Battlefront3.net

Post by **Joelfigbars** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 6:01 pm

Well its not anything big but once Gameinformer makes a whole article dedicated to the cause LucasArts has to take notice.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/ ... -list.aspx

Post by **eckoro** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:04 pm

They have had so many articles and attention on Battlefront 3. It's obvious the game has potential, yet they still invest in games that are less wanted. This game is at the forefront of everything, they have threads on the forum, videos with thousands of views on youtube, media attention bombarading Spark Unlimited.

They need to pay attention to the community a lot more. Companies like Bethseda do. That is why Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim will do well.

Post by **Scott** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:55 pm

To steal the last line from the great nerd movie Fanboys...

What if it sucks?

Suppressing that thought....NOW!

EDIT:

Disagree:
128 people? They couldn't get 16 people to work online!
Leveling up? Persistent ranking? Noooooo!

Agree:
Ya, the physics were terrible. Upgrade or not it doesn't really make a difference to me. Well I guess I wouldn't mind some physics...

In addition, destruction should have gameplay possibilities. Blow a hole in the side of a ship with a thermal detonator, and enemy troops could get pulled out into space.

Wait...didn't I mentioned this before?

Scott wrote:...grenade or rocket hits a tank, blow a hole through and be able to kill men inside with repeater...

Knew it

Sites like this don't just write wishlists for the hell of it. They write them to hype the announcement/release of a game. In my experience anyway. Hmm...

Post by **spartan64** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:27 am

Can that mean BF3 will be announced by GI...? Why not?

Post by **eckoro** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:15 am

Well it could be there next cover issue. I think I remember them doing this a few times before, Elder Scrolls namely being one of them. Hints here and there.

Post by **Kelevra** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:20 am

128 people? They couldn't get 16 people to work online!

In 2005. Because it didn't work out great before doesn't really mean they shouldn't give it another shot after 6+ years of tech advancement.

That said, I probably wouldn't go with 128 players if some of the smaller maps like the Tantive IV return. In that case I'd rather they just restrict the max amount of players based on the map. Huge fields like Hoth or Geonosis could easily support 128. Or 256.

Leveling up? Persistent ranking? Noooooo!

Battlefront 2 did that. Poorly. But there weren't any issues with it as far as I remember... besides a severe lack of ranks. So long as those reward weapons get canned I don't see a problem. Now, perks and customization I'm not too big a fan of. As I've discussed before, just selecting your loadout from a small pool tailored to your class would be nice.

Post by **spartan64** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:42 am

eckoro wrote:Well it could be there next cover issue. I think I remember them doing this a few times before, Elder Scrolls namely being one of them. Hints here and there.

Well... we hope so. September then

Post by **DeadFire87** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:45 am

I am doubtful of 128 player online. As Gamespy is a mediocre way to support dedicated servers. If they do. Not good. 64 players is more likely. As the graphics could still be impactful and if physics exist they can actually be displayed. 128 players would likely end any chance of updated physics. Possible maybe though. I would like physics and blaster marks painting my warzone though.

A non gamespy Dedicated server support would be best.

I am hoping for Battlefield 3 + Jedi Knight + Republic Commando + Movie Battles 2.

Yes I do believe Jedi should have a class on the battlefield. Should they be limited with powers and deflecting ability YES! They are merely a solider in the Star Wars universe and they should be balanced to fit into the realm among the other soldiers. No force spam, unblastable jedi.

Heroes I believe should be cut back or at least out of main combat modes.

Post by **Scott** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:22 am

Kelevra wrote:
128 people? They couldn't get 16 people to work online!
In 2005. Because it didn't work out great before means they shouldn't give it another shot after 6+ years of tech advancement?

That said, I probably wouldn't go with 128 players if some of the smaller maps like the Tantive IV return. In that case I'd rather they just restrict the max amount of players based on the map. Huge fields like Hoth or Geonosis could easily support 128. Or 256.

Valid point. I would still be worried though. I wouldn't be playing online anyway so I guess I shouldn't care too much.

