Star Wars Battlefront: UPDATE 2: The Missing Content Strikes Back.

[Bob_McMillan]

I had only a few requirements:

Splitscreen and LAN. Because EA servers are literally the devil.

But they're not even going to have singleplayer?

Okay, never mind then - I'm never buying this game.

But... The article says there will be splitscreen?

What about LAN? Because that's a pretty important part in keeping the game playable past EA discontinuing their horrible servers.

Still, if there's no singleplayer of any kind, I don't think I want the game at all. I'm not a competitive multiplayer person, I just want to be able to have a lot of players playing versus bots. Or at the very least 2, so I can play it with my best friend in person rather than over EAs lackluster servers.

Did I mention that I hate EA's servers? I do. A lot.

They say there will be a practice mode, so hopefully there will be an "Instant Action" mode. I hope so, since my internet sucks.

 

[Loonyyy]

I am going to get some serious flak for this, but... the space battles in Battlefront 2 were easily the worst part of the game. They were tedious affairs of going after the same hard targets on the ships and moping up the fighters. Almost every battle played out the same. Hell, in the campaign I remember there actually being the option to skip the space battles entirely. Speaking of the campaign...

Eh, I am not really broken up about the lack of a campaign. BF1 didn't have a campaign. The custom maps and gametypes were where it was at.

What does disappoint me is the lack of prequel content. I always loved playing as the clones.

What I will do is wait and see. What I want ti see is the hero system and the amount of maps. From what I hear it will be on 4 planets, but does that include multiple maps for each planet? I like the look of it, but looks won't sell me on the game... actual gameplay footage will.

The space battles in BF2 were pretty limited(But also a fair bit of fun-while destroying the hardpoints etc on a ship were boring, the flight and the mechanic of landing in the hangar was fun, and dogfighting reminded more than a few players of the X-Wing series). However, there was a lot of talk with BF3 (And even some alpha footage), of being able to transition between space and ground combat. Fighters acting as close air-support and attacking the ships outside of atmosphere. There was a handheld game that tried the same thing (Although it used a jump button and a loading barrier to do so). A lot of people were hoping on an improvement on that.

I would like a campaign, I really don't want another disposable Frostbite multiplayer game. Better yet, the old Galactic Conquest mode was loads of fun, and I'd love to see that return.

 

[Amir Kondori]

I read this stuff, crack a bemused smile, and go back to playing Pillars of Eternity. Silly AAA people, when will they ever learn.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Yeah, given everything I'm hearing about this game, my hype is kind of getting blown. Overall it sounds like they've just removed features in exchange for shiny new graphics. I had a lot of fun with BF2, and while Space Battles weren't my favorite part of the game, I still had a good deal of fun in them. It was a nice change of pace in between doing regular matches. And if the AT-AT on rails thing sticks then that is one really poor move on their part.

I'm still going to reserve judgment until I see actual gameplay, but they really need to find something to say about what about it is better than the previous games

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

So what you're saying is EA has officially EAed this title in the ass?
Well who could have seen that coming?!

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

So, let me get this straight? First we complain that triple-A games are becoming too bloated and that the developers should focus on getting the core mechanics to be solid and fun. Then a developer announces that they are focusing on core mechanics to make the game more solid and to offer a more cohesive experience... only to catch flak for not having enough diverse content in the game.

Whenever I see threads like this I realize why gamers have such a low reputation in many circles. We haven't seen the game in action yet, we don't even know what the core gameplay is like or how many options it includes, but already people are blowing their lids because the feature they wanted isn't in the game and thus it must irrevocably be ruined beyond all redemption.

 

[Mutant1988]

So, let me get this straight? First we complain that triple-A games are becoming too bloated and that the developers should focus on getting the core mechanics to be solid and fun. Then a developer announces that they are focusing on core mechanics to make the game more solid and to offer a more cohesive experience... only to catch flak for not having enough diverse content in the game.

Whenever I see threads like this I realize why gamers have such a low reputation in many circles. We haven't seen the game in action yet, we don't even know what the core gameplay is like or how many options it includes, but already people are blowing their lids because the feature they wanted isn't in the game and thus it must irrevocably be ruined beyond all redemption.

You do understand that a sequel having less content than it's predecessors isn't really indicative of any greater focus. They already have the blue print for what people like and wanted from a Battlefront game and chose to deliver far less. I wouldn't call that focus as much as laziness, with far too much effort put into presentation over content. But that's really what I would expect from EA.

