Battlefront "Parody" Site

[Bob_McMillan]

But I also think you guys are being way too negative. We haven't seen any gameplay yet, but people are already calling it a failure. The comparisons with Battlefront 2 are also a bit unfair. The number of maps especially.

Why is comparing a game to it's predecessor "unfair"? Especially considering it's predecessor came out 10 years ago with nowhere near the technological capabilities we have today? Beyond that, I can already tell you what the gameplay is going to be like: generic 1st/3rd Person Shooter with Star Wars Theme.

What made BFII so great were all the features that this BF is going to be lacking. Space Battles. Tons of Vehicles. Numerous Hero Units. Galactic-frickin'-Conquest. Hell, even the Campaign was pretty entertaining while this one looks like it's just going to be a Multiplayer Only (a format that has failed miserably every time it's been tried in the past couple years).

The biggest sin in my eyes is still the lack of the prequel factions. Say what you want about the movies, but the droids were my favorite team back in BFII...now they're gone.

I will miss the prequel era though. The Clones were my favorite as a kid. I mean, I understand why they didnt include them, but I still dont like it.

Then help me out here, why did they not include them? No mocking inflection or disdain here, I really don't know why. Time, maybe? [/quote]

The prequels dont quite fit in with the loadout based idea DICE has. I mean, how would you equip a Droideka? Or a Super Battle Droid? The clones could work maybe, but the droids wouldn't.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

I dont find comparing the two unfair, but the actual comparisons being made. For example,the number of maps. People seem to have forgotten the reason that Battlefront 2 had so much content was because it was essentially a copy and paste of the original. Quite a lot of the maps were recycled from Battlefront.

And the reason they can't just copy-paste again as a foundation for this new game is...?

That's where the issue is coming from here. BFII had all this great stuff...now we're being told that all the great stuff that was in the previous game won't be in the newer game.

Because (let's be honest here) by modern standards, Battlefront II is pretty shit?

I played BFII last week, and while it was fun, it's just lacking so much things. The maps are horribly designed for multiplayer, the classes were crap, and the gun play is just so bad. Sure, DICE could have just improved on it, but most if the problems would remain.

We really need to remove our nostalgia goggles. As fun as I found Space Assault, it is actually a pretty horrible mode. A single player could destroy an entire star destroyer in maybe five minutes. This is of course based on the single player experience, it might be different online. Never played it online, recently or as a kid. Anyone remember?

Anyway, honestly, would we really have been fine with DICE just copying and pasting BFII? If people were annoyed with BFII copying the original (it was literally the only criticism of BFII at the time), dont you think we would have been pissed?

I'm not saying we shouldn't be disappointed that Battlefront won't have a lot of the things we love. But just because those things are gone, it doesnt mean the game wont be worthy of the Battlefront franchise. We shouldnt let our anger cloud our judgement (yes that was a joke), especially since we haven't even seen gameplay yet.

 

[Keoul]

Oh hey I remember this.

Spoiler

Guess he actually did it.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

You know, I find it simultaneously deeply troubling and utterly hilarious how they've taken to naming their new additions to beloved franchises.
When they were going to release a new CnC game it wasn't anything like "CnC: Generals 2" or "CnC: Generals Reloaded" or someshit, no, it was straight up just "Command and Conquer".
And now the new Battlefront game is just being called "Star Wars: Battlefront".
It's honestly like they're taunting us with these games and then rubbing our noses in the shit they churn out.
They've got some major balls for just naming them as the original titles to the first entries in their franchises.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Updated version of that graph:

http://i.imgur.com/YgOmHX3.png

See...I don't get how people put things like this up to defend it. A good portion of the things in that "updated version" don't actually oppose the point being made.

"20 vs 20 on maps made for this number of players" So what? If it was 1v1 on a tiny map would that also be acceptable in light of the larger scale of the previous game?

"In atmosphere battles instead" Which relates HOW to Space Battles? People wanted their ship-to-ship Space Battles. Not dogfighting above a battlefield. So its basically irrelevant.

"1 Free DLC announced" True, but also somewhat dishonest given their history as a company of DLC packs. It is NOT a gigantic leap to assume there will be more which, even if free, are a hell of a nuisance for people with poor internet connections.

"Co-op and split screen missions instead" Sorry but as someone who primarily played Battlefront single player this is NOT a counterpoint to actually having a damn campaign. A handful of missions is a poor trade-in for a campaign.

 

[Fox12]

Snip

Snip.

