New Star Wars Battlefront game by EA

Careful. AAA releases as of late have had horrible Day 1 performance, and I'd be extra wary of a Multiplayer focus game such as this.

So this is like Destiny ... all MP/co-op -- no SP campaign to speak of? Bummer if that's the case. Star Wars is my all-time favorite franchise and this game looks awesome!
 
So this is like Destiny ... all MP/co-op -- no SP campaign to speak of? Bummer if that's the case. Star Wars is my all-time favorite franchise and this game looks awesome!

Actually I don't know that to be true. Really we don't know anything about the game so far. I don't know if it has a true offline SP campaign like the Battlefield games, or if it does that quasi single player thing like Destiny, or if it does the Evolve/Titanfall thing and has no real SP Campaign to speak of.

I just say be wary of a day one purchase because at that point the game is at it's most unstable. Even if you just care about SP and they have a fleshed out SP campaign, odds are still likely that there will be a number of bad bugs. This probability is enhanced more by the fact that this release date is set to coincide with the release of the movie, and when games are forced to meet deadlines like this as opposed to simply "when they're done" the chances for bugs increases even more. I suppose they could be allowed 1 delay (and I wouldn't be shocked at all if the game ended up coming out in December instead) but really nowadays there's NO reason to get any AAA release on Day 1 unless there's an unbelievably compelling deal. It's sad that the state of gaming has come to this, especially on consoles. Traditionally the whole advantage of consoles over computers was that the games simply worked. You started it up and everything was fine. That has been completely eliminated, and now it seems like games are in no hurry to fix themselves. And finally, let's not forget what happened the last time DICE had to deliver a massive multiplayer focused FPS to hit an arbitrary deadline...
 
Looks like they're doing the stupid Titanfall/Evolve thing where there's just "scenarios" you can play solo. There's no actual single player campaign, because it's not like the Star Wars universe has any sort of lore or scenarios that people would want to be able to play all by themselves. Luckily, they WILL have it be available offline, so when the servers inevitably crash on Day 1 you can still at least play with Bots. Also, they FINALLY abandoned that stupid Browser based matchmaking and will do it all within game. They're not using Battlelog and instead will have a completely independent system.

http://www.polygon.com/2015/4/18/84...front-will-have-offline-singleplayer-wont-use
 
I never got a chance to see it at Celebration because the lines were way too long.

Sent from Note 3
 
I hope you weren't a fan of the Space battles in the original BFs, because they're not in this game...And here's a few other things missing from this newer version that the old one had..

In case Reddit wasn't a reliable source...
http://nerdgasmicblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/star-wars-battlefront-is-starting-to.html

Speaking of, one of the producers of the game went on Reddit to defend the game.

http://www.polygon.com/2015/4/22/8467275/star-wars-battlefront-producer-reddit-maps
 
Last edited:
Looks like they're doing the stupid Titanfall/Evolve thing where there's just "scenarios" you can play solo. There's no actual single player campaign, because it's not like the Star Wars universe has any sort of lore or scenarios that people would want to be able to play all by themselves. Luckily, they WILL have it be available offline, so when the servers inevitably crash on Day 1 you can still at least play with Bots.

I'm ok with this just like I was in Titanfall and Left 4 Dead. I'm sure I would be fine with it for Evolve too but I haven't played that outside of the beta so I can't say for sure. Many gamers get mad when single player games tack on a multiplayer mode yet they want every multiplayer game to tack on a single player mode. I have no problem with a game just being a multiplayer game.

I think both the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises would be just fine if they chose to stop making single player campaigns and just put those resources towards more multiplayer content. I can't remember the numbers but I remember hearing a statistic about the percentage of Call of Duty players who never launch the single player campaign even once and it was pretty staggering.

Titanfall choosing not to include single player was fine with me because I am one of those people who never plays the campaign in Battlefield or COD. Advanced Warfare is the first one I have even tried in years and I never finished it's short campaign. The bigger problem with Titanfall is that it was lacking things like Frontier Defense at launch that would have kept the community engaged longer. With all the Season Pass content available now it is a completely different package than it was when it came out.

Also, they FINALLY abandoned that stupid Browser based matchmaking and will do it all within game. They're not using Battlelog and instead will have a completely independent system.

http://www.polygon.com/2015/4/18/84...front-will-have-offline-singleplayer-wont-use

This is a huge plus. The web browser based server selector for Battlefield 3 on PC was so terrible. I just got error after error when trying to join a match. It turned out to be an issue with my origin account being the same one I used on PS3 where I had Battlefield 3 Premium. I didn't have Premium on PC but it kept trying to put me into Premium servers. I only played BF4 on PS4 so I can't say if the implementation got any better but I'm glad to see that they killed that terrible idea.

I hope you weren't a fan of the Space battles in the original BFs, because they're not in this game...And here's a few other things missing from this newer version that the old one had..


It sounds like this will just be a Battlefield with a Star Wars skin. Again, I'm kind of okay with this. The Battlefield 4 formula works and it feels epic when you are in the big conquest matches. I was originally kind of disappointed in the lack of space battles but now I think it makes some sense. People fighting on the ground while other people are completely out of sight in space may as well be playing two different games. In the Battlefield games people on the ground can take out people flying in vehicles and still play a big role in the fight. How is someone on the ground going to affect a fight between people off in space though? the scope just seems too different to connect them in a meaningful way.

