Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Apparently there are no iron sights. That strongly suggests 'arcade' gameplay and as such I'm not interested.

Its a shame but Red Orchestra is still ably meeting my FPS needs so meh.

If you expect Battlefront to be Red Orchestra with a Star Wars skin then I don't know what to tell you other than prepare to be disappointed.

I didn't, this is afterall a console game. I very much doubt that I will be bothering with it though, despite my brief interest.

No clone wars? No space battles? Well. I think I'll wait until it's $20 on steam before I put money down for this. My battlefront II mods have more features than this seems to.

The expanded infantry battles could be fun, and I like the idea of being different species while still playing the same class. At least I hope this is class/unit type based like the originals.

That's all well and good but mods solve most of the problems anyone could possibly have with SWBFII

Ill be buying the most expensive version

#1 its a new star wars FPS

#2 its a new star wars FPS

#3 it looks cool


I like extras

Some early releases show the regular edition as +$20 from the norm ($79.99) so who knows what the CE is going to cast.

 Ahtman wrote:
Some early releases show the regular edition as +$20 from the norm ($79.99) so who knows what the CE is going to cast.

Where have you seen those release listings?

Only prices I've seen are $59.99 for the standard edition and $69.99 for the "Deluxe" edition(which as far as I can tell is supposed to be digital only and gives immediate access to some weapons, so am not sure how some shops are selling physical copies aside from cards for PSN/XBL that are the right amount of cash).

I meant to say 'rumors' instead of 'releases' but I didn't think it sounded right either and after further checking I am pretty sure it is just a hoax.

Being EA and Star Wars makes it fairly easy to believe though...

Aye.. the two Helmet editions I believe have been debunked.. although I would have brought the hell out of the Boba Fett one.


The trailer is nice, hard to judge anything without proper gameplay elements, but I am still eager based on the panel and what is going on certain gaming news sites.

Only 4 maps, first three episodes, and no space battles?

No thanks.

Only 4 maps shown. I imagine the game will have more than just Endor, Both, Jakku and Sullust.

I'd love to see new versions of the BF1 Bespin maps.

 Paradigm wrote:
Only 4 maps shown. I imagine the game will have more than just Endor, Both, Jakku and Sullust.

I'd love to see new versions of the BF1 Bespin maps.

The listings I've seen are specifically stating the planets of Hoth, Endor, Tatooine and "the previously unexplored planet of Sullust" at launch.

Depending on how they have done Battlefront? There could be multiple "maps" planetside. Battlefield 4 has multiple different set-ups to each of their maps, and several of their maps are actually done in such a way that they link up if you know where to look.

That's true. In the good old days, many of the planets did have more than one map, and played very differently on each (Tatooine Dune Sea, for example, was a 3-way slugfest with huge open spaces and tanks/ships galore, while Mos Eisley was a close quaters city fight, with nothing bigger than emplaced turrets).

Also worth mentioning that maps might vary based upon game mode.

So Hoth when played for Walker Assault might be different to Hoth played for Deathmatch or Conquest.

Good to hear 3rd person and no "iron sights" confirmed.

Being a fan of Halo, COD (early MW), and Quake, i find the arguments of precise aiming quite stoopid. COD style is more of a spray and pray regardless what fun you have. Know where enemies most likely lurk? Then sprint, roll/ jump/ slide/ drop there while shooting your gun. If they're there, you win. If they aren't, proceed to next area.


Battlefront was all about laserz and big mechs for me. Still i will not pre-order or buy until i see reviews that EA didn't fill the disk with DLC and it's a Battlefield reskin. That trailer is awesome, but that means nothing.

Not overly impressed but will keep an eye out nonetheless to see how it evolves.

How does DLC buying usually work for EA games? Normally I can refrain from buying all the little add-ons but seeing as this is Battlefront, I will want every new map, gun, or character I can get! Just wondering if they will have a membership type deal where you automatically get the new goodies when they are released?

I just hope it isn't all too expensive. The deluxe pre-order gets you nothing but three different weapons and some emotes that I'll never use. Not worth the extra $10 in my opinion...

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
I didn't, this is afterall a console game.

Just to clarify, it's console and PC.

I'm super excited about this. I still play Battlefront on my Xbox on a regular basis. I'll miss Galactic Conquest mode, but I look forward to what Disney and Dice will tie into the game as more SW stuff comes out.

