Corvinus85 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Surely it comes from the "mass effect" fields generated by element zero which the Mass Relays merely used to do what they did? Yeah, you're right. I was thinking that all the FTL technology that the space faring civs used was based on what they learned from studying the Relays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Eats No Peaches Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I had a rumour that the AT-ATs in Battlefront will be on rails. Anyone else heard this? Fucking travesty if true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Drunkard Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Seems to be. I assume the -81 points that comment has are dislikes, heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvinus85 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I had a rumour that the AT-ATs in Battlefront will be on rails. Anyone else heard this? Fucking travesty if true. Seems to be. I assume the -81 points that comment has are dislikes, heh. The lack of space battles was already a deal breaker for me. Hearing about this just makes me more sure that I will skip this game. I also don't care about multiplayer battles, my favorite part of Battlefront 2 was the campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Eats No Peaches Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 "Freedom etc doesn't always equal fun."Thanks DICE for deciding what's fun for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiDisaster Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Nothing I've heard about Battlefront has made me at all interested in playing it. How do you fuck it up this badly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 "Freedom etc doesn't always equal fun."Thanks DICE for deciding what's fun for me. He's correct though. Not clear if in this case it's the right decision, but freedom =/= fun in game design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrellius Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Can I stand on Ewoks? Please! I can forgive everything else as long as I can crush rebel scum and squash Ewoks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 "Freedom etc doesn't always equal fun."Thanks DICE for deciding what's fun for me.Literally every design decision a developer makes is "deciding what's fun for you."Though I'll concede DICE's decisions haven't been very good lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay B. Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Dice has really gone off the rails with this.Just kidding, I'm down for this game no matter what. We still have 7 months left with all this speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcibiades Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Yeah, I mean, it sounds like they're just making design decisions that allow them to maximize their existing battlefield tech. For a lot of people, BF with Star Wars skins is probably good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcibiades Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Oops, double post. If a mod could delete this, that'd be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I don't really understand all the whining about this game and I love throwing EA DICE under the bus. This was posted on Reddit the other day and I think the top comment is a good indication of what people are upset about. So there's no clone wars, no space battles and no single player campaign, to be honest I think I'd prefer a game where DICE really nailed the portion of the game they want to concentrate on. How the fuck can people seriously be angry that DICE hasn't done a single player campaign? They obviously focus on MP and do it quite well. Single player campaigns are tacked on to their games and are shit, if anything they detract from the real experience because of wasted dev resources. Similarly if they absolutely nail what they've decided to do is anyone really going to complain that there's no clone wars or space battles? Maybe they decided that if they wanted to do that stuff right it would spread their resources too thin and instead of 1 thing done really well you'd get 3 things that are kinda mediocre. They brought up # of players and I saw elsewhere that people were speculating that this meant that DICE had sacrificed map size for graphical fidelity which I am completely okay with tbh. Does anyone really like 64 player battlefield? I don't, I avoid full Battlefield servers like the plague. I think having 40 player limits is actually a positive, again, it's their game I'm pretty sure they can figure out the optimum number of players. More stuff doesn't always mean better game. In fact everyone seems to think this is just going to be rushed and mediocre, wouldn't you be more worried about that if the feature list was 10x bigger? People just love to complain, especially if EA is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Honestly, after dealing with asinine commanders moving my 2142 Titan directly over a missile silo so that it always took damage no matter who controlled it, I'd rather huge assets like AT-ATs moved themselves. If you had a really coordinated team, sure, (again, 2142) the Goliath was a huge asset, but it was basically an upgunned and upsized APC with spawn tubes, not a giant walking death platform. Hell, if they bring back commanders for any reason, you can still have player control over the AT-AT without making it a driveable object. Also, 100% agreed that 48 person matches on (generally) 64p maps were the way to go. Room to maneuver, room for tactical movement, and not a giant clusterfuck of grenades. I will never, ever understand the constant popularity of Metro and Locker as a level. At least Locker is a tiny bit better. I just want 2142 again, guys. :( e: Ini, re: KF2. Its about where KF1 was on release: 3 maps (much better than KF1's), 4 classes, and 4 weapons per class with a few off-perk weapons. There's a more robust level system as well. Its very, very polished and is what, IMO, early access should be instead of what it often is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay B. Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 I love 64 player BF. It gets a little chaotic, sure, but I only look for full servers. Other than that I agree with most of what you said.ETA: I was referring more to BF4 because it has huge maps. The smaller maps like Locker and most of the Hardline maps definitely suffer from 64 players. 48 would be better, as stated, with those ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiDisaster Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 I dunno...I've gotten pretty bored of modern multiplayer shooters in general, so I guess I was just hoping this would be something other/more than Star Wars skinned Battlefield? Illogical and naive as that may have been. Aw well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Eats No Peaches Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Literally every design decision a developer makes is "deciding what's fun for you."Though I'll concede DICE's decisions haven't been very good lately. He's correct though. Not clear if in this case it's the right decision, but freedom =/= fun in game design.Yeah I know. I was just feeling frustrated. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 No space battles I can deal with. I'd expect that they'd import them in a DLC, like Air Superiority for Battlefield 3. But AT-AT's on rails!?! What the fuck!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Between BF3 and BF4 there are a couple of maps which aren't horrendous for 64 player. It's not just the size that's important but the layout of the map. On most maps I feel conquest large just doesn't work at all. On those really big maps the chaos isn't the problem it's the fact that the game mode doesn't work - i think most people in 64 player don't give a fuck about the objective anyway, they just want a killfest but I only play objective. Regular conquest with fewer players is excellent imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Eats No Peaches Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Being a console peasant, I haven't played with more than 24 players so I really don't know about the numbers. I'll take what I can get. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.