Star Wars Battlefront - Developed By DICE (2015; PS4, XB1, PC)

[Junko]

Lemme just.

I like this game.

[DarkRula]

Yeah. This is great. Drop Zones offer a real contained focus of battle with the smaller maps, and Sullust looks absolutely gorgeous.

Walker Assault is great fun and is definitely my most played mode. Had numerous races to get the hero token, none of which I won. I really want to at least try them out at least. The Rebels really need to work for that win though.

[Willsy]

Let me just say that I LOVE this game so far. Walker Assault was seriously imbalanced yesterday and favoured the Empire a lot more, however I have seen a couple of Rebel victories today. Winning Walker Assault as the Rebellion is difficult but really gratifying, a lot moreso than Imperial victories. 

Overall, the gunplay, sound design, and visuals are all top notch, Walker Assault can be a lot of fun when played correctly on the Rebel side and Drop Zone, while basic, is pretty fun too. My only complaint is the partner system/lack of squads. You can only take one player around the game with you, and while people who are in the same PS4/XB1 party as you do get a notification and an 'invite' to join your session, it doesn't prevent them from being shunted on to the enemy team. That's really my only issue though.

[Kaze no Klonoa]

I streamed a ton of it's gameplay earlier yesterday! Take a watch.

 

So the game's not half bad. It kinda feels like Battlefield but at the same time plays nothing like it. I feel like the Rebels really get the short end of the stick though. The weapons need tons of balancing. The game's optimization is not bad on PC, although I do think it can be better .Those requirements are a lie, since this game can run on many setups including mine, but this thing struggles to run the best on my PC. The AT-AT Assualt gamemode was fun until you realize that the only way the rebels can win is if the team has good enough pilots. The Co-Op Survival Mode is really lame tbh, I'd much rather play a campaign then this. The enemies (like in the movies) shoot horribly and become instant cannon fodder, in addition to your character having higher defense because it's a survival mode.

The one thing about this beta that I hated the most was it's spawn points though. The Spawn Points in this game are TERRIBLE. It constantly shifts depending on player location/phase in the game, and it's incredibly disorienting. Why couldn't they do it like Battlefield where you could at least pick which spawn you could go to?

Anyway, besides those problems, it's not looking too bad. Stellar presentation, great visuals, fantastic optimization, and the fact that it's unquestionably Star Wars makes this shooter not a bad one to check out next month. I'm still going to wait, because if anything I doubt these problems will entirely be fixed at launch, and that's worrying.

[DarkRula]

If a Rebel can find the orbital strike weapon and not waste it, those AT-AT's come down like leaves in a storm.

Proof that the rebels can win.

Of course... people always waste the orbital strikes without realising their potential. You have to be able to line it up pretty good though, which means finding a place to hide while activating it.

[shdowhunt60]

This game will not have iron sights.

 

I'm still mainly in a 'wait and see' mood for this game, but my hype just increased dramatically. Fuck iron sights.

I almost have to wonder what your beef with iron sights are. My personal gripe is that you have all these "realistic" games using them, because it's "realistic" and then they do the incredibly cringeworthy thing and give completely the wrong site picture.

As an example:

http://www.gatheryourparty.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/1280px-BF3_G3A3_Iron_Sight-920x575.jpg

What the hell is this? Why are they aligning the sight with the sight guards? If it was "realistic" you'd be shooting over what you're aiming at. You're doing it wrong!

Amazes me when some idiot steps up on a podium, complains about Call of Duty, and goes all "VIDYAJAMES ARE TEACHING OUR CHILLUN TO KILL", and it's like... Really? They're doing a bad job at it then.

[Willsy]

I was in a match earlier on the Rebel team and both AT-AT's came down not even half way to the second checkpoint. When the Rebels know what they are doing, they really do know what they are doing. 

 

[Regen]

The game looks nice but this is not Battlefront. I'm a huge fan of Battlefront, so I was really excited for this, but it's much weaker than even Battlefront 1 when it comes to features and it's just so much more shallow. There's no depth.

To me it's just another case of graphics and presentation being prioritised over gameplay substance.

[Junko]

I almost have to wonder what your beef with iron sights are. My personal gripe is that you have all these "realistic" games using them, because it's "realistic" and then they do the incredibly cringeworthy thing and give completely the wrong site picture.

As an example:

http://www.gatheryourparty.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/1280px-BF3_G3A3_Iron_Sight-920x575.jpg

What the hell is this? Why are they aligning the sight with the sight guards? If it was "realistic" you'd be shooting over what you're aiming at. You're doing it wrong!

Amazes me when some idiot steps up on a podium, complains about Call of Duty, and goes all "VIDYAJAMES ARE TEACHING OUR CHILLUN TO KILL", and it's like... Really? They're doing a bad job at it then.

It's... nothing to do with that, it's because the previous Battlefront games didn't have iron sights.

[Mando-Whirl-Wind]

The game looks nice but this is not Battlefront. I'm a huge fan of Battlefront, so I was really excited for this, but it's much weaker than even Battlefront 1 when it comes to features and it's just so much more shallow. There's no depth.

To me it's just another case of graphics and presentation being prioritised over gameplay substance.

Exactly what I've been worried about since it was announced by EA. Heck they left out the prequel era using movie unpopularity as an excuse despite the fact that the Clone Wars cartoon is one of the most praised things to come out of star wars, it was a staple of the Battlefront series, and the irony that the battles were the thing people actually LIKED out of the prequel movies. Also the whole "canon battlegrounds only" excuse that resulted in the lack of Bespin and deathstar maps

[Regen]

I hate the prequel films, but the Clone Wars era has no good excuse for not being in. If they were deepening the game to justify a single era I wouldn't be upset, but it's much more shallow than the last two games, so there's no good reason for the absence.

[shdowhunt60]

It's... nothing to do with that, it's because the previous Battlefront games didn't have iron sights.

Well, previous Battlefront games weren't anything like the new game at all.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

Well, previous Battlefront games weren't anything like the new game at all.

Which for anyone expecting the traditional experience and fun you'd get out of Battlefront as opposed to Battlefield, poses quite a few legitimate quandaries.

[shdowhunt60]

Which for anyone expecting the traditional experience and fun you'd get out of Battlefront as opposed to Battlefield, poses quite a few legitimate quandaries.

Well, the irony is, is that I wouldn't even say that Battlefront isn't really like Battlefield, except the more (I hate the word) linear level design. Battlefield and Battlefront were typically much more sandbox-y experiences, even if they were incredibly different in terms of gameplay mechanics. There's a few exceptions to this, but you know.

It does make me a bit confused that they're associating it with the Battlefront name, and yet this game has almost absolutely nothing to do with the prior Battlefronts. It's a very confusing direction. And yet I can't find myself as upset as I was with Bethesda's inept handling of the Fallout franchise when they took that over.

[Willsy]

Which for anyone expecting the traditional experience and fun you'd get out of Battlefront as opposed to Battlefield, poses quite a few legitimate quandaries.

Take this from somebody who has played both Battlefield and new Battlefront; it's nothing like Battlefield. I think you are forgetting that the original Battlefronts were almost direct copy/pastes of Battlefield, and if DICE were to just do a direct follow up to the originals, it would basically be Battlefield and people would still be complaining that it's too similar. Its damned if you do, damned if you don't for them, so at least they are taking the liberty to actually differentiate it, whether or not people will actually acknowledge that it's a completely different game.

 

Edited October 12, 2015 by The Dog

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

As someone who's played both as well,  I have no idea where you're coming from suggesting that the Battlefront games were actually copy/paste derivatives of Battlefront. Why do you think people are already comparing this new game to Battlefield?  Because Battlefront and Battlefield had mechanics,  modes and overall structures that differentiated themselves from each other. And this game appears to be breaking quite a few of those distinctions.

I won't say that this new Battlefront game is truthfully bad,  it's actually rather legit from what I've played and seen. Heck,  I won't even call it a complete knock-off of Battlefield wrapped in Star Wars skin. My major issue is that compared to the previous Battlefront games,  it feels rather shallow,  a bit lacking, and it's more comparable to Battlefield than Battlefront. 

Edited October 12, 2015 by Jovahexeon Joranvexeon

[Blacklightning]

I almost have to wonder what your beef with iron sights are.

Adding to what's already been said, a big part of it is that ironsights are typically used to solve a problem that the developers themselves manufactured to justify it - that being, accuracy tends to be crap without it when ideally they could've just made your gun shoot straight at your cursor in the first place without losing a single iota of depth. Fair enough if it's just there for a slight zoom when you're not close/mid ranging (or peeking into your scope if you have one, naturally), but even if it's ever preferable for a game's playstyle to require sacrificing mobility for marksmanship you can already accomplish that perfectly fine just by applying accuracy debuffs based on your movement speed, something the industry had already basically perfected not long after Deus Ex did it.

That being said I haven't played Battlefront or Battlefield to see how they compare or how they apply here - this just seemed like a general question, so it only seemed fair to provide a general answer.

[Kaze no Klonoa]

Adding to what's already been said, a big part of it is that ironsights are typically used to solve a problem that the developers themselves manufactured to justify it - that being, accuracy tends to be crap without it when ideally they could've just made your gun shoot straight at your cursor in the first place without losing a single iota of depth. Fair enough if it's just there for a slight zoom when you're not close/mid ranging (or peeking into your scope if you have one, naturally), but even if it's ever preferable for a game's playstyle to require sacrificing mobility for marksmanship you can already accomplish that perfectly fine just by applying accuracy debuffs based on your movement speed, something the industry had already basically perfected not long after Deus Ex did it.

That being said I haven't played Battlefront or Battlefield to see how they compare or how they apply here - this just seemed like a general question, so it only seemed fair to provide a general answer.

Especially in games with high mobility (COD AW and Titanfall among examples), iron sights instantly stop you at the fast pace you're going (making you a vulnerable player), and you can probably shoot better without ironsights.

Battlefront and Battlefield are a lot more larger map-wise, so the justification for ironsights is that they'll help you with things like sniping, etc. That's alright, but Battlefront is more of a running and gunning thing, so stuff like Drop Zone (where the maps are a lot more close quarters) is basically nothing but sprint to the objective and gun everybody down.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Mae

[Willsy]

As someone who's played both as well,  I have no idea where you're coming from suggesting that the Battlefront games were actually copy/paste derivatives of Battlefront. Why do you think people are already comparing this new game to Battlefield?  Because Battlefront and Battlefield had mechanics,  modes and overall structures that differentiated themselves from each other. And this game appears to be breaking quite a few of those distinctions.

I won't say that this new Battlefront game is truthfully bad,  it's actually rather legit from what I've played and seen. Heck,  I won't even call it a complete knock-off of Battlefield wrapped in Star Wars skin. My major issue is that compared to the previous Battlefront games,  it feels rather shallow,  a bit lacking, and it's more comparable to Battlefield than Battlefront. 

The default mode Conquest in the original Battlefronts were identical in objective to the default Battlefield mode of the same name, even the map structure was similar (albeit with Battlefield having more in-depth map design). The only thing that differentiated the two series' were hero characters and space battles in Battlefront. Granted, aerial battles in the new Battlefront aren't in space (which is a bit of a shame, a Death Star map for Fighter Squadrons would be cool), so you can't really call them space battles anymore, but heroes are still there and the overall feel of the game to me just feels like an different beast to DICE's previous work (as well as the original Battlefronts). 

As for it being shallow, I'm not going to come to a conclusion just yet as the beta is effectively a demo. I like the more casual pick up and play approach to it though, the only shooters that have done that recently are Splatoon and Plants Vs Zombies: Garden Warfare and I really enjoyed those games. 

Overall I'm going to give DICE the benefit of the doubt but if it's not very good I'll probably return it.

[Willsy]

All modes have been detailed:

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1123306

Heroes versus villains mode! Also, the description for the 'offline' battles sounds like it will be akin to instant action in the originals, but with split screen/online co-op as well. Very nice. Hero Hunt sounds interesting too.

The main reason I'm buying this game right now though is Fighter Squadrons. I want that injected into my veins ASAP. 

[Junko]

Of course there's Season Pass, why wouldn't there be?

EA has revealed the details of the Star Wars Battlefront's $50 USD season pass.

The season pass will include 4 expansion packs, early access to the expansions by 2 weeks, an exclusive "Shoot First" emote and the promise of more details in the coming weeks.

The season pass is currently available for pre-order through the PlayStation store, the Xbox store, or EA's own Origin service.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Athena Cykes

[Willsy]

Ugh, will definitely wait on a price cut on that season pass. From what I've heard though, Battlefield 4's season pass had a lot of good content and is still getting content, so at least it's not Arkham Knights £40(?) season pass where must of the content so far has been pretty shite all things considered.

In other news, the beta has ended and had over 9 million players overall, making it the biggest beta EA have ever had. I had a lot of fun with it and the wait until next month is going to be difficult.

[Junko]

EA DICE revealed that you can also play as Han, Leia and Emperor Palpatine.

 

[AdventChild]

Speaking of season pass....

 

[Mando-Whirl-Wind]

Also, how much you want to bet we'll get some prequel content via season pass since they want to milk us so badly