Thank goodness I am done with school so I can't fail classes from playing to much battlefront. So help me if battlefront and bad company 3 launched in the same year.
1
ChoochK-Pop authority™, Pho KingMadison Heights, MIIcrontian
@FettBacon said:
Pre-rendered footage + what happened with Battlefield 4 has me very wary but I can't help being nervously hyped.
we have reached a point where pre-rendered footage looks uncomfortably close to what is possible for actual gameplay footage. game producers will need to stop using pre-rendered footage, or risk alienating gamers who buy a game on false hopes. (or in rare cases flat out lies.) amiright?
EDIT: or at least make it obvious what is pre-rendered and what is not
'in-game' footage would be footage of actually playing the game, and would include HUD elements and stuff. in-engine just means that the engine of the game was used, so it's the same graphics and environments as the game but with cinematic camera angles and no HUD.
Aliens: Colonial Marines trailer was in-engine too and after seeing how that turned out I don't consider there to be any difference between the two. All I've assumed it to mean is that its made in house instead of by a third party maybe using tools and assets that MIGHT end up in the final game, if we're lucky. In-engine footage also doesn't prove the game will released complete, Dice proved that with Battlefield 4.
I always find it funny when people are like NO WAY IT'S BULLSHOTS THAT'S NOT REAL GAMEPLAY when it is, and is only lacking the HUD. When I worked on Company of Heroes 2, people constantly cried foul at our trailers because it wasn't "Gameplay" despite all being rendered in real time using the game itself. To them, it wasn't "gameplay" until you had the camera up in the RTS perspective and you slapped a mini map on it. Sure enough, we did just that to the same footage, and people praised the game. Gamers, mirite?
Here's the thing about Battlefront - that trailer is made with all the assets, locations, and effects of the game in real time. There's obviously special camera work being done, and there's post-rendering to smooth out some effects, but that's legit the level of fidelity you're going to see in the game. I've played a PS4 build of the game at work (as well as watched our 5 minute gameplay presentation at SW Celebration), and you can barely tell the difference between the two outside of the HUD and weapon FOV. Some details, like lighting, motion blur, and aliasing, isn't as clean in the actual game, but that's to be expected. This game looks so good it hurts. It'll blow your mind.
And this was all on a pre-alpha PS4 build. Nowhere to go but up from here. Trust me, you guys are gonna want to keep you eyes on this game
It's worth nothing that up until now, we haven't really seen any truly "next-gen" titles yet. Most of the games available on PS4/XBone are all HD remasters of last-gen titles. PC has starting leaping forward in graphics, but even then, it's really only the PC exclusives that have been showing us what to expect from this newest generation.
Battlefront is one of the first cross-platform titles out this year that is taking full advantage of the newest graphics engine capabilities. There's no PS3/X360 ports, so no need to be tied back to those limitations. We're about to witness the power of this fully operational gaming generation.
I think gameplay is important to see as a gamer, even if it is just a perspective change and adding a hud in, because it tells me what the game I'll be playing plays like instead of just what it looks like with a little help. Any gameplay I know is gameplay would tell me something about the game this in-engine trailer makes me assume things about the game and those things might not be true setting me up for disappointment in the future
Maybe I'm just a pessimist but I also think that in-engine footage is a very vague term and that with a different perspective change and a different hud this could have just as easily been a trailer for an Empire at War sequel instead of a Battlefront sequel. And I'm not saying the game is gonna be bad because this trailer doesn't sell the game to me, I'm just saying that this trailer doesn't sell the game to me and I really wanted it to. I'm probably gonna get this game just because its battlefront but I want to know more than "pretty graphics can be made with the engine it'll run on".
@FettBacon said:
Maybe I'm just a pessimist but I also think that in-engine footage is a very vague term
It's a legal requirement, unfortunately. Really nothing but semantics. If we weren't required to put that language on the slate, then half the internet drama out there today wouldn't even exist.
I totally get it, and to be frank, I don't like pre-ordering games at all. I haven't done it since Half-Life 2. Without seeing the game itself, I'd be skeptical as well.
The thing that irks me is that the damn game was revealed just four days ago, and yet gamers all over are barking about how they deserve to see real time gameplay footage already, and that it's unfair that EA would not show the actual game yet.
Because after hundreds of thousands of years dinosaurs decided they only wanted to mate with those that could potentially fly, and we should put our own lives in perspective. The next person you mate with ought to have at least some beginner wings.
1
ChoochK-Pop authority™, Pho KingMadison Heights, MIIcrontian
@]UPS[ Lynx said:
Four days in. Everyone, calm your tits plz.
@PirateNinja said:
I'm preordering next paycheck and regretting nothing.
Because DICE Stockholm has a great track record of releasing bug-free products like Battlefield 4? Because there's no way EA would force a dev to launch Battlefront in November for Christmas/The Force Awakens even if the game isn't ready?
Granted, I'm pretty anti-pre-order to start with, but after being burned by Battlefield 4 (and from what I've heard about Sim City) I'm going to wait on Battlefront. I would be interested in hearing counter-arguments about why pre-ordering would be advantageous.
I have to interpret your post as asking me why I'm enthusiastic and taking some cracks at guessing, which are wrong. It's because I have had a fantastic time with Bf3,Bf4,and Hardline. I also love Star Wars. This is a no brainer for me, for you it may be entirely different and that's cool too.
