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

Upside there are dedicated servers this time around.

[QUOTE=Tuskin;52381662]I don't think the old BF3 would work with the quality DICE is going for.[/QUOTE] What a good game?

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;52382440]What a good game?[/QUOTE] Their own game. DICE isn't trying to recreate Battlefront. Just something similar.

[QUOTE=Lord Hayden;52381735]The fact that the old BF3 didn't have a problem with players just suddenly disappearing into a space ship that takes off and flies around before landing in a ship with the player 'getting out' by popping in out of nowhere. If you were to DICE-ify that, you'd have to deal with climbing in/out animations, as well as a whole bunch of other stuff that would detract from the whole BF3 experience like landing gear. The level of detail they aim for in the game would conflict with the gameplay mechanics of the old BF3, and I don't see them doing it unfortunately, hence why we have to deal with tokens in BF1. I'd opt for BF3 mechanics (I'm really hoping that the next DICE BF3 has those classic space battles like in old BF, which was one of the biggest highlights of the series for me) EDIT: To add in those extra mechanics it'd also require them to reassess their entire map design, making sure that there were areas for ships to land and take off.[/QUOTE] So what you're saying is to make it play like the old BF2 or B3 they'd actually have to put effort in? [I]woah[/I] [editline]20th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tuskin;52382447]Their own game. DICE isn't trying to recreate Battlefront. Just something similar.[/QUOTE] Then name it something like Star Wars: First assault or Star Wars: Galactic War. If they didn't want to have people compare it to the original Battlefront series they should not have use the name. They're doing a piss poor job of trying to create something similar since all they had to do was make a Star Wars skin for Battlefield since that's what the originals were trying to do

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;52382449]So what you're saying is to make it play like the old BF2 or B3 they'd actually have to put effort in? [I]woah[/I] [editline]20th June 2017[/editline] Then name it something like Star Wars: First assault or Star Wars: Galactic War. If they didn't want to have people compare it to the original Battlefront series they should not have use the name. They're doing a piss poor job of trying to create something similar since all they had to do was make a Star Wars skin for Battlefield since that's what the originals were trying to do[/QUOTE] Plenty of effort goes into making DICE's Battlefront games. They're just not the game that you want, but that's okay. There are other people who do like them.

To me, I'd say this new Battlefront looks to be very much in the spirit of the original games unlike the first one. Yes, I'd love to have a completed SWBF3, but that's never going to happen (the closest you'll get is the wonderful SWBF3 Legacy mod for the original SWBF2).

[QUOTE=Tuskin;52382447]Their own game. DICE isn't trying to recreate Battlefront. Just something similar.[/QUOTE] I really think you're missing the point. How does this argument make [I]any[/I] difference to whether or not one game has more content and depth than the other? The game uses the Battlefront name, brand recognition and has the same overall idea and theme as the originals. It sets out to do the same thing. It's irrelevant if it was meant to be Battlefront 3 or not, that doesn't change the fact that the originals (which defined what the entire Battlefront series is meant to be about in the first place) outclass the new games in a few areas, mostly to do with depth. It's utterly absurd to say "Dice's Battlefront game isn't trying to be a Battlefront game!" when [I]the whole reason for them using the brand is to get you to think of the originals[/I]. Reboots and remakes are compared to the originals all the time, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. You can't say the new game isn't trying to "recreate battlefront" when they're both class-based combined-arms games in both first and third person with heroes and space battles, that let you play the battles, locations, weapons, vehicles, characters etc from all the movies and from the expanded universe. They set out to do the same thing. The original games set the bar for a Battlefront game and the new games don't meet it when you compare the two, the series has regressed in a few ways and that should not be seen as acceptable no matter what it's called. I'm sure the new game will be fun but basically saying "It's not Battlefront 3!" does not mean everything is suddenly fine with it and someone isn't allowed to have a preference for how the original games did things, especially considering they are what defined what Battlefront games are. Even if you don't look at the original games though, that doesn't change things like full regen health with no medic classes, no reloading and unlimited ammo, seemingly not being able to get in or out of vehicles, infantry-focused gameplay that makes vehicles feel like some secondary bonus thing and star cards all make the game very shallow.

