lennchu Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Hi fellow players.I've recently began playing Star Wars Battlefront 2 again, and I feel that this game is extremely fun.But. the graphics are just.. well.. lets not mention it (it was good for the time it came out) But I feel the need to have a new Battlefront game. battlefront 3. With new storylines etc, and newer maps. Just better graphics I don't care at all! What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenify Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Hi fellow players. I've recently began playing Star Wars Battlefront 2 again, and I feel that this game is extremely fun. But. the graphics are just.. well.. lets not mention it (it was good for the time it came out) But I feel the need to have a new Battlefront game. battlefront 3. With new storylines etc, and newer maps. Just better graphics I don't care at all! What do you think? OMG this has totally never occurred to anyone before, what an original idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennchu Posted June 2, 2013 Author Share Posted June 2, 2013 OMG this has totally never occurred to anyone before, what an original idea! I know right.. but seriously, it was a great shooter.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spectreclees Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 E3 will most likely announce a new Battlefront game from EA. Keep your hopes up, it's already rumored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beniboybling Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Fans have being asking for BF3 since, ever. And speculation has been rampant for just as long. And ever since EA bought Lucasarts the possibility of BF3 has literally been discussed on every Star Wars forum out there and touched upon by every gaming website. And now with DICE (developers of Battlefield 3 and other 1st person shooters) setting up shop in LA to produce Star Wars games, and a recent major hint made by an EA dude that BF3 is on the table, its pretty much certain that EA are going to produce BF3 and the desires of countless fans will finally be satisfied. So yeah... your a little late the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eillack Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Hi fellow players. I've recently began playing Star Wars Battlefront 2 again, and I feel that this game is extremely fun. But. the graphics are just.. well.. lets not mention it (it was good for the time it came out) But I feel the need to have a new Battlefront game. battlefront 3. With new storylines etc, and newer maps. Just better graphics I don't care at all! What do you think? Where have you been the past decade almost? Star Wars BF3 has been in an off-and-on state of production, virtually finish, halted, and now slated again in more than 1 title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euphrosyne Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Since this is a repeat thread, I'll just use it to ask a semi-related question. Does anybody else feel that the game sort of lost that "tactical" sense in BF2? I felt like in the first game, it really mattered what command posts you controlled, and how many of them you held. It was a war of positions. Taking an individual CP was a really big deal. But in BF2, you could just go nuts, kill loads and loads of enemies, take over as one of the hero characters, and it really didn't matter how many CPs you held, or which ones. Again, that's just my impression from playing it. I mean, don't get me wrong, I loved BF2 for a lot of reasons. Playing as Jedi and Sith and the various other hero characters was cool. Space battles were neat. The galactic conquest mode was much more interesting than in BF1. Promotions and medals and award weapons were all awesome upgrades. But for whatever reason, the actual tactics weren't really there. I mean, for instance, on the Dune Sea map in BF1, it made a legit difference as to whether you went after, say, the Tusken Camp or the Cisterns first. (Have fun trying to take the Tusken Camp if you managed to snag the Cisterns first; all the Tusken reinforcements would go there instead, you'd have to slog up a hill, and the Tuskens would respawn on all sides of you in their little yurts and you'd get murdered by the crossfire. If you got the Tusken Camp first, the Cisterns battle would degenerate into a messy three-sided brawl, but at least you'd have vehicle support guaranteed, three different avenues of approach, and a reasonable shot at taking it on the sly.) But with BF2, one CP was as good as another. They didn't even have individual names anymore. Do you guys see what I'm saying, or am I not making any sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CassusVerda Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Since this is a repeat thread, I'll just use it to ask a semi-related question. Does anybody else feel that the game sort of lost that "tactical" sense in BF2? I felt like in the first game, it really mattered what command posts you controlled, and how many of them you held. It was a war of positions. Taking an individual CP was a really big deal. But in BF2, you could just go nuts, kill loads and loads of enemies, take over as one of the hero characters, and it really didn't matter how many CPs you held, or which ones. Again, that's just my impression from playing it. I mean, don't get me wrong, I loved BF2 for a lot of reasons. Playing as Jedi and Sith and the various other hero characters was cool. Space battles were neat. The galactic conquest mode was much more interesting than in BF1. Promotions and medals and award weapons were all awesome upgrades. But for whatever reason, the actual tactics weren't really there. I mean, for instance, on the Dune Sea map in BF1, it made a legit difference as to whether you went after, say, the Tusken Camp or the Cisterns first. (Have fun trying to take the Tusken Camp if you managed to snag the Cisterns first; all the Tusken reinforcements would go there instead, you'd have to slog up a hill, and the Tuskens would respawn on all sides of you in their little yurts and you'd get murdered by the crossfire. If you got the Tusken Camp first, the Cisterns battle would degenerate into a messy three-sided brawl, but at least you'd have vehicle support guaranteed, three different avenues of approach, and a reasonable shot at taking it on the sly.) But with BF2, one CP was as good as another. They didn't even have individual names anymore. Do you guys see what I'm saying, or am I not making any sense? Yes I see where your coming from. Which makes me happy that DICE could be taking a whack at Battlefront 3 (Or a Spiritual Sequel). They have the experience in making a game where tactics are key to victory. Though one thing I didn't like about Battlefield 