DICE begged to make Star Wars: Battlefront - Polidicks

[QUOTE=RocketRacer;41181821]And I did not expect that you will defend Call of Duty with an argument of being realistic and throwing shit at DICE and Frostbyte.[/QUOTE] oh boy, please quote the comment where I said call of duty was realistic, or worth playing in any way. just because it's superior to an awful, almost identical game that doesn't make it good. and while you're at it, show me where the developers of call of duty have EVER tried to claim any of their games were realistic.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41181709]yeah except call of duty is the exact same way which is the reason battlefield adopted this concept[/QUOTE] Uh, what? Having played both BF3 and some CoD games I can say with absolute certainity that this is definitely not the case, and they're not similar AT ALL when it comes to shooting and ballistic mechanics. [QUOTE]you have no idea what realistic is, taking a bullet isn't going to kill you instantly on contact[/QUOTE] ...except when it does. Otherwise it's still going to hurt like hell. [QUOTE]unless it's a hollow point .45 to the brain[/QUOTE] What? Are you saying that every other caliber has no chance of being an instakill? Really, I'm not following you here. [QUOTE]and even if it did how the fuck is this relevant to a game that's supposed to be fun[/QUOTE] I like games where you have to avoid getting shot and I find them fun, instead of ones where you can laugh at incoming bullets. It's all subjective in the end.

Oh man, none of that is even worth replying to.

[QUOTE=RocketRacer;41181821] And by throwing shit at DICE, you throw shit at Battlefront, which is the most anticipated game of the past few years, which now becomes truth.[/QUOTE] I know plenty of people who have been wanting a battlefront 3 since the beginning of the current generation, including myself. what I did NOT want at all was a star wars game where you pay $60 plus $50 for DLC to get spawn killed by pixely lasers.

[QUOTE=Delta616;41181877]Oh man, none of that is even worth replying to.[/QUOTE] He's throwing shit at DICE and therefore Battle[I]front[/I] in every possible post.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41181924]I know plenty of people who have been wanting a battlefront 3 since the beginning of the current generation, including myself. what I did NOT want at all was a star wars game where you pay $60 plus $50 for DLC to get spawn killed by pixely lasers.[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you even rambling about? None of BF3's DLCs gave you any advantage over players who didn't pay for them, if that's what you're getting at. You could play the game without spending a single cent after buying it and you wouldn't lose much at all Besides, what the hell does it have to do with the engine?

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41181924]I know plenty of people who have been wanting a battlefront 3 since the beginning of the current generation, including myself. what I did NOT want at all was a star wars game where you pay $60 plus $50 for DLC to get spawn killed by pixely lasers.[/QUOTE] You've seen the game already? You've played a game on Frostbyte 3? Oh, wait, you're talking about Call of Duty, not Battlefield/Battlefront. It's fine then.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41181924]I know plenty of people who have been wanting a battlefront 3 since the beginning of the current generation, including myself. what I did NOT want at all was a star wars game where you pay $60 plus $50 for DLC to get spawn killed by pixely lasers.[/QUOTE] Because you can already see how the game will turn out and if they're going to pull the same DLC tricks, right? Please give me some of your magical future-o-vision, I have some exams in a while and I'd like to know the answers in advance. Otherwise, stop talking crap about a game whose only things we know about so far are "yes, we're making Battlefront" and a ten-second trailer.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;41181871]Uh, what? Having played both BF3 and some CoD games I can say with absolute certainity that this is definitely not the case, and they're not similar AT ALL when it comes to shooting and ballistic mechanics. ...except when it does. Otherwise it's still going to hurt like hell. What? Are you saying that every other caliber has no chance of being an instakill? Really, I'm not following you here. I like games where you have to avoid getting shot and I find them fun, instead of ones where you can laugh at incoming bullets. It's all subjective in the end.[/QUOTE] if you're in combat your adrenaline levels would be extremely high and if you took a 9mm or even 5.56 round to the torso it's possible you wouldn't even notice it. in BF3, every caliber from .50 to 9mm does roughly the same damage. 1-4 hit kill. how the hell is this realistic? furthermore, you can run up to somebody and shoot an RPG at your feet and kill them. not only do you somehow survive the blast, but the projectile somehow detonates after being airborn for less than a microsecond. if you seriously think BF3 is a realistic game you're either extremely sheltered, and/or twelve years old, or you're incredibly oblivious to reality. have you played ANY call of duty since WaW? because from MW2 onward everything kills instantly. [editline]25th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Rent-a-BoxHouse;41181988]What the fuck are you even rambling about? None of BF3's DLCs gave you any advantage over players who didn't pay for them, if that's what you're getting at. You could play the game without spending a single cent after buying it and you wouldn't lose much at all Besides, what the hell does it have to do with the engine?[/QUOTE] once again, ignoring the comment I'm responding to. the game had like 5 maps total, that means if you did enjoy it at all you'd have to buy DLC for it to have any replayability. also the fact that not having premium means you're not going to be able to play with the 85% of the community who does which means overall worse matchmaking experience.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41182043]warble warble garble[/QUOTE] Adrenaline means very little when your vital organs receive enough damage. Plus, while BF is definitely not the most realistic thing around, it still does a semi-decent portrayal of "being shot fucking hurts and you won't survive too much of it". Note #2: I played some MW and Blackops games at a friend's, and I was under the impression that "everything kills instantly" is definitely not applicable. Oh and, nice to see you've already resorted to insults. I think we're done here.

