Star Wars Battlefront [PS4, XO]

[Cyan]

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

Since I am not into Star Wars tbh, and the game doesn't have a fully integrated campaign but rather spare missions, I am not so much hyped, although I am very curious about the graphics, should they remove the motion blur during races on those Star Wars vehicles.

 

[(((interference)))]

Nah, I'm all for a more hardcore experience.

The old Battlefront games were pretty poor as competitive shooters compared to the latest Battlefield titles.

From the previews, it seems like it's definitely more casual than Battlefield (no ammo, third person on-foot view, lower player counts, no classes for instance) so hopefully it should strike a happy medium between the arcadey feel of the old Battlefront games and the hardcore competitiveness of Battlefield 3/4.

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

It shouldn't be, DICE are very good at balancing their games (after all the patches at least lol). BF3/4 are supremely well balanced multiplayer FPSs.

The scope glint mechanic they've used since BF3 is probably the best way of managing snipers I've seen in a multiplayer shooter.
Sniping is not an issue in BF3/4 so it shouldn't be in Battlefront (which probably won't let you lie prone either).

 

[Akumajou]

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 understand your point shifty but the last Battlefront was made by a different dev team and way back in 2005. Heck, both old games still boasted 64 player limit online PC and 32 on PS2 and Xbox 1.

Now we have a very tech oriented and rather cutting edge Frostbite 3+ that's using PBR and other features. I'm cool if they felt like beyond 40 player limit was too much or they ran into time constraints.

I also understand the pixel resolution being higher...but by now DICE is a veteran dev having cut BF3 and BF4...there's physics among the Frostbite checklist features that are much more sophisticated...gameplay could be more civilized than what it was...I also understand the need to appeal to casuals...

Basically at ten years later we should be going forward not just slightly enhanced...yeah no space battles. ..that's ok...no dedicated first person because casual SW fans want Jedis if so let's get cracking on; a dedicated FPS with Zero Jedi/Sith unless they are barking orders for mission objectives in mission mode or online with 64 players...

Please consider reviewing only certain scenes in SW like EsB in Hoth, the RotJ Endor battle and AotC Geonosis and RotS Clone scenes...

I feel we have more...but it's ok...I kinda agree but disagree because this isn't 2005 anymore.

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.

The Force is unrealistic as we know it. Troopers using blasters are unrealistic.
The battle of Hoth is unrealistic because technically it should have been a massacre much more obvious and quick.

The whole idea that blasters kept missing the main cast was probably a gag...but the prequel trilogy made the combat much more fierce and intense...

It's a fantasy film...hardly science fiction as we could analyze...but it wasn't a blatant cartoon...there were dangers.

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.

Yeah I agree with you more and more...the pressure to not offer a sophysticated gameplay system and learn how to avoid dangers because imho fears of player frustration....is gonna make this a easy to pic up game...not completely a bad thing...but difficulty settings could be balanced if single player...but this is online...time will tell...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm not saying the game shouldn't be as it is. Just why associate it with a game with a different style? The only reason is to cash in on existing good will to aid PR, AFAICS. Maybe the original relaunch was a true BF3 and now it's switched, but IMO it's poor form to carry on the sequential numbering yet break the brand style. Typically, reboots as Scofield calls it drop the numbering to show they aren't part of the same series and will differ more significantly than a sequential progression of the style. Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate 2. Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance for a completely different game in the same franchise.

SW:KOTR for one style of game, with sequel numbered 2. SW:BF was a different game in the franchise. And it's not like SW hasn't had a gazillion originally titled spin-offs already to set precedent for a new game style in the same universe.

As for the game, I'm actually seeing parallels with other games I played like MAG and Starhawk (somewhat frenetic combat), and none was as fun as SWBF, which makes me wonder what it was about SWBF that particularly made it entertaining? Maybe it was just the fact I didn't play online and the bot experience was more casual?

