Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 19:43:29 GMT
Nah, if anyone just calls it Battlefront I'll instantly think of the original one, calling it BF3 is just easier. Well, in that case at the very least the mindset of it being a sequal, because with that mindset you expect it to have everything the last game had, and more, but with the mindset of it being a reboot, which it is, you dont expect so much out of it. Either way, im curious to see how it plays and more importantly, if it looks like a battlefront game. Even as a reboot, I expect it to be at least as good as a 10 year old game. :/
|
|
|
Post by InsaneAlphaBeta on Apr 25, 2015 19:51:13 GMT
Well, in that case at the very least the mindset of it being a sequal, because with that mindset you expect it to have everything the last game had, and more, but with the mindset of it being a reboot, which it is, you dont expect so much out of it. Either way, im curious to see how it plays and more importantly, if it looks like a battlefront game. Even as a reboot, I expect it to be at least as good as a 10 year old game. :/ Thats a question we dont have a answer to, for all we know it could be as good, we will just have to wait and see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 20:13:12 GMT
Even as a reboot, I expect it to be at least as good as a 10 year old game. :/ Thats a question we dont have a answer to, for all we know it could be as good, we will just have to wait and see. That's actually not possible. FPS mechanics can only be SO good. Even the best designed FPS can't be as good as BF1 or 2 with as little content as BF3 is going to have.
|
|
|
Post by InsaneAlphaBeta on Apr 25, 2015 20:18:29 GMT
Thats a question we dont have a answer to, for all we know it could be as good, we will just have to wait and see. That's actually not possible. FPS mechanics can only be SO good. Even the best designed FPS can't be as good as BF1 or 2 with as little content as BF3 is going to have. Actuallty, that is incorrect, not only is this entire conversation subjective and thus, nothing is factual, but you didnt even consider a key element, the game features a third person camera aswell, just like the previous games. Quality over Quantity my friend, its gameplay that will decide this games fate, those features would be pointless if the game isnt fun to play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 20:25:44 GMT
That's actually not possible. FPS mechanics can only be SO good. Even the best designed FPS can't be as good as BF1 or 2 with as little content as BF3 is going to have. Actuallty, that is incorrect, not only is this entire conversation subjective and thus, nothing is factual, but you didnt even consider a key element, the game features a third person camera aswell, just like the previous games. Quality over Quantity my friend, its gameplay that will decide this games fate, those features would be pointless if the game isnt fun to play. Good gameplay is pointless if there's isn't shit in the form of fun modes or good maps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 20:29:19 GMT
That's actually not possible. FPS mechanics can only be SO good. Even the best designed FPS can't be as good as BF1 or 2 with as little content as BF3 is going to have. Actuallty, that is incorrect, not only is this entire conversation subjective and thus, nothing is factual, but you didnt even consider a key element, the game features a third person camera aswell, just like the previous games. Quality over Quantity my friend, its gameplay that will decide this games fate, those features would be pointless if the game isnt fun to play. That's what you're going with? The two camera angles? Fine. Let me revise what I said. Shooter mechanics can only be SO good. Even the best designed shooter can't be as good as BF1 or 2 with as little content as BF3 is going to have. The gameplay might be better than BF1 or 2. I'll admit, the shooting mechanics were never the fun part of the Battlefront series. But BF3 has taken out everything that made the first two fun. It removed any sense of adventure that came with moving from planet to planet, or the feeling of being a small part in a bigger war. Instead, it's going to be just ANOTHER shooter. Just replace Russia and the USA with the Empire and the Rebels, and bam, you have BF3.
|
|
|
Post by InsaneAlphaBeta on Apr 25, 2015 20:29:25 GMT
Actuallty, that is incorrect, not only is this entire conversation subjective and thus, nothing is factual, but you didnt even consider a key element, the game features a third person camera aswell, just like the previous games. Quality over Quantity my friend, its gameplay that will decide this games fate, those features would be pointless if the game isnt fun to play. Good gameplay is pointless if there's isn't shit in the form of fun modes or good maps. Tons of maps, galatic conquest, space battles, and a large player count includeing A.I. is pointless if the gameplay is horrible, you can have all the features and modes in the world, but it means nothing if the game isnt fun to play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 20:30:51 GMT
Good gameplay is pointless if there's isn't shit in the form of fun modes or good maps. Tons of maps, galatic conquest, space battles, and a large player count includeing A.I. is pointless if the gameplay is horrible, you can have all the features and modes in the world, but it means nothing if the game isnt fun to play. You're right. One is pointless without the other. If BF3 came out, and the gameplay was shit, nobody would care about all of the modes. The thing is, BOTH are necessary for this series.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 20:30:56 GMT
Good gameplay is pointless if there's isn't shit in the form of fun modes or good maps. Tons of maps, galatic conquest, space battles, and a large player count includeing A.I. is pointless if the gameplay is horrible, you can have all the features and modes in the world, but it means nothing if the game isnt fun to play. The gameplay in the original wasn't spectacular, the shooting mechanics where clunky at best, yet the game was amazing because it pulled everything else off so well.
