Star Wars Battlefront

[iiConTr0v3rSYx]

Hate on EA, give Activision unconditional love.

Hate on Battlefront/DICE, praise Infinity Ward/Treyarch for their innovation.

Hate on 'cinematic trailer', praise all the other games that use cinematic trailers to promote their games.

 

Seriously: alot of bashing has been valid in this topic. But you guys seem to bash everything EA/Dice/Battlefront related for no reason. Hell, not to mention being hypocrites about it.

 

But whatever.

I don't hate EA. Hell, I don't even buys games like that from EA.

 

You have to look at it from a battlefronts fan perspective and understand why people are hating the new battlefront.

 

No prequel, space battles, classes, instant action and much more. It's looking like Destiny; halfed assed game with DLC tacked on.

 

Which is what EA and other major publishers seem to be doing.

[Coin]

People are hating on it primarily because they don't seem to be able to wrap around their heads that;

 

1) This is a reboot from scratch, not a sequel.

2) There's only so much you can do in a 2 year cycle (which is a fairly reasonable period of time by-the-by).

 

That's not to say that people can't criticize, as if their right, but expectations need to be adjusted in some cases.

 

It was perhaps a bad move on DICE's part to mention what they don't have first before the stuff that the game will have, but I'm sure people would have complained regardless.

[iiConTr0v3rSYx]

Ah yes, that magic word. Reboot.

[Coin]

Oh, silly me. Let me apologize for being completely reasonable.

[Theodore93]

You're not being reasonable, you're being an apologist. Apologize for that

 

The reboot argument has got to be one of the dumbest excuses around.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Waldie

[Coin]

You're not being reasonable, you're being an apologist. Apologize for that

 

The reboot argument has got to be one of the dumbest excuses around.

 

Hardly. I have my criticisms and concerns, same as anyone.

 

Care to actually elaborate on that statement?

[FullMetal]

 

Hate on EA, give Activision unconditional love.

Hate on Battlefront/DICE, praise Infinity Ward/Treyarch for their innovation.

Hate on 'cinematic trailer', praise all the other games that use cinematic trailers to promote their games.

 

Seriously: alot of bashing has been valid in this topic. But you guys seem to bash everything EA/Dice/Battlefront related for no reason. Hell, not to mention being hypocrites about it.

 

But whatever.

 

I'm curious to learn more about this other planet you're living on.

 

Really though, who is saying these things? I'm sure there'll be fanboys that'll spout any kind of nonsense you like, but it's hardly representative of the whole community. From what I've seen, people bitch about COD constantly, and nobody likes cinematic trailers.

 

EA certainly doesn't deserve more hate than a lot of the other big companies, but at this point, it doesn't exactly deserve to be given the benefit of doubt either.

 

Oh, I remember 3 years ago when the COD franchise was in the exact same state and the majority of people was still praising it.

 

Not to mention: I'm not a fanboy whatsoever. I don't like EA that much aswel. I'm getting my doubts about Dice. But heck, they know how to make multiplayer games tho.

 

Let's not forget: there's barely any playable footage of the game and people are already dissing this game like it's the next CoD clone with a Star Wars skin.

 

And really: this is a reboot from a different studio. And it's not a magic word, it's how it is like. Reboot's happen, get over it. And in most cases it's actually a good thing.

 

 

Why on earth is the focus Dice has been talking about: authenticity, a bad thing? Why is it so terrible NOT including the prequel movies? Hell, all sounds fine by me. As long as they're offering a solid game. But who am I to juge, pick up your pitchforks and 'boo' at Dice/EA for even putting in effort to make this game. Boo! You aren't allowed to make games anymore!

[Theodore93]

The problem is that some people (who I would call apologists) are using the word "reboot" as an excuse when they see something that looks / sounds inferior. To say that "this game that shares the same name but has considerably less features as another game that came out decade ago" is absurd enough without saying "oh but it's a reboot so that's okay!".

