Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Oh please be good.

Looked for a thread. Couldn't find one.

Will the new Battlefront be good? I certainly hope so.

What we know for sure is that Dice/EA is making the game and thus it'll be buggy as **** for the few months after release.

So they showed gameplay at GDC but to only a select few and the only thing to go by is a picture and their word? Oh, no, I trust this completely.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
What we know for sure is that Dice/EA is making the game and thus it'll be buggy as **** for the few months after release.

Welcome to the current gaming industry.

Don't forget about the DLC. Tons of that stuff.

And don't forget graphic quality over gameplay.

muh cynicism

Originally posted by AuraAngel
Don't forget about the DLC. Tons of that stuff.

How is that any different to when they released expansion packs back in the 90's

It isn't. As long as the DLC doesn't feel like it should of been on the disc, I have no problem with it.

I personally find that DICE does good DLC. The maps usually add something new to the formula and the new weapons/vehicles add value.

Granted, game releases 10-15 years ago usually had more maps than games released today but I know for a fact that most server hosts only had the good ones on their rotation.

I can't wait I just hope it is good as the first 2

I hope there's the Clone Wars era we can play in.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
I hope there's the Clone Wars era we can play in.
Like battlefront 2

I just hope it has a reasonably decent story mode. I always enjoyed the one in BF2. Galactic conquest was fun too.

If they are following Battlefield, I assume they will have a story mode.

And the story mode will be average if their Battlefield games are any indication.

TOR Characters? Galen Marek? A few characters we've never seen before? Maybe advanced Saber Combat, similar to Jedi Academy.

Originally posted by Spawningpool
Like battlefront 2 Yeah.

Games matter because, Characters. If I'm getting this game, I'm expecting more then just pretty graphics, hell, ignore Revan, throw Saesee Tiin and Ahsoka in instead for all I care, as long as there are more characters. I would never have bothered getting Dissidia Duodecim if it didn't allow me to play as my favorite FF character. This game better make me feel more magic then Battlefront 2 did.

yooooo Saesee Tinn namedrop, that's whats up

My old profile pic was Saesee Tiin, dude.

Originally posted by Kazenji
And the story mode will be average if their Battlefield games are any indication.

I don't mind them. It's not fantastic but at least it's there.

One of my favourite modes on battle front 2 was assault mode

Hopefully we can also play as Jedi/Sith.

I never played the previous games because I never saw the point. At that time, I was playing BF2, BF1942 and the mods that came with BF2.

For this game, I just want a really cool looking maps, explosions and something epic. I would also be happy if all the maps were from famous battles from the movies so you can see them from the FPS view.

Look at these bitches clambering to play special snowflake characters in a series that's traditionally been a love-letter to the common grunts of the Star Wars universe.

Go play TOR or TFU, you snowflake whores.

Originally posted by Smasandian
If they are following Battlefield, I assume they will have a story mode.

That's why I used the word "decent".

The BF3 one wasn't terrible, but I hope this one is better.

Yeah. BF4 SP was better than the third so maybe it will be....

But even though it's not as good as some other SP campaign, at least it will be cool to see the Star Wars universe in a shooter setting. Just thinking about BF3/4 crazy ass explosions with Star Wars makes me hope it's a good game.

Oh, I'm sure it will be a good game.

I'm just not someone who really plays shooters online, so my main reason for buying this will be the single player.

That, and I hope to god they keep the third person option from the previous games.

Do we know who is writing Battlefront this time?

So this sounds like a complete bust.

No single-player campaign
No space battles
No prequel era content

Ugh.

Originally posted by ares834
So this sounds like a complete bust.

No single-player campaign
No space battles
No prequel era content

Ugh.
That really makes me want to punch myself to dethmetal

Well,

People complain that BF SP campaign are worthless, no space battles makes a bit of sense and **** the prequels.

But I assume it will be $69 bucks...

Battlefront's campaigns were fun. And if I'm paying sixty bucks I expect a campaign.

Meanwhile the prequels and space battles add a lot of variety to the game.

Originally posted by ares834
So this sounds like a complete bust.

No single-player campaign
No space battles
No prequel era content

Ugh.

Am sad.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Am sad.
Mee too

Wait I thought the other SWBF games were third person games where the main focus was playing around with the grunts.