|
|
|
Post by InsaneAlphaBeta on Apr 25, 2015 20:36:27 GMT
Actuallty, that is incorrect, not only is this entire conversation subjective and thus, nothing is factual, but you didnt even consider a key element, the game features a third person camera aswell, just like the previous games. Quality over Quantity my friend, its gameplay that will decide this games fate, those features would be pointless if the game isnt fun to play. That's what you're going with? The two camera angles? Fine. Let me revise what I said. Shooter mechanics can only be SO good. Even the best designed shooter can't be as good as BF1 or 2 with as little content as BF3 is going to have. The gameplay might be better than BF1 or 2. I'll admit, the shooting mechanics were never the fun part of the Battlefront series. But BF3 has taken out everything that made the first two fun. It removed any sense of adventure that came with moving from planet to planet, or the feeling of being a small part in a bigger war. Instead, it's going to be just ANOTHER shooter. Just replace Russia and the USA with the Empire and the Rebels, and bam, you have BF3. Sure it is missing that, but did you ever stop to think, that maybe there is a replacement for galactic conquest? All we know is what it doesnt have, we dont know what all it has. And by the way im not defending the game, but i do think it is way to early to judge, we haven't seen gameplay, we dont know anything other then what it doesnt have, and a few bits of detail here and there, you forget most big announcements are at E3, thats where the big news and features of this game will be revealed. This game has a big chance to fail in regards to being a sequal, which si what nearly everyone is treating it as, which only is gonna make things worse, its a reboot, things will be missing, like i said it sucks that we arent getting all these things, but we also dont know everything they got planned, and who knows, they may delay it to add more stuff, its happened before. Will it fail? theres a pretty good chance, i think DICE knows how important it is they dont fail, its just a question of what will they do to counter the loss of those features, which i think, or atleast hope they will. E3 is the day that will hopefully give us a better idea of what we are getting, hopefully its a good sign.
|
|
|
Post by InsaneAlphaBeta on Apr 25, 2015 20:39:21 GMT
Tons of maps, galatic conquest, space battles, and a large player count includeing A.I. is pointless if the gameplay is horrible, you can have all the features and modes in the world, but it means nothing if the game isnt fun to play. The gameplay in the original wasn't spectacular, the shooting mechanics where clunky at best, yet the game was amazing because it pulled everything else off so well. I thought it played pretty well actually, gameplay wise i enjoyed it, like i said we dont know everything yet, we need to wait untill we know absolutely everything this game has to offer and see gameplay before judgeing it, and E3 seems like the day we will get, atleast most of those answers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 20:43:19 GMT
That's what you're going with? The two camera angles? Fine. Let me revise what I said. Shooter mechanics can only be SO good. Even the best designed shooter can't be as good as BF1 or 2 with as little content as BF3 is going to have. The gameplay might be better than BF1 or 2. I'll admit, the shooting mechanics were never the fun part of the Battlefront series. But BF3 has taken out everything that made the first two fun. It removed any sense of adventure that came with moving from planet to planet, or the feeling of being a small part in a bigger war. Instead, it's going to be just ANOTHER shooter. Just replace Russia and the USA with the Empire and the Rebels, and bam, you have BF3. Sure it is missing that, but did you ever stop to think, that maybe there is a replacement for galactic conquest? All we know is what it doesnt have, we dont know what all it has. And by the way im not defending the game, but i do think it is way to early to judge, we haven't seen gameplay, we dont know anything other then what it doesnt have, and a few bits of detail here and there, you forget most big announcements are at E3, thats where the big news and features of this game will be revealed. This game has a big chance to fail in regards to being a sequal, which si what nearly everyone is treating it as, which only is gonna make things worse, its a reboot, things will be missing, like i said it sucks that we arent getting all these things, but we also dont know everything they got planned, and who knows, they may delay it to add more stuff, its happened before. Will it fail? theres a pretty good chance, i think DICE knows how important it is they dont fail, its just a question of what will they do to counter the loss of those