Don't suppose either of you know what the song is? Spent a while looking up the lyrics but apparently a 100 different songs have it in them already.

Come Susser Todd.

If you want a real mind fuck, watch the movie it's from.

 

[silver wolf009]

But I also think you guys are being way too negative. We haven't seen any gameplay yet, but people are already calling it a failure. The comparisons with Battlefront 2 are also a bit unfair. The number of maps especially.

Why is comparing a game to it's predecessor "unfair"? Especially considering it's predecessor came out 10 years ago with nowhere near the technological capabilities we have today? Beyond that, I can already tell you what the gameplay is going to be like: generic 1st/3rd Person Shooter with Star Wars Theme.

What made BFII so great were all the features that this BF is going to be lacking. Space Battles. Tons of Vehicles. Numerous Hero Units. Galactic-frickin'-Conquest. Hell, even the Campaign was pretty entertaining while this one looks like it's just going to be a Multiplayer Only (a format that has failed miserably every time it's been tried in the past couple years).

The biggest sin in my eyes is still the lack of the prequel factions. Say what you want about the movies, but the droids were my favorite team back in BFII...now they're gone.

I will miss the prequel era though. The Clones were my favorite as a kid. I mean, I understand why they didnt include them, but I still dont like it.

Then help me out here, why did they not include them? No mocking inflection or disdain here, I really don't know why. Time, maybe?

The prequels dont quite fit in with the loadout based idea DICE has. I mean, how would you equip a Droideka? Or a Super Battle Droid? The clones could work maybe, but the droids wouldn't.[/quote]

I'll concede to you that, but that whole "Make every class the same so you can 'do it your way!'" reason is the problem itself. Surely a trade off for more durability in exchange for less versatility is possible. In universe the B2's are meant to be lumbering tanks on legs. The comparison I would draw would be to the Juggernaught Suit in Modern Warfare 3, or the Big Daddy Suit in Bioshock 2's multiplayer. The latter I know for a fact restricted you to set weapons that you had to use, but made them very powerful in exchange.

Further, I would suggest another way to balance them would be to give them fewer shots over all, or make them much harder to restock with ammunition. After all, they do have built in weapons, so it'd take longer to get in there and recharge them, right?

Just little boosts and drawbacks that give them peaks and troughs, not the exact same stats and movement of the Rebels 30 some odd years in the future.

 

[Mikeybb]

The list of fallen companies at the bottom made me smile, then I saw mythic and shed a little tear.
I loved DAOC.

The only thing I take issue with regarding complaints about battlefront is the reaction to the atat being on rails.
While I know they could be piloted in previous editions, I'm looking at them in this one as something equivalent to the Titan from the frankly amazing battlefield 2142.

If you're not familiar with the game, it acted as a mobile base of operations and spawn point for the team.
It hovered above the map slowly moving towards a central position and it in itself was one of the objectives of the game.
Hold objectives with launchers on them and you would fire a missle at the titan, lowering it's shield.
When the shield went down, you could attempt to board it and set charges on the reactor, destroying it outright.
If you couldn't take it out that way, you could whittle it's hull down conventionally but that would take some time.
The Titan also had a launch bay and a section of player controllable turrets with which you could proved anti air or local heavy fire support.

So, that's what I'm viewing the AtAt as right now.
A mobile spawnpoint base with a player controlled turret at the front (maybe even two, one for the chin, one for the more agile sponson mounts).
Perhaps even a seat for the commander, with an overview of the assault.

 

[MatParker116]

Updated version of that graph:

http://i.imgur.com/YgOmHX3.png

See...I don't get how people put things like this up to defend it. A good portion of the things in that "updated version" don't actually oppose the point being made.

"20 vs 20 on maps made for this number of players" So what? If it was 1v1 on a tiny map would that also be acceptable in light of the larger scale of the previous game?

"In atmosphere battles instead" Which relates HOW to Space Battles? People wanted their ship-to-ship Space Battles. Not dogfighting above a battlefield. So its basically irrelevant.

"1 Free DLC announced" True, but also somewhat dishonest given their history as a company of DLC packs. It is NOT a gigantic leap to assume there will be more which, even if free, are a hell of a nuisance for people with poor internet connections.

"Co-op and split screen missions instead" Sorry but as someone who primarily played Battlefront single player this is NOT a counterpoint to actually having a damn campaign. A handful of missions is a poor trade-in for a campaign.

