Star Wars Gaming Megathread Episode II - Attack of the Season Pass - Games

They could always copy Commander and just reuse CW era vehicles for the Rebels now :v: [IMG]http://www.star-wars-commander.com/images/troops/rebel/ATAP.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://www.star-wars-commander.com/images/troops/rebel/ATTE.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://www.star-wars-commander.com/images/troops/rebel/CloneWarsGunship.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://www.star-wars-commander.com/images/troops/rebel/ATRT.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://www.star-wars-commander.com/images/troops/rebel/AAT1.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://www.star-wars-commander.com/images/troops/rebel/Hailfire.jpg[/IMG]

Wasn't that thing on the far right an actual droid, though?

[QUOTE=Oblivion Knight;52098031]Wasn't that thing on the far right an actual droid, though?[/QUOTE] [Editline]derp[/editline] Yep, Rebel Alliance used limited number of droids to bolster their ranks.

[QUOTE=Xanoxis;52097919]It was only a letdown for a people, that expected something, that was not there, and compared it to the older games, when it was obvious, the name is for marketing, and it was called a reboot for a reason. That's a weak reasoning, you don't expect from new Tomb Raider to have same gameplay as the first game ever. Same should be applied here, it's a reboot with a new gameplay, not a remake.[/QUOTE] That isn't a good argument for defending it. Yes, it was a reboot (partially because it was a new studio making the game) but that in no way means it shouldn't be compared to the originals. Of course you don't expect the latest Tomb Raider to have the exact same gameplay or story as the first games, but you'd expect it to be the same sort of general gameplay idea and have the same theme overall...that was not the case with Battlefront 2015. The latest game doesn't live it to the rest of the series in terms of depth, or the amount of content, or what they overall set out to do. Regardless of if it's a reboot or not, DICEs take on a Battlefront game was not how Battlefront games should be. It being a 'reboot' makes it worse as that was used as an excuse to defend how pretty much all it did was lower the bar for gameplay and diminish what the series was meant to be about. The graphics, sound and atmosphere are awesome, but everything else was pretty bad. Then there's that the gameplay itself wasn't even actually aimed at fans of the originals despite it having the name...it was designed so even 8 year olds could play it (something they actually said). It doesn't matter if it's a reboot or not, reboots are compared to the originals all the time. It arbitrarily being called Battlefront instead of Battlefront 3 makes [I]absolutely no difference[/I] to whether the amount of content and how it was done is an improvement over the original games, the games it's [I]specifically reminding you of by using the Brand Name[/I]. If they didn't want it compared, they shouldn't have used the name. It being named that doesn't mean everything it gets wrong is suddenly fine. They named the game Battlefront, so why [I]shouldn't[/I] it be compared when they're specifically using that so you think "I liked the other Battlefront games, this is named Battlefront, so it'll be similar".

I want to see the rebellion use old CIS stuff again. In Legends their first flag ship was a Providence Class Cruiser IIRC. [url]http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rebel_One[/url] [editline]13th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeos;52098017]Considering that book writers, even in the new canon, can do [I]whatever the fuck they want[/I], not having a rebel land vehicle is just laziness[/QUOTE] They wanted to stay mostly authentic to the movies.

Speaking of vehicles I really want to see this thing show up again. [IMG]http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/battlefront/images/e/ef/IFT-T.png/revision/latest?cb=20111015192301[/IMG]

I wonder if they'll add the tank from Rogue One.

[QUOTE=Tuskin;52098040]I want to see the rebellion use old CIS stuff again. In Legends their first flag ship was a Providence Class Cruiser IIRC. [url]http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rebel_One[/url] [editline]13th April 2017[/editline] They wanted to stay mostly authentic to the movies.[/QUOTE] But then they focused on fucking making 1/4 of the game's content on a planet that is mentioned once, once in the entire series and is never visually referenced or seen. Instead of the Death Star. Or Bespin. Or Dagobah, or Corusant which technically appears in the new ending, or making a good Tatooine map. Authentic my fucking ass.

[QUOTE=Zeos;52098065] Authentic my fucking ass.[/QUOTE] I said mostly I'm not defending them, I'm just giving you their reasoning. The DLC was shit too, the only one I liked was Death Star.