Is that not the case anymore. Have the said it is going to FPS?

?v=ZwWLns7-xN8

Originally posted by ares834
So this sounds like a complete bust.

No single-player campaign
No space battles
No prequel era content

Ugh. Wait, really?

That honestly does suck.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
Wait, really?

That honestly does suck.
I really liked being a droideka

I liked being clones kicking ass on Felucia and paying as Aayla Secura, playing as Mundi on Mygeeto, etc. Most of my favorite characters are from the PT.

Was so awesome to get to enact Order 66, too.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Look at these bitches clambering to play special snowflake characters in a series that's traditionally been a love-letter to the common grunts of the Star Wars universe.

Go play TOR or TFU, you snowflake whores. I hope you're joking if you're calling Galen Marek a snowflake.

I'm excited for this. Definite potential

This better be good. I hope to play as the empire again

No PT sucks balls but it isn't surprising. Disney has been making a pretty concentrated effort to move the spotlight away from the PT and back to the OT in preperation for the new films.

No SP is whack as **** though.

Originally posted by ares834
So this sounds like a complete bust.

No single-player campaign
No space battles
No prequel era content

Ugh. Sounds like garbage only dumb people would play.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Sounds like garbage only dumb people would play. You need post more often. Stop having a life.

ZwWLns7-xN8

Looks like steaming shit.

I'm honestly not that excited for it. I'll probably buy it anyways. Maybe.

This game is going to be ass. 10 years later and it will have less content than Battlefront 2.

Not to mention it's coming out in nearly half a year and they still haven't shown gameplay to the public...

The sad thing is I'm probably going to buy it anyway.

Why am I getting the feeling this is gonna be another Evolve where more money is put into the advertisements than the actual game they're promoting? These trailers are a waste of time and resource.

And its most likely will have bugs galore on launch.

They're not going to have third person, are they...

But yeah, as ironic as it might seem, I didn't just want another reskinned Battlefield.

I'm annoyed at the lack of PT stuff, but if there's enough OT and E7 based stuff, it shouldn't be too bad hopefully. I will miss playing as PT jedi though.

Pretty sure third person was confirmed. But they apparently got rid of the classes...

Originally posted by ares834
Pretty sure third person was confirmed. But they apparently got rid of the classes...

Yay... Wait, what? No classes? So how you perform is based on what weapons you find in the maps?

I'm assuming it's like CoD. You choose your own load outs.

Ah... Well that's not so bad, I guess.

As you can see, I don't play a lot of online shooters.

Don't blame you there. Only one I even bother to play is Halo and I only do that rarely.

I actually enjoy shooters to an extent; I just don't play them online. If I see COD cheap, I have no problem buying and playing the campaign, then never playing it again.

With Battlefront, I remember being in the beta for BF2. Lots of fun, even in first person. Don't really know if i'd be interested in playing this Battlefront, which is a shame.

This game has been a must buy for me for years. Now... not so sure.

How the **** can you have no campaign?

Should have expected it I guess when Star Wars gaming rights was handed over to the devil after LucasArts went kaboom.

I see Boba Fett is alive for that Battle for Jakku DLC, Guess he did survive the sarlacc pit after all.

Looks good.

I would be happy with a Star Wars BF considering I love BF multiplayer.

I wonder if the trailer is indicative of the graphics because if so, it's going to be very purty.

Kind of sucks there isn't SP campaign but 95% complained about the previous SP DICE has done so would anybody even play it?

I would.

Originally posted by Kazenji
I see Boba Fett is alive for that Battle for Jakku DLC, Guess he did survive the sarlacc pit after all.

Curious, but where do you see this? I'm fairly certain the desert world is Tatooine even if there is a crashed Star Destroyer there. Mainly because there is also a Sandcrawler. Anwyay, the trailer also shows Vader at the Battle of Endor which obviously didn't happen so I wouldn't put to much thought into it yet.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Looks good.

I would be happy with a Star Wars BF considering I love BF multiplayer.

I wonder if the trailer is indicative of the graphics because if so, it's going to be very purty.

Kind of sucks there isn't SP campaign but 95% complained about the previous SP DICE has done so would anybody even play it? They'd play it just so they can hate.

Its what people do.

And then ***** that DICE wasted time on a SP campaign.....