 

Reboot isn't an excuse for being inferior. Two year cycle isn't an excuse either. The fault lays at EA / DICE's door for rushng out a sh*t game, not ours. We have every right to complain about the game, especially when they use the Battefront name.

 

I really hope I'm wrong. No one wants this game to turn out good more than me, but because it's EA, because it's DICE (given their recent track record), I think it's perfectly fair to assume the worse.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Waldie

[Th3MaN1]

I can see why you have the perspective you have. It's definitely a different developer that's reimagining the game. But, let's not forget that EA can control DICE, so the game we may be getting is EA's Battlefront, not DICE's. Either way, as long as it's good, I don't really care.

 

A good example is Max Payne 3. Seriously, it's like the same situation. Remedy doesn't do a sequel, sells to 2K, rights go to Rockstar, and they have done a superb job in my opinion. Call me stupid, but I loved Max Payne 3 more than the first one (story is never a selling point for me, and even if the first game's story was immaculate, I just loved the third game more). Rockstar definitely made some questionable decisions, but in general, it didn't end up being bad. The same thing could happen with this game as well.

 

We can't even know for sure, this may end up being better than the original ones. While doubtful, it's a possibility. But then again, who else should do it? Activision? Ubisoft? I honestly think that EA giving the job to DICE is the best damn decision they could have made.

 

I am somewhat sceptical about the 'inferiority' that was suggested by missing things that were present in Battlefront 2. But that's still not a reason to automatically assume that the game will suck in comparion to the older games. If anything, I would have given DICE more time to work on this. The short time that EA has given DICE may show itself in the game, in form of bugs, a poor gameplay mechanic.

 

And even if BF4 was a disaster, the game's multiplayer is still really fun and balanced (when the game works). Battlefront is a multiplayer game, so if anyone can do it, it's them.

 

The pass EA made is perfect; DICE just has to score.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Th3MaN1

[Coin]

I already said that it doesn't take away anyone's right to complain.

 

In this day and age, I do believe that a 2 year cycle is a reasonable amount of time to put out a solid game of this nature. It certainly isn't rushed and a lack of features isn't necessarily indicative that a game is 'rushed'. I say that as someone who complained quite a deal at the time that BF2 didn't ship with both third and first person views when the OG Battlefront did. among other things ( ).

 

Anyway, I'm far more concerned with what the game is going to end up like, rather than the two things we know won't be in the game.

 

*Battlefield 4 had a number of glaring issues and didn't really end up being particularly solid in terms of playability until like just before the last map pack was released. That sound bug on Golmund Railway and how long it was present in the game post-release (months!!) before being fixed (at least I think it was, I don't remember). Combination of being rushed and being released on both last/current and PC at fault.

**The concern being that Battlefront doesn't go through a sufficient period of time in testing so that the thing is playable at launch.

*Perhaps I'm in the minority here but outside of Conquest Large, 64 player limit had a negative impact on BF4. Seems like DICE have acknowledged that though, given the upper most limit in Battlefront will be.. 40? 40.

*Highlighting game modes in BF4

**The map packs introduced a couple of interesting (to me) game modes near the end of the cycle, but never seemed to (in my experience) have many players cos 1) The obvious being DLC required but 2) They weren't ever really featured prominently. Given that it seems Air Superiority (Fighter Squadron) and Chain Link (only rumoured, this one) will be in the game launch I'd like to see some sort of featured game mode type feature that cycles every weekend or something.

*I've probably mentioned it in here and I know I have in the Hardline thread but one of my gripes with that game is that all maps are shared with all game modes which leads to too many cases where X Map just doesn't play well on X game mode.

**I consider this particularly problematic but given some of the comments made re: map design it seems like that it has been taken on board.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I think it was a [critical] misstep to begin marketing the game by mentioning what the game won't have rather than what it will. But as it stands, there's not really a whole lot else of any substance of which to judge the game by, at least not until E3. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Theodore93]

I already said that it doesn't take away anyone's right to complain.

