-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Leaked Battlefront info (40 players, heroes, free Ep7 DLC, FPS & TPS) [Full Screens]
- Thread starter Sn4ke_911
- Start date
They've finally come to the conclusion that their engine can't do 64 players on consoles and are instead finally choosing to build the game around smaller player counts where the game won't be laggy as hell and will maybe even hold at least half of the fps target.
Edit: Sorry but every time I play BF4 Conquest Large on PS4 I get really mad at DICE for how laggy it is and how it rarely runs at an actual 60fps. It's such a waste of potential to build the whole game around that mode when we could have awesome modes with lower players counts, eliminating most of the lag and running at 60fps, like Rush and Obliteration do.
Edit: Sorry but every time I play BF4 Conquest Large on PS4 I get really mad at DICE for how laggy it is and how it rarely runs at an actual 60fps. It's such a waste of potential to build the whole game around that mode when we could have awesome modes with lower players counts, eliminating most of the lag and running at 60fps, like Rush and Obliteration do.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
I don't see spin here. SWBF1 had fighters on ground maps and SWBF2 had them only in space maps. They've gone back to the original formula here.
2X LOL²
DOWN
Banned
Agreed. He can't just say no or it sounds like there's no dogfighting, when really there is and it's just a factor on the regular maps.
Portugeezer
Gold Member
I mean, I understand why they don't want to talk about what the game WON'T have, but the trailer showed as much already and the question wasn't about that.
No thanks, Conquest Large on 64 players for me is absolutely acceptable, considering it's a cross-generation title aswell.
Should play Hardline then. Very solid fps compared to BF4. So it has already improved.
So AT-AT's will be AI controlled stuff like BTL Y-wing starfighters?
Scripted on rails, you can control the cannons. So, yes.
I dont mind really. What if in Battlefield someone could fly freely the AC 130. Probably came up with the same reason for this.
The question specifically asked for space battles though. They could've said: "No space battles, but you'll be able to dogfight in the regular maps." or something similar. Instead they didn't answer the question at all.
I dont mind really. What if in Battlefield someone could fly freely the AC 130. Probably came up with the same reason for this.
Last time I played BF4 no one cared about AC-130 in any way as it's death sentence to spawn in that sucker. Jets take it out in blink of an eye for some free XP and if some sorry newbie spawned into it also gives some free extra XP.
Makes me expect to see AT-AT's walking around and not doing anything else, then someone paints it for AI controlled Y-wings and gets 100 XP for AT-AT kill.
SargerusBR
I love Pokken!
Why would you assume driving the AT-AT would be better? Those things are really slow.
I'd say with BF4's patches both games run about the same on Conquest Large; except for a couple of maps in BF4 like Hainian Resort, which is an absolute shitfest.
I don't want to say that CQL is unplayable, I'm just happy DICE seems to be focusing on delivering a tight MP experience, instead of throwing around big numbers (64 players) and then half-assing it. I would have enjoyed a Rush or Obliteration focused BF4 a lot more for the mere fact that these modes run worlds better, so I'm happy about the news that SWBF is only 40 players.
At least you could fuck around with it or not walk into enemies etc., but AI forced on rails movement throws all that out of the window. I'm surprised if it's anything else than huge and slow bucket of free XP.
Is it okey that I'm disappointed about this design decision?
BattleMonkey
Member
You could use AT-AT's in the original Battlefront. It was boring as all shit.
SargerusBR
I love Pokken!
Yep in BF2 they served mostly as spawn points
I dont mind really. What if in Battlefield someone could fly freely the AC 130. Probably came up with the same reason for this.
Yeah, if the AT-AT is at least part of the objective in that mode, a match is going to fall apart if you have some dipshit controlling it.
I can't say I'm too broken up about up. AT-ATs don't really make any sense they have hinges, they can't turn.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Yeah. Treating them like carriers in BF4 is a better approach. I remember, we could mod SWBF2 on the PS2 via the servers and we'd completely disable the AT-AT's weapons to just make it a mobile spawn point.
Not when they put it on maps wich hadnt any jets...
So I'm guessing this means that piloting vehicles is locked to one view (based on the trailer, first person). He mentions "when playing as a soldier".
ElzarTheBam
Member
The only problem arises when there's more game modes.
Take for instance all the maps in BF pre bad company (CQ)and BC1 and 2 (rush, apart from heavy metal) were made for one game type.
I would love if it just built on one game type and then the other modes were built round that maps.
Otherwise you kind of thin the map selection out merely by having maps that doesn't suit every game mode.
Beta Stage
Neo Member
Even if the game looks half as good as that trailer, I am still going to buy it day 1. Yes, I am weak to all things Star Wars... Don't judge me. Oh, and one more thing. I cannot believe that they actually put splitscreen, offline bots, and both first and third person view modes in. It is like DICE actually listened.