3 and BC2 is that if your on a team of "Noob" and "Lone Wolf" Players fighting against a team of people who know what their doing your done. No "Ifs, ands, or buts" about it. You might as well take your loss, wait to switch, or rage quit. Your good, but there is not enough of players like you to turn the tide and other players camp points with vehicles or try to exploit glitches to get a tactical advantage. It gets frustrating after a while. Hopefully the AI, if it is allowed in Multiplayer, could be buffed up to help even the fight. Also one thing I didn't like about Battlefront II, was that it looked so cheap compared to the first one. Most of the stuff was copied over from the first, and given a new name. Features were lost like going prone. It looked like a cash in on Revenge of the Sith....which it was. Hell it's demo was on the DVD. Then another thing that pissed me off was how inaccurate the classes were. Commander Bacara is a Heavy Trooper while his subordinate Galactic Marine is a Commander?! For the 501st?! I'm glad mods came out on the PC that changed the experience for the better but for the base game and the console versions it kinda annoyed me. I had fun playing BF2.....but it was flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennchu Posted June 3, 2013 Author Share Posted June 3, 2013 Where have you been the past decade almost? Star Wars BF3 has been in an off-and-on state of production, virtually finish, halted, and now slated again in more than 1 title. I've not really been following things like that. I got a job that pretty well takes all my time I actually have since I have to train a dog constantly in order to maintain the offer I made. Every hour I have off I sleep, or play SWTOR. Therefor I haven't been following the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beniboybling Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Since this is a repeat thread, I'll just use it to ask a semi-related question. Does anybody else feel that the game sort of lost that "tactical" sense in BF2? I felt like in the first game, it really mattered what command posts you controlled, and how many of them you held. It was a war of positions. Taking an individual CP was a really big deal. But in BF2, you could just go nuts, kill loads and loads of enemies, take over as one of the hero characters, and it really didn't matter how many CPs you held, or which ones. Again, that's just my impression from playing it. I mean, don't get me wrong, I loved BF2 for a lot of reasons. Playing as Jedi and Sith and the various other hero characters was cool. Space battles were neat. The galactic conquest mode was much more interesting than in BF1. Promotions and medals and award weapons were all awesome upgrades. But for whatever reason, the actual tactics weren't really there. I mean, for instance, on the Dune Sea map in BF1, it made a legit difference as to whether you went after, say, the Tusken Camp or the Cisterns first. (Have fun trying to take the Tusken Camp if you managed to snag the Cisterns first; all the Tusken reinforcements would go there instead, you'd have to slog up a hill, and the Tuskens would respawn on all sides of you in their little yurts and you'd get murdered by the crossfire. If you got the Tusken Camp first, the Cisterns battle would degenerate into a messy three-sided brawl, but at least you'd have vehicle support guaranteed, three different avenues of approach, and a reasonable shot at taking it on the sly.) But with BF2, one CP was as good as another. They didn't even have individual names anymore. Do you guys see what I'm saying, or am I not making any sense?TBH I can't really remember much of BF1 - I never actually owned the game but played it quite a lot at a friends. Don't think I ever played Tatooine though... but based on what you've said I'd agree. While I still think capturing CPs is important its not nearly as important as you made it out to be in BF1. I'd like to see more of this in BF3. Personally I think the game is going to be hugely successful. Because lets face it the Battlefront series aren't exactly the best first person shooters out there. They're good, but that's about it. Its the Star Wars label that makes them awesome. So given that, and the fact that DICE, a developer of triple A first-person shooters, is likely making BF3, I think it will exceed all expectations and possibly be one of the most popular Star Wars games ever produced. Even with the corporate sleaze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciTriChOtshOt Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I was a huge SW BFII player. We had a league established, wish I could remember the name. I'm hoping someone will recognize me from the the league. I was in the Kessel Runners guild (gm was Hansolo3). After playing in a lot of competitve Halo tournaments and playing almost every first person shooter under the sun, the Battlefront series offered an amazing 3rd person experience. One of the problems with online play was individual player hosting. We were always waiting for certain players to open a room for us to play in, and the connection was always a worry. The other problem was after BFII came out, the introduction of XBOX360 caused MASSIVE lag issues for non-360 users. The league players became disgruntled with the uneven playing field and our last tournament we tried to cap the 360 users on each team during matchups but it was still a lagfest disaster. Really hope they complete BFIII and it makes it to retail. I will throw my money at it in a heartbeat. PS- Friendly-fire OFF w/ vanguard mines FTW. haha, so OP I love it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eillack Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I've not really been following things like that. I got a job that pretty well takes all my time I actually have since I have to train a dog constantly in order to maintain the offer I made. Every hour I have off I sleep, or play SWTOR. Therefor I haven't been following the news. Cool story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crashedhardrive Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 If they do indeed intend on releasing BF3 I wonder if it will be a subscription based game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVTCarnage Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I expect BF3 to be a Battlefield FPS Star Wars game, nothing more, nothing less. I am hoping for a Jedi Knight 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eillack Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 I expect BF3 to be a Battlefield FPS Star Wars game, nothing more, nothing less. I am hoping for a Jedi Knight 4 Star Wars: Frontlines is the FPS you speak of. Battlefront 3 is both like the previous two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts