I dont think a 40 player cap is that big a deal. The 64 player servers in Battlefield tend to be a mess.
[QUOTE=Teehee;47547760]Battlepacks in BF4 didn't add anything extra grind or anything that wasn't there in 3.[/QUOTE]
Agree, I actually feel like the battlepacks you get for free are a nice addition in order to spice up the whole leveling ordeal fun even if I usually don't receive anything special from them except for the occasional knife and 200% XP bonuses.
This is the last straw. I've missed too many games over the past year.
I'm buying myself a PC over summer.
[QUOTE=Jackald;47562254]Only 40 players and bots? Rubbish. It's part of the reason why Titanfall felt so awful, you're fighting bots most of the time.
Come on, we had 64 player multiplayer back in 2001, why isn't it the standard for these kinds of games by now?[/QUOTE]
Titanfall worked fine 5v5 with bots, if 40 is the number they're making Battlefront in mind with, that's the number that works. Just because some games have 64 players don't mean all games need it, dota works fine with 10, call of duty with 32, planetfall with 1000
[QUOTE=Jackald;47562254]Only 40 players and bots? Rubbish. It's part of the reason why Titanfall felt so awful, you're fighting bots most of the time.
Come on, we had 64 player multiplayer back in 2001, why isn't it the standard for these kinds of games by now?[/QUOTE]
Depends on the mechanics of the game. Back in the TFC days, 32 player maps were the norm and it was genuinely insane. However, you didn't have much space to move and it was very strategic. Now look at TF2 where most maps are designed for 24 players, I think it hit the sweet spot for having mindless fun and being able to unleash the wacky weapons they included.
I'm really looking forward to this, especially if the audio is as good as that sounds. It's surprising how the audio can affect the tone of a game or film and the new Battlefront trailer sounds huge and ballsy.
With everything that has happened in the past 5-6 years of the gaming industry, I have absoloutley 0 faith in this game being at least close to what we hope it can be.
I will be greatly pleased if it is a great game, but i'm pretty much waiting for the 100 "Angry reviews/Rants/Discussions" about how this game flopped.
Every game that comes out now boasts these great features but, essentially straight up lie to start gaining hype, and by the looks of this threads reactions it is working immensly
[QUOTE=Antdawg;47561020]I hope they do eventually offer space battles even if it is a DLC. Imagine how sick it'd be if there were more than one big cruiser (or battleship? Whatever, like the Star Destroyers) on each side and they could be properly destroyed unlike in BF2. Why not have them be controlled by the players too.
Space battles were kinda weak in BF2 but that's not to say it can't be done properly.[/QUOTE]
Seriously; and we already know DICE can do it. Titan mode in BF2142 is literally a different version of what you said except you can't pilot the titan. Players have to launch pods up to the enemy titans after destroying the shield through capping missile silos in the map. Then once aboard the enemy titan you had to make your way to the core (somehow they did better at implementing this idea in 2142 than they did in BF4 - Naval Assault)
I can totally see them implementing that with star destroyers in an open space map. Or perhaps in open space with a space station being the capping zone
[editline]20th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=ThisGuy69s;47562373]With everything that has happened in the past 5-6 years of the gaming industry, I have absoloutley 0 faith in this game being at least close to what we hope it can be.
I will be greatly pleased if it is a great game, but i'm pretty much waiting for the 100 "Angry reviews/Rants/Discussions" about how this game flopped.
Every game that comes out now boasts these great features but, essentially straight up lie to start gaining hype, and by the looks of this threads reactions it is working immensly[/QUOTE]
Dying Light, Bloodborne, MGS:V Phantom Pain, and the Witcher 3 ALL seem to be games worth their money for once (and I can tell you personally bloodborne and dying light were more than worth the 60 I paid). This has actually been a pretty damn good year for games I'd say. Regardless of the flops
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;47562388]Seriously; and we already know DICE can do it. Titan mode in BF2142 is literally a different version of what you said except you can't pilot the titan. Players have to launch pods up to the enemy titans after destroying the shield through capping missile silos in the map. Then once aboard the enemy titan you had to make your way to the core (somehow they did better at implementing this idea in 2142 than they did in BF4 - Naval Assault)
I can totally see them implementing that with star destroyers in an open space map. Or perhaps in open space with a space station being the capping zone
[editline]20th April 2015[/editline]
Dying Light, Bloodborne, MGS:V Phantom Pain, and the Witcher 3 ALL seem to be games worth their money for once (and I can tell you personally bloodborne and dying light were more than worth the 60 I paid). This has actually been a pretty damn good year for games I'd say. Regardless of the flops[/QUOTE]
2 of the 4 games you mentioned you haven't even played yet.