I just don't think it should be compared to a game it isn't trying to be. If they advertised it as a remake, then I would. [editline]20th June 2017[/editline] We'll have to agree to disagree, but I just don't feel like it is right. I didn't compare the reboot Tomb Raider with the originals, because they were trying their own thing, it wasn't a remake it was a new story borrowing a character.

I love how we're denigrating the new game when we don't have a clue how most of it actually plays, given we've been shown what is obviously a very short segment of gameplay so far and two trailers that don't reveal much more than a few of the planets.

[QUOTE=ggctuk;52382998]I love how we're denigrating the new game when we don't have a clue how most of it actually plays, given we've been shown what is obviously a very short segment of gameplay so far and two trailers that don't reveal much more than a few of the planets.[/QUOTE] There is also the hours of footage recorded by people at EA Play/E3. Mind you of all the same map. A map rigged to allow the CIS to win so people could see the entire map.

[QUOTE=Tuskin;52383004]There is also the hours of footage recorded by people at EA Play/E3. Mind you of all the same map. A map rigged to allow the CIS to win so people could see the entire map.[/QUOTE] My point exactly.

[QUOTE=Tuskin;52382304]BF2 will not have a server browser [url]https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/71849/battlefront-ii-will-apparently-not-have-a-server-browser/p1[/url] A moderator somewhere in the thread confirms it.[/QUOTE] Boy I really hope the matchmaking is improved over Battlefield 1. If I try to quick match in that game its like 50/50 odds I get put into an empty server by myself. [editline]20th June 2017[/editline] On the other hand, Titanfall 2 doesn't have a server browser and no one seems to have a problem with that. Also means no joining servers with retarded rules or buttblasted admins.

[QUOTE=Shirt.;52380930]I'd rather them add space to ground than remodel the ATAT multiple times[/QUOTE] Honestly, I can't see how that would work without it looking goofy as shit.

[QUOTE=cowsaysoink;52382689]Plenty of effort goes into making DICE's Battlefront games. They're just not the game that you want, but that's okay. There are other people who do like them.[/QUOTE] Ah yes the amazing effort of scanning in models, using a minimalist menu interface because it's ~artistic~ and not because using just using a white background and photoshopping R2 into it is easy as shit. Placing random shit in space is definitely effort and the same goes for making 1 map and splitting it into 4 parts. Let's not forget the effort involved in making the worst Hoth map ever seen in a Star Wars game or the amount of effort that was out into vehicles being random power ups on the map. I'm loving the "effort" Also "It's okay that Battlefront is not Battlefront" really? [I]really?[/I] you're okay with how much of a down grade these games are to the originals? I guess the graphics are pretty so it doesn't matter right?

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;52385106]Ah yes the amazing effort of scanning in models, using a minimalist menu interface because it's ~artistic~ and not because using just using a white background and photoshopping R2 into it is easy as shit.[/QUOTE] The scanned models don't come out game ready, they need to be refined, rigged, and animated. Scanning a model isn't magic. It will have imperfections that need to be smoothed out, polygons where there shouldn't be and stuff like that. Textures fixed up and UV mapped. It isn't effortless work And the backgrounds in the main menu were not static images they were 3D rendered spaces with animations. Did you even play the game? The ignorance in your post is just staggering

[QUOTE=Tuskin;52385119]The scanned models don't come out game ready, they need to be refined, rigged, and animated. Scanning a model isn't magic. It will have imperfections that need to be smoothed out, polygons where there shouldn't be and stuff like that. Textures fixed up and UV mapped. It isn't effortless work And the backgrounds in the main menu were not static images they were 3D rendered spaces with animations. Did you even play the game?[/QUOTE] Not forgetting that maps don't build themselves, nor does the game engine. All of that takes effort.

