[QUOTE=Karmal Khan;49212188]It's 12 maps. Plus the extra 2 next week.[/QUOTE]
Adding art assets to block off small sections of the big Walker Assault maps does not make them new maps.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49212216]Adding art assets to block off small sections of the big Walker Assault maps does not make them new maps.[/QUOTE]
the small maps are not edited versions of the big maps, they are entirely new. they recycle art assets but not level layout
[QUOTE=meppers;49212240]the small maps are not edited versions of the big maps, they are entirely new. they recycle art assets but not level layout[/QUOTE]
I don't own the game, so I may be totally wrong, but isn't that half true?
I've only gleamed what I know of it from preview footage, but when it comes to things like Blast or Hero Hunt, I've seen a map set in these ice caves on Hoth which is a totally new map. But I've also seen a map that [I]looked[/I] like it was the hanger on Sullust's Walker Assault map, but isolated. So it seems like a mix of both.
I'm p sure that if you could noclip though the hoth walker map you'd find the smaller instances of the DM/hero/blast maps hidden past the playable areas.
i'd make far more sense than to redesing new areas if they all follow the exact same theme/aesthetics.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49212216]Adding art assets to block off small sections of the big Walker Assault maps does not make them new maps.[/QUOTE]
Don't know where you got that from.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49212216]Adding art assets to block off small sections of the big Walker Assault maps does not make them new maps.[/QUOTE]
But that's wrong. There are several maps for different gamemodes. For example, Hoth has the big Walker Assault map, with a small hangar in it. The same map is reused for fighter squadron. However, the two other Hoth maps are [b]not[/b] the same. One is an ice cavern that appears nowhere on the Hoth Walker Assault map, and the other is an expanded version of the hangar seen in Walker Assault. The same thing goes for the other planets. The Sullust map in the beta appears nowhere in the Sullust Walker Assault. The Tattoine small maps are completely different from the Walker Assault map.
battlefront 2 is $2.99 on steam if you want the true experience, gameranger will get you to populated servers
Unfortunately, populated servers doesn't mean [i]stable[/i] servers
just downloaded game ranger, what an awful client.
[QUOTE=ashxu;49213454]just downloaded game ranger, what an awful client.[/QUOTE]
Maybe I'm missing something.. what does Game ranger have to do with Battlefront?
I predicted it
[QUOTE=Morgen;49213916]Maybe I'm missing something.. what does Game ranger have to do with Battlefront?[/QUOTE]
gamespy shut down last year, so people are using a 3rd party program to host servers now. it affected a lot of older games that used it
The only damn good thing that came out of this game is that we can port models from it.
[QUOTE=RocketRacer;49210395]I'd still much rather go and play Battlefront II because it's obvious that 2015 Battlefront cannot live up to previous titles. Battlefront II for example has a lot more maps, space battles, a fuckton of heroes, both Clone Wars and Original Trilogy eras, space battles, bots on multiplayer maps that literally makes the game playable as a big co-op title, space battles. The game is old, the game may not be as good as I thought it was a couple of years back, but I still believe it's a much better title than this game. Battlefront just has way less content offered.[/QUOTE]
Heck even Battlefront 1 is still a very good game. I've got it on PS2 and while the online doesn't work it's still great to play splitscreen with loads of bots. My only gripe is the FOV can feel a bit awful even for a console game.
I wish DICE had used Battlefront to make more games like BF1942
I'm not sure what I really wanted from this game.
At first I wanted it /not/ to be a battlefield reskin. (as ironic as that sounds)
I was pleasantly surprised to see that it didn't turn out that way but then later found that it would probably have been better if it [I]were [/I]a battlefield reskin. But if it was, it would still be criticized for being just that.
The game was doomed from the start imo. Not many games have been able to live up to the legacy of their predecessors, no matter how competent or different they might be.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49215869]I'm not sure what I really wanted from this game.
At first I wanted it /not/ to be a battlefield reskin. (as ironic as that sounds)
I was pleasantly surprised to see that it didn't turn out that way but then later found that it would probably have been better if it [I]were [/I]a battlefield reskin. But if it was, it would still be criticized for being just that.
