn't do any more or less hardware snooping than Steam does either. If you are really that paranoid about it, you can always run Origin through something like Sandboxie. I did that at first, but then I eventually realized how pointless that was when you got down to it.
No, it isn't, and no matter how many times it is thrown around it never will be.
Now back to Battlefront. Yeah, the more details that have been trickling the past few hours out the worse and worse it is rapidly sounding. Stuff like Scripted AT-AT and bomber runs is just outrageous. But no, there is very rarely a 100% black or white, absolute shit or absolute masterpiece game. Either the good outweighs the bad, or vise versa. In the case of Battlefront the bad is shaping up to outweigh whatever little good is there.
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 05:58:28 22288d No. 14393
>>14392 > this is a clear correlation* Thanks firefox
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 08:14:34 2c4fcf No. 14413
>>14264 >No actual gameplay footage… These are truly dark times.
Anonymous 04/18/15 (Sat) 10:37:10 14b03c No. 14432
I just hope it won't play like Battlefield.
Anonymous 04/22/15 (Wed) 23:00:32 a11b07 No. 15114
>>14315
>there's no content related to the prequel trilogy either
This is a bonus.
Anonymous 04/22/15 (Wed) 23:29:16 df616f No. 15122
I'm excited because it's Battlefield combined with Star Wars. I don't understand why some people are bitching. This is a definite purchase for me.
Anonymous 04/22/15 (Wed) 23:30:40 70ebe6 No. 15123
>>14392
damn you are an incredible retard who can't decide what side he wants to take lmao
Anonymous 04/23/15 (Thu) 00:45:36 84795b No. 15137
>>15122
I'm in your boat, but I'm also one of them who is not pleased by whats going on. No space battles in unacceptable, as is the small number of maps. I have been burned many times by hyping for a game, and a large number of those were from EA produced games.
Anonymous 04/23/15 (Thu) 01:15:34 54ea8f No. 15146
I don't know, I'm not that butthurt, I wait until a game comes out to be butthurt. Also, I don't really care about Space battles.
Anonymous 04/23/15 (Thu) 01:48:41 85138b No. 15150
It has been almost 5 years since i stopped giving a fuck about anything that EA does.
How many fucking times we had this converstaion before.
How many fucking times, you fucking manchildren, bought EA game and then cried about it on old 4chan's /v/.
How many fucking times you were swearing to never buy this shit again.
How many fucking times you said you will never again fall for hype.
All the shit they did. All the fucking DLC garbage. All the scamming. All the backstabbing. All the homophobic nonsence they pushed. All the shitty games they made. All the companies they destroyed. All the developers they killed.
All the franchises they dissolved. And NEVER. NOT A SINGLE FUCKING TIME, they did ANYTHING to doubt that the next pile of shit they do will be anything but shit.
At this point it is a global law on the entire fucking planet to never buy or even pirate anything from EA.
There is no hope. There is no doubt. There is no chance.
AND YET.
YOU.
DUMB.
NIGGERS.
KEEP.
MAKING.
THESE .
RETARDED.
POINTLESS.
THREADS.
THAT.
ALWAYS.
END.
THE.
SAME.
WAY.
You retarded piles of cancerous shit. You pathetic degenerates.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
Anonymous 04/23/15 (Thu) 03:31:22 b81d74 No. 15160
It's really not a good idea to buy video games from EA in this modern day.
Anonymous 04/23/15 (Thu) 08:59:43 5d6702 No. 15184
>>15150
But they're excited for no justifiable reason, that outweighs all rational thought.
Anonymous 04/23/15 (Thu) 13:59:05 df616f No. 15203
>>15150
Every time someone talks about a video game that happens to be connected with EA, one of you rage drones comes out of the woodwork to spread your butthurt far and wide.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm here to talk about cool video games, and I don't care what you think about EA or the type of gaming philosophies you think I should have.
If you hate EA, that's fine, but don't get on my ass because I couldn't care less about what EA did with Magic Carpet 2 or any other game that came out before you were born.
This whole schtick has run its course, and it's just plain ignorant and pointless to waste so much time hating a production company with absolutely nothing to show for it.
Anonymous 04/23/15 (Thu) 14:09:39 113999 No. 15204
>>15150
Why in the fuck was this user banned for this post?
Fuck EA.
Anonymous 04/23/15 (Thu) 14:56:49 5d6702 No. 15210
>>15203
>I'm here to talk about cool video games
So why are you in a thread about an EA game?
>I couldn't care less about what EA did with Magic Carpet 2 or any other game that came out before you were born.
Why are you willingly blind about what EA does?
Anonymous 04/23/15 (Thu) 15:17:22 df616f No. 15211
>>15210
This is a Battlefront thread, bro. I've already said I'm excited about the game, and I'm here to talk about it with other people. If you came here just to pull the "stop liking what I don't like" card, then you need to grow up and find a new thread, because I'm done talking to you.
Anonymous 04/23/15 (Thu) 18:29:18 191587 No. 15233
Anonymous 04/24/15 (Fri) 00:23:16 89ff5f No. 15279
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUfRNl5ClCw
the fucking psp game has more content too. Really what improvments do you all think the game will even have?
Anonymous 04/24/15 (Fri) 01:43:45 2201f3 No. 15286
I feel like people are giving Dice and EA the easy way out by letting their excuses be used as valid reasons as to why a single-player campaign isn't developed, why AT-ATs are on-rails, why there's no Clone Wars content, and most importantly, why space battles aren't returning.
The fact that EA is simply bragging that there's more than 8 maps is bothering me. I'm not expecting more than 8 maps. I'm expecting them to say more than 14 or 15. For a game in development for a while, 8 maps is incredibly scarce and shows me that whether they care about source material or not, they're somewhat incompetent.
As far as I'm concerned, the Battlefront PSP game seems to have more content, and despite an improvement in visuals, it probably can't be an improvement on an already near-perfect third-person shooter.
Also, that "In-Game Engine" bullshit never ceases to crack me up. Remember Uncharted 4's "In-Game Engine" trailer compared to last year's E3 trailer?
Anonymous 04/24/15 (Fri) 19:56:52 6ac723 No. 15390
>>15279
Grafix, micropayments, Battlelog, experience points and unlocks.
Anonymous 04/25/15 (Sat) 05:08:20 88b000 No. 15442
>>15150
hes got a point.
Every time an EA title drops you guys make a million threads about how shit it is, and you get enraged by their business practices. Yet you keep buying the shit. Every single time.
EA is the pimp, DICE is the hoe and you the trick.
Anonymous 04/25/15 (Sat) 08:10:16 230bb9 No. 15465
Modern Starwars is crappy it has been since the turn of this decade at the Very Least and is especially so now with Disney and all
Anonymous 04/29/15 (Wed) 01:20:46 78cb99 No. 15822
>>15286
> single-player campaign isn't developed, why AT-ATs are on-rails, why there's no Clone Wars content, and most importantly, why space battles aren't returning.
I expected this to be bad, but not this bad. How can they fuck up so much? It's sequel with half the content and they want me to buy because of new graphics?
It looks like they got a cancelled game and put a star war skin on it to save money.
Also, a little off-topic, but is EA going to handle all star wars games from now on?
Anonymous 04/29/15 (Wed) 04:14:29 ab5d4f No. 15845
>>15822
I think they have the rights for 10 years or something like that.
Bad time for Star Wars vidya.
Anonymous 05/10/15 (Sun) 11:41:33 bd0510 No. 16529
>>14264
Considering they managed to mess up their pre-rendered trailer for the game I have not much faith in it.