|
If I can dress up as a Jawa and/or Tusken Raider with a jetpack I can make my idiot dreams come true. Bonus points if the taunts change the vocals appropriately and are spammable.
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
I am the 1 sec note that says "Not actual gameplay" and invalidates the largw battle scene at the end as fake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:the air combat is actually by far the best part about BF3 and the closest thing resembling a well made game so 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
I boycotted the SW thread a long time ago because those guys are jerks But you guys should go buy your drat tickets right now (I'm sure you are, otherwise it wouldn't have been so hard to get through to those sites)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Tickets are bought. I'll wait to see what this game has at launch/day one DLC wise. I may get it, I may skip it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
Snagged a load of tickets for the midnight premiere at a cinema here. 8 friends are go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Ordered tickets for the Mrs and myself after watching the new trailer this morning. I'll be getting the game on launch. Departing the preorder for the extra ion damage :/
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:This just in: latest Battlefront trailer confirmed as a giant gently caress-off to FPS sweaties and tryhards everywhere, no word yet on what kind of message Battlefront 1 & 2 veterans should extrapolate How many different sets of star wars bed sheets do you own
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
A better question to ask might be "how many marathon Star Wars tickets have you bought for Dec. 17th" to which I would answer "four"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Coworker and I talked about it, but decided it wouldn't be worth the two days we'd have to take off of work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Kingtheninja posted:Coworker and I talked about it, but decided it wouldn't be worth the two days we'd have to take off of work. congrats on a your adult decision.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Hopper posted:I am the 1 sec note that says "Not actual gameplay" and invalidates the largw battle scene at the end as fake. Prawned posted:How many different sets of star wars bed sheets do you own  never needed any special bedsheets because I sleep in my pod racer
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:A better question to ask might be "how many marathon Star Wars tickets have you bought for Dec. 17th" to which I would answer "four" Or download the despecialized edition and watch the ot at home and don't relive the dark times I'm old and I have opinions on movies
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Siets posted:Counterpoint: game is good forums poster "Snatch Duster". But it is not. You know how I know this? It only has 20 vs 20 on the pc. M&W: Warband released 5 years ago has 64 vs 64. Some servers pull off 120 vs 120. bad game, you all bad for liking it
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:But it is not. You know how I know this? It only has 20 vs 20 on the pc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
64 Player servers would be rad but honestly I'll happily take 20 v 20. It's more than most games nowadays. Lots of shooters max out at like 16 players, and many even less. 20 v 20 may not be as much as we want but it's still above the average.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:This just in: latest Battlefront trailer confirmed as a giant gently caress-off to FPS sweaties and tryhards everywhere, no word yet on what kind of message Battlefront 1 & 2 veterans should extrapolate Can't get over how much I love the term "FPS sweaties." 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:But it is not. You know how I know this? It only has 20 vs 20 on the pc. While I'm on the fence on this game, more players isn't always better. Entirely dependent on the level. Most of the Battlefield 4 maps at launch were far more playable at a cap of 48 players than 64.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Can y'all imagine playing that walker assault map with more than 40 players? It was already pretty packed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Yes because Operation Locker was such a blast with 64 players...  Its all about scale. The maps are the right size so that 40 players feels big but not over crowded. I don't have to spend 5 minutes trudging across the map only to get blown up by some jerk in a land speeder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Yeah, high pop servers are nice but you still need to move around and maneuver without tripping over everyone. The small, contained maps like Locker in bf were always awful because you keep the same player count as a large one and try to put them down two hallways; every single doorway would just explode continuously because of all the fire people just blindly put through them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:But it is not. You know how I know this? It only has 20 vs 20 on the pc. Larger player numbers are harder to make fun. TF2 can theoretically support something ridiculous but no one does more than like 40 because the game is already nearly unplayable at that point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:But it is not. You know how I know this? It only has 20 vs 20 on the pc.  Hasn't been able to make fun 64 player maps since BC2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Popete posted:Yes because Operation Locker was such a blast with 64 players... The thing with having the bigger maps and 64-128 players is that you tend to end up with players zerging towards what seems like the most interesting bit of map at the time, so you end up with a few small areas that are complete a horseshit cluster and a lot of empty space. I've long thought that the middle sized maps and 48 (or 40 here) makes for better gameplay. The beta was a good mix of feeling appropriately chaotic and huge and actually not being a clusterfuck. It's also presumably a much easier solution in engineering terms, it seems right all round. VV Snatch Duster posted:That's a metaphor, not an argument. For shame. I don't get this, there was chaos everywhere you looked and dudes everywhere. For all the spawning issues the level was largely smartly layed out to push people into constant, heavy conflict. BFields big 64 player maps still felt completely empty a lot of the time, Front never had that issue. ShineDog fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Oct 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:If bigger numbers were always better then fat chicks would be on sports illustrated covers. That's a metaphor, not an argument. For shame. More players in a Stars Wars Battlefront game is a good thing. Game isn't doesn't give epic feel at all. Just a cash in. Enjoy your bad game fan boys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:The thing with having the bigger maps and 64-128 players is that you tend to end up with players zerging towards what seems like the most interesting bit of map at the time, so you end up with a few small areas that are complete a horseshit cluster and a lot of empty space. I've long thought that the middle sized maps and 48 (or 40 here) makes for better gameplay. The beta was a good mix of feeling appropriately chaotic and huge and actually not being a clusterfuck. It's also presumably a much easier solution in engineering terms, it seems right all round. That isn't my experience. IT wasn't chaos and it was so simple on Hoth. Imps had two paths at the start. Then two paths into hanger. Then two paths into the trenches. 20 vs 20 really broke down to this. 2 v 2 air fights, 1 -2 dudes in atats, 1 - 2 in atsts. leaving it like 15 vs 18. Super EPIC feeling. totally star wars. lol NOPE