I never played the originals so I'm not getting all nostalgia hate about this project.

For me, DICE and Battlefront make sense. More sense than Hardline.

If DICE can't do good SP campaigns then they shouldn't be working on the game in the first place. Simple as that.

Originally posted by ares834
If DICE can't do good SP campaigns then they shouldn't be working on the game in the first place. Simple as that.

"Oh well we suck at single player campaigns, why bother even trying? "

Don't be such a pussy.

Originally posted by Smasandian
And then ***** that DICE wasted time on a SP campaign.....

I never played the originals so I'm not getting all nostalgia hate about this project.

For me, DICE and Battlefront make sense. More sense than Hardline.

Then how about DICE make a Star Wars multiplayer FPS that's not called Battlefront, if it bares basically no resemblance to the previous games.

I played BF 1 and 2 for the campaign and for galactic conquest far more than I ever played them for online. I actually liked BField3's campaign, so yes, I would definitely play BFront3's campaign if they had one.

This game was a must buy for me. If it's only online, then that's not true any longer. From what I hear you can't even do bot matches ffs.

Yes, there "missions" that you can take part offline and I think with a co-op partner as well. I don't think there is any info on what these missions include or anything though.

There isn't a lot of info regarding the game aside from a teaser trailer and that it doesn't have SP campaign (which BF1942, BF2142, BF2 and BF Vietnam did not have either).

PC won't have offline split screen, iirc. Consoles will.

Originally posted by ares834

Curious, but where do you see this? I'm fairly certain the desert world is Tatooine even if there is a crashed Star Destroyer there. Mainly because there is also a Sandcrawler. Anwyay, the trailer also shows Vader at the Battle of Endor which obviously didn't happen so I wouldn't put to much thought into it yet.

If that's the case then why is the DLC titled Battle of Jakku & Jakku is a new planet.

And why are you so sure that clip is from the DLC? That's my point.

What clip are you talking about?

From the trailer where we see Boba Fett flying around.

There's not even any space battles. Whatever early footage you found prior, it's worthless now. That's unfortunate because that was a really cool idea, to leave the planet you're on and fly up towards the sky then battle it out in space. Why'd DICE get rid of that? Sounds like a major seller. If these current gen consoles can run games like No Man's Sky as claimed, they can sure as heck take what was envisioned for this.

That would be a cool idea.

I'm guessing the idea wouldn't really work within the context of the gameplay. In regular BF games, planes allow a team to attack heli's, tanks, and other planes but once you get shot down, you fall down to the ground and continue playing.

Having the ability to go to space wouldn't really add anything tactical to the battle on the ground. One of the best things about BF is that the air battle and ground battle are so close to you and it creates this chaotic scene while space battles wouldn't be seen from the ground and it would remove 5-10 people from the game. Also, you wouldn't be able to fall down and continue fighting but instead just die.

I wouldn't be surprised that DICE tried something like that but they felt it wasn't any fun.

As for space battles, not sure why they aren't there. I'm guessing it will be DLC down the road. BF games had air superiority modes but I remember them not being that fun and not a lot of people didn't play it.

Battlefront isn't Battlefield

http://www.gamepur.com/news/18627-star-wars-battlefront-ats-are-confirmed-be-rails-dice-explains-reason.html

lmao

Originally posted by -Pr-
I played BF 1 and 2 for the campaign and for galactic conquest far more than I ever played them for online. I actually liked BField3's campaign, so yes, I would definitely play BFront3's campaign if they had one.

This game was a must buy for me. If it's only online, then that's not true any longer. From what I hear you can't even do bot matches ffs.

I only played BFront2 but I loved it's conquest and campaign. The narration was very solid and the levels were amazing. I loved playing that game and never even touched online. I always loved just doing my own story/play my own way.

da fuq?

Seriously, what the hell are they doing here?

Honestly don't care about single player. It's like when people b*tched about Titanfall not having a single player. You can cut the single player out of 95% of fps shooters with a multiplayer focus and not lose anything. I rarely every actually care about the single player in these (though Bad Company 2 was phucking awesome).

I have faith in DICEs ability to make an amazing multiplayer experience, and thats all that matters to me. This game will thrive for years off that alone.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Honestly don't care about single player. It's like when people b*tched about Titanfall not having a single player. You can cut the single player out of 95% of fps shooters with a multiplayer focus and not lose anything. I rarely every actually care about the single player in these (though Bad Company 2 was phucking awesome).