You broke my merge lmao

[QUOTE=Tuskin;52385119]The scanned models don't come out game ready, they need to be refined, rigged, and animated. Scanning a model isn't magic. It will have imperfections that need to be smoothed out, polygons where there shouldn't be and stuff like that. Textures fixed up and UV mapped. It isn't effortless work And the backgrounds in the main menu were not static images they were 3D rendered spaces with animations. Did you even play the game? The ignorance in your post is just staggering[/QUOTE] "They did some work see it's not a bad game" it's still shit compared to BF2 and you're right I forgot that the menu is an actual rendered 3D white box with a random model in it

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;52385188]"They did some work see it's not a bad game"[/QUOTE] That isn't what I said. Effort doesn't equal good, but it still equals effort, which you said they didn't put in it.

You're missing the point. Battlefront was complete shit and had no effort at all put into it other then to make it look pretty. Everything else was completely shit and Battlefront II looks like a step in the right direction but it still doesn't hold a candle to a PSP game [i]which has Space to Ground combat[/I]

And it doesn't need to, it is its own game. With its own style. If they had marketed it as BF3, had they called it a sequel, or a remake I'd be more hard on it. But it isn't that. I'm treating it as its own game series independent from the originals. I like BF1 in the first few months but it grew dull. BF2 looks like it is going to be a lot better, especially since DLC won't be dividing the community.

[QUOTE=Tuskin;52385198]And it doesn't need to, it is its own game. With its own style. If they had marketed it as BF3, had they called it a sequel, or a remake I'd be more hard on it. But it isn't that. I'm treating it as its own game series independent from the originals. I like BF1 in the first few months but it grew dull. BF2 looks like it is going to be a lot better, especially since DLC won't be dividing the community.[/QUOTE] How can you treat it as it's own game when it's a remake of the old Battlefront series? You should be mad that nothing but the graphics have been improved. I still play Battlefront 2 because the DICE remake/reboot is complete shit

It's not a remake, though. It's a reboot. They're not the same thing. That'd be like going into a reboot film and laying into it because it didn't have the same plot or cast as the original.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;52385217]How can you treat it as it's own game when it's a remake of the old Battlefront series? You should be mad that nothing but the graphics have been improved. I still play Battlefront 2 because the DICE remake/reboot is complete shit[/QUOTE] It isn't a remake.

[QUOTE=ggctuk;52385221]It's not a remake, though. It's a reboot. They're not the same thing. That'd be like going into a reboot film and laying into it because it didn't have the same plot or cast as the original.[/QUOTE] You're missing the point. Unless you find having less content acceptable?

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;52385228]You're missing the point. Unless you find having less content acceptable?[/QUOTE] The lack of content is what killed the game for me. But I still found it more fun to play then the originals. But it wasn't worth the money. Every few months I try to go back and play the original BF2, but I just can't get into it like I could back when it came out. I don't know what it is, I just find it boring, I play a single match and I just don't feel like playing anymore.

[QUOTE=Tuskin;52385226]It isn't a remake.[/QUOTE] It's still a new entry in the Battlefront series that goes backwards instead of pushing the series forward. It doesn't matter if it's actually a remake or reboot or whatever, it's still a Battlefront game that is worse in terms of content and depth than what came before.

[QUOTE=nightlord;52385241]No, it's just a continuation of the Battlefront series that goes backwards instead.[/QUOTE] It isn't that either. [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] Nice ninja edit.

[QUOTE=Tuskin;52385243]It isn't that either. [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] Nice ninja edit.[/QUOTE] Yes, it is. How can you say it isn't part of the Battlefront series? It uses the brand and the name. The whole reason for doing that is to get you to think of the previous games.

It uses the name, but it isn't a continuation Just like how the new Tomb Raider games are not a continuation to the original games.