The game was doomed from the start imo. Not many games have been able to live up to the legacy of their predecessors, no matter how competent or different they might be.[/QUOTE]
The biggest problem is they had the groundwork for an awesome game already laid out. The foundation for it was laid in 200-fucking-5. It's absolutely mindboggling why they wouldn't just follow that incredibly popular formula, add a few things, update the graphics, and send it out.
Especially since that formula, while unique in its own way, so closely aped DICE's own star franchise that they were already well familiar with in the first place.
[QUOTE=kyle877;49216345]The biggest problem is they had the groundwork for an awesome game already laid out. The foundation for it was laid in 200-fucking-5. It's absolutely mindboggling why they wouldn't just follow that incredibly popular formula, add a few things, update the graphics, and send it out.[/QUOTE]
Because of the problem I just presented. If Battlefront 3 kept the base framework of 1/2 then it'd still get shat on for just being a 'battlefield reskin'.
[QUOTE=Swilly;49207582]ANyone acting like somehow your purchase actually matters is seriously deluded in just how much the gaming public will gobble this shit up.
Call of Duty has been going on for how long and still sells?[/QUOTE]
Even with the CoD argument you can disagree because Ghosts sold like trash and it was by far the most lacking in terms of gameplay and content.
Even the general public cares about a game having nothing. The threshold is lower, but still.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49216945]Because of the problem I just presented. If Battlefront 3 kept the base framework of 1/2 then it'd still get shat on for just being a 'battlefield reskin'.[/QUOTE]Any yet it would have been 10x more fun and last much longer than this ever will
The game wasn't really doomed from the start, it's doomed now though, because of the $50 season pass for content that you don't know if you'll even like and the gameplay which is bland and not interesting enough to maintain a stable hefty player base.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49216945]Because of the problem I just presented. If Battlefront 3 kept the base framework of 1/2 then it'd still get shat on for just being a 'battlefield reskin'.[/QUOTE]
I wish they would have just done that. Even if it was a reskin, let's be real here. An update to bring it up to 2016 standards is hardly unwarranted.
Anyone that would have complained probably needs a reality check. BF2 is a good game, but its horribly dated. Battlefront 2 is 10 going on 11 years old. It needed some fresh paint.
Not the stripped down "reboot" that BF3 is.
[QUOTE=Swilly;49207582]ANyone acting like somehow your purchase actually matters is seriously deluded in just how much the gaming public will gobble this shit up.
Call of Duty has been going on for how long and still sells?[/QUOTE]
funny thing though, CoD has more content, balance, variety, and depth (i'll admit, the last two are quite a stretch) than battlefront
[QUOTE=cdr248;49211952]Not a bad deal for $30, but the point is that it is a bad deal for $60.[/QUOTE]
$120 that Season pass makes the game whole other wise you kinda paying for just around half of the game,.
i'm glad i only paid £33.50 or so for this game, it's fun as fuck but only in bursts for me personally. the game's pretty as fuck, but I don't think it's worth the £50 pricetag whatsoever. it's kinda like a star wars battlefront 1943 type game, which would warrant like £20 maybe, £30 at a push
it's just a really tight basic shooter is all, it just feels a bit bland, the weapons are all a bit samey and there aren't many to choose from, and the character customization is fucking terrible
[editline]2nd December 2015[/editline]
that said, i'm still having fun with it
Good thing I never pre-order anything. :v: What a flop.
Time to wait for Battlefront 2 EA and hope they learn from their mistakes, provided the negative reviews don't affect the chances for another sequel reboot.
[QUOTE=Demache;49217497]I wish they would have just done that. Even if it was a reskin, let's be real here. An update to bring it up to 2016 standards is hardly unwarranted.
Anyone that would have complained probably needs a reality check. BF2 is a good game, but its horribly dated. Battlefront 2 is 10 going on 11 years old. It needed some fresh paint.
Not the stripped down "reboot" that BF3 is.[/QUOTE]
if Battlefront EA was virtually identical to Battlefront 2, but with the new engine and animations and graphics, it could easily be GOTY material. like lets be real here, NOBODY would criticize it for being a battlefield reskin when everybody loved it when that was pretty much literally what it was in 2005
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