 

In this day and age, I do believe that a 2 year cycle is a reasonable amount of time to put out a solid game of this nature. It certainly isn't rushed and a lack of features isn't necessarily indicative that a game is 'rushed'. I say that as someone who complained quite a deal at the time that BF2 didn't ship with both third and first person views when the OG Battlefront did. among other things ( ).

 

Anyway, I'm far more concerned with what the game is going to end up like, rather than the two things we know won't be in the game.

 

You did say that, but you also said that people were hating because they didn't understand those two points you raised which I inferred as you criticizing their criticisms. I personally don't think the dev cycle is all that relevant and as I said, I just think the "reboot" argument is a bad excuse.

 

 

As I mentioned earlier, I think it was a [critical] misstep to begin marketing the game by mentioning what the game won't have rather than what it will. But as it stands, there's not really a whole lot else of any substance of which to judge the game by, at least not until E3.

 

I agree, but I also think it's reasonable for people to vent their frustration giving what we have heard so far. It's good that EA / DICE are getting an earful. Maybe they'll actually put some effort in this time? Wouldn't count on it though.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Waldie

[Th3MaN1]

Yeah, the marketing is certainly questionable. But maybe they want to get through the hard part as soon as possible. In a way, it's better to come out with the bad stuff early, rather than hiding the missing stuff from us, and when we buy and play the game, we'll feel like we were f*cked in the ass.

 

Othan than the 2 years given, I really have nothing much else to say. Words they gave us is not enough for me to go on a rant, or praise EA/DICE. I never thought I would say this, but nowadays, I'm always waiting for raw gameplay, not for trailers. That way, I can at least give an opinion, even if that opinion is concentrated on a game that is not finished, and can change drastically at any given time.

[FullMetal]

Who has said anything about less features? Do you even know what the game is about? Also not to mention, there are alot of people on these boards who don't have a single clue what work goes into developing games and the whole tech aspect behind it all. I myself don't even know all but from what I know/have experienced it's alot of work.

Not to mention: the last game in the battlefront franchise came out 10 years ago. Alot has change when it comes to game development AND in tech.

 

And one shouldn't approach this game as a Battlefield fan but as a Star Wars fan. Also not as a old battlefront fan really. This is a new studio making their vision of a Star Wars FPS game, in the Battlefront franchise.

[TheMcSame]

Who has said anything about less features?

No space battles for example... It's not even a question of whether the engine can do it or not because it is certainly possible and DICE has done a very similar mode in Battlefield.

[Tchuck]

I've always hated air battles on Battlefield/Battlefront series. It just doesn't fit the game for me. If you're going to be a first person shooter, then be one. Tanks and stuff are fine because they are made for infantry battle. Now bringing airplanes/spaceships to a ground battle just doesn't make sense. If they're removing space battles to focus on making the ground battles more interesting, I'm all for it. As long as the ground battles are worth it. Give me an awesome FPS, and then give me another Rogue Squadron or Tie Fight/X Wing game, and I'd be much happier.

 

But heck, those complaining about the lack of air battles and saying it was a removed feature, maybe it was never a feature to begin with. Maybe if the leaked New Radical trailer with the seamless transition had never seen the light of day, no-one would be complaining about it. We should all complain about how GTAV does not have air battles, or huge yachts, or the ability to get 7 stars, or the ability to create your own heists, or to customize the complete interior of the car including the sound system, or the lack of Hawaiian shirts, or how the original Infernus isn't in the game despite being on GTA3.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Tchuck

[Fraizer]

Here is the explanation for no space battles: http://www.gamesradar.com/dice-explain-star-wars-battlefronts-lack-space-battles/

 

And this delves even further: http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/gaming/577968/Star-Wars-Battlefront-Space-Battles-PS4-game-mode-DICE-EA

 

Expressing your dislike for "less features" over and over again is not going to make a difference so hopefully anyone who has problems with that can now get over it. If you don't like the fact that there are no space battles and that ruins the game for you, just don't buy it, no one is forcing you to buy it or like anything that Dice/EA is doing with the series.