Dying Light lied heavily about what the game would be like compared to what it came out as.
Bloodborne is a reskin of Dark Souls with guns.
Even with all that, naming 2 games that were "okay" isn't really a good defense to my point.
[QUOTE=ThisGuy69s;47562424]2 of the 4 games you mentioned you haven't even played yet.
Dying Light lied heavily about what the game would be like compared to what it came out as.
Bloodborne is a reskin of Dark Souls with guns.
Even with all that, naming 2 games that were "okay" isn't really a good defense to my point.[/QUOTE]
If you played bloodborne you'd know it's actually not dark souls with guns; what a grand assumption. And dying light definitely is the game I had HOPED dead island would be. I watched the pre-alpha footage of dying light and I actually got a good game out of it when I didn't know what to expect.
I'll eat my shorts if those 2 games I listed end up being bad when they come .
So what's your reasoning for why this will be bad then?
[QUOTE=ThisGuy69s;47562424]2 of the 4 games you mentioned you haven't even played yet.
Dying Light lied heavily about what the game would be like compared to what it came out as.
Bloodborne is a reskin of Dark Souls with guns.
Even with all that, naming 2 games that were "okay" isn't really a good defense to my point.[/QUOTE]
I think the problem is more the fact that you have exceptionally high standards.
First the digital movie collection gets released and now a game 0_0 now I got to get the game to go with my movie collection :D
I think having 40 ppl with bots isn't such a bad thing. Especially on big maps, provided they have some that are decently large. My problem with bf3/4 and the large maps like caspian border, is that even with 64 people, I would run around for 5-6 mins and see 1-2 people. If bots will help populate the map more then so be it. Not to mention having bots in general is so uncommon now a days.
I don't think we should knock them for choosing to only do the first trilogy. I would way rather them build a solid base for a sequel with a game that potentially could have little content if it means that the game we get will play amazingly and be the reboot that we have all hoped for. I don't want a half-baked experience because they promised to include space battles, content from both trilogies, and a ton of maps from all the different planets.
[QUOTE=Jackald;47562416]TFC has completely different gameplay to something like Battlefield or Battlefront. In effect, Battlefield's gameplay ends up with lots of smaller scale battles going on at once that gradually shift and interact between each other, the control points creating focal points for the conflict. It's silly to compare them, 2fort is significantly smaller than Kubra Dam for example[/QUOTE]
Agreed but I'm actually comparing TFC and TF2 to show how the number of players can change the gameplay. In essence, I'm guessing they've arrived at 40 players as the sweet spot for the kind of gameplay they want to have for it to be fun for most people.
Think about something like Chivalry which is mainly melee with a few archers thrown in. If you don't have enough players, the hand to hand classes get annihilated by the ranged classes. On the other hand, too many players and there's not enough room to accurately attack without beheading your team mates.
I suppose I'm directing this at the calls for 128 player maps. Although huge battles are cool, they still have to be playable using the restrictions and dynamics of the game.
[QUOTE=UberMensch;47563059]Agreed but I'm actually comparing TFC and TF2 to show how the number of players can change the gameplay. In essence, I'm guessing they've arrived at 40 players as the sweet spot for the kind of gameplay they want to have for it to be fun for most people.
Think about something like Chivalry which is mainly melee with a few archers thrown in. If you don't have enough players, the hand to hand classes get annihilated by the ranged classes. On the other hand, too many players and there's not enough room to accurately attack without beheading your team mates.
