Star Wars Battlefront ;)

  • Thread starter dice1998
  • 898 comments
  • 38,397 views
I don't think any of it is gameplay.
 
Furinkazen


I'm unfamiliar with current gen consoles, so how much of this is pre rendered and is any gameplay?
Click to expand...
Not sure how to answer that unfortunately, but I will say this, it does look interesting. 👍 Kind of makes me want to get a PS4 just to play it.

I hope they do a better job with Darth Vader's voice than they did in Battlefront II. I hate to be critical, but his voice sounded horrible in Battlefront II. :crazy: Hopefully it will be improved in the new Battlefront.
 
I worry about the Frostbite engine. I hope there's some magic in it that only Dice knows about, but I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot of its limitations.
 
Clark
I don't think any of it is gameplay.
Click to expand...
Looks like maybe 5% of it is actual gameplay.

MildAshers
It's already been confirmed as in game, game play footage. As hard as it may be to believe as it looks so stunning.
Click to expand...
Looks like maybe 5% of it is actual gameplay. The majority for sure is in game CGI.

Waheed
Looks amazing but if it was gameplay they would have said
Click to expand...
Exactly. The majority of that is in game CGI with a very tiny bit of gameplay.

The gameplay graphics will for sure look good but not the CGI good you are seeing.
 
Just read PCGamer's article about it. Maximum 40 players, no space battles, and DLC battles. 🤬

WHY do I even bother getting excited for games published by EA anymore?
 
CallmeDan
Just read PCGamer's article about it. Maximum 40 players, no space battles, and DLC battles. 🤬

WHY do I even bother getting excited for games published by EA anymore?
Click to expand...
See? Frostbite fail.
 
CallmeDan
Just read PCGamer's article about it. Maximum 40 players, no space battles, and DLC battles. 🤬

WHY do I even bother getting excited for games published by EA anymore?
Click to expand...
That's surprising its only 40 players. Even BF4 has 64 players. On the other hand I guess its not that surprising.
 
ImmalovemaGTR
Watt
Click to expand...

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/no-campaign-mode-for-star-wars-battlefront/1100-6426716/

Just shorter mission ( 2 co-op play available though )


"DICE's upcoming first-person shooter Star Wars: Battlefront will not have a traditional campaign mode similar to the ones found in the developer's previous Battlefield games. Instead, Battlefront will include smaller, shorter missions that can be played solo or in split-screen co-op with a friend offline or online.


"The game is first and foremost a multiplayer game," producer Patrick Bach told IGN. "[The original Battlefront] was a multiplayer game. That's the game we wanted to create--to recreate the battles of the Original Trilogy."

In our own new preview of Battlefront, editor Chris Watters explains that DICE was not forthcoming with details about how these co-op missions would work. Developers said only that these missions will take place within the settings of the multiplayer maps. That would mean places like Hoth and Endor, among others.

Additional details about Battlefront's co-op mode will be announced at E3 in June."
 
"Game engine footage" could mean anything. Of course it's not gameplay, trailers hardly ever use real gameplay for practical reasons and I don't think , but it could still be real-time rendered graphics. You could buy Star Wars Battlefront, plug it in, and the graphics could be that good. But I'm skeptical. It's far more likely those are graphics that are pre-rendered on a dev computer.

Still, I'd be a happy camper if the graphics were half as good as those of the trailer. And it's not impossible that the Frostbite 3 at full tilt will deliver graphic gloriousness on levels approaching those of the second half of the trailer - I mean, look at Battlefield 4 or DA: Inquisition, keeping in mind that those two games had to work on the PS3/XBOX 360, too, and tell me it's entirely impossible Battlefront will look that good.
 
devs have been tweeting the game will look like this, I wouldn't be surprised if it looks close to this but at 60 FPS? yeah right.

Dissapointed there is no campaign but the game looks incredible.
 
sems4arsenal
devs have been tweeting the game will look like this, I wouldn't be surprised if it looks close to this but at 60 FPS? yeah right.

Dissapointed there is no campaign but the game looks incredible.
Click to expand...
Probably why they dropped from the usual 64 players, to 40. Still with so little to go off of, who knows.
 
sems4arsenal
devs have been tweeting the game will look like this, I wouldn't be surprised if it looks close to this but at 60 FPS? yeah right.

Dissapointed there is no campaign but the game looks incredible.
Click to expand...

Developers ALWAYS say that the game will look as good as the trailer. They want people to be excited.

I have a feeling this will play out like Watch Dogs.
 
I figured I'd give my opinions of the news I heard from this thread:
Maximum 40 Players: That's fine with me.
No campaign: Meh. If we get Galactic Conquest back that'll be ok.
No space battles: Very disappointed. I loved the space battles in Battlefront 2 and I was looking forward to them.
DLC battles: While it's cringeworthy, I think it can be looked past. If you like the maps in the DLC, buy it. If not, don't buy it.
 