 

I plan on buying this and have hopes that it will be fun and I would like to come in here and read about the game, not see a sh*t load of post about "battlefront 2 was like 10 years ago and had more features" or "EA sucks and is ruining this game."

[iiConTr0v3rSYx]

Ease up alittle there, Frazier.

 

Harsh understandable criticism is what makes up a forum.

 

No Space battles and no clones, I think, was a bad decision considering those made up the movies.

 

I will be most likely buy the game, but I'll be the first to say I told ya so when it's all included as DLC.

Edited May 19, 2015 by iiConTr0v3rSYx

[Theodore93]

Why on earth is the focus Dice has been talking about: authenticity, a bad thing? Why is it so terrible NOT including the prequel movies?

 

I wanted to address this issue of "authenticity".

 

I was just wondering, how many Star Wars games have you guys played where you didn't feel it was authentic enough? How many times did you play a SW game and grumble that the particular blaster or Tie Fighter wasn't accurate enough? I suppose what one's idea of "authenticity" is in this context is subjective but for me it's a simple question of whether it looks and sounds like Star Wars or not. I'm sure there's a few sh*tters floating around but pretty much every Star Wars game I've played, good and bad have felt plenty authentic to me.

 

I don't think any fan is going to complain about the game being authentic but the problem I have is that it's a question of priorities. I mentioned earlier about how I thought it was ridiculous that DICE boasted about flying the team out to the real life locations, which to me seems like a tremendous waste of time and money. I mean, how hard can it be to recreate Hoth, Tatooine or Endor? I'm all for detail but not at the expense of gameplay, in this type of game anyway. Frankly, it pisses me off the idea that DICE could have given us a whole bunch of maps like Coruscant, Geonosis, Kashyyyk, Naboo etc but didn't because they wanted to painstakingly recreate every bloody tree on Endor.

 

Regarding features, it's always frustrating when new games lack features of their predecessors. The expectation is that with technological improvements, gaming should have nowhere to go but being bigger and better. Clearly it doesn't always work out like that, but sequel or not, this game is missing so many features (space battles, prequel content, SP campaign, instant action, large variety of planets) that were present in the previous Battlefront games that despite the probable graphical and mechanical improvements, it still looks like a step down. I just don't accept the "tech" argument when comparing games a decade old. They should be able to do everything that BF2 did and then some.

 

The other thing, Tchuck, is that this is a completely different type of game from GTA. Sacrificing a few features from older GTAs in order to create more detailed worlds is something I'd be favour of with GTA, but it's really not the same thing here. These are essentially just a series of battlefields. Details doesn't really matter, features do.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Waldie

[Th3MaN1]

I've always hated air battles on Battlefield/Battlefront series. It just doesn't fit the game for me. If you're going to be a first person shooter, then be one. Tanks and stuff are fine because they are made for infantry battle. Now bringing airplanes/spaceships to a ground battle just doesn't make sense. If they're removing space battles to focus on making the ground battles more interesting, I'm all for it. As long as the ground battles are worth it. Give me an awesome FPS, and then give me another Rogue Squadron or Tie Fight/X Wing game, and I'd be much happier.

 

But heck, those complaining about the lack of air battles and saying it was a removed feature, maybe it was never a feature to begin with. Maybe if the leaked New Radical trailer with the seamless transition had never seen the light of day, no-one would be complaining about it. We should all complain about how GTAV does not have air battles, or huge yachts, or the ability to get 7 stars, or the ability to create your own heists, or to customize the complete interior of the car including the sound system, or the lack of Hawaiian shirts, or how the original Infernus isn't in the game despite being on GTA3.

I can relate to that in many ways.