 Commander Cain wrote:
How does DLC buying usually work for EA games? Normally I can refrain from buying all the little add-ons but seeing as this is Battlefront, I will want every new map, gun, or character I can get! Just wondering if they will have a membership type deal where you automatically get the new goodies when they are released?

It is going to depend on how involved EA was and if they're going the Battlefield route.
EA has done some pretty great things with DLC(the entirety of Mass Effect 3's Multiplayer DLC drive was an EA push from on high; free DLC packs for the MP to prevent fragmenting the playerbase) while also doing some pretty crappy things(the MP had the option for you to use real world cash on in-game random blind boxes. It was a terrible thing because spending actual cash did not improve your chances of getting good items) at the same time.

If I had to hazard a guess, they might do something similar to Battlefield's "Premium" system where you paid around $59.99 for two weeks early access to the DLCs when they came out, and every month got a single in-game "gift pack" that had random upgrades for weapons, emblem components, XP boost consumables, and alternate uniforms.

Personally I felt like I got my money's worth with Premium on BF4. They only just stopped doing the gift packs when Hardline launched, so they definitely keep the goodies rolling.
Also worth noting that if they go this route and you opt to get Premium after the launch or get the game a year on and get Premium then, if they keep as they're doing now? You'll just have a whole stack of boxes to open up.

I just hope it isn't all too expensive. The deluxe pre-order gets you nothing but three different weapons and some emotes that I'll never use. Not worth the extra $10 in my opinion...

Just to clarify: It's not even that you get those items and nobody else can. It is just immediate access to the items.
From the listing?
You get early access to what is likely to be a very late tier unlocked pistol.
Early access to a late tier grenade.
Early access to a late tier upgrade for either a fighter or bomber; or potentially an alternate rocket launcher.

 eskimo wrote:

Battlefront was all about laserz and big mechs for me. Still i will not pre-order or buy until i see reviews that EA didn't fill the disk with DLC and it's a Battlefield reskin. That trailer is awesome, but that means nothing.

Battlefront has been in development for at least two to three years. The development cycle has been this long most likely because of:
A) The desire by Disney/EA to tie it in with the film's release.
B) The fact that it was developed for the current generation of consoles only.

Doing a "Battlefield reskin" would not have worked so well for them, since Battlefield's design work was done in such a way that it would work on all the existing platforms(except Nintendo's).
And for what it's worth, the only DLC that looks to be on disc is the free DLC--which is being locked for promotional purposes, but is still free no matter if you preorder or not.

Even though there could be multiply maps per planet I doubt that they game will have anywhere near as much maps as 2 had. The game will be devolved compared to 2 and 1. With the removal of space battles and the clones wars the base game will be skin and bones compared to others, and does anyone really believe that dice and EA aren't going to abuse the crap out of a gold mine franchise like starwars with DLC and micro transactions. Stick to battlefront 2 with mods.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
I didn't, this is afterall a console game.

Just to clarify, it's console and PC.

It's a console game ported to PC, which means a big lack of user customization "FoV, various AA, god forbid if there is mouse acceleration). If a game is made for both console and PC, it means it has to have very simple control and mechanics to accommodate the consoles controls and hardware. I'm not holding any breath for PC to be able to have dedicated servers, and we'll probably be at the mercy of terrible "match making". And for a game that is the have big scale, I doubt there will be anything bigger than "20 something" vs. "20 something" for teams.

For all intent and purpose, this is a console game.

---


For me the fact that it's only original trilogy is understandable but really disappointing. Sure the prequels are pretty crappy movie wise, but the massive galactic scale war of the Clone Wars would have tons of opportunity for massive scale battles. The lack of that theater of war is a real shame. It's the lack of space battles that really shifts this from "worth buying near releases" to "wait for steam sale". I remember the maps with fighters on them from the first Battlefront, and they were either borderline useless or dominating depending on who was in them. The space battles were a great addon that while not perfect were still fun.

The lack of varied planets also means no Galactic Conquest mode. That mode gave the game longevity and made having space battles matter. Harking to Red Orchestra, that game has a conquest mode that has helped keep the community alive, and makes winning and losing matches matter more. For Battlefront 2, the GC mode gave me hours of play beyond what I would have done otherwise.