[QUOTE=RocketRacer;41181993]You've seen the game already? You've played a game on Frostbyte 3? Oh, wait, you're talking about Call of Duty, not Battlefield/Battlefront. It's fine then.[/QUOTE] I've seen gameplay of BF4 and ''frostbite 3'' is about as much of a new engine as the build of ID tech 4 black ops 2 uses. that's the engine part. the reason I know the game is going to be bad is because EA is going to give DICE an extremely unreasonable deadline. designing a completely new game takes time. it has to be tested and balanced extensively. so DICE has 2 options, try to do something new and innovative, run out of time and resources and end up releasing a broken mess, or make another BF3 clone with star wars stuff in it.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41182043]if you're in combat your adrenaline levels would be extremely high and if you took a 9mm or even 5.56 round to the torso it's possible you wouldn't even notice it. in BF3, every caliber from .50 to 9mm does roughly the same damage. 1-4 hit kill. how the hell is this realistic? furthermore, you can run up to somebody and shoot an RPG at your feet and kill them. not only do you somehow survive the blast, but the projectile somehow detonates after being airborn for less than a microsecond. if you seriously think BF3 is a realistic game you're either extremely sheltered, and/or twelve years old, or you're incredibly oblivious to reality. have you played ANY call of duty since WaW? because from MW2 onward everything kills instantly. [editline]25th June 2013[/editline] once again, ignoring the comment I'm responding to. the game had like 5 maps total, that means if you did enjoy it at all you'd have to buy DLC for it to have any replayability. also the fact that not having premium means you're not going to be able to play with the 85% of the community who does which means overall worse matchmaking experience.[/QUOTE] All Battlefields don't have that many maps, but at least they're done impressively good, while Call of Duty-ies have tons of maps packed in their game release, but they are small and easily all you to spawn kill and do other non-realistic stuff. But this is realistic for you, of course.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41182043]once again, ignoring the comment I'm responding to. the game had like 5 maps total, that means if you did enjoy it at all you'd have to buy DLC for it to have any replayability. also the fact that not having premium means you're not going to be able to play with the 85% of the community who does which means overall worse matchmaking experience.[/QUOTE] Vanilla BF3 had 9 maps plus their variations for different gamemodes. If you can't play a map more than 1 time then maybe you should stick to games with randomly generated maps. Owning premium doesn't magically cut you off from dirty vanilla peasants unless you play solely on premium-only servers which are empty 99% of the time. Find some actual arguments next time

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;41182130]Adrenaline means very little when your vital organs receive enough damage. Plus, while BF is definitely not the most realistic thing around, it still does a semi-decent portrayal of "being shot fucking hurts and you won't survive too much of it". Note #2: I played some MW and Blackops games at a friend's, and I was under the impression that "everything kills instantly" is definitely not applicable. Oh and, nice to see you've already resorted to insults. I think we're done here.[/QUOTE] they're not insults if the pretense is untrue. I said IF you think BF3 is realistic, which you just said you didn't. I don't understand how you seriously didn't notice the utter lack of balance in call of duty because it's there and it is not subtle. every SMG/AR kills in about 2-4 hits most of the time. [editline]25th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Rent-a-BoxHouse;41182182]Vanilla BF3 had 9 maps plus their variations for different gamemodes. If you can't play a map more than 1 time then maybe you should stick to games with randomly generated maps. Owning premium doesn't magically cut you off from dirty vanilla peasants unless you play solely on premium-only servers which are empty 99% of the time. Find some actual arguments next time[/QUOTE] 9 maps is still an extremely small number, and you're not taking into account that 3 of those maps are played about once every 4 months. seriously, launch BF3 and try to play on Tehran Highway right now...