I have faith in DICEs ability to make an amazing multiplayer experience, and thats all that matters to me. This game will thrive for years off that alone.

The difference is Titanfall was a new Ip that always had that in mind. Battlefront is a series in which the single player was very important and loved by it's fanbase. It was never the kind of game battlefield is

Having blind faith in DICE is pretty hilarious considering Battlefield 4 was unplayable garbage for like three months and Hardline is just regular garbage.

Personally, I don't give a single **** about AT-AT's being on rails, as they've always basically been on rails. I don't care about lack of space battles either because the space battles in BF2 weren't real space battles anyway. My biggest worry is whether they're going to make the game in the style of "real" Battlefield or along the lines of Hardline, which was basically nothing more than a half-assed attempt to swipe market share from Call of Duty.

I want fully destructible environments, levolutions, clearly established "fronts" and for vehicles to play a critical role. I do not want to sprint in circles around a maze of a level with terrible lines of sight, getting shit on by campers and shot in the back over and over and over again while vehicles are mostly relegated to farming infantry and having no real impact on the battle. I do not want my guns to have gritty realistic physics, they should feel like ****ing badass laser guns.

For the love of god, EA. Do not force DICE to turn this into "Call of Duty in Spaaaaaaaaaaaaace... with some vehicles".

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I want fully destructible environments

Prepare to be disappointed.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/star-wars-battlefront-destruction-system-explained/1100-6426768/

Originally posted by Smasandian
Having the ability to go to space wouldn't really add anything tactical to the battle on the ground. One of the best things about BF is that the air battle and ground battle are so close to you and it creates this chaotic scene while space battles wouldn't be seen from the ground and it would remove 5-10 people from the game. Also, you wouldn't be able to fall down and continue fighting but instead just die.

So you're saying recreating the battle of Endor going from blowing up the shield generator and then going to the Death Star or if failing to protect the generator on Hoth and going to space protecting escape shuttles from enemy players in maps of such massive scale wouldn't tickle any nostalgic person's fancy? Have you even seen the alpha builds? They're amazing.



Judging by all these articles lately, DICE probably aborted that because it required work and they need to keep most of their reserves for the yet to be announced Battlefield 5.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Honestly don't care about single player. It's like when people b*tched about Titanfall not having a single player. And that game turned out to suck, so what's your point?

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Prepare to be disappointed.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/star-wars-battlefront-destruction-system-explained/1100-6426768/ sigh

Originally posted by Nemesis X
So you're saying recreating the battle of Endor going from blowing up the shield generator and then going to the Death Star or if failing to protect the generator on Hoth and going to space protecting escape shuttles from enemy players in maps of such massive scale wouldn't tickle any nostalgic person's fancy? Have you even seen the alpha builds? They're amazing.



Judging by all these articles lately, DICE probably aborted that because it required work and they need to keep most of their reserves for the yet to be announced Battlefield 5.

What you describe sounds fun. I'm not disagreeing with you.

All I'm saying is that the type of game DICE is creating that might not work.

Originally posted by NemeBro
And that game turned out to suck, so what's your point? That game didn't turn out to suck because of the lack of single player. It turned out to such because the multiplayer wasn't deep enough. Gameplay was on point, but it never changed and got stale. You think a single player would have changed that?

Battlefield on the other hand, along with every Call of Duty, can cut out the single player all-together and still be great. The single player in these kind of games are usually pointless, single-playthrough endeavors people have to push through to unlock a weapon they want in multi. or they never touch it. It's stupid. People buy these games for the multiplayer. I've always wanted DICE to cut out single player and devote all funds and manpower to perfecting the online. Now they're doing this (not for Battlefield, unfortunately), and its great.

For all of you saying "this isn't Battlefield", Battlefront has always been compared to Battlefield. This is another game that survives thanks to its online. The campaign in the first one sucked and could have been cut out all together. The second was actually pretty cool, but it doesn't change the fact that the meat of the experience was in multiplayer.

I understand some of you guys prefer single player experiences, but for those of us who actually like online multiplayer shooters, this is great news.