From the information that has been released, the upcoming game feel so much more like a downgrade from Battlefront 2. Lack of an entire war, lack of space battles, the focus on original trilogy timeline means there aren't enough heroes (lightsaber wielding ones anyways) for that hero assault mode in Mos Eisley. Yeah that assault mode and the Conquest needed a little bit better implementation, but removing those things just makes it feel like this is an incomplete game.

The really cynical part of me keeps saying that the reason these things aren't included is so that they can either be DLC or other games entirely; EA doing so to milk the consumer for greater profits.

Aside from those thoughts, I'm also a bit wary of this being anything more than a Star Wars reskin of Battlefield. The older games had a nice feeling that they accepted that the games were more towards the arcade-y end of the spectrum, but not over the top TF2 level of arcade-y. The Battlefield series has become an arcade-y series that tries hard to look realistic and what have you, while having all of the arcade mechanics. I don't expect Red Orchestra or ArmA levels of realism in every game, nor do I want them in every game. But don't try to portray that the game tries to be like them when the mechanics clearly aren't anything like it.

Interesting how the trailer says "game engine footage", what does that even mean?

Personally, gameplay > music > graphics

So whatever....

But on the website it says:

Seamlessly swap between 1st person and 3rd person perspectives.

Partner up with a friend in online multiplayer, share unlocks and have each other's backs on the battlefront.

Fight for the Empire or Republic offline, solo or with a friend, in carefully crafted missions.

3rd person, goodo. So that's confirmed.
But partner up with a friend? No 8 player parties :( If that GC 8 player that would still be cool. But essentially are we just going to get 2 vs 2 online and some single player/ splitscreen / AI bot game types?

 ds9lord wrote:
Even though there could be multiply maps per planet I doubt that they game will have anywhere near as much maps as 2 had. The game will be devolved compared to 2 and 1. With the removal of space battles and the clones wars the base game will be skin and bones compared to others, and does anyone really believe that dice and EA aren't going to abuse the crap out of a gold mine franchise like starwars with DLC and micro transactions. Stick to battlefront 2 with mods.

DLC != Microtransactions.

And what's more, DICE does not really have a history of microtransactions. At least nothing to the point where it is "abuse".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 eskimo wrote:
Interesting how the trailer says "game engine footage", what does that even mean?

That it was made using the game engine, but not directly pulled from gameplay footage.

They did something similar in parts of the trailers for BF4's DLC packages.

Battlefield hardline had battle boxes which was pretty much micro transactions. Besides EA has a very large history of micro transactions.

 ds9lord wrote:
Battlefield hardline had battle boxes which was pretty much micro transactions. Besides EA has a very large history of micro transactions.

The problem is that you're defining completely optional purchases that nobody in their right mind would buy with mandatory microtransactions.

You don't NEED to buy those battle boxes with real money. You have the OPTION to buy them with real money. It's the same thing as they have done with Dragon Age: Inquisition and Mass Effect 3's MP.
Recently they added that to BF4 as well, but again nobody in their right mind would buy blind boxes that have no guarantee of better item acquisition.

If they are still offering them then there are people who are buying them. You'd be surprised about how dumb some people are when it comes to micro transactions.

BioWare put the number of people who were buying packs at something like 2% of the overall gaming population that played ME3.

The number would spike when a new multiplayer DLC would drop, but when they ran a poll the majority of people who were responsible for the spike were essentially just buying packs as a way of showing appreciation for the free DLC.

I'm glad that there isn't campaign, it allows the team to focus on the most important thing in any game: multiplayer. I also didn't really like the SW:BFII Space Battles, (I preferred BF 1's system) so this game seems awesome.

Oh, and another thing, I'm really excited about the lack of stupid clones and droids.

Yeah I wasn't a big fan of BF2 space battles either, you just ended up in a bomber flying over the enemy cruiser and not much else. Dogfights will be so much better, flying through canyons with Tie fighters right on your heels with some awesome looking terrain rushing past you.

I am super excited.

Mos Eisley map, Assault game mode, anyone?

Please be good.

Please.

DICE has lots of good ideas behind them, and maybe stepping away from the BF license will give them more freedom of implementation - EA really doesn't favour innovation in their established IPs, so I'll consider myself cautiously optimistic.

All glory to the Empire.