 

In short, if the air battles have no influence on the ground, they can be easily excluded. But that's not the case. I've played Battlefield 4, and to this day, get a few rounds on Battlefield 3. While it's clearly a different game, the mindset is still the same. The team that has air superiority will have an enormous advantage. An experience jet pilot can easily f*ck up an entire team, and I'm not exaggerating, there were cases when I was playing and sh*t like this happened. And it pissed me off to an extent. If you can grasp the mechanics of flying a jet effectively, it will be real difficult for someone to bring you down. There are max level players that only use jets an entire round, and they'll end up helping their team to win, while they keep a superb k/d ratio (if you're into that).

 

As a feature, more is better. But in the end, if it's being treated as it's own game, then I don't mind the absence.

[TheMcSame]

 

Keep throwing the toys out, there's a good boy. Don't worry, if you throw enough of your toys out everyone will have the same opinion as you.

 

The team that has air superiority will have an enormous advantage.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the ships are present in land battles (like jets from battlefield).

[Th3MaN1]

Honesly, f*ck if I know. I was talking about the presence (or lack of) air battles in this Battlefront, not the older ones. Again, to keep it really short: If the game's air battles would have been separated from ground combat, I think it's more than ok for it to be absent.

[Fraizer]

 

 

 

Keep throwing the toys out, there's a good boy. Don't worry, if you throw enough of your toys out everyone will have the same opinion as you. Now you're just being a real McAsshole.

 

I don't want and don't expect for everyone to have the same opinion as me, but the f*cking repeating of the same argument over and over just turns into whining bullsh*t after the 3rd or 4th time.

[Coin]

One of the reasons I don't really care about the absence of space battles is that they always felt tacked on to begin with.

 

For land combat, Battlefront was the go to.. for space battles, there were much better alternatives for a star wars fan. If it's added again in the future, cool but for now ground warfare's got to be the best it can be.

 

Honesly, f*ck if I know. I was talking about the presence (or lack of) air battles in this Battlefront, not the older ones. Again, to keep it really short: If the game's air battles would have been separated from ground combat, I think it's more than ok for it to be absent.

 

It was mentioned in here that X-wings and tie fighters (maybe others) would be available on maps outside of the Fighter Squadron mode.

 

Star Wars has plenty of AA tools to deal with that though so I doubt it'll lead to air superiority except when it does ( ). Like Battlefield in that regard.

Edited May 20, 2015 by ¥en

[FullMetal]

 

 

I'm just going to say this. I'm a guy for extreme detail and my peepee gets real hard for those extra details. Just look at how Red Dead Redemption/GTAV did it. Those specific sounds, those specific animations, all those nifty details.

 

So far from what I've seen the modelling and texturing of pretty much EVERYTHING looks so damn legit. And yes, playing the Jedi Knight games only the goddamn music only had to play to give me shivers down my spine and add the magic Star Wars feel to it. But in the end, I modded the sh*t out of the game trying to get everything to sound just 'that' more Star Wars-y.

 

But I don't know, that's like preference. I like how certain games just put in the extra effort for just that more detail. Max Payne 3 is also a great example. Or what about Bioshock? Or Fallout? Or The Last of Us? Just that more detail/authenticety can make game experiences that more interesting (and hell, in some cases more worth playing... replaying and to keep on playing it).

 

 

 

 

 

Keep throwing the toys out, there's a good boy. Don't worry, if you throw enough of your toys out everyone will have the same opinion as you.

Now you're just being a real McAsshole.

 

I don't want and don't expect for everyone to have the same opinion as me, but the f*cking repeating of the same argument over and over just turns into whining bullsh*t after the 3rd or 4th time.

 

Not to mention: people think too much black and white. You can also walk the 'somewhere in the between line' and be less of an ass.

 

Edited May 20, 2015 by FullMetal

[ClaudeSpeed1911]

Has these been posted yet:

http://www.eastarwars.com/

http://eastarwarsbattlefront.com/

 

lol at the music

Edited May 21, 2015 by ClaudeSpeed1911

[MyName'sJeff]

People are hating on it primarily because they don't seem to be able to wrap around their heads that;

 

1) This is a reboot from scratch, not a sequel.