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41182150]the reason I know the game is going to be bad is because EA is going to give DICE an extremely unreasonable deadline. designing a completely new game takes time. it has to be tested and balanced extensively. so DICE has 2 options, try to do something new and innovative, run out of time and resources and end up releasing a broken mess, or make another BF3 clone with star wars stuff in it.[/QUOTE] Ah, good to see your future-vision powers are in full swing again. [QUOTE=Bruhmis;41182195]I don't understand how you seriously didn't notice the utter lack of balance in call of duty because it's there and it is not subtle. every SMG/AR kills in about 2-4 hits most of the time.[/QUOTE] Haven't played it enough to count how many shots it takes to kill a dude with a gun or another, but your claim that "everything kills instantly" is something I failed to see in-game.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41182195]they're not insults if the pretense is untrue. I said IF you think BF3 is realistic, which you just said you didn't. I don't understand how you seriously didn't notice the utter lack of balance in call of duty because it's there and it is not subtle. every SMG/AR kills in about 2-4 hits most of the time.[/QUOTE] False. I played BO2 MP and most of the guns need 6-10 hits [I]in the head[/I] before you kill an enemy. [QUOTE=Bruhmis;41182195] 9 maps is still an extremely small number, and you're not taking into account that if 3 of those maps are played about once every 4 months. seriously, launch BF3 and try to play on Tehran Highway right now...[/QUOTE] 9 maps vanilla, + 4 from B2K, +4 from CC, +4 from AK, +4 from EG = oh shit, tons of maps with destructible environment! [editline]25th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=jimhowl33t;41182274]Haven't played it enough to count how many shots it takes to kill a dude with a gun or another, but your claim that "everything kills instantly" is something I failed to see in-game.[/QUOTE] I think he means stuff like throwable Tomhawk and knife.

Just ignore him.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;41182274]Ah, good to see your future-vision powers are in full swing again. Haven't played it enough to count how many shots it takes to kill a dude with a gun or another, but your claim that "everything kills instantly" is something I failed to see in-game.[/QUOTE] do you not understand who EA is and what they're responsible for? there's a difference between predicting the future and understanding the past. developers of successful AAA games don't get full development times anymore. 2 years tops is what they'll get, and that's not enough.

Stop spelling Frostbite with a 'Y'.

[QUOTE=RocketRacer;41182303] 9 maps vanilla, + 4 from B2K, +4 from CC, +4 from AK, +4 from EG = oh shit, tons of maps with destructible environment![/QUOTE] your english skills really aren't sufficient for a debate. you're confused and you're misreading or not reading at all.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41182402]your english skills really aren't sufficient for a debate. you're confused and you're misreading or not reading at all.[/QUOTE] ok.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41182341]do you not understand who EA is and what they're responsible for?[/QUOTE] Didn't they fire their CEO recently and announced they're not going to pull the same shit, admitting that their DRM was a failure, and so on? Again, you're heavily judging a game we know nothing about, basing yourself only on [i]what you think will happen[/i]. We'll be able to criticize this game as soon as it comes out. In the meantime, please stop acting like EA and DICE pissed in your cereal.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41181422]unreal engine 3, Source Engine, RED engine, RAGE, FOX engine, ID Tech 5(even ID tech 4 is better), Dunia engine, Glacier 2, Chrome 5, Naught Dog Engine, Spark, Unity3D, 4A engine. frostbite 2 is one of the worst engines I'm aware of including those from the late 90s so that really wasn't a tough question at all.[/QUOTE] As a Source Steamworks developer and having seen lectures on Frostbite 2, I can safely tell you that, as FACT (functionality, load times, lighting methods, terrain creation, ease of shader implementation), Frostbite 2+ are far superior to the most recent version of Source (which I use). Not saying Source is bad, it's good(alright) at what it's built to do, but Frostbite is in a whole other league. Which is one of the reasons why it currently has no open SDK. It's still in development, and is constantly changing. DICE was torn into two teams because they were developing the engine faster than they could make BF3, they had to draw a line somewhere and pull out a slice of Frostbite 2 and say "we'll use this version for BF3". As for EA, I currently hold no quarrel with them. They put a lot of trust into their developers to make games their player base will enjoy. They also speak openly about a lot of things that other publishers don't. They could be a hell of a lot better but they could also be a hell of a lot worse. Origin does what it says it's for, and does it well, without trying to do anything it isn't meant to. They'd still be selling games on Steam (maximum marketplace!) if it weren't for their past self screwing up. [SUB]Customer service is shit though[/SUB]