I suppose I'm directing this at the calls for 128 player maps. Although huge battles are cool, they still have to be playable using the restrictions and dynamics of the game.[/QUOTE]
I think a closer comparison that also shuts down the 40 players isn't enough argument would be Planetside 2.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;47561020]I hope they do eventually offer space battles even if it is a DLC. Imagine how sick it'd be if there were more than one big cruiser (or battleship? Whatever, like the Star Destroyers) on each side and they could be properly destroyed unlike in BF2. Why not have them be controlled by the players too.
Space battles were kinda weak in BF2 but that's not to say it can't be done properly.[/QUOTE]
Space Superiority? I could see that being a game mode. Im sure DICE is not blind to the fact that space battles is a very big want amongst the fans. Maybe theyre keeping details about it until further development and testing. Also to keep the hype train going.
Will they be presenting more at E3? Perhaps with an early demo for the attendees
[QUOTE=Swilly;47563104]I think a closer comparison that also shuts down the 40 players isn't enough argument would be Planetside 2.[/QUOTE]
Yeah definitely. Planetside 2 is so massive that more = merrier. I should definitely fire that game up again sometime, cracking jaunt :P
Yeah, not all games need to have insane player amounts.
Verdun for example is limited to 16 people per side. Good map designs allows this number to feel bigger than it is, and the mechanics of the game are worked for that number. If it were any more it wouldn't be nearly as good.
ATATs have been confirmed to be on a set path
[QUOTE=mcgrath618;47563384]ATATs have been confirmed to be on a set path[/QUOTE]
Isn't it just fun when games that come out in 2015 are just Visually-appealing featureless downgrades of older games!
[QUOTE=Tudd;47563585]Isn't it just fun when games that come out in 2015 are just Visually-appealing featureless downgrades of older games![/QUOTE]
Someone doesn't remember how bitchy they were to drive in Battlefront 2.
[QUOTE=hanswithcheese;47546230]NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooo!
[url]http://www.gameinformer.com/games/star_wars_battlefront/b/playstation4/archive/2015/04/17/an-impressive-first-look-at-star-wars-battlefront.aspx?utm_content=buffer473d6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer&PostPageIndex=2[/url]
I'm not sure if that's entirely true but if it is then all is lost for the gorgeous space battles i had hoped for[/QUOTE]
X-Wings and TIE fighters as air support? This will look pretty silly.
[QUOTE=Tudd;47563585]Isn't it just fun when games that come out in 2015 are just Visually-appealing featureless downgrades of older games![/QUOTE]
Its confirmed that for a specific mode iirc
[QUOTE=Tudd;47563585]Isn't it just fun when games that come out in 2015 are just Visually-appealing featureless downgrades of older games![/QUOTE]
lets be honest there hasn't been a objectively good game released since 2004 and nothing of value would have been lost if gaming died then.
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;47563719]lets be honest there hasn't been a objectively good game released since 2004 and nothing of value would have been lost if gaming died then.[/QUOTE]
There hasn't been an objectively good form of media released in the history of man. That's how things work.
Everyone rush to get hype for a 40 player max version of battlefront with plenty of motionblur/screen decal based visual effects and more than likely a shitty bf style progression system.
But any scepticism is automatically wrong because you can toggle between first/third person viewpoints.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;47563762]Everyone rush to get hype for a 40 player max version of battlefront with plenty of motionblur/screen decal based visual effects and more than likely a shitty bf style progression system.
But any scepticism is automatically wrong because you can toggle between first/third person viewpoints.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying the game is bad based on something you're assuming, but we're wrong for being excited because of a confirmed feature?
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;47563719]lets be honest there hasn't been a objectively good game released since 2004 and nothing of value would have been lost if gaming died then.[/QUOTE]
Out of interest, what would be your game of all time released pre-2004?
[QUOTE=BreenIsALie;47564025]Out of interest, what would be your game of all time released pre-2004?[/QUOTE]no objectively good game has been released since Pong
[QUOTE=Joazzz;47564108]no objectively good game has been released since Pong[/QUOTE]
Tetris.
I feel like i'm the only one who's wishing for XL to make its comeback. (PC exclusive game mode with ~300 bots on each side)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
