Hence why I'm now worried.bringer of illumination said:Couldn't they just have shut up
I'd almost forgotten that EA had anything to do with this.
Any time EA says something I instantly become suspicious
I really, really have to disagree there. Most of the destruction capabilities were rendered moot by a massive overabundance of indestructible walls and objects, way too many non-open corridor-filled maps, guns often felt very similar (especially the sniper rifles), the balance was designed around hard-counters rather than soft ones (tanks vs infantry being a prime example), Engineer was very overpowered, the entire concept of weapons being only unlockable with real-world money; the list goes on. I honestly cannot say I'm not worried about the new Battlefront when these same people are the one's making it, especially when it risks homogenization due to the publisher.WouldYouKindly said:Give DICE whatever shit you want for their singleplayer campaigns, but fuck me if they can't make a good combined arms multiplayer game.
Also, this is someone who doesn't mind playing vanilla BF3. It's still a good and fun game.
Yay!Earnest Cavalli said:Star Wars: Battlefront In Good Hands
Aww...Earnest Cavalli said:At DICE, Claims EA
Except... what if that's -not- what we want? I can't speak for everyone but... I don't want a Battlefield Star Wars mod. We have that. It's called First Strike. It's for BF2142. I want a Battlefront sequel -- something that updates the gameplay so it actually has things like physics, intelligent AI, and balanced weaponry while still retaining that distinct aesthetic feel that no other shooter so far has come close to. It's probably the only shooter in ages besides Deus Ex: HR that involved both third person and first person shooting that I played.Earnest Cavalli said:Based on what Gibeau said, it seems like the next Star Wars: Battlefront game will more or less be a Star Wars themed adaptation of Battlefield 4, with all the shiny graphics and expansive gameplay options that would entail. And honestly? That's absolutely what we want from Star Wars: Battlefront. We'll reserve judgement on the game until it's hit retail, but for now we stand cautiously optimistic.
...but it's being done by an entirely separate studio? I mean, yeah, still reason for concern but it isn't DICE in Europe, it's DICE LA, an entirely new studio.V da Mighty Taco said:I really, really have to disagree there. Most of the destruction capabilities were rendered moot by a massive overabundance of indestructible walls and objects, way too many non-open corridor-filled maps, guns often felt very similar (especially the sniper rifles), the balance was designed around hard-counters rather than soft ones (tanks vs infantry being a prime example), Engineer was very overpowered, the entire concept of weapons being only unlockable with real-world money; the list goes on. I honestly cannot say I'm not worried about the new Battlefront when these same people are the one's making it, especially when it risks homogenization due to the publisher.WouldYouKindly said:Give DICE whatever shit you want for their singleplayer campaigns, but fuck me if they can't make a good combined arms multiplayer game.
Also, this is someone who doesn't mind playing vanilla BF3. It's still a good and fun game.
I don't want a Battlefront game to seem like a serious military shooter in any way. I like my spacefights and non-AR / non-ironsight based gameplay.
Go look at screens of the Kashyyk, Felucia, Endor and Yavin maps. I never played Battlefront 1 but number 2 had plenty of color in it when the maps were based off of places that had color in them.CardinalPiggles said:You mean a bit like this:GAunderrated said:and lots of grey.
![]()
You can't pretend like BF1 and 2 had the most vibrant colour pallet beyond neon green, red and blue when a Jedi showed up.
romanator0 said:Go look at screens of the Kashyyk, Felucia, Endor and Yavin maps. I never played Battlefront 1 but number 2 had plenty of color in it when the maps were based off of places that had color in them.