The Funhaus video I posted makes a great point regarding player count, too many players can cause the game to become crowded and frankly you don't want every match breaking down into a clusterfuck of blaster fire. I watched a recent AH LP of BF2 and frankly the space battles were incredibly unbalanced one guy could fuck up a ship in a few minutes. Premium DLC is expected but there often in separate servers or playlists. Finally I think those missions will be similar to Spartan Ops or Spec Ops.

 

[vallorn]

The biggest sin in my eyes is still the lack of the prequel factions. Say what you want about the movies, but the droids were my favorite team back in BFII...now they're gone.

I completely agree here. Destroyer Droids and Super Battle Droids were just a million flavours of FUN. Especially with the superspeed rolling shenanigans you could pull off with the droidekas.

This is like the pinnacle of EA's EA-ness. Taking something that everyone loves, turning it into a Battlefield clone, ripping out all the content and trying to sell it back to us as DLC and completely missing the point of what made the previous ones so successful.

I seriously don't understand this at all. Supposedly the reason they're doing this is because they'll get more money by homogenising a beloved title so that people who loved it before will buy it and so will the general mooks who buy every CoD and Battlefield game. Here's the thing though, the general BF/CoD crowd won't be attracted to this title, and the people who loved it before certainly aren't going for this bastardised, homogenous, husk of a clone of a game, so how do they expect to get anything from it? They knew outright what people really wanted and would buy, why do they think it'll be more successful if they ruin that? It's The Elder Scrolls Online all over again, except with EA's usual bollocks mixed in.

With any luck the thing will sell terribly and EA will make a huge loss and rethink things, but we all know that won't happen, some crazy how. And even if it did tank, they'd probably go "well clearly the problem was that it was too risky and different and had too much content that wasn't DLC, we'll have to focus on these things" because they are fucking arseholes that need twatting round the lughole.

'EA. Meet Games Workshop. You two will get along famously, what's that you say? You smell gas coming through the ceiling vents? Don't worry about it you will be fine just like Pandemic and The Squats...'

Seeing that Westwood logo made me feel so sad and nostalgic..

...

I miss my mad Russian psychics...

 

[Lightspeaker]

Updated version of that graph:

http://i.imgur.com/YgOmHX3.png

See...I don't get how people put things like this up to defend it. A good portion of the things in that "updated version" don't actually oppose the point being made.

"20 vs 20 on maps made for this number of players" So what? If it was 1v1 on a tiny map would that also be acceptable in light of the larger scale of the previous game?

"In atmosphere battles instead" Which relates HOW to Space Battles? People wanted their ship-to-ship Space Battles. Not dogfighting above a battlefield. So its basically irrelevant.

"1 Free DLC announced" True, but also somewhat dishonest given their history as a company of DLC packs. It is NOT a gigantic leap to assume there will be more which, even if free, are a hell of a nuisance for people with poor internet connections.

"Co-op and split screen missions instead" Sorry but as someone who primarily played Battlefront single player this is NOT a counterpoint to actually having a damn campaign. A handful of missions is a poor trade-in for a campaign.

The Funhaus video I posted makes a great point regarding player count, too many players can cause the game to become crowded and frankly you don't want every match breaking down into a clusterfuck of blaster fire. I watched a recent AH LP of BF2 and frankly the space battles were incredibly unbalanced one guy could fuck up a ship in a few minutes. Premium DLC is expected but there often in separate servers or playlists. Finally I think those missions will be similar to Spartan Ops or Spec Ops.

Nope. Sorry. You can't have it both ways. "20 v 20 on maps designed for that" and "too many players can make a game become crowded" are NOT compatible views. If you can make a map suitable for 20 v 20 you can make a map suitable for bigger. More to the point I fundamentally disagree with you on "you don't want every match breaking down into a clusterfuck of blaster fire". Because you're wrong, that's EXACTLY what I want. The game SHOULD be busy. The previous games had a bunch of AI to fill out the maps to help with that. Precisely that was part of the silly fun of Battlefront. If anything I felt some maps had TOO FEW enemies on. Especially Hoth. I wanted dozens upon dozens of things shooting at each other, entire trenches full of enemies. As it was it only really got busy closer to the final rebel spawn point.

I don't know what Spartan Ops or Spec Ops are and I really do not care in the slightest. As a primarily single player of Battlefront I want a campaign. No ifs or buts.

Also I watched about half of that Funhaus video and turned it off. In short: they're idiots. I can summarise my problem with their video with one word and that word is "Battlefield". Throughout the video they keep saying Battlefield Battlefield Battlefield. "We've played loads of Battlefield".