[QUOTE=Zeos;52098065]But then they focused on fucking making 1/4 of the game's content on a planet that is mentioned once, once in the entire series and is never visually referenced or seen. Instead of the Death Star. Or Bespin. Or Dagobah, or Corusant which technically appears in the new ending, or making a good Tatooine map. Authentic my fucking ass.[/QUOTE] Something else that makes no sense regarding Authenticity is the AT-ATs. In Empire Strikes back, it was said the [B]armour[/B] of AT-ATs was too thick for Blasters, but then in the game they just stick shields on them and the armour is actually pretty weak to blaster fire.

[QUOTE=Zeos;52097971]It wasn't mechanically sound. At all. The cards completely break the flow of the game by randomly dropping in shit at random times. The same goes for having next to no content including vehicles. The rebels don't even fucking get a land vehicle at all, and limiting AT-ATs to powerups is fucking hilariously shortsighted. The game also lost players in like, 90% of the modes nearly instantly because they were either unbalanced, unfun or not thought out at all. The game had no depth, even remotely, and was very clearly not played to the full extent even by the developers. How do I know this? From launch to well over a year later, one of the trait cards was objectively broken, Bounty Hunter meant that you could spam the already fucking stupid homing rocket infinitely. Every.Single.Time. you fired it would regenerate basically instantly, meaning you could instantly kill anyone at any time 100% of the time after like, two kills. While also gaining free items every other time including airstrikes, instant recharges for other abilities, rocket launchers and the like. The game wasn't even meant to have longevity, BF2 was hinted at being in development before even the free first map came out, less than a month after launch. It was a moneygrubbing, shallow game that was just slightly more content filled than BF1943, a fucking $15 XBLA game.[/QUOTE] You forgot to mention you had to kill 6 people before you would get instant reset of abilities. Yeah, so it was not that easy to get, for 90% of the people. And by what you say, I have to assume, that if game was ever unbalanced, it wasnt mechanically sound? So like, every game? Ever? Literally? They fixed that, and improved upon that even more. Game is balanced now. Dunno about breaking flow, because I never felt that. It just works, and it works just like some kind of abilities, that your "class" has, whatever you prepared before starting the match. I really see no issue, and what you said is opinion, just like what I said is. The lack of land venicles for rebelion is bad, but at the same time rebelion always has more air units and better ones. And yes, the game does not have the depth of Battlefield 4, or Arma or any other more serious shooter. It's not a flaw, it's a design choice, and some people might not like that, then, just don't play games you don't enjoy to play. The game was made to be simple and easy to pick up. There is enough depth with cards and abilities to make it interesting. Sorry to say that, but every AAA game almost always has developers send to make another game when their job is done in old one, thats how it works. I don't understand how anyone can be angry about that. [QUOTE=nightlord;52098037]That isn't a good argument for defending it. Yes, it was a reboot (partially because it was a new studio making the game) but that in no way means it shouldn't be compared to the originals. Of course you don't expect the latest Tomb Raider to have the exact same gameplay or story as the first games, but you'd expect it to be the same sort of general gameplay idea and have the same theme overall...that was not the case with Battlefront 2015. The latest game doesn't live it to the rest of the series in terms of depth, or the amount of content, or what they overall set out to do. Regardless of if it's a reboot or not, DICEs take on a Battlefront game was not how Battlefront games should be. It being a 'reboot' makes it worse as that was used as an excuse to defend how pretty much all it did was lower the bar for gameplay and diminish what the series was meant to be about. The graphics, sound and atmosphere are awesome, but everything else was pretty bad. Then there's that the gameplay itself wasn't even actually aimed at fans of the originals despite it having the name...it was designed so even 8 year olds could play it (something they actually said). It doesn't matter if it's a reboot or not, reboots are compared to the originals all the time. It arbitrarily being called Battlefront instead of Battlefront 3 makes [I]absolutely no difference[/I] to whether the amount of content and how it was done is an improvement over the original games, the games it's [I]specifically reminding you of by using the Brand Name[/I]. If they didn't want it compared, they shouldn't have used the name. It being named that doesn't mean everything it gets wrong is suddenly fine. They named the game Battlefront, so why [I]shouldn't[/I] it be compared when they're specifically using that so you think "I liked the other Battlefront games, this is named Battlefront, so it'll be similar".[/QUOTE] Yes, it is a good argument to defend it. If someone will compare every reboot to the old games NO MATTER WHAT, the developers will have no freedom to rethink old ideas, old games, old concepts. It will have to be reused gameplay, reused schematics, and same old shit. Why would someone want that? Why force that opinion on developers, why destroy any creativity and attempts to break from standard shooter genre? Of course you say the game is bad, and gameplay is worse, but for me and many other players that still play Battlefront, and just enjoy it, it is not a bad game. And since recently I played more in the newest Battlefront than in the old ones, because they were not as good in some aspects. Using Battlefront 3 and using Battlefront alone makes a huge difference. Using the number indicates the game will be similar to the old games, and build upon it. The lack of number indicates that it is a reboot, and it can be it's own thing, redoing the idea in new times. Game has flaws and I could have enjoyed it more, but saying that it is a piece of crap and that anything would be better is pretty silly. At least thats my opinion. Because thats all there is now.