Gamezone
Gold Member
It doesn't look like there will be multiplayer bots like Battlefront 2 had. I think these are limited to the smaller "missions" they are speaking of, and so is splitscreen.
Psychoward
Banned
No galactic conquest, no prequels, no space fights, no online split screen, no traditional campaign, 8 maps, 4 planets, "battle pickups" - all under the defense of "IT'S BATTLEFRONT NOT BATTLEFRONT 3".
ElzarTheBam
Member
WAT
Bedameister
Member
No galactic conquest, no prequels, no space fights, no online third person, no traditional campaign, 8 maps, 4 planets, "battle pickups" - all under the defense of "IT'S BATTLEFRONT NOT BATTLEFRONT 3".
um you sure about that?
Psychoward
Banned
EASTC0AST_GH05T
Member
did you play battlefront 1 and 2? if so how was the "Traditional Campaign" ?
Psychoward
Banned
Well I thought they would have at least had it considering Galactic Conquest is out but it doesn't seem like it. for the record though it did have a "campaign", even if it was kind of a joke
JumPeRJumPzZ
Banned
No galactic conquest, no prequels, no space fights, no online split screen, no traditional campaign, 8 maps, 4 planets, "battle pickups" - all under the defense of "IT'S BATTLEFRONT NOT BATTLEFRONT 3".
Whats your problem? Thats how it is.
You people got disappointed because you expected a sequel. A sequel to a 10 years old game and two generations of Hardware later.
8 maps wasnt confirmed. It will be more.
Battlefront never had a traditional campaign and there is no need to.
Space fights is nothing different than fighting above the ground on a planet. Wow...
The overreaction and absurd pointless complaining from some people...
Psychoward
Banned
Joke's on me for not expecting LESS content than EITHER BF1 or 2, yep silly me. Because it's 10 years later and they had two generations of hardware in between there should be more content and more features - not less. There's no excuse to scrap Galactic Conquest, Space Battles, the Prequels and the pitiful number of launch maps. Show me one improvement that the game has over any of its predecessors and I'll gladly buy it. Even DICE themselves couldn't think of an improvement - instead saying it's "immersive" as a selling point. Sorry I've stopped lapping up that bullshit years ago.
Psychoward
Banned
Then they should have used their development time to reboot 1 and 2 with updated graphics on the current systems - would have had more content than this one at least.
Terbinator
Member
Wait, no Galactic Conquest?
WTF.
WTF.
JumPeRJumPzZ
Banned
I had the same kind of arguing with someone on twitter...
I will say it again if you want. You simply should have never expected a sequel. Thats the honest truth. Ive warned people everywhere to not expect stuff from the old games. Which mostly turned out true.
The game has what, 2 years of development? It isnt so easy anymore to create maps, models etc... this is not 2005 anymore.
Get over it already.
THIS
There are only 4 planets because this game is based off of the events that took place in the original trilogy movies. There are literally only 4 planets in all 3 movies combined that actually have Rebel/Empire battles. 2/4 of those aren't even seen in the movies.
The "campaign" in Battlefront 2 was literally just missions of important battles in chronological order. I'm pretty sure it is the exact same thing, now there is just split-screen co-op.
Space fights will happen without a doubt, there is no chance it won't be DLC. And it's not like there are no ship to ship fights.
- Idk about Galactic Conquest but I doubt space battles are out of the question it just won't be there at launch is fine. And it's not like you won't be able to battle in ships.
- I'm almost certain Disney is the reason why this game is focused on the original trilogy, not DICE.
- If there are more than 2 maps per planet and there are 4 planets that means there are atleast 12 maps.
(Battlefield 4 shipped with 10 maps, Call of Duty multiplayer usually ships between 10-15 maps.)
Psychoward
Banned
BF1 attracted people by being a new type of Star Wars game
BF2 attracted people by adding in Space Battles, Galactic Conquest and Heroes
BF3 attracted people by ????? (help me fill in the blank)
If they didn't want it to be considered a sequel they would have named it something else - not having a number 3 at the end of the title shouldn't give it free reign to cut out everything that made the series popular in the first place and it's sad that I have to argue that.
No - it's not only based off the original trilogy. Hell the first DLC is based around Episode 7 - they easily could have added more planets to add more variety, it's a video game. And yes the campaign was kinda barebones in 2, that means they should have EXPANDED on it, along with keeping Galactic Conquest in not scrapping it. And lol at relying on DLC to fill in the gaps - not only is that depressing, there certainly IS doubt that they will happen considering as of now they aren't in the game.Eggbok said:
They technically only had like 2 years dev time. I'm sure they would have liked to include more but they have a deadline and I'm sure this helps in making the product more functional at launch. I would not be shocked if something like space battles is in an expansion later on. If Battlefront has expansions like BF4 we are in for a wealth of content.
Terbinator
Member
No Galactic Conquest no buy. I'll just wait for BF5 instead.