BATTLEFRONT (by DICE)

4Dlolz · 18-02-2014 5:03pm #1

I've never in my life seen a Star Wars movie but I am excited for this game. I'd imagine it to be Battlefield 2143 using the Frostbite engine. More to come in the months ahead.

Some mockup pics...

6f88a329b6be94a05994697c74ba59230f00aab5.jpg__620x250_q85_crop_upscale.jpg

Mad_Dave · 18-02-2014 5:59pm

This is probably the most depressing thing I've seen all year. There's nothing I'd love more than a new star wars game, but after the shambles of MoH:Warfighter and BF4...doesn't bear thinking about.

fergus1001 · 19-02-2014 1:15am

NOPE.jpg

ktulu123 · 19-02-2014 4:01am

GONNA BE UNREAL

I hope

The Red · 19-02-2014 10:47am

Oh lord... some wee... on my leg..

Noxin · 19-02-2014 12:00pm

I don't know but the prospect of running around in a AT-AT walker... or better yet, downing an AT-AT walker with a harpoon would be pretty savage imo..

4Dlolz · 19-02-2014 12:05pm

Star Wars fans will know wtf this article is talking about. Me? I haven't a clue. lol

http://www.denofgeek.us/games/star-wars/232191/5-star-wars-battles-we-want-to-play-in-battlefront-3

Noxin wrote: »

I don't know but the prospect of running around in a AT-AT walker... or better yet, downing an AT-AT walker with a harpoon would be pretty savage imo..

Grumpypants · 19-02-2014 4:33pm

4Dlolz wrote: »

I've never in my life seen a Star Wars movie

Sort that out asap

Noxin · 20-02-2014 12:52am

Grumpypants wrote: »

Sort that out asap

By this he means watch 4/5/6.

1 is ok, 2 and 3 are cringe worthy!

5uspect · 20-02-2014 1:07am

Noxin wrote: »

By this he means watch 4/5/6.

1 is ok, 2 and 3 are cringe worthy!

:eek:
It's probably the worst movie ever made.

Noxin · 20-02-2014 1:11am

5uspect wrote: »

:eek:
It's probably the worst movie ever made.

Can't agree. I should say, by ok I mean tolerable. As in I watched it while half asleep when I left my brain elsewhere.
2 and 3 are far worse. To see Anakin as such a bitch was just embarrassing.

TerrorFirmer · 20-02-2014 9:51am

Battlefront 2 was, and still is, an epic game. Must have put 100's of hours into it on the Xbox. Funny thing is both the original Pandemic games have an option for first person and third person gameplay, always played in 3rd as it suited the games pace much better, never considered it an FPS although it technically was. Wonder would they leave the option in now, probably not.

Lukehandypants · 20-02-2014 10:37am

Mad_Dave wrote: »

This is probably the most depressing thing I've seen all year. There's nothing I'd love more than a new star wars game, but after the shambles of MoH:Warfighter and BF4...doesn't bear thinking about.

When u say shambles, could u be more specific?
Because my bf4 has been fine it worked from the outset for me never crashed at all.

MajesticDonkey · 20-02-2014 10:48am

Lukehandypants wrote: »

When u say shambles, could u be more specific?
Because my bf4 has been fine it worked from the outset for me never crashed at all.

Although my game generally works OK too, we are in a minority, so the game really is a shambles.

Lukehandypants · 20-02-2014 10:55am

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

Although my game generally works OK too, we are in a minority, so the game really is a shambles.

I have read all the bitching and moaning on the battlelog forums, pc's are tricky buggers, everyone has got different hardware.
Hey I know the thing should work right out to the box but it doesn't work like that anymore EA pull a date outta of their ass and that's the date the game will be released on even if the game isn't finished which it isn't.
Only recently it's begun to feel like a finished game.
Shame that had to drop the environmental stuff where the plants and tress react to the explosions.

I think it's better game than bf3, menus are great mini map much better and weapon progressions much smarter and of course voip although the amount of servers i play on that don't use voip...... People who don't use voip should have the game taken off them it's wasted on them.

miju · 20-02-2014 11:03am

Lukehandypants wrote: »

When u say shambles, could u be more specific?

Are you actually serious or trolling here? BF4 has been one of the worst game launches in history

Lukehandypants · 20-02-2014 11:06am

miju wrote: »

Are you actually serious or trolling here? BF4 has been one of the worst game launches in history

Been fine for me although it did feel unfinished in my post I say that.
I blame EA more than dice.

miju · 20-02-2014 11:49am

Lukehandypants wrote: »

Been fine for me although it did feel unfinished in my post I say that.
I blame EA more than dice.

Both as bad as each other and I wouldnt be so quick not to lay blame at Dice's door.

EA have publicly stated they didnt push Dice to release the game and gave them their own schedule similiar to Titanfall and Respawn.

Difference between the two releases so far are massive (bearing in mind one is a beta)

MajesticDonkey · 20-02-2014 12:02pm

miju wrote: »

EA have publicly stated they didnt push Dice to release the game and gave them their own schedule similiar to Titanfall and Respawn.

And DICE publicly said the opposite - that EA were pushing them to release it before COD BLOPS2.

The Red · 20-02-2014 12:03pm

Agreed. It should have been held back and released when ready (although I would have complained about having to wait so long to play it) but Dice would have to have been penalised for going over the deadline given. If it was indeed their fault.

**** it, its here now and Im fully hooked. LETS GO DRAGONS TEETH!

Grumpypants · 20-02-2014 12:14pm

miju wrote: »

Both as bad as each other and I wouldnt be so quick not to lay blame at Dice's door.

EA have publicly stated they didnt push Dice to release the game and gave them their own schedule similiar to Titanfall and Respawn.

Difference between the two releases so far are massive (bearing in mind one is a beta)

The difference is titan fall is built on an old engine, with small static maps and small player numbers on 3 platforms.

Bf 4 is a new engine, open sand box game with 64 players on fully destructible ever changing maps on 5 platforms.

If you want companies to take risks and try new things then you need to give them time. Bf is not a game you can test until it's in the wild due to the nature of the game being so random.

miju · 20-02-2014 12:32pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

Bf 4 is a new engine, open sand box game with 64 players on fully destructible ever changing maps on 5 platforms.

Because you dont always have to reinvent the wheel, or in the case of DICE reinvent the same engine for the 3rd time in a row as they did with Frostbite 3.

The fact it's a new engine doesnt make a valid excuse it means the engine wasn't finished or fit for purpose either.

Grumpypants wrote: »

If you want companies to take risks and try new things then you need to give them time. Bf is not a game you can test until it's in the wild due to the nature of the game being so random.

Go look at my stats Im a massive BF fanboy with over 2,500 hrs racked up across all the games but I'm sorry this is pure excuse making for DICE as their QA is not just bad it's terrible.

There not only were alot of basic bugs that were obvious if you played the game for a few minutes but take the Second Assult maps as well. In BF3 DICE patched out the out of map glitches and other various glitches in Metro. Yet somehow in BF4 Metro the exact same glitch methods work.

This to me speaks volumes, that they knew about certain map glitches went to the trouble of patching them in BF3 but reintroduced them in BF4.

Mad_Dave · 20-02-2014 12:38pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

If you want companies to take risks and try new things then you need to give them time. Bf is not a game you can test until it's in the wild due to the nature of the game being so random.

That's would be fine if they'd given us a decent beta or used the early access model of Dayz and others.
Instead we got a beta two weeks prior to launch, which didn't give them enough time to fix anything, and charged full price on release.

MajesticDonkey · 20-02-2014 12:42pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

Bf is not a game you can test until it's in the wild due to the nature of the game being so random.

Yes, to some extent. Some of the initial bugs were so easy to recreate it's doubtful there was 50 hours of testing done on the game.

4Dlolz · 20-02-2014 2:16pm

Not sure if anyone here has heard of Star Citizen but I think DICE can learn a lot from them and to try and implement some of it's idea's in BATTLEFRONT or the Battlefield series going forward. I don't think I've played a game that looks quite this immersive.

Lukehandypants · 20-02-2014 5:02pm

But aside from the bugs, glitches and all the other things wrong with the game, I still think it's a pretty amazing game, when it's played properly with friends with comms all communicating and workin as a squad.
Otherwise I find the game a complete waste of time and I find people who play it like a headless chicken are only scratching the surface of the game and it is wasted on them.
The team play aspect is the most satisfing aspect of the game for me.

Grumpypants · 20-02-2014 5:20pm

Lukehandypants wrote: »

But aside from the bugs, glitches and all the other things wrong with the game, I still think it's a pretty amazing game, when it's played properly with friends with comms all communicating and workin as a squad.
Otherwise I find the game a complete waste of time and I find people who play it like a headless chicken are only scratching the surface of the game and it is wasted on them.
The team play aspect is the most satisfing aspect of the game for me.

I would love if they altered the squad spawn system though. They had a great idea in MOHW where you could spawn on your buddy as long as he was not in direct danger.

One thing I hate in BF is when you get the drop on a guy kill him, only for two of his buddies to spawn next to him and you have no hope.

Lukehandypants · 20-02-2014 5:22pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

I would love if they altered the squad spawn system though. They had a great idea in MOHW where you could spawn on your buddy as long as he was not in direct danger.

One thing I hate in BF is when you get the drop on a guy kill him, only for two of his buddies to spawn next to him and you have no hope.

I don't get what u mean by drop in on a guy and kill him, sounds like your spawning on the other team.....

MajesticDonkey · 20-02-2014 5:24pm

Lukehandypants wrote: »

I don't get what u mean by drop in on a guy and kill him, sounds like your spawning on the other team.....

Read his post again.

Lukehandypants · 20-02-2014 5:29pm

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

Read his post again.

It kinda tells u on the little screen in the left hand corner of the spawn screen it flashes up warning meaning the person ur gonna spawn on is under fire.

Grumpypants · 20-02-2014 5:55pm

Lukehandypants wrote: »

It kinda tells u on the little screen in the left hand corner of the spawn screen it flashes up warning meaning the person ur gonna spawn on is under fire.

No when you shoot the enemy and as you empty the clip into him two others magically appear out of thin air and kill you.

There should be a spawn counter so if the soldier you want to spawn on is under fire you can't spawn on him.

BATTLEFRONT (by DICE)

Comments