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Yeah Hoth really needed another 5 per side or so, and I don't even get why it wasn't enabled considering how solid the game ran.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
As it is I wouldn't want the matches to be bigger because it would just mean getting shot in the back of the head more than you already do. Game badly needs some more verticality and structures to weave in and out of so that it's not just constantly shooting in a straight loving line at whoever happens to stumble into your FOV.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:
gently caress Metro and Operation Body Blocker most of all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:
And I'm gonna go ahead and say that the random empty fields and trenches of Hoth with two or three guys visible shooting at each other looks pretty terrible. A Star Wars game shouldn't feel like it has the same scale as Bad Company.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:20 vs 20 really broke down to this. 2 v 2 air fights, 1 -2 dudes in atats, 1 - 2 in atsts. leaving it like 15 vs 18. Super EPIC feeling. totally star wars. lol NOPE 15 v 18 in a reasonably focused area feels pretty hectic, yeah. If there were 40 people in the fight total, sure, but with the constant streams of reinforcement it usually felt, to me at least, like two armies facing off. A lot of that as you mention is down to the map flow which pushed groups of people into conflict, but even on the more open final stage there were usually lots of people scuttling around and lasers filling the sky. The big thing to me is that it stops the nigh unplayable situation you get in BF4 and PS2 and similar where 64+ players converge onto a single control point and you basically can't move or take any action for the constant sea of bullets and grenades. Even with the unprotected spawn point woes in the alpha it was rare for me to not be able to take any action when I spawned. I get that a constant sea of explosions is some peoples bag but that doesn't really feel like starwars or good gameplay to me. 48 would probably have been fine, but I'm definately glad it's not 64. ShineDog fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Oct 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Keiya posted:Larger player numbers are harder to make fun. TF2 can theoretically support something ridiculous but no one does more than like 40 because the game is already nearly unplayable at that point. I wouldn't even mind trudging around a vast half-empty 'scape and getting killed out of the blue by a speeder, but I don't get much feeling that vehicles are going to be tremendously important like they are in BF4, or that there will be such a variety. And without a huge vehicle game, I think that's part of what kills the flying vehicles for me. I wouldn't mind havnig X wings and poo poo blasting at me if the maps felt like they were factored in.. Like make a big death canyon trench map, which would force air vehicles to actually know what they are doing simply to turn around, and then put up a bunch of AA emplacements and objectives which are interesting, and you've got a stellar map. The beta's big open AT-AT attack map is a little too flat and boring to encourage the fast-paced thing they seem to be wanting. I like the inner corridor areas well enough, but the rest is just a bare snowfield with some turrets and shallow trenches.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:15 v 18 in a reasonably focused area feels pretty hectic, yeah. If there were 40 people in the fight total, sure, but with the constant streams of reinforcement it usually felt, to me at least, like two armies facing off. A lot of that as you mention is down to the map flow which pushed groups of people into conflict, but even on the more open final stage there were usually lots of people scuttling around and lasers filling the sky. But not on loving Hoth. Hoth battle is supposed to be this huge epic battle, not a small skirmish.  Give me that scene in the game. Look at all those people and poo poo fighting. Not loving 20 dudes spread out between air, ground, and infantry. Snatch Duster fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Oct 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:But not on loving Hoth. I don't think any of the Battlefront games have managed to capture what Hoth is supposed to feel like. Because it's a one sided massacre. You can't really capture the desperation in a shootmans multiplayer video game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:I don't think any of the Battlefront games have managed to capture what Hoth is supposed to feel like. Because it's a one sided massacre. You can't really capture the desperation in a shootmans multiplayer video game. And that is why I am not buying this bad game. Because the game can't deliver on a truly epic battle. Huge fights between two armies. Not dozen or so duders plinking at each other with blasters. BAD GAME
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:But not on loving Hoth. It felt pretty fuckin big to me man, I dunno what else to tell you. There was always a row of people firing down from every hill, people scattered all around the hanger, and fire coming from all around the trenches. The thing with any of these games is does it sell the illusion of a fight involving hundreds of people, and I'd say it comfortably does. couple of things about that picture 1 It wouldn't be any fun to play 2 Players wouldn't act like that Like, at the end of the day it's all smoke and mirrors, in the film it's about 20 extras and a bunch of cardboard cutouts running around in the snow. It feels bigger though, and it feels bigger in the game. ShineDog fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Oct 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:But not on loving Hoth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
You guys should probably click on his rap sheet before earnestly engaging with him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:It felt pretty fuckin big to me man, I dunno what else to tell you. There was always a row of people firing down from every hill, people scattered all around the hanger, and fire coming from all around the trenches. The thing with any of these games is does it sell the illusion of a fight involving hundreds of people, and I'd say it comfortably does. You played for a couple days and probably, like majority of nerds, were enthralled with the sounds, music, and setting. Once you seriously reflect on the game you'll see the truth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
coyo7e posted:That is clearly 64 players more like 124 vs 124. Which in the year of our lord two thousand and fifteen, is absolutely possible. Sedisp posted:You guys should probably click on his rap sheet before earnestly engaging with him. What does that have to do with anything? MAYBE everyone should look at your rap sheet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dViGCCSKxYc Snatch Duster fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Oct 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 20:55
|
|