Battlefront3.net

I'm beginning to think fighting on corvettes would be more trouble than it's worth.

Arosenivai wrote:I'm beginning to think fighting on corvettes would be more trouble than it's worth.

Good next topic

Seriously though, I don't think it's necessary. Capital ships and ground battle is good enough. Maybe through a large DLC pack they can introduce frigates.

Scott wrote: Seriously though, I don't think it's necessary. Capital ships and ground battle is good enough. Maybe through a large DLC pack they can introduce frigates.

Well getting onto acclamator or munificent class frigates wouldn't be hard. Just CR90's or other small craft like that.

Maybe the frigates could have shield generators to the planet that you are trying to go to (assuming it's land to space) and you have to go in the frigate to destroy the generator.

Maybe in campaign, but it doesn't make sense for galactic conquest.

Could be something similar to generator defense in Halo Reach?

Arosenivai wrote:Maybe in campaign, but it doesn't make sense for galactic conquest.

I agree. And maybe even scrap it for campaign. It's a cool concept but I'm not sure it would be that fun to play. The most exciting part of the sequence in the movie is if Luke will hit it in time to save the galaxy, or will Vader get him at the last second. If you could just respawn and go again where's the fun?

But then comes the question of what would be fun for the campaign mode? What would make it thrilling? What would make it immersing?

I have to say but blowing up the death star.

Arosenivai wrote:But then comes the question of what would be fun for the campaign mode? What would make it thrilling? What would make it immersing?

I have to go with thrill if either. Immersion doesn't come from a big explosion. Thrills can come from that if they are truly satisfying and not easily earned. Immersion involves every gameplay element working in absolute harmony to create an experience to the point where the individual elements are hard to notice.

I personally believe a good mix of both is best. Without the slightest amount of immersion, it can't be thrilling, at least that's my experience with gaming.

Arosenivai wrote:I personally believe a good mix of both is best. Without the slightest amount of immersion, it can't be thrilling, at least that's my experience with gaming.

Have you played ME2, UC2, or GodoW3? Those are what I consider to be immersive. I don't need to be immersed in every game. I don't want to believe I'm in the year 40,000 when I play Dawn of War, I don't wan't to believe I'm a freaky character without appendages when I occasionally play Wii Sports. Games don't have to be immersive to be fun.

Scott wrote:

Arosenivai wrote:I personally believe a good mix of both is best. Without the slightest amount of immersion, it can't be thrilling, at least that's my experience with gaming.

Have you played ME2, UC2, or GodoW3? Those are what I consider to be immersive. I don't need to be immersed in every game. I don't want to believe I'm in the year 40,000 when I play Dawn of War, I don't wan't to believe I'm a freaky character without appendages when I occasionally play Wii Sports. Games don't have to be immersive to be fun.

I agree. I guess I mean I have to feel for the characters or their plight to get a thrill about them making it or not. Does that make sense? We may just have different definitions of the vernacular used here, but I agree with you. I don't need to think I'm in that world to get a thrill from gameplay.

I think they need a campaign with some different maps than the regular battlefields.