Originally posted by Arachnid1

Battlefield on the other hand, along with every Call of Duty, can cut out the single player all-together and still be great. You have very low standards for what constitutes a "great" game.

People played Battlefront partly for the single player. So stop speaking on why people bought those games. It's obvious that you've never played them.

Also, the lack of single player is but one minor complaint people have about this game which is sounding shittier with every announcement.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You have very low standards for what constitutes a "great" game.Cod, yes. I'm a sucker for zombies mode though. Battlefield, on the other hand, is great whether you think it is or not. This IS a general consensus, so way to be the wrong minority.

Never said why people buy them.

Ya, partly, but that's not why it survives (1 had a boring campaign, and 2 was cool but tedious after a while). You could cut these out and still have a fun multiplayer. Maybe even an even better multiplayer since all the focus would be on multiplayer alone.

And anyone and their mom that owned a ps2 had these games. You're not special for having played them. Literally every kid I knew back then that had a ps2 had Battlefront. Now I wouldn't call myself a fan (always hated the movies except for the original 3, and even they don't compare to Star Trek), but I owned and played them just like everyone else.

I don't know about any other possible criticisms since I rarely check this thread, but my original post was to defend the lack of single player, as was every following post. Don't push arguments on me I never made.

Should Halo not have single player campaign modes then?

Hmm, I don't see a big deal.

It's upfront that there will not be a campaign. There is an offline mode (not sure what it entails) but there are plenty of examples of MP only games as while as SP only games.

As long as the game has enough content, I will be happy (and good as well...haha)

The multiplayer is 20 vs 20

It's still shit.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/star-wars-battlefront-won-t-feel-like-or-play-like/1100-6426846/

You know what developers should do if they think all we're doing is making up excuses? Show some damn gameplay already!

BF2 didn't survive on consoles because of the online, because when it came out the online was few and far between unless you were on PC.

It had so much to do that didn't need online, that it was very, very replayable.

I don't think it's unreasonable to want more of the same, or to want a single player option for all of the people that were still willing to buy the game even without wanting to play it online.

Originally posted by -Pr-
BF2 didn't survive on consoles because of the online, because when it came out the online was few and far between unless you were on PC.

It had so much to do that didn't need online, that it was very, very replayable.

I don't think it's unreasonable to want more of the same, or to want a single player option for all of the people that were still willing to buy the game even without wanting to play it online. Sure it's not unreasonable, but its far from game killing. There are people that proclaimed this dead in the water the second that was put out, which I don't agree with. DICE knows how to make some ridiculously fun online multiplayer. They're the developers of the greatest online FPS series on the market. Battlefront is in great hands with them, at least in that respect.

I don't know, just some positive contrast to all the negativity so far

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Sure it's not unreasonable, but its far from game killing. There are people that proclaimed this dead in the water the second that was put out, which I don't agree with. DICE knows how to make some ridiculously fun online multiplayer. They're the developers of the greatest online FPS series on the market. Battlefront is in great hands with them, at least in that respect.

I don't know, just some positive contrast to all the negativity so far

If they make good online, then that can only be a good thing. Given the issues with previous Battlefields though, I think there's reason to be worried even about that. Hopefully it's a much smoother release this time.

It's just sad how much the single player people are getting ignored, especially how the previous games in the series had so much for single players, or two people on one machine playing together.

The worry that this is going to be a reskinned Battlefront is a fair one, imo, but I hope it turns out to be unfounded.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Cod, yes. I'm a sucker for zombies mode though. Battlefield, on the other hand, is great whether you think it is or not. This IS a general consensus, so way to be the wrong minority.

That's a cute appeal to majority there little guy.



Sure you have. You did so by making comparisons to Battlefield and noting multiplayer is the only reason people buy Battlefield.



Sure you could, but why not have both be good? I don't believe in the notion that one aspect of a game necessarily has to be cut for something to be good. Battlefront had a good campaign and fun multiplayer. This new Battlefront can only aspire to the latter, and frankly its multiplayer sounds much less fun than 2's.



Correct I'm not special. You're special for having never played it.

Then why are you here?

Originally posted by NemeBro
That's a cute appeal to majority there little guy. At least you realize you're the minority. If you don't see whats amazing about Battlefield, thats your loss. If you ever give it a legitimate chance, you'll eat your words. You wouldn't be the first naysayer I converted, and you wouldn't be the last.

