Leaked Battlefront info (40 players, heroes, free Ep7 DLC, FPS & TPS) [Full Screens]

It's a new developer and a reboot. They aren't obligated nor should they do everything the old games did just for the sake of hitting a checklist.

For balance sake, there's reasons for certain player counts. And there's plenty of other things the developers can do from a design perspective to keep interactions frequent and action dense.

Bigger isn't always better.

See, it's not for the sake of hitting a checklist. It's about making a good game. The previous battlefront were good games that had a lot of variety.

Also, you're citing balance reasons, when, once again, it was done ten years ago just fine.
 
Then why the disclaimer that it was "in engine" footage?

I think he is talking about the previews. The trailer could be a ps4 playing a CG from the game.

If i watch a blu-ray on my console i can say that i saw ps4/xbone footage! =]
 
While that won't be what the final game play will look like, the fact that they are able to get that look rendered real time in-engine is pretty good.
 
STAR WARS™ BATTLEFRONT™ DELUXE EDITION

Digital Deluxe Edition Details
Immerse Yourself in Your Star Wars™ Battle Fantasies!

Battle on planets like Hoth, Endor, Tatooine, and a previously unexplored planet, Sullust.
Pilot nimble speeder bikes, massive AT-ATs, the Millennium Falcon, X-wings, TIE fighters.
Play as memorable characters including Darth Vader, Boba Fett and more. Also encounter other beloved characters such as C-3PO and R2-D2.

This likely means more than four. I can't see how they could ship a game with four maps and minimal SP. That's not happening.
 
No. CG is very different from in-game. Scripting in-game assets is closer to what the actual game is capable of visually, versus CG, which might not be representative of that game, at all.

Yup, totally true, but it's a semantic when it comes down to actual gameplay footage vs everything else.
 
Was the scale on that AT-AT just wrong? It seems way too small.

Seemed like it to me, wasn't even half the size of the trees. Not sure how big they really are though(the trees), but AT-AT's look huge when they're lumbering around on Hoth.

Trailer looks pretty sweet, though I really doubt it'll look like that during gameplay.
 
Yeah, I agree. I'd be fine with sacrificing res for framerate in a MP shooter, though.

Resolution is quite important in multiplayer shooters though, the clarity from native 1080p and being able to pick out targets from far, but yea, framerate still trumps it in a multiplayer shooter.
 
See, it's not for the sake of hitting a checklist. It's about making a good game. The previous battlefront were good games that had a lot of variety.

Also, you're citing balance reasons, when, once again, it was done ten years ago just fine.

Because Battlefront 2 was literally the perfect game ever, nothing should ever be changed from it, and DICE should just have copy/pasted everything from Battlefront 2.

So what you're really wanting is a remaster NOT Battlefront 3.
 
They should totally change the name of the game. We already have STAR WARS BATTLEFRONT.

the real one:
battlefrontcopy.jpg
 
Seemed like it to me, wasn't even half the size of the trees. Not sure how big they really are though(the trees), but AT-AT's look huge when they're lumbering around on Hoth.

Trailer looks pretty sweet, though I really doubt it'll look like that during gameplay.

They are 22.5m tall so I think the size is ok

I love how EA is apart of the title.

me too.... .___________________________.
 
See, it's not for the sake of hitting a checklist. It's about making a good game. The previous battlefront were good games that had a lot of variety.

Also, you're citing balance reasons, when, once again, it was done ten years ago just fine.

Sorry dude...i love star wars but battlefront 2 was a buggy, janky piece of crap. No balance and devolved into silly mods about six seconds in
 
See, it's not for the sake of hitting a checklist. It's about making a good game. The previous battlefront were good games that had a lot of variety.

Also, you're citing balance reasons, when, once again, it was done ten years ago just fine.

Like I said. It's priorities. They could opt for 64 player battles.
But that would force some design changes they didn't want to do.

They don't have to do 64 players just because someone else did it.
 
We will have our space battles. They're not stupid.

Whether that's DLC or sequel material (or simply a secret at this point) is another story.
 
Top Bottom