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;41181626]Just out of curiosity, why are you mad at this? It's pretty much realistic, as opposed to games like CoD where either your guns are loaded with marshmellows or the players are supermen that can soak dozens of bullets with no ill effects (except seeing red for some seconds).[/QUOTE] The damage models actually aren't too different. Both games have low-damage weapons that take ~6 shots to kill at range and they both have guns that, if you land every shot in close quarters, have a TTK measured in fractions of a second. If anything I feel tankier in BF3 because the engagement distances are farther away and things like medkits strew the ground.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;41170621]AT-ATs? How about [url=http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Low_Altitude_Assault_Transport]LAAT[/url]?[/QUOTE] I really like the LAAT, it would be nice you get the ability to open and close the doors if they add them. Hopefully they don't limit the game to just one setting.

[QUOTE=nightlord;41183272]I really like the LAAT, it would be nice you get the ability to open and close the doors if they add them. Hopefully they don't limit the game to just one setting.[/QUOTE] And those sphered laser guns...

The development of this game is in the right hands, they seem to have the perfect attitude. Which makes me even more psyched for it's release.

[QUOTE=hiyougami;41182817]As a Source Steamworks developer and having seen lectures on Frostbite 2, I can safely tell you that, as FACT (functionality, load times, lighting methods, terrain creation, ease of shader implementation), Frostbite 2+ are far superior to the most recent version of Source (which I use). Not saying Source is bad, it's good(alright) at what it's built to do, but Frostbite is in a whole other league. Which is one of the reasons why it currently has no open SDK. It's still in development, and is constantly changing. DICE was torn into two teams because they were developing the engine faster than they could make BF3, they had to draw a line somewhere and pull out a slice of Frostbite 2 and say "we'll use this version for BF3". As for EA, I currently hold no quarrel with them. They put a lot of trust into their developers to make games their player base will enjoy. They also speak openly about a lot of things that other publishers don't. They could be a hell of a lot better but they could also be a hell of a lot worse. Origin does what it says it's for, and does it well, without trying to do anything it isn't meant to. They'd still be selling games on Steam (maximum marketplace!) if it weren't for their past self screwing up. [SUB]Customer service is shit though[/SUB][/QUOTE] what I'm saying is any developer making any type of game right now would make a superior game on Source than they would on Frostbite 2. you're telling me it's ''in development'' and implying that it'll improve dramatically over time. I can take your word on that, but if it ever hopes to be an engine worth using then it's progress right now would have to be like 30% complete. it's not really an issue of EA being bad, but they have a business model that has earned them millions over the last couple of years and there's no sign of that changing, and that business model does not include long development times. you're a developer, so I think it's safe to assume that you know 2 years is not even close to enough to make a game like Battlefront 3. and you needn't look any further than the history of EA title release dates to know 2 years is all they're going to get.

[QUOTE=Zeos;41181697]I hope they pull in some of the EU Imperial vehicles, like the AT-AR or the TIE Phantom.[/QUOTE] They're are some good ideas you can use from EU. Phase III Darktrooper armor would be worn with a user, TB-4 tanks from Empire att war wouldnt be bad either, hope they'll add in other classes or units like StormCommandos or something

Did you seriously just say that ANY game, if developed on Source, would be better somehow? An incredibly dated engine that could NEVER have huge maps and proper vehicle support? Why would developers have longer development time if they worked on source?