Nope. You're still putting words in my mouth. You said, "People played Battlefront partly for the single player. So stop speaking on why people bought those games."

I never once made a claim as to why people bought past Battlefront games. Past Battlefields sure, but thats appropriate considering who's making this one.

And the multiplayer in this game will likely be fantastic.

Maybe, maybe not. I have faith in DICE in this area. Your lack of faith is pretty unjustified (no, not a missed opportunity you nerds).

Either way, we'll have to wait and see.

If you say so

Same reason you are. I feel like it. Not something anyone has to justify. It is an internet forum after all.

http://ps4daily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/battlefront-features.jpg

Thank god for DICE.

Yeah, DICE is making it so of course everything will be alright and awesome, regardless of all the news we've heard thus far being negative, and despite BF4 and Hardline being dogshit.

You"ve just gotta keep the blind faith man.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Yeah, DICE is making it so of course everything will be alright and awesome, regardless of all the news we've heard thus far being negative, and despite BF4 and Hardline being dogshit.

You"ve just gotta keep the blind faith man. Its not blind faith. It's a near certainty.

Battlefield 4 had great online. It had server issues at launch, which is why it gets a bad rap despite the fact that those issues where ironed out after two months. Gameplay wise, it's on point just like every other game in the series with the exception of Hardline. You'd actually have an argument there with Hardline.

If it was made by DICE, anyway.

The gane being unplayable for almost three months after launch is not great online.


Everything we've heard about this game has pointed to it not following the BF formula, so even if you wanted to frame the discussion in that context, you're still clinging to blind faith.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
The gane being unplayable for almost three months after launch is not great online.

Everything we've heard about this game has pointed to it not following the BF formula, so even if you wanted to frame the discussion in that context, you're still clinging to blind faith. Server issues should have been ironed out before hand, but that wasn't on DICE anyway. They were forced to put the game out the door by EA to beat CoD to the punch that year. Plus, server problems have no bearing on actual gameplay. The game is 9/10 material right now with a massive fanbase. DICE has a great track record with this series, which means they probably at least know a few things about making balanced online competitive play that they can apply to Battlefront. All the experience they have in the area counts for a lot, which is why its not blind faith. They'll pull it off.

If literally the only reason you're optimistic about the game is because "it's DICE", that's the text-book definition of blind faith.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
If literally the only reason you're optimistic about the game is because "it's DICE", that's the text-book definition of blind faith. Blind faith would have no basis. DICE is a triple A developer with a ton of multiplayer experience and their own game engine that was practically made for this game. They're the best developers this could have been passed to. Could you imagine if this was passed to Infinity Ward, Respawn, or 343? It'll have well designed maps, unique weapons/vehicles, and good balance because they understand how to execute these things.

I think it's likely to have good map design and balance at a bare mininum. Having those two qualities does not make it a good Battlefront game.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I think it's likely to have good map design and balance at a bare mininum. Having those two qualities does not make it a good Battlefront game. Alright, you guys are pretty set on hating this. I get that you guys feel alienated by the changes, so lets agree to disagree until we at least see legitimate gameplay.

I'm entirely ambivalent on it actually- expect shit and hope for gold is my life outlook. My point is that your optimism is pretty baseless if you're looking for something beyond just a re-skin of Battlefield. Almost every new development we've heard about the game thus far has pointed to a regression/dumbing down of the series rather than a progression. "But it's DICE" really does nothing to address those concerns.

Gearbox is famous for it's Borderlands but that didn't help Duke Nukem.

I'll wait to see some gameplay before I give my verdict but so far, it looks disappointing.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Gearbox is famous for it's Borderlands but that didn't help Duke Nukem.


I don't get that with Gearbox, They pour all they're love and passion to make the Borderlands games be good and yet when they're given the chance to help finish off a game that's been stuck in development hell they squander it.

Duke Nukem Forever was at that point beyond saving without literally scrapping everything and starting over from nothing, which would just probably repeat the cycle. I don't think it could have been saved.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
I don't think it could have been saved.

I think it could'eve been saved...well better then what we ended up with, But i blame the people Gearbox assigned to complete it.

Gearbox also gave us Colonial Marines, iirc.