And you know, when people say that "Triple-A" are bloated, it's not referring to content volume, as much as it is to the disproportionate focus on marketing, graphics and spectacle over substance and insane development budgets, yet limited development time, leading to games that are broken on release yet have months of additional content prepared for sale.

The development of triple-A games is bloated - Not the games themselves. The games are just broken, shallow and expensive.

 

[Methodia Chicken]

I'll just get an Xbox from my uncle and play Battlefront II again.

If you have a decent enough PC or Laptop it's available on steam for a pretty low price.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/6060/

You know what I think the gist of this news is that a really good battlefront game already exists, it had all the wonderful features we could want that completely captured the spirit of star wars, that may never come round again, and we should all go buy it.

Everyones looking at this wrong its not a future game idiotically shooting itself in the foot by disregarding the best aspects of its predecessor,
its a future game nobly sacrificing itself to let us appreciate what an amazing game we've had since 2005.
EA struck battlefront down so that it could become more powerful that we could possibly imagine.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

So, let me get this straight? First we complain that triple-A games are becoming too bloated and that the developers should focus on getting the core mechanics to be solid and fun. Then a developer announces that they are focusing on core mechanics to make the game more solid and to offer a more cohesive experience... only to catch flak for not having enough diverse content in the game.

Whenever I see threads like this I realize why gamers have such a low reputation in many circles. We haven't seen the game in action yet, we don't even know what the core gameplay is like or how many options it includes, but already people are blowing their lids because the feature they wanted isn't in the game and thus it must irrevocably be ruined beyond all redemption.

You do understand that a sequel having less content than it's predecessors isn't really indicative of any greater focus. They already have the blue print for what people like and wanted from a Battlefront game and chose to deliver far less. I wouldn't call that focus as much as laziness, with far too much effort put into presentation over content. But that's really what I would expect from EA.

And you know, when people say that "Triple-A" are bloated, it's not referring to content volume, as much as it is to the disproportionate focus on marketing, graphics and spectacle over substance and insane development budgets, yet limited development time, leading to games that are broken on release yet have months of additional content prepared for sale.

The development of triple-A games is bloated - Not the games themselves. The games are just broken, shallow and expensive.

But then, that's just the problem. It isn't a sequel. It's considered a reboot. It's DICE's own little interpretation. At first I was a little disappointed by all the changes, but now I see why DICE made those decisions. The class-less system was needed because it is too close to Battlefield, a game that DICE themselves have made. I mean, Battlefront has always essentially been a Battlefield clone. The lack of maps is because there are now more modes. In Battlefront 2, there are only 4 modes, some of which were exclusive to certain maps (i.e. Hunt was only found in Hoth, Endor, and Tatooine). They were essentially just different rules for the same map. And Battlefront 2 had 18 maps (excluding Space maps), except 6 of them were simple upscales of old maps from the first Battlefront. So technically, what we have now is identical what both Battlefront 1 and 2 offered.

Now, the lack of the prequels. It does seem like we're losing something, but you have to remember the Force Awakens maps. They will probably feature the new Stormtroopers, rebels, and heroes. While they aren't new factions, they are new player models, skins, weapons, vehicles, etc. It is a different era, after all.

What I do think we should be giving them shit for is the lack of space battles. I can understand that DICE wanted the full experience of a "Star War" where there are heavy vehicles, air support, etc. The problem with that is it's basically the exact formula for the Battlefield games! Instead of tanks, jeeps, and jets, we have AT-AT's, speeder bikes, and X-wings. As much as I love the infantry combat of Battlefront 2, the space combat was what people played Battlefront for. The feeling of taking over the enemy's ship was just glorious. Even worse is that we will definitely have space combat- in the form of a 15 dollar DLC. Same as the prequels. However, that doesn't mean we won't have starfighter vs starfighter combat. It just won't be in space.

 

[verdant monkai]

Not sure about how ready I am to believe arabicgamers.com I've never heard of them before.

Then again wouldn't put it past EA

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Do you realise you could land in the enemy capital ships? I loved doing that in space battles and taking down their ship's systems from the inside, before stealing one of their ships and shooting a bunch of them as I flew out to join back in with the dogfighting.