Kelevra wrote:
Leveling up? Persistent ranking? Noooooo!
Battlefront 2 did that. Poorly. But there weren't any issues with it as far as I remember... besides a severe lack of ranks. So long as those reward weapons get canned I don't see a problem. Now, perks and customization I'm not too big a fan of. As I've discussed before, just selecting your loadout from a small pool tailored to your class would be nice.

This could turn into a pretty large argument/discussion. Too make my side short, I didn't like BFII's ranking. I think it fit better than a CoD style ranking system would have, but I like picking a class and not having to worry about camo and facepaint.

Post by **CooLpro** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:13 am

eckoro wrote:Well it could be there next cover issue. I think I remember them doing this a few times before, Elder Scrolls namely being one of them. Hints here and there.

This is so true!

With the blue-ray coming out in Septemeber it would be a good time to announce it ... then the first trailer at the Spike TV awards in December!

Release next Summer with the Episode one in 3D at the cinema?!

Post by **spartan64** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:31 am

DeadFire87 wrote:Spark unlimited is working on a Star Wars title, but what if its not Battlefront III?

We only need to know that they are working on a Star Wars title and if they did, it must be BF3.

Post by **Kelevra** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 9:25 am

I still don't buy that. "3rd person action/adventure title in a high profile sci-fi franchise" That's way too broad of a definition to point to any specific title. That could apply to a bunch of SW games:

Jedi Knight/Outcast/Academy
LEGO Star Wars
The Force Unleashed
Bounty Hunter
Obi-Wan
Episode I
Episode III
Jedi Power Battles
The Clone Wars: Republic Heroes
Lethal Alliance
Shadows of the Empire

If we get rid of the assumption that it's Star Wars, there's probably a hundred more games that match the description. There's always the possibility that it could be something completely new.

Post by **AnthonyOstrich** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:08 pm

Kelevra wrote:I still don't buy that. "3rd person action/adventure title in a high profile sci-fi franchise" That's way too broad of a definition to point to any specific title. That could apply to a bunch of SW games:

Well, Star Wars Battlefront 3 seems to be the most likely one.

Kelevra wrote: Jedi Knight/Outcast/Academy

It's possible, but not likely considering those games are even older than BF II and didn't do as well commercially. (It did well, but no where near how the BF games did.)

Kelevra wrote: LEGO Star Wars

Wouldn't Travelers Tales be developing it? Unlike Battlefront, it doesn't have a history of being passed around between developers.

Kelevra wrote: The Force Unleashed

They are making a Forced Unleashed 3 and it isn't coming from Spark. Also, we know the Spark Unlimited project will use the unreal engine, and TFU3 will almost certainly us the Havoc engine like the previous two.

Kelevra wrote: Bounty Hunter

Possible. But making a sequel for such an old game doesn't make much sense. This was released in 2002. Spark's project will be out in 2012 at the earliest. That's a full decade.

Kelevra wrote: Jedi Power Battles

This would be another more-than-a-decade one. Not too likely.

Kelevra wrote: The Clone Wars: Republic Heroes

This is probably the most likely non-BF3 possibility. Let's just hope it's not this.

Kelevra wrote: Lethal Alliance

A handheld game getting a console sequel? Possible. Not likely.

Kelevra wrote: Shadows of the Empire

Another decade-er. More than 15 years, actually.

Kelevra wrote: There's always the possibility that it could be something completely new.

They said that there is an awaiting, highly critical audience. It has to be something the public has heard of.

Post by **Kelevra** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:12 pm

I didn't mention those as possibilities; I don't expect any of them to actually be made. I used them to demonstrate how loose of a definition "3rd Person/action adventure/sci-fi" is.

Post by **Calvanater** » Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:49 am

George Lucas is accused of just wanting more money, and being stupid because of it. No, he is just flat out stupid, because he hasn't released a BF3 game yet. Hopefully he reads Gameinformer, and if not, I'll use my cellphone on his private jet. $:\/:$