Star Wars Battlefront [PS4, XO]

[Shifty Geezer]

What really thought was rubbish about the old Battlefront games was that gameplay mechanic at least imho made the game a confusingly crappy experience and cartoony and not really a gritty recreation of what was in the movies.

There are other games for that though. If this is going to be a realistic combat experience and dissimilar to the originals, it shouldn't be called Battlefronts IMO.

 

[orangpelupa]

i dont mind some silliness in games. Heck, silly things in BFBC2 and destiny is what makes them charming and the too seriousness of BF3 and 4 is aggreviating

 

[iroboto]

That's the elephant in the room. Shadows are a big problem for realtime these days. The hardware just isnt' there to make very convincing self-shadows from dynamic lights. Literally every game out fakes it or doesn't make every object cast a dynamic shadow. I'm sure if we saw the gameplay (this reminds me of the Uncharted 4 reveal), that it will look like standard current gen games.

If we leave the discussion about performance aside for a second I'm just wondering what your thoughts are graphically on this game. IIRC you had a critical eye for this type of thing (ie order1886 thread) so I'm wondering if you could apply that here.

 

[Karamazov]

if BF4 is what perfect dark zero was to last gen graphically, then this battlefront could be the gears of war.
Believe !

 

[mpg1]

if BF4 is what perfect dark zero was to last gen graphically, then this battlefront could be the gears of war.
Believe !

Good point that a lot of people are missing. We are 2 years into the new console generation...this is when you start to see graphical standards leap. Go back and look at any game from the first year or two in the last generation..they basically just look like Xbox/PS2 games in HD (Gears of War in 2006 was a bit of an exception as Epic obviously had earlier access to UE3). How many games on the new frostbyte engine or unreal engine 4 have been released yet? Or any of the new game engines for that matter.

 

[VFX_Veteran]

If we leave the discussion about performance aside for a second I'm just wondering what your thoughts are graphically on this game. IIRC you had a critical eye for this type of thing (ie order1886 thread) so I'm wondering if you could apply that here.

I can't really make an informed assessment until I see the actual gameplay.

 

[Scott_Arm]

There are other games for that though. If this is going to be a realistic combat experience and dissimilar to the originals, it shouldn't be called Battlefronts IMO.

I would rather see a game that emulates the movies rather than a more cartoony version with fast movement and jumping. In the movies, despite all of the technology and magical stuff, the characters and the action seemed rooted in reality. I wouldn't say it's realistic at all, but it had very human characters, rather than over the top action.

 

[Cyan]

if BF4 is what perfect dark zero was to last gen graphically, then this battlefront could be the gears of war.
Believe !

The best thing about this title is that DICE confirmed that the game is going to run at 60 fps. If they achieve the graphical fidelity people expect it could be a miracle. Framerate is more important at the moment.

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2015/04/17/dice-star-wars-battlefront-frame-rate-to-be-at-60fps-for-ps4-xbox-one-and-pc/

 

[Scott_Arm]

I expect it to look a good deal better than BF4, but I'm not expecting any miracles.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I would rather see a game that emulates the movies rather than a more cartoony version with fast movement and jumping. In the movies, despite all of the technology and magical stuff, the characters and the action seemed rooted in reality. I wouldn't say it's realistic at all, but it had very human characters, rather than over the top action.

I can appreciate and respect that. But why call that game Battlefronts? Battlefronts has you hopping into a vehicle, trudging/flying around a bit, hopping out, shooting a few peeps, grabbing a checkpoint, jumping in a different vehicle - It's very arcadey. Space combat was ridiculous, flying into the capital ship and taking it from the inside. It was fun! This game could well be the SW combat game everyone's been dying for, but it shouldn't be called BF if it's deviating too much from that formula.

It's a general issue with game brands, I suppose. Mixing up the formula to be original creates games that don't necessarily follow what the brand fans want. The reluctance to create new IPs means old IPs are stretched in directions they don't fit. Kinda like if the next Gran Turismo is to be a bobble-headed kart racer or a Wipeout game - why call it Gran Turismo when it's not?

 

[orangpelupa]

In the movies, despite all of the technology and magical stuff, the characters and the action seemed rooted in reality. I wouldn't say it's realistic at all, but it had very human characters, rather than over the top action.

hmm the star wars i watched was not like that at all. Its full of unrealistic action, characters. But thats what makes me enjoy the show because it does not take itself too serious. The suspension of disbelief just works.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

I think it will be more casual experience than BF series. They would want all fans to be in for this, gamers or not. I would say Warhawk did that balance of being casual yet having a lasting gameplay appeal really well last gen.

 

[Scott_Arm]

hmm the star wars i watched was not like that at all. Its full of unrealistic action, characters. But thats what makes me enjoy the show because it does not take itself too serious. The suspension of disbelief just works.

Well, obviously the movie is unrealistic, but Han Solo moves like a real person. The gun fights are basically people popping in and out of cover. The characters are very human. That's one of the reasons why it's so relatable.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I can appreciate and respect that. But why call that game Battlefronts? Battlefronts has you hopping into a vehicle, trudging/flying around a bit, hopping out, shooting a few peeps, grabbing a checkpoint, jumping in a different vehicle - It's very arcadey. Space combat was ridiculous, flying into the capital ship and taking it from the inside. It was fun! This game could well be the SW combat game everyone's been dying for, but it shouldn't be called BF if it's deviating too much from that formula.

It's a general issue with game brands, I suppose. Mixing up the formula to be original creates games that don't necessarily follow what the brand fans want. The reluctance to create new IPs means old IPs are stretched in directions they don't fit. Kinda like if the next Gran Turismo is to be a bobble-headed kart racer or a Wipeout game - why call it Gran Turismo when it's not?

My answer to that is, who gives a shit? It's just a title. If someone wants to make a cart racer and call it Gran Turismo, I don't care. Why you described is basically Battlefield anyway.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

My answer to that is, who gives a shit?

People who get their hopes up expecting a game they are looking forwards to, or worse yet, people who buy a game only to be disappointed.

Just bought BF2 on Steam. Very jolly.

 

[Karamazov]

i just hope this game won't be ruined by snipers.

 

[L. Scofield]

That's why it's better to wait and see rather than board the hype train right away.

 

[orangpelupa]

i dont think gran turismo or battlefront can be used on much different game. Their title means specific characteristics.

they are not like Final Fantasy when people knows that every Final Fantasy is different game. Ever Final Fantasy is Final. err.. Except FF X-2, XIII-2, XIII-3. But those titles have proper suffix that tells its not a different games.

 

[L. Scofield]

It's a reboot. The basic concept remains the same but the implementation will be different.

 

[helvetica bold]

So this is a DX12 game?
Also MS sent engineers to Bungie to help aid with Destiny's performance. Would DICE need or want similar treatment?