Honestly it's a videogame. I know it's pretty much a generic excuse but in Hoth, Rebels were already screwed from the beginning so what would be the point of playing as them. I know authencity is important but it shouldn't be 100% etc. I still have bad memories of the last campaign mission from SWBF2, the Hoth mission was bonkers and we were supposed to be the winning faction (Empire). Doing that flawless at hardest level was not pleasant :v:

[QUOTE=nightlord;52098103]but then in the game they just stick shields on them and the armour is actually pretty weak to blaster fire.[/QUOTE] Did they actually use the word shields in game? [editline]13th April 2017[/editline] A nice break down on the trailer, without any annoying youtuber voice over [video]https://youtu.be/k8H2MMFj0_k[/video] [editline]13th April 2017[/editline] I pointed this out in another thread, and the video here also points it out, the shot of the Falcon Being chased over Takodana, the TIE Fighters are original imperial, not First order. So maybe the mixing of maps and eras is coming back?

[video]https://youtu.be/weaOOyyLkT0[/video]

[video]https://youtu.be/5es_LUQaDMU?list=PL8zPnzolxnBDIERr8gFyoc5xs_OFuupQ Z[/video]

Damnit, I thought only Hollywood was going for the "teaser for a trailer" thing!

This isn't the first game to do that.

[QUOTE=ggctuk;52104306]Damnit, I thought only Hollywood was going for the "teaser for a trailer" thing![/QUOTE] DICE have been doing that since Battlefield 3 :v: [video=youtube;xP0Ij1_VTY0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP0Ij1_VTY0[/video]

The description of the video says 'gameplay reveal' as well. So a trailer and gameplay?

Most likely footage from the campaign, which will be interesting to see.

The upcoming novel 'Inferno Squad' might tie into Battlefront II's campaign. The 1 Day left tweet on the EA Star Wars twitter has Aurbesh that translates into 'Inferno Squad'. The novel takes place shortly after ANH, so it might be a prequel to Battlefront II's campaign if the DS2 going boom in the leaked PS4 Advert is the starting point.

[QUOTE=Joshii;52104486]DICE have been doing that since Battlefield 3 :v: [video=youtube;xP0Ij1_VTY0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP0Ij1_VTY0[/video][/QUOTE] that trailer was the best *bzzzt bzt bzt bzt bzzzt*

15 minutes (give or take, it probably won't start right at the minute) until the panel [url]https://www.twitch.tv/eastarwars[/url] One panel yesterday was nearly 30 minutes late starting. [editline]15th April 2017[/editline] BF2 Panel has started

Class-based gameplay has been mentioned on the Battlefront 2 site, that's great!

[QUOTE=nightlord;52109043]Class-based gameplay has been mentioned on the Battlefront 2 site, that's great![/QUOTE] Hopefully that means Super Battledroids and Destroyers are classes instead of pickups. [editline]15th April 2017[/editline] [video=youtube;Kae-JjbLsgA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kae-JjbLsgA&feature=em-uploademail[/video]

Singleplayer character has been named as Iden Versio. She's the leader of Inferno Squadron, who were already confirmed as getting their own book ages ago.

The single player is a canon story. [editline]15th April 2017[/editline] Roger Roger [t]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/188015782716899328/302875434083811328/unknown.png[/t]

Just waiting for them to touch upon "All Eras Playable".

[QUOTE=ggctuk;52109080]Just waiting for them to touch upon "All Eras Playable".[/QUOTE] Well then shot of the Falcon flying over Takodana, has OT era tie fighters, not First Order, but the Falcon itself has the new radar/comdish from TFA. [editline]15th April 2017[/editline] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/qSSFjJG.png[/IMG]

Some examples of classes/characterS: [img]https://abload.de/img/2017-04-1521_05_22-ea84jz9.png[/img]