Battlefront3.net

[Scott]

8 player would work if at least 4 of those people weren't very good. BF was never that hard of a game so that it could appeal to a wide array of gamers (which is why I think BFIII may also be too easy).

That's why there's always multiple levels of difficulty. I mean Veteran from BF2 was a joke even without legendary in guardian. There's no reason why they couldn't have a difficulty mode in which both campaign and galactic conquest are legitimately challenging.

Well levels of difficulties were never brought up.

But really guys, what should the single-player campaign be about.

On that note: I think there should be an actual campaign, not like a battlefront multiplayer battle in which you can't "fight it you're way". I know that seems odd coming from me, but I think they can do much more with the single player than what they have.

That would make absolutely no sense though. It would seem to much like to games combined together. They'd have to make a hell of a lot more maps as well which would take dev time away from the abundance of other places that need polishing in BF games. I was okay with the same maps maybe just more realistic objectives (BFII tried this). For instance, your still in the Dune Sea, but now the small hovel must be protected if your CIS from the raiders and Republic. If your Republic you have to take it back. I'm not asking for too much in the game, just good maps, old ones returning, maybe a unit more for each faction, and of course for the game to be released. Oh, and splitscreen and land to space.

[Sam]

I think I know what you mean scott, make it so it seems that your part of a much larger thing, a small battle part of a larger push forward. Not you are the battle.

[Scott]

I think I know what you mean scott, make it so it seems that your part of a much larger thing, a small battle part of a larger push forward. Not you are the battle.

That's a good way to put it, yes

[Arosenivai]

That would make absolutely no sense though. It would seem to much like to games combined together. They'd have to make a hell of a lot more maps as well which would take dev time away from the abundance of other places that need polishing in BF games. I was okay with the same maps maybe just more realistic objectives (BFII tried this). For instance, your still in the Dune Sea, but now the small hovel must be protected if your CIS from the raiders and Republic. If your Republic you have to take it back. I'm not asking for too much in the game, just good maps, old ones returning, maybe a unit more for each faction, and of course for the game to be released. Oh, and splitscreen and land to space.

I do know that making new maps take a lot of development time (not to mention all of the game testing ), but my personal take on the previous Battlefronts is this: tacked on, and almost completely unnecessary. I think what they did in BF2 was a step in the right direction, but it still did a lot of "go over here", "defend this", "attack that". I guess what I'm asking for is a little more meaning behind it, or at least more complex objectives, if that makes sense. Using the same maps is fine, as long as it is appropriate.

I think I know what you mean scott, make it so it seems that your part of a much larger thing, a small battle part of a larger push forward. Not you are the battle.

I definitely agree with that philosophy, because in my mind that is The Philosophy of Battlefront. I guess what I'm getting at instead of being part of a "legion", how about being part of a squad (not a squadron mind you). Make it seem a little more fast pace, get to know the team members ( of course that would lead to the issues of you constantly dying and what not). I guess what I'm trying to ask for is a single player campaign with a little more depth. Does that make sense or am I senile?

[Darth Vader]

I do know that making new maps take a lot of development time (not to mention all of the game testing )

You have no idea. And also how boring it can get.

I think what they did in BF2 was a step in the right direction, but it still did a lot of "go over here", "defend this", "attack that". I guess what I'm asking for is a little more meaning behind it, or at least more complex objectives, if that makes sense.

Less of that and more of something else would be neat. What else did you have in mind?

[Scott]

I do know that making new maps take a lot of development time (not to mention all of the game testing ), but my personal take on the previous Battlefronts is this: tacked on, and almost completely unnecessary. I think what they did in BF2 was a step in the right direction, but it still did a lot of "go over here", "defend this", "attack that". I guess what I'm asking for is a little more meaning behind it, or at least more complex objectives, if that makes sense. Using the same maps is fine, as long as it is appropriate.

I completely agree with that. I want the same maps but yes, more in-depth objectives.

I definitely agree with that philosophy, because in my mind that is The Philosophy of Battlefront. I guess what I'm getting at instead of being part of a "legion", how about being part of a squad (not a squadron mind you). Make it seem a little more fast pace, get to know the team members ( of course that would lead to the issues of you constantly dying and what not). I guess what I'm trying to ask for is a single player campaign with a little more depth. Does that make sense or am I senile?

I do agree with fast paced action (ala the FPSs of today) but don't like the idea of a story revolving around a squad. Too many things get in the way of that. Republic Commando 2 can worry about a squad-based story. BFIII should have a war-based story where the story is how the war plays out. It's not about you, it's about us. More accurately the war. I can probably think of other things to say but I'll wait to reply.

[Darth Vader]

And what other objectives would here be? It's kind of hard. If it's not Attack this place or defend this place, or capture this object, then it counts as a move here.

[Scott]

Well if they had land-to-space the objectives would seem more diverse because of diveristy in landscape. Say, capture the ground then realizing your capital ship is under attack but first you have to hold down the launch pad to get fighters up to the capital. It seems cooler than it really is: attack, capture, defend. Land-to-space adds a lot and hopefully will be implemented.

[Darth Vader]

Well if they had land-to-space

That would change everything.

[Legion 2.5]

The original BF3 was suppose to have that. I would actually like to destroy the death star in the campaign. That would be cool.

[Arosenivai]

I guess what I really want is the campaign to feel different from the multiplayer, not more of the same. Either some cool additions, (like the LAATs flying overhead in the first level), even something as simple as briefing/debriefing would add an element of purpose to the campaign. Otherwise, I might as well just play multiplayer.

[Scott]

I guess what I really want is the campaign to feel different from the multiplayer, not more of the same. Either some cool additions, (like the LAATs flying overhead in the first level), even something as simple as briefing/debriefing would add an element of purpose to the campaign. Otherwise, I might as well just play multiplayer.

So more of a cinematic deal? KZ2 comes to mind. Or Resistance (specifically R1).

[Arosenivai]

Well I don't know if that cinematic, but I want there to actually be a legitimate reason to play the campaign.

[Legion 2.5]

I want to blow up the death star.

[Arosenivai]

There are already a lot of games that do that though. I know a lot of them aren't great, but I'm not sure that's necessary for Battlefront. I mean there's no problem with it being in there, as long as it doesn't feel too tagged on.