 

[orangpelupa]

there were dangers.

what dangers? the Jedi and Sith can fight safely on top of molten lava. They are okay to drop from crazy high or after crushed by stuff.

the sword battle also more like sword-play where they keep hitting each other swords and very-very rarely using their other body parts. The force telekinetic power also inconsistently used.

but for me those are the Jedi's way. Always fight in fair fights.

back to battlefront.
i just realized that no screenshot or videos has shown destriction. Did i miss something? or it really does not have destruction. If they have destruction, i hope its unlike BF3 and 4's totally limited destruction and more like BFBC of destruction everywhere.

cutting those trees with explosives or swords should be fun (when it crushes enemy )

 

[Arwin]

After having done swordplay with a Move controller, I have a hard time imagining it could be fun with anything else. But apart from that, this is definitely for me a far preferred setting over any of the current military setting in almost any similar game.

 

[ultragpu]

Just imagine how awesome a traditional campaign would look using this engine. What a wasted opportunity.

 

[DieH@rd]

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?

We don't know what truly happened with Destiny because Bungie elected to produce the game that performs same on Xbone and PS4. This leads me [and many other people] to believe that they downgraded PS4 version to create parity.

 

[FarticusMaximus]

We don't know what truly happened with Destiny because Bungie elected to produce the game that performs same on Xbone and PS4. This leads me [and many other people] to believe that they downgraded PS4 version to create parity.

We do know exactly what happened.

The PS4 version was not downgraded. Bungie developed to a target (with the Xbox version targeting 900p), hit that target using the available development tools, and then Microsoft assisted Bungie in hitting a higher target using newer tools (specifically a newer SDK).

 

[Globalisateur]

So apparently the actual gameplay from that 7min demo looked the same as the trailer but jaggier. This could be an indication of actual PS4 footage due to 900p artifact. But I guess it would have to do since it does look outworldly good. The lack of a traditional story mode is really off putting tho, have to see more before I decide buy or not.

I am pretty sure one part of the trailer (at ~1:52) is significantly supersampled at a ~1.5 or ~1.6 ratio (roughly), at least horizontally, the rest of the trailer looking the same. So both 900p and 1080p would look jaggier than that.

But considering the footage, quality of assets, 60fps and all I think an upscaled image is indeed a lot more probable on PS4.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Eurogamer have posted an article titled 'What we saw at the Star Wars Battlefront gameplay demo'

I post this not having watched it because it has no campaign which means I'm out.

 

[ultragpu]

Yeah, at this point I'm not holding my breath for anything in the realm of 1080p if 60fps has to be reached, but then again you get to have 24 less players, much less or no destruction physics, presumably improved engine and current gen only, I don't know if all those count for anything. Still a shame 900p would compromise a lot of the fine texture and foliage details.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Eurogamer have posted an article titled 'What we saw at the Star Wars Battlefront gameplay demo'

I post this not having watched it because it has no campaign which means I'm out.

The commentary: "There were rocket launches which we haven't seen in this world before." Umm, BF had these.

"Jetpacks, which I imagine will work on a kinda cooldown mechanic." Again, already in BF2.

Talk about hero characters. Already in BF2. So like, they sound a bit clueless to the franchise. But importantly, they aren't equating the gameplay experience to the original so we still don't know if it's true to the spirit or not. It'd be nice to hear from a fan of the originals what they felt about the new game.

 

[Malo]

I remember thinking this same thing during Return of the Jedi

 

[L. Scofield]

Dev diary:

Dat terrain:

Just imagine how awesome a traditional campaign would look using this engine. What a wasted opportunity.

It would probably be an uber scripted linear campaign. No thanks.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Thumbs up to no compaign. Just gimme killer multiplayer. That's what people play these games for.

 

[London Geezer]

No campaign is of course better than a bad campaign, but that's a really crappy excuse for a developer.

It's a bit like telling someone not to do their job just in case they do it wrong.

 

[pjbliverpool]

I'd certainly play it if it had a single player campaign. I too am out without it though.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Battlefield games are first and foremost multiplayer. To me, time is better spent on multiplayer than anything else. If you have x number of total man hours, I'd rather see them all put into multiplayer than have it split between multiplayer and singleplayer.

 

[L. Scofield]

I'm sure we'll get more SP Star Wars games. Having bots is already a huge win.