Borderlands aside, I wouldn't put much faith in them.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Gearbox also gave us Colonial Marines, iirc.
.

And yet they gave Sega to do all the work.

Gameplay.

dzFWFUwyVug

Geeked out at the end.

Hey look it's Battlefieldfront...

mmm

Looks awesome!

And f*ck ya for third person

Not sure I'm feelin' it, but the end part of that trailer was promising I'll admit.

Originally posted by Demonic Phoenix
Gameplay.

dzFWFUwyVug

Geeked out at the end. Meh, I like it.

Playing during the Clone Wars would've been so freaking cool, though. Ugh.

It looks pretty at least.

Pre-order for bonus content!

It begins.

What bonus content specifically?

And shit, I don't even have myself a PS4 yet.

I thought it looked pretty cool. I think they will nail the look and feel of the Star Wars universe which is always a good thing.

And it does feel like your in battle of Hoth. Probably will pick it up because I always enjoy DICE MP.

The trailer looks great, it really does... Just still no mention of any kind of dedicated single player bar the survival thing makes me unsure of picking it up.

Can't link atm because I'm on my phone, but there's a youtube vid up showing gameplay of an air superiority-esque dogfight mode.

Looks bretty gewd, albeit a bit casual.

Saw that. Looks really cool. Plus you can use "hero" ships like the Falcon or Slave 1.

Just saw it.

That does look pretty ****ing sweet. I hope they give you the ability to have multiple people in some of those ships operating turbolasers.

I was never a huge fan of the air superiority of previous Battlefields because I was never good at flying but because the ships rely on a non-autolocking weapons, it could be very fun. As well, it looks much more cinematic than the BF air superiority maps.

I only watched it on my phone but it looks like the ships can lock on.

Does anybody know if there will be any level of customization? I'm curious if you can have a custom rebel pilot/soldier/scout? Light as it may be

does anyone know how long exactly you can play as Luke or Vader?

Micro-transactions is going to kill this game

It'll be 2.99 if you want the Premium Ultra Deluxe...GREEN Rogue Squadron variant uniform. Does it do anything special? No, but IT'S GREEN!

https://33.media.tumblr.com/ca371cf771d59993d610fd100e0104dd/tumblr_nsmornf7Ah1txj8weo2_540.gif
https://38.media.tumblr.com/18459a13456eb0e2c04c597540ec514d/tumblr_nsmornf7Ah1txj8weo1_540.gif

MuOFsza_2x8

I agree that there should of been a SP campaign. I actually liked BF campaigns but a lot of peeps didn't.

But I don't agree the comparison between BF and Titanfall. It wasn't the lack of campaign that hurt Titanfall, it was that there wasn't much to the MP. It didn't have any lasting value. Basically, if Titanfall was an extensive SP game (and I would be totally interested in that), the MP would still be empty a year later.

Also, best comparison is BF1942. The grand daddy, which didn't have any SP at all. Battlefront has missions and stuff but BF1942, you could play MP with bots (which were incredibly dumb). It did well considering....and nobody had issues with the idea of getting a MP only game.

The difference is Battlefront isn't the first game in a new franchise, it's part of an existing franchise where all the rest of the games had SP campaigns. Furthermore, SW attracts a very different audience then just FPS fans and has always been very story driven. Heck, they are creating a Battlefront novel...

Originally posted by ares834
The difference is Battlefront isn't the first game in a new franchise, it's part of an existing franchise where all the rest of the games had SP campaigns. Furthermore, SW attracts a very different audience then just FPS fans and has always been very story driven. Heck, they are creating a Battlefront novel...

So?

Battlefront 2 came out 10 years ago. Times change. Rainbow Six Siege does the same thing.

I wish there was a SP campaign but it is what it is. Don't buy it.

But who knows how many people will play the SP campaign....(and yes, I know you will) But I assume EA has the data that suggest most Battlefield players haven't touched the campaigns.

They would probably be right that most people haven't touched the Battlefield campaigns.

The hilarity stems from the cause- EA sees that people don't play BF SP and thinks "well I guess we might as well not even bother", ignoring the very likely possibility that the reason why people don't play the campaigns is because they're dog-shit.