Yeah and it was still the least interesting part of the game. Keep in mind I played entirely with bots, so allied and enemy AI were what kept me from enjoying it for the most part, so maybe it was better with MP. I couldn't coordinate allies to board properly and the enemies practically ignored boarding parties. Now the All-Hero Battle Royale in Mos Eisley... I fucking love that shit.

I played Battlefront 2 today. If you pilot a gunship, or even an AI pilot, all my teammates would pile in. And the enemies did try to destroy the gunships. Did you play on console or something? I'm not sure if console had access to the patches.

 

[UFriday]

Just keep getting more disappointed by the minute. Guess that'll teach me to bring my hopes up.

See you around, guys, going to go drink my sorrows away. Goodbye Kashyyyk, goodbye Rhen Var and goodbye Naboo. I'll have plenty of fond memories of you. And goodbye Genosis space, with all the asteroids to dodge and the wonderfully vertical playstyle.

 

[Tom_green_day]

I guess this is the inevitable Battlefield-ification of the game. Like Battlefield it has few maps, a singeplayer that you ignore, only ground battles, no specific classes etc.
The reason I don't really play Battlefield games (and many other games) at launch is that there are so few maps that it easily gets boring. The Battlefront games (wow these are going to be easy to mix up) had just the right amount I think, although more would have been great.
I loved the single-player campains of Battlefront where you invaded the planets yourself and got bonuses for the ones you held etc.
I guess for classes you'll be able to choose your own designed custom classes, and most people will create them to imitate the classes anyway so it doesn't matter much.
It's a shame about not having prequel content, I see myself getting very bored by the same 2 factions through the whole game.

 

[Setrus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drkh0YLF8rI

I'm sure the battles will be fun and such, and that it'll look amazing. HOWEVER, there was mention of the maps being crowded? That sounds like COD maps, which I don't like, hopefully the promise of maps varying in size comes through. Also, 40 players max? And they're used to adding on stuff while mentioning no prequel battles and no space battles and unlocking weapons and such?
It sounds very much like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVnArp9ZE0

dlc-baiting, it sounds like dlc-baiting.

And it'll likely work, it's STAR WARS, after all. Hardline and Battlefield 4 will be nothing to battlefront.

I hope I'm wrong and I'll still consider getting the game, of course, but I'll be waiting a bit before I do so.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Why is everyone banging on about the space combat? It wasn't that interesting, IMO. It was a mediocre flying sim with boarding. After boarding, it's just standard close combat fighting. They were pretty boring and would always progress in exactly the same way. Kill shield generators first, then everything else in whatever order you prefer. I played a few of them, but then the campaign gave me the option to skip them and skip them I did.

So that doesn't bother me.

I didn't care for killing droids or clones. The maps were alright, but the vehicles and even some of the classes(the rollers were cool though) just didn't do it for me. I didn't enjoy them. The original trilogy had some really cool classes, like the Bothan Spy. Nothing was more fun than coming out of cloak and disintegrating some poor fool. The Dark Trooper's jump jet made it a blast to maneuver on the open maps and also got you out of jams pretty well.

Let me make these classes myself and I don't care that you got rid of the class system.

 

[fix-the-spade]

To be very fair to EA, the first Battlefront game didn't have space battles either.

Showing gameplay will murder the hype, because it'll look just like Battlefield 4 in action.

As for being fair to EA, Battlefront came out in 2004, Battlefront 2 in 2005 if they can't include a feature that was included in the previous game a full decade ago then they can't have my money either.

 

[BlackJesus]

Funny, I thought a sequel had more content, not less.

 

[Chester Rabbit]

I don't know why you people were ever expecting anything grand from this developer or EA.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Funny, I thought a sequel had more content, not less.

But it's not a sequel. It's a reboot, which I think is everyone's problem right now. We're all expecting more of the same, but this is technically a new game. And I think we all know that everything that's missing right now is going to be DLC, which is slightly less shitty.

 

[Mutant1988]

Are we just playing Battlefield: Advanced Warfare in Star Wars?

Not interested now. Shame.

There is a Star Wars mod for Call of Duty 4 actually. And it's actually pretty great. It's not a substitute for Battlefront though.

But it's not a sequel. It's a reboot, which I think is everyone's problem right now. We're all expecting more of the same, but this is technically a new game. And I think we all know that everything that's missing right now is going to be DLC, which is slightly less shitty.

Eh, that sounds more shitty to me. That sounds like low effort price gouging.