Battlefront is not Battlefield. It didn't play like Battlefield did despite being loosely based on similar concepts. The mass of AI, third person view, hero characters, single player campaign, etc made it an entirely different beast.

I do not want a Battlefield game. I haven't owned a Battlefield game since 2142 but I played BF4 recently and frankly it actually felt like a step back from even BF2. I was bored in about half an hour flat. I want a new Battlefront game and the information they're putting it out makes it very clear this is NOT a Battlefront game.

 

[MatParker116]

Updated version of that graph:

http://i.imgur.com/YgOmHX3.png

See...I don't get how people put things like this up to defend it. A good portion of the things in that "updated version" don't actually oppose the point being made.

"20 vs 20 on maps made for this number of players" So what? If it was 1v1 on a tiny map would that also be acceptable in light of the larger scale of the previous game?

"In atmosphere battles instead" Which relates HOW to Space Battles? People wanted their ship-to-ship Space Battles. Not dogfighting above a battlefield. So its basically irrelevant.

"1 Free DLC announced" True, but also somewhat dishonest given their history as a company of DLC packs. It is NOT a gigantic leap to assume there will be more which, even if free, are a hell of a nuisance for people with poor internet connections.

"Co-op and split screen missions instead" Sorry but as someone who primarily played Battlefront single player this is NOT a counterpoint to actually having a damn campaign. A handful of missions is a poor trade-in for a campaign.

The Funhaus video I posted makes a great point regarding player count, too many players can cause the game to become crowded and frankly you don't want every match breaking down into a clusterfuck of blaster fire. I watched a recent AH LP of BF2 and frankly the space battles were incredibly unbalanced one guy could fuck up a ship in a few minutes. Premium DLC is expected but there often in separate servers or playlists. Finally I think those missions will be similar to Spartan Ops or Spec Ops.

Nope. Sorry. You can't have it both ways. "20 v 20 on maps designed for that" and "too many players can make a game become crowded" are NOT compatible views. If you can make a map suitable for 20 v 20 you can make a map suitable for bigger. More to the point I fundamentally disagree with you on "you don't want every match breaking down into a clusterfuck of blaster fire". Because you're wrong, that's EXACTLY what I want. The game SHOULD be busy. The previous games had a bunch of AI to fill out the maps to help with that. Precisely that was part of the silly fun of Battlefront. If anything I felt some maps had TOO FEW enemies on. Especially Hoth. I wanted dozens upon dozens of things shooting at each other, entire trenches full of enemies. As it was it only really got busy closer to the final rebel spawn point.

I don't know what Spartan Ops or Spec Ops are and I really do not care in the slightest. As a primarily single player of Battlefront I want a campaign. No ifs or buts.

Also I watched about half of that Funhaus video and turned it off. In short: they're idiots. I can summarise my problem with their video with one word and that word is "Battlefield". Throughout the video they keep saying Battlefield Battlefield Battlefield. "We've played loads of Battlefield".

Battlefront is not Battlefield. It didn't play like Battlefield did despite being loosely based on similar concepts. The mass of AI, third person view, hero characters, single player campaign, etc made it an entirely different beast.

I do not want a Battlefield game. I haven't owned a Battlefield game since 2142 but I played BF4 recently and frankly it actually felt like a step back from even BF2. I was bored in about half an hour flat. I want a new Battlefront game and the information they're putting it out makes it very clear this is NOT a Battlefront game.

Spec Ops and Spartan Ops were side campaigns in Modern Warfare and Halo 4 which were designed with multiplayer in mind but could be played solo. Also this is a reboot not BF3.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I had no plans to buy the new EA title. I'm pretty much done with them. I thought about giving them another shot with new Mass Effect, but if that leak about the story is true, we're done for good.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Spec Ops and Spartan Ops were side campaigns in Modern Warfare and Halo 4 which were designed with multiplayer in mind but could be played solo.

This kind of hedging and trying to have it both ways has frankly been a cancer on shooters for several years now.

Also this is a reboot not BF3.

Which is under the Battlefront name. If they wanted a new Star Wars shooter they could have called it any damn thing they wanted. They did not. They called it Battlefront.

Therefore it comes with certain expectations related to the Battlefront series. Sorry, they do not get to just hand-wave it away with "but its a reboot". Using that argument you could reboot The Elder Scrolls and turn it into a Diablo-esque top-down dungeon crawler and remove the story entirely; it being a reboot wouldn't and shouldn't get it a free pass with fans of TES the way it is now.