DurWinning
I figured I'd give my opinions of the news I heard from this thread:
Maximum 40 Players: That's fine with me.
No campaign: Meh. If we get Galactic Conquest back that'll be ok.
No space battles: Very disappointed. I loved the space battles in Battlefront 2 and I was looking forward to them.
DLC battles: While it's cringeworthy, I think it can be looked past. If you like the maps in the DLC, buy it. If not, don't buy it.
Click to expand...

But why should we have to pay for the DLC? Isn't $60 enough for them?
 
CallmeDan
But why should we have to pay for the DLC? Isn't $60 enough for them?
Click to expand...

The short answer is: no.

The long answer is: with the costs necessary to produce and promote a game nowadays, $60 simply aren't enough for a developer to make back the money sunk into producing a game. Especially one that is ambitious and bound to a famous (and expensive to license) IP like Star Wars.

Besides, DLC itself has its own development costs.

P.S: the last EA-published Star Wars game to come out, BioWare's SWTOR, costed $200 million to develop. To make their money back at $60 per copy, they'd have to sell 3 million copies. SWTOR fell 1 million short and has, generally speaking, bombed.
 
I would imagine the 40-player limitation comes from the fact that 64-player is absolute rubbish in Battlefield 3 and 4, the maps aren't and can't be designed for it - not if they're adamant that players shouldn't have to travel far between objectives. I never played a single 64-player game of BF3/4 that wasn't just a stalemate meat grinder set up just so that people could get a ton of kills for unlocks. 32-player games on the same size maps were still a bit like that, but you actually had room to move and use some tactics, when there are players in every corridor and every route is full of people, you can't really flank or dig in because there'll be another enemy you need to flank or you'll get shot in the back. 40 players is good for the size the maps will probably be (assuming they're Battlefield-sized), more players is not always good.

As for that video, sure it's in-engine but it's not real time. There's just no way.

No campaign? No problem, no-one on EA's payroll (outside of Bioware, at least) knows how to write a half-decent campaign. That's four hours less cringing for me, that's actually a win as far as I'm concerned.

DLC: This is EA, the people who are still trying to sell me BF4 kit unlock shortcuts even though I've already unlocked everything included in them. If you think EA are going to release a big-budget game without DLC you are sorely mistaken. They play it safe and they set everything they release up for serious milking, monetising everything short of controller layouts, graphics options and... Umm... But that's just the way the AAA industry is now. EA are certainly leading the way, though.
 
I was thinking, since this will probably be similar to Battlefield, space battles could work. Simply make it the Air Superiority game mode and there you go! I wouldn't think it would be too hard.
 
Is the trailer gameplay? Well, depends. Is it footage recorded from actual people playing multiplayer? I doubt it. Is it footage recorded in real time in-engine with pre-made animations? I'd say yes. The leap in graphical fidelity this generation comes down to PBR, or Physically Based Rendering. PBR has seriously stepped up GFX fidelity without a massive hit on performance. Expect games that look like what could only have been pre-rendered CGI trailers of last gen (or better).
 
Wow after all these years what a dissapointment. No space battles is the real kicker for me, even Free Radical was going to have space battles and had a cool way of going from a land battle and flying all the way up into space.

Regarding the graphics I really thought we were beyond the days of bull pre rendered trailers, no way could anything reasonable handle that as a target. Maybe a Titan X but nothing else. As for consoles no way! I really stinks when companies do this because people that don't get tech are lead to believe that's PS4 footage.
 
Last edited:
CallmeDan
Developers ALWAYS say that the game will look as good as the trailer. They want people to be excited.

I have a feeling this will play out like Watch Dogs.
Click to expand...

Having played the gorgeous open world Dragon age Inquisition, such graphics shown won't be far fetched from reality in my opinion (at 30 not 60 FPS), don't get me wrong there will be no doubt a downgrade but I don't see a Watchdogs situation here since it's a current gen only game.
 
Maximum 40 Players: As long as the maps have the right size this is ok. If they are the size of the biggest BF maps it will be pretty boring though. Maps like Giants of Karelia and Bandar Desert already feel pretty empty with 64 players...

No campaign: That is the best news so far. Campaigns in BF were always a waste of time and ssd space.

No space battles: That is the worst news so far. They were the best part of Battlefront 2. Sad to lose them -.-

DLC battles: Surprise! Surprise! As long as they offer the same amount of content like BF- Premium I'm ok with it...
 
I mean MAG on PS3 had 256 player maps for goodness sake! I cannot see why something a generation ahead can not achieve the same feat. With scalable graphics for distant players it can still look good and have that many players. I hope there are additional NPC's in the battle.

The DLC bit is also worrying, you just know your going to receive 20% of the game at launch and spend the next 5 years buying every damn map pack imaginable. It seems they are only covering the sequel trilogy to start so everything in 1,2,3 and 7 is likely to cost extra :yuck:
 

Latest Posts

Back