2) There's only so much you can do in a 2 year cycle (which is a fairly reasonable period of time by-the-by).

 

That's not to say that people can't criticize, as if their right, but expectations need to be adjusted in some cases.

 

It was perhaps a bad move on DICE's part to mention what they don't have first before the stuff that the game will have, but I'm sure people would have complained regardless.

"Reboot"

 

Funny you mention that considering every single Battlefront fan does not want a f*cking reboot. All we want is the same sh*t as the originals, but with major improvements. Simple as. I'm pretty sure you have no clue whatsoever why they chose a 2 year cycle for the development, right? Because they want to rush this piece of sh*t out for a quick buck.

[Mista J]

Since you know what goes on behind EA/DICE's doors. How's Mirror's Edge 2 coming along?

[Tchuck]

 

People are hating on it primarily because they don't seem to be able to wrap around their heads that;

 

1) This is a reboot from scratch, not a sequel.

2) There's only so much you can do in a 2 year cycle (which is a fairly reasonable period of time by-the-by).

 

That's not to say that people can't criticize, as if their right, but expectations need to be adjusted in some cases.

 

It was perhaps a bad move on DICE's part to mention what they don't have first before the stuff that the game will have, but I'm sure people would have complained regardless.

"Reboot"

 

Funny you mention that considering every single Battlefront fan does not want a f*cking reboot. All we want is the same sh*t as the originals, but with major improvements. Simple as. I'm pretty sure you have no clue whatsoever why they chose a 2 year cycle for the development, right? Because they want to rush this piece of sh*t out for a quick buck.

 

Who died and made you the spokesperson for every single Battlefront fan wants?

 

All I want is an awesome game. I don't want the same sh*t as the originals; I have the originals for when I want to play them.

 

So, what's your experience in game development? How many years? How many titles have you shipped? 0, I'm guessing. So YOU are the one with no clue whatsoever how development works. The game has been in development for longer than that with different attempts tried since Free Radical's day, sh*t gets cancelled, gets changed, projects live and die, and that's how it goes. 2 years is enough time to create something great, specially if you already have part of the work done on the engine side and so on and are not working from scratch.

 

Oh and talking about "rushing this piece of sh*t out for a quick buck", you are aware that Battlefront 2 was released about a single year after Battlefront 1. But that wasn't seen as a rush for a quick buck. Hypocrisy is hilarious.

 

That http://www.eastarwars.com/is pretty funny, and also retarded. Specially on the case of Maxis, since it was bought by EA in 1997, and still released Streets of Simcity, Simcity 3000 and The Sims while under EA ownership. But EA killed it, of course. And Bioware, damn EA for letting them make Mass Effect 2 and 3! And Dragon Age! Such a death!

Edited May 22, 2015 by Tchuck

[Coin]

 

 

That http://www.eastarwars.com/is pretty funny, and also retarded. Specially on the case of Maxis, since it was bought by EA in 1997, and still released Streets of Simcity, Simcity 3000 and The Sims while under EA ownership. But EA killed it, of course. And Bioware, damn EA for letting them make Mass Effect 2 and 3! And Dragon Age! Such a death!

 

 

This is where the haters will come in and say that all of those accomplishments (Sim City 4 being widely regarded as the best city simulator of all time!) were in spite of EA. Can't win.

 

 

 

Funny you mention that considering every single Battlefront fan does not want a f*cking reboot. All we want is the same sh*t as the originals, but with major improvements. Simple as. I'm pretty sure you have no clue whatsoever why they chose a 2 year cycle for the development, right? Because they want to rush this piece of sh*t out for a quick buck.

 

 

[SimsDaniel916]

GAMEPLAY TRAILER!

 

1080P 60FPS on PS4