There are still going to be X-Wings and Tie Fighters you can jump in and fly. You just have to stay within the battle area. It sounds like they will basically be like the helicopters and jets from the Battlefield series.

I do think it's kind of mind boggling that they would limit the player count to 40 when Battlefield 3 and 4 both easily handled 64 players on PC. I'm wondering if this is a console limitation that wont be true for PC players. The PS3/360 versions were always limited to 32 players so it wouldn't be the first time they had a different player count for PC and console. If this limitation turns out to be true this is the first truly disappointing news I have heard about Battlefront so far.

I'm still looking forward to this game. I'm not going to let some bullet points in a reddit thread ruin it for me until there are actual game reviews and we can see the game for ourselves. This is a good reminder that pre-ordering isn't always the best idea unless you get some actual benefit for doing it. I think it's also a good reminder to try not to get caught up in the hype and let your expectations get out of hand for any big releases. If you build it up too much it will be a disappointment no matter how good the product actually turns out.
 


So I just watched this trailer for the first time and it looks really cool. I hate that they put that "in game engine footage" note at the beginning though. We all know that the game won't look anything like that even on high end PCs. It may technically be rendered using their game engine but that level of detail is only possible on pre-rendered footage.

When they put in a message like that they are definitely trying to trick people who don't understand how the games industry works into thinking the game will actually look like that. Pre-rendered trailers and cutscenes can be great. I just don't appreciate it when they try to deceive people.
 
I think the frustration/skepticism people are having can be attributed to a number of things..

  1. It's EA. We may as well get this one out of the way. Yes, in the last 24 months they have gotten better, but they still have a particular stink about them. They also have a great history of destroying beloved franchises (Sim games, Ultima, Command & Conquer, Dungeon Keeper, Syndicate, Battlefield, etc) with their unreasonable demands on developers. So many gamers have a relationship with EA akin to that of an abused spouse. I'm not saying it's completely fair, but we're not talking about Valve, Nintendo, or even Activision here.
  2. The new version has less features (so far) than the last one. This is also connected to the first point where people think that either this game will either be horribly stripped, OR that consumers will have to get everything missing back in DLC. They haven't really said anything to refute such a statement, so that's agitating people.
  3. Gamer fatigue in general. I think I speak for many gamers when I say that this is one of the only times I can think of where stuff in this new generation is in many ways inferior to the last generation. We've seen it in our consoles, where basic features like being able to play a CD aren't available (among many others). We've also seen it in our games, where the current gen versions of games have less features than the last gen, or where games come out essentially incomplete and need to be patched in later (Halo MCC, TItanfall, NHL 15, etc) I thought the whole point of getting better hardware was that we'd be getting better software, but honestly that doesn't seem to be the case as much as it should. Yes there are some ones that obviously fit this mold like Shadow of Mordor and Dragon Age: Inquisition, but what's happened to the various sports franchises is laughable.
Personally I don't have much investment in this. I'm not a big BF fan (or Battlefield for that matter) or even Star Wars when it comes to games. If the game ends up sucking I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I got enough games to keep me occupied until the Second Coming. If it's good, then great. And to be fair, I think that all the complaining about a game that is a ways out is a bit unjustified. Even with all the stuff I mentioned, I feel like people are jumping to too many conclusions too early. But again, when you look at it from their viewpoint, to quote the great Chris Rock, "I'm not saying I agree, but I understand."
 
EA says it has no problem delaying BF if it's not ready for release...

Ummm... good?

http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/nextg..._star_wars_battlefront_if_it_wasnt_right.html

I think a publishers are going to start facing these questions a lot more often in the wake of Arkham Knight. I think the fact that they actually pulled it from stores is going to have a major effect on games going forward.

Other publishers are going to be asked to do the same and something like that has to cost them a lot of money. They are going to try very hard to not be put in that situation. This should have been the case all along though so this Batman release may have actually been a good thing.

Honestly, I think the people are overreacting. From my time with the game there were definitely problems but it's not the worst game I've ever seen.

CD Projekt Red is a beloved PC studio but Witcher 1 is still full of bugs 8 years after release. I had the game completely crash on me several times in my 6-8 hours with it and every time it did it wiped out 2+ hours of progress because the auto-save system was broken.

Fallout 3 requires 3 mods to be installed to keep the game from crashing and to fix the auto-save function that would corrupt your save by the time you got to the end of the game for almost all users.

Dark Souls requires the DSFix mod to basically even be playable on PC.

Then there is whatever the hell happened to Assassin's Creed Unity.

Arkham Knight has a capped framerate that is easy to fix and some occasional framerate dips in the batmobile. In my opinion those other games have issues that are just as big if not bigger than Arkham Knight but with the exception of AC Unity they weren't piled on nearly as heavily.

Yes, this should have been a better port but it's hardly the worst thing to happen to gaming like many people in the Steam forums would have you believe.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts