Star Wars Battlefront's features compared to 2005's Battlefront 2 to see what's missing.
So lemme get this straight. In 2015, you get half the game you paid for in 2005. Uh huh. Good job, EA.
don't worry, either they'll be available for DLC later, or they'll be in the sequel and it'll be super revolutionary for the series, i'm totally cereal.
You said it brother... That is absolutely insane and unacceptable. It literally has less than half the content, but way more planned DLC. So basically you can buy the first half of the game for $60,and get the complete game through DLC.
"But.. Graphics.. You guys like graphics right? We heard you like graphics. If we knew this before hand, we might not have cut all the cool parts to reach such a high graphic fidelity.."
yo dawg...heard you like graphics? So we gave you trailer graphics of the graphics, so you can enjoy the graphics while you enjoy the graphics...only the graphics.
It's exactly the same with halo 4, it's hilarious that's the only part of the game that get praised, but fanboys will still defend it, like they will battlefront, so don't bother , as longhand graphics are good, the overall game will be considered great, aka halo 4
Cant wait for 'em $4.99 emotes or $9.99 change your lightsaber colors. /s
It's almost like people don't get how much more work goes into a game in 2015 vs a game in 2005. Considering how much the industry and the nature of game development has changed in the last 10 years, none of this is at all surprising to me. Game development shouldn't be about "how many features can we check off on this list to make it more appealing to the people that are impossible to please". It should be about "how can we boil down the essence of this and make it a fun experience for us, our play-testers and gamers of all level of skill and dedication". Why are people still completely baffled that a AAA shooter is going to have an aggressive DLC strategy? I'm fully expecting a "Battlefront Premium" for $50, because that's what DICE have done in the past and that's what's worked for the most part. You guys realize this is a reboot and not a sequel, right? DICE are creating something from scratch here, not modifying the 10 year old code and asset base. For the sake of gameplay, developers have to put limitations on what can happen in a multiplayer world. If it was just pure chaos like everyone seems to want, would that really make the game better? Probably not.
Have to agree with this. Production and development of games has come a long way in 10 years. Game environments are bigger, more interaction, better graphics, higher resolution and everything else that might come with today's game development chores. But I do understand where other people are coming from and a game that had a certain set of features and gameplay modes that made the experience memorable that are now removed in the next, newest installment, regardless of whether it's a re-boot or not should be cause for alarm and disappointment. I think this late in the game era and on the 8th(?) generation of consoles we should just accept that DLC is going to be apart of games. No point in arguing about if it will have it or not, because every AAA game will have DLC. The discussion should be are we going to support certain DLC for games. I can honestly say I myself was disappointed that there wasn't any space battles or controlling of AT-ATs and I even stated that more than likely it will be offered later in DLC. But I am still looking forward to the game.
i waited 10 years for this shit?
Also inflation. Game prices didn't go up this gen so they're stuck selling games that cost a lot more in 2005. Edit: typical MSRP of games in the US at the starting of the last three generations $50(2000)~=$69(2015) $60(2005)~=$73(2015)
I have to respectfully disagree. DICE are using the frostbite engine here. They did NIT create this engine for this game. So in short what we have here is BF4 re skinned and with new maps. Had they included space battles and actually leveraged flight it would be a bit easier to swallow. As it stands this is a bare bones release with content pay walls whoring out the star wsrs license. The fact that you need to spend110 on this is ridiculous. This is where gaming is heading. Nickel and diming for everything. EA - f you and the executives in the C suite that are doing this. I for one will not be buying....ignore gamers refused these practices they would stop. Instead you lot are lining up. Grab your Vaseline in November!! Cause you are getting fked!
You realize by that logic, any game DICE creates from now on that does not have space battles will simply be a reskinned Battlefield 4 because they didn't remake the entire engine, right? "The fact that you need to spend110 on this is ridiculous. This is where gaming is heading. Nickel and diming for everything." That's not where gaming is going, that's where it's been for the better part of a decade now. Clinging to this "OH, THE GOOD OLD DAYS" mentality is just going to ruin gaming for you. Wake up. This is where AAA licensed games are in 2015. It's not ideal, but we have a healthy, sustainable industry going for now, and that's a good thing. $50 DLC bundles is not "nickel and diming". It's $50 for crying out loud. That's an investment in a game you already bought and expect to enjoy for the next 18-24 months. DICE have always been good with their Premium content strategies. I bought BF3 and BF4 Premium because I've been playing those games for years and intend to keep playing them. The latest BF4 map pack is the best one they've ever released, so if they continue on that path, I expect Battlefront's map packs to be of comparable quality. "I for one will not be buying....ignore gamers refused these practices they would stop. Instead you lot are lining up." Yeah, that's fine. No one really cares if you refuse to buy a game out of some sort of perceived principle. I'm not even 100% sold on this either, but I'm not writing it off just yet. I'll stay cautiously optimistic until launch day and evaluate whether it's worth it (like every other reasonable person should). "Grab your Vaseline in November!! Cause you are getting fked!" what happened to "respectfully disagree"?
The only problem with your statement "start from scratch" is that it's painfully obvious there are reskinning everything from battlefield. Every system they don't have or do have are all in corelation between does battlifield have it or not.
Nothing is ever as simple as "reskinning". Reskinning literally means "remake". Remaking something takes just as much effort as making something the first time with the added bonus of additional experience. "it's painfully obvious there are reskinning everything from battlefield." How is that painfully obvious when we haven't even seen the gameplay yet? On the surface, the games are bound to look similar to the untrained eye. They're both large-scale FPS games from the same developer. One's military themed, one is Star Wars themed. There will be similar gameplay mechanics, there will be similar vehicle archetypes, there will be similar set-piece moments. The core concept behind making games is to prototype, iterate, evaluate and repeat. If something is already fun and working, why change it? If something isn't working, change it or get rid of it and try something new. You kind of have to pick your battles. Too much ambition can harm a game just as easily as a game that plays it way too safe.
And that's supposed to make it better? By making excuses on how today's modern industry is worse?
I'm not trying to make excuses for the industry, I'm just trying to explain it and reframe it for people to better understand the mystical reasoning behind what developers do.
Fully Agree with the Panda and Red on this one. Its not some copy and paste job, the elements in Frostbite 3 are not found in BF2, soooo why would all those features be in the game? DICE doesn't want to add to a lower level of quality by adding such features if they can't make them better. Consider what goes into a BF map now compared to 10 years ago. (BF in terms of Battlefield) Those maps don't have destruction elements, they don't have textures, the same lighting elements etc. One can't just ask for such a thing and not factor in that the level of detail and complexity will come along with it. For all we know, DICE didn't add in that mode based on they likely want to make it similar to Titan Mode on BF 2142. That is such a huge endeavor its not even funny, I'd rather they save it for the next game and have it working vs rush it out and not have it come with all the amazing destruction features we grew to love. As for DLC, its an extra, it can be debated on if it was suppose to be in the final game all day, but the reality is.....most games don't just launch with such a number of maps that the DLC will add up to, its just unheard of. DICE has done some of the best DLC in the industry, its in good hands. I've yet to buy premium for BF4 and I've owned it since launch and have over 180 hours in it, I'll get the DLC when I'm past 230 hours or so. For those who think Star Wars has few maps.......master the game before asking for more maps. I tend to love memorizing and mastering the maps before getting new ones. For those who keep saying its a "reskin" lol, no...thats not how it works..... this game to my understanding doesn't even have Battlefield's modes. and in terms of DLC, um.......gaming has had "expansions" since gaming has been gaming..... The Super, Alpha, Hyper, etc in Street Fighter has always been for extras, they would legit just sell you the same game with 2 more characters or something, PC had expansions ie dlc for years, since the dawn of gaming we've had something like it. This is no different. @Nodose- "The fact that you need to spend110" no, you don't need to spend anything at all bud, dlc is a choice and no BF just launched with 40 maps or anything.... Hell, if Star Wars had 40 maps at launch but had 100 maps as DLC you would like still cry about that. I'm sorry but some gamers need to know what "extra's" are... The maps on this game can't be compared to the maps of a damn 10 year old game. More goes into games now then 10 years ago bud.
I agree also . on top of how much more work it is to develop to todays standards they have to do it over muplitple platforms . think how much better any game could be if sony and MS shared arcitecture and the same version ran on both the cost of a full hame today is the price of the game on release and the season pass if you want all the add ons . Im, not saying I like it but no one should be suprised when it happens every game
I get what you're saying but if that's the case and there is less content because they put a huge focus on making sure it's a fun game (which is obviously a good thing of course), then the dev time should have been longer to make sure the rest of the features get put in as well.
Adding offline modes like Instant Action and Galactic Conquest isn't some major undertaking to add to the game. If it could be done a decade ago, it can be done now.
Except that DICE isn't boiling down the essence of the stars Wars IP by not adding content that is synonimous with it.
Because we know absolutely everything about the game so far.... 2 heroes...HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED it's not the only 2. 4 planets...HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED. Half the game we paid for in 2005. 1) It's a completely different game in the series NOT Battlefront 2 HD, 2) We are going to be able to do so much stuff on the ground on MASSIVE MAPS, stripping that all away for clunky space battles (no thanks, maybe Dice's Battlefront 2), 20v20 is probably the most they can get out of if they are making Massive Maps that look almost real vs a game from 2005, 3) They haven't announced how many maps are in the core game just the planets and this isn't counting future DLC which will start once the game is finished according to a DICE dev, 4) If there was a campaign you would only complain about it, it's a multiplayer focused game and offline matches are confirmed 5) Funny how everyone cries about the Prequel Era stuff but then cries it's not in the game...hypocritical much? 6) There is still a ton we don't actually know about the game including what the gameplay looks like but from the private demo going over 20 players would be awful. So why don't you stop being so pessimistic and just wait before complaining. It's fine if you just don't care for it but all this complaining about nothing is ridiculous not to mention annoying.
No campaign story mode . I'll pass lol
* This is a lie kind of. They already stated " MORE THAN 8 " Yet this "journalist" clearly ourtight lies and puts "8 Total". * That is just knowingly wrong. At that point....I can't trust this person even if they make a good case otherwise. You can't SNEAK in lies and mix them with facts and hope to pull one over on me. Just lost their credibility, even if otherwise they had made a decent point. At that point, they are no better than the people they are complaining about. * You complain about EA misleading, and then you the "journalist" proceed to mislead. How pathetic. How can you people fall for this time and time again, regardless of which company or media is involved. Don't you learn from past mistakes ?
Not all of the list is accurate. For example, there will be more than 8 maps. Also, no one knows all the turrets and vehicles yet. Some of this seems to be input for negative effect.
Or perhaps to capitalize on the Battlefront controversy. The entire basis of this article is to compare what's missing. I have 2 problems with this: 1. Battlefront II is a sequel, which had the luxury of expanding on preexisting content. This game is being built from scratch, and is focusing on all the core elements of what made the first game what it is. The biggest of those being: Star Wars battle immersion, which they're going all out with (yes, guys, graphics matter in this case). Trying to compare that with Battlefront II, an expansion of those ideas, is unfair. This isn't a sequel, it's a whole new game from a whole new developer. 2. We don't even know the full extent of what's in the game to begin with. Again, they haven't announced everything yet. Then again, I didn't read the article, the author may just be comparing what's missing right NOW, but if that's the case then that seems pretty pointless when they're going to be announcing more stuff later on. What're you going to do then, make continuous updates? Voicing concern is one thing, especially given EA/DICE's track record. However, this unending mob of misinformation and prematurely-jumping-to-conclus ions is getting ridiculous. Just about half--if not most--of this community is guilty of this, and that disappoints me.
Ive been a pretty big critic to the new Battlefront, but these comparisons are pretty dumb to be honest. Its a new dev on a new game engine and a whole new generation of systems. There is so much more additional work that has to go into games these days that these comparisons are misleading at best. Does lack of space battles suck? Hell yes it does but that doesnt mean that DICE/EA are just holding out.
Frostbite 3 isn't really new, though. DICE has been working with it for years and iterating with this particular set of engine tools since they began working on Battlefield 3. Also, the new gen systems are closer to PCs than the seventh gen systems, so a lot of the architecture overhead is removed for the standardized x86 platforms. If this were a brand new engine, foreign hardware like the Cell or the Wii U's architecture, and DICE were a new studio, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But this is a veteran studio using an already established franchise with an engine they're internally very familiar with on hardware architecture mirrored after desktop PCs. That's not to mention that DICE's Battlefield games have always been considered as modern military alternatives to Pandemic's Battlefront games since they were so similar in design. If this were like Square Enix using the Luminous Engine for Star Wars: Battlefront then your point would be more than valid.
I meant its a new engine for the series. Also, DICE is a team seasoned at making Battlefield games. While the premise is similar, there is a very different look and feel between Battlefield and Battlefront. Now, I will admit that this game could totally end up being a Battlefield re-skin but nobody has even seen any unscripted gameplay yet. It seems a bit premature to start throwing stones. Before this game was announced, if you asked most gamers what dev should be handed the Battlefront franchise, I would be willing to bet that most would say DICE. So lets at least see what they actually have to offer before the game is written off.
This was supposed to be the game that caused me to ascend to the PC master race.
I was completely fine with everything until I found out the special edition that's $10 more is only $10 more because it comes with Day 1 DLC. Screw you, EA and DICE.
Is that really the case? I thought you just had to pre-order to get it earlier than everyone else?