features, which i think, or atleast hope they will. E3 is the day that will hopefully give us a better idea of what we are getting, hopefully its a good sign. I'll be pleasantly surprised if there's a replacement for Galactic Conquest, but we can't speak in hypothetical situations. What if they give everybody who buys the game on day 1 a blowjob? That would be AMAZING! We don't know if that's true, though. No use in speculating that it is. Speculating gets us nowhere. we have to go off of what we know. I don't think it's too early. They've openly said that there are 8 maps. 8. MAPS. That's nothing. No possible Galactic Conquest type mode could ever stretch 8 maps into a full blown adventure. Therefore, the adventure is dead. If they didn't want it to be treated as a sequel, then they should've called it something else. Called it a "spiritual" successor to Battlefront. They knew exactly what they were doing when they named it Battlefront, though. The answer is that nothing they could do would counter the removed features. We already know what we're getting. 8 MAPS. That's NOTHING.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 20:46:49 GMT
Sure it is missing that, but did you ever stop to think, that maybe there is a replacement for galactic conquest? All we know is what it doesnt have, we dont know what all it has. And by the way im not defending the game, but i do think it is way to early to judge, we haven't seen gameplay, we dont know anything other then what it doesnt have, and a few bits of detail here and there, you forget most big announcements are at E3, thats where the big news and features of this game will be revealed. This game has a big chance to fail in regards to being a sequal, which si what nearly everyone is treating it as, which only is gonna make things worse, its a reboot, things will be missing, like i said it sucks that we arent getting all these things, but we also dont know everything they got planned, and who knows, they may delay it to add more stuff, its happened before. Will it fail? theres a pretty good chance, i think DICE knows how important it is they dont fail, its just a question of what will they do to counter the loss of those features, which i think, or atleast hope they will. E3 is the day that will hopefully give us a better idea of what we are getting, hopefully its a good sign. I'll be pleasantly surprised if there's a replacement for Galactic Conquest, but we can't speak in hypothetical situations. What if they give everybody who buys the game on day 1 a blowjob? That would be AMAZING! We don't know if that's true, though. No use in speculating that it is. Speculating gets us nowhere. we have to go off of what we know. I don't think it's too early. They've openly said that there are 8 maps. 8. MAPS. That's nothing. No possible Galactic Conquest type mode could ever stretch 8 maps into a full blown adventure. Therefore, the adventure is dead. If they didn't want it to be treated as a sequel, then they should've called it something else. Called it a "spiritual" successor to Battlefront. They knew exactly what they were doing when they named it Battlefront, though. The answer is that nothing they could do would counter the removed features. We already know what we're getting. 8 MAPS. That's NOTHING. According to IGN anyway they said more than 8 maps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 20:47:58 GMT
I'll be pleasantly surprised if there's a replacement for Galactic Conquest, but we can't speak in hypothetical situations. What if they give everybody who buys the game on day 1 a blowjob? That would be AMAZING! We don't know if that's true, though. No use in speculating that it is. Speculating gets us nowhere. we have to go off of what we know. I don't think it's too early. They've openly said that there are 8 maps. 8. MAPS. That's nothing. No possible Galactic Conquest type mode could ever stretch 8 maps into a full blown adventure. Therefore, the adventure is dead. If they didn't want it to be treated as a sequel, then they should've called it something else. Called it a "spiritual" successor to Battlefront. They knew exactly what they were doing when they named it Battlefront, though. The answer is that nothing they could do would counter the removed features. We already know what we're getting. 8 MAPS. That's NOTHING. According to IGN anyway they said more than 8 maps. I'm just going off what I know here. Who said more than 8 maps? And did they mean DLC?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 20:54:34 GMT
According to IGN anyway they said more than 8 maps. I'm just going off what I know here. Who said more than 8 maps? And did they mean DLC? It was one of Dice's devs, here's the qoute. "Also, please stop with the reduced number of maps. We have more than 8 maps," he wrote. "How many have not been announced yet, but it's more than 8."
|
|