Battlefield, like every other "gritty realistic FPS" in the vein of BF/CoD etc has fallen into the trap of having 5 hour long Tom Clancy abortions consisting of you running through a corridor playing pop-the-weasel on brown and russian NPC's with a bag of QTE's and scripted events thrown in to to "mix things up". They're shit, and made with zero creativity. I'd be willing to bet you that the numbers of people who complete the campaigns for Halo, or Crysis or Farcry are vastly higher than what EA/Activision sees for their shitty campaigns, and that's because the developers of those games actually make a ****ing campaign that's meant to be enjoyed (or at least try to), rather than simply being tacked on for the sake of tradition.

EA Games doesn't get a pass for no one playing their shitty SP because the situation they've found themselves in is entirely of their own design. Bioshock: Infinite and Borderlands 2 sold 11+ million copies each. Obviously the market and demand is there, if you're willing to put the effort into it.

Originally posted by Smasandian
So?

Battlefront 2 came out 10 years ago. Times change. Rainbow Six Siege does the same thing.

I wish there was a SP campaign but it is what it is. Don't buy it.

But who knows how many people will play the SP campaign....(and yes, I know you will) But I assume EA has the data that suggest most Battlefield players haven't touched the campaigns.

Let me relieve you of a false notion, Battlefront is not Battlefield.

And I don't find "times change" as an adequate excuse for reducing the features of a game.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
They would probably be right that most people haven't touched the Battlefield campaigns.

The hilarity stems from the cause- EA sees that people don't play BF SP and thinks "well I guess we might as well not even bother", ignoring the very likely possibility that the reason why people don't play the campaigns is because they're dog-shit.

Battlefield, like every other "gritty realistic FPS" in the vein of BF/CoD etc has fallen into the trap of having 5 hour long Tom Clancy abortions consisting of you running through a corridor playing pop-the-weasel on brown and russian NPC's with a bag of QTE's and scripted events thrown in to to "mix things up". They're shit, and made with zero creativity. I'd be willing to bet you that the numbers of people who complete the campaigns for Halo, or Crysis or Farcry are vastly higher than what EA/Activision sees for their shitty campaigns, and that's because the developers of those games actually make a ****ing campaign that's meant to be enjoyed (or at least try to), rather than simply being tacked on for the sake of tradition.

EA Games doesn't get a pass for no one playing their shitty SP because the situation they've found themselves in is entirely of their own design. Bioshock: Infinite and Borderlands 2 sold 11+ million copies each. Obviously the market and demand is there, if you're willing to put the effort into it.

And as much as people seem to like Siege, I can guarantee pretty much everyone would have rather had Rainbow Six: Patriots for Xbox One/PS4 than Siege.

Originally posted by ares834
Let me relieve you of a false notion, Battlefront is not Battlefield.

And I don't find "times change" as an adequate excuse for reducing the features of a game.





Ten years ago, yes. But DICE/EA is making the game, it's probably going to play like Battlefield.

I'm not making an excuse for them. I'm just saying that the idea of MP only game is not new. There should be a campaign but there isn't, no point of complaining anymore. Don't buy it.

Originally posted by KingD19
And as much as people seem to like Siege, I can guarantee pretty much everyone would have rather had Rainbow Six: Patriots for Xbox One/PS4 than Siege.

I agree. I wish they continued with Patriots.

Originally posted by Smasandian
There should be a campaign but there isn't, no point of complaining anymore.

We had this exact conversation when it was announced that the Xbone was moving to a digital-only format with no disks- you claimed that there was no point in being negative about it because "that's just the way it is", and then a few months later, after enough people bitched about it, Microsoft relented and implemented disk support.

1. Do you realize that the people who are complacent and take the industry's butt-****ing with silence are 100% responsible for the ****ing occurring in the first place?

2. Do you realize that this is a discussion board, and its entire existence centers around its members sharing feelings and opinions on a variety of topics? I'm sure there are some Battlefront 3 fan-pages you can hang out on if you're looking for an echo-chamber where nobody's opinion on the matter differs from yours.

3. Have you considered that perhaps your annoyance at all this negativity should be directed at EA games and their bullshit policies, instead of at the gamers who are watching their beloved franchises get shit on for the sake of nothing but greed? We all know that the real reason for why there's no SP for this stems largely from the fact that EA hates single-player in general. It's much easier to combat piracy and peddle DLC like map-packs through multiplayer modes then single-player ones.