You know what would be fantastic? If this game had the single player experience of Mass Effect and I could use my same character for multiplayer. I don't have a clue how that would be done, but my issue with the battlefield games, if anything, is that the single player doesn't build a character up. There is no investment beyond finish single player for a few more multiplayer perks. If there could somehow be a more fluid experience along with character development across single player and multiplayer that would be sweet. Regardless, I'm excited about what could be the first good star wars fps in quite some time.
@PirateNinja said:
You know what would be fantastic? If this game had the single player experience of Mass Effect and I could use my same character for multiplayer. I don't have a clue how that would be done, but my issue with the battlefield games, if anything, is that the single player doesn't build a character up. There is no investment beyond finish single player for a few more multiplayer perks. If there could somehow be a more fluid experience along with character development across single player and multiplayer that would be sweet. Regardless, I'm excited about what could be the first good star wars fps in quite some time.
Destiny does this, to an extent. Most of the game can be single player, then there are multiplayer-only things as well as raid type things for between 3-6 people. It worked pretty well and stayed decently balanced.
primesuspect
Beepin n' BoopinDetroit, MI Icrontian
Comments
Thank goodness I am done with school so I can't fail classes from playing to much battlefront. So help me if battlefront and bad company 3 launched in the same year.
Pre-rendered footage + what happened with Battlefield 4 has me very wary but I can't help being nervously hyped.
we have reached a point where pre-rendered footage looks uncomfortably close to what is possible for actual gameplay footage. game producers will need to stop using pre-rendered footage, or risk alienating gamers who buy a game on false hopes. (or in rare cases flat out lies.) amiright?
EDIT: or at least make it obvious what is pre-rendered and what is not
Dudes, the first 10 seconds of the trailer says it's in-engine footage. Scripted sequences? Sure. But real-time rendered.
I wondered about that. How does that differ from in-game footage?
'in-game' footage would be footage of actually playing the game, and would include HUD elements and stuff. in-engine just means that the engine of the game was used, so it's the same graphics and environments as the game but with cinematic camera angles and no HUD.
Aliens: Colonial Marines trailer was in-engine too and after seeing how that turned out I don't consider there to be any difference between the two. All I've assumed it to mean is that its made in house instead of by a third party maybe using tools and assets that MIGHT end up in the final game, if we're lucky. In-engine footage also doesn't prove the game will released complete, Dice proved that with Battlefield 4.
id like to clarify, that i wasnt talking about this specific trailer, but game trailers in general. also i was pretty drunk.
I always find it funny when people are like NO WAY IT'S BULLSHOTS THAT'S NOT REAL GAMEPLAY when it is, and is only lacking the HUD. When I worked on Company of Heroes 2, people constantly cried foul at our trailers because it wasn't "Gameplay" despite all being rendered in real time using the game itself. To them, it wasn't "gameplay" until you had the camera up in the RTS perspective and you slapped a mini map on it. Sure enough, we did just that to the same footage, and people praised the game. Gamers, mirite?
Here's the thing about Battlefront - that trailer is made with all the assets, locations, and effects of the game in real time. There's obviously special camera work being done, and there's post-rendering to smooth out some effects, but that's legit the level of fidelity you're going to see in the game. I've played a PS4 build of the game at work (as well as watched our 5 minute gameplay presentation at SW Celebration), and you can barely tell the difference between the two outside of the HUD and weapon FOV. Some details, like lighting, motion blur, and aliasing, isn't as clean in the actual game, but that's to be expected. This game looks so good it hurts. It'll blow your mind.
And this was all on a pre-alpha PS4 build. Nowhere to go but up from here. Trust me, you guys are gonna want to keep you eyes on this game
It's worth nothing that up until now, we haven't really seen any truly "next-gen" titles yet. Most of the games available on PS4/XBone are all HD remasters of last-gen titles. PC has starting leaping forward in graphics, but even then, it's really only the PC exclusives that have been showing us what to expect from this newest generation.
Battlefront is one of the first cross-platform titles out this year that is taking full advantage of the newest graphics engine capabilities. There's no PS3/X360 ports, so no need to be tied back to those limitations. We're about to witness the power of this fully operational gaming generation.
Fire at will commander. PC master race fire hype laser on rebel cruiser. I'm preordering next paycheck and regretting nothing.
I think gameplay is important to see as a gamer, even if it is just a perspective change and adding a hud in, because it tells me what the game I'll be playing plays like instead of just what it looks like with a little help. Any gameplay I know is gameplay would tell me something about the game this in-engine trailer makes me assume things about the game and those things might not be true setting me up for disappointment in the future
Maybe I'm just a pessimist but I also think that in-engine footage is a very vague term and that with a different perspective change and a different hud this could have just as easily been a trailer for an Empire at War sequel instead of a Battlefront sequel. And I'm not saying the game is gonna be bad because this trailer doesn't sell the game to me, I'm just saying that this trailer doesn't sell the game to me and I really wanted it to. I'm probably gonna get this game just because its battlefront but I want to know more than "pretty graphics can be made with the engine it'll run on".
It's a legal requirement, unfortunately. Really nothing but semantics. If we weren't required to put that language on the slate, then half the internet drama out there today wouldn't even exist.
I totally get it, and to be frank, I don't like pre-ordering games at all. I haven't done it since Half-Life 2. Without seeing the game itself, I'd be skeptical as well.
The thing that irks me is that the damn game was revealed just four days ago, and yet gamers all over are barking about how they deserve to see real time gameplay footage already, and that it's unfair that EA would not show the actual game yet.
Four days in. Everyone, calm your tits plz.
My tits are the calmest motherfucking tits you've ever seen. Don't tell me how to raise them.
Why is this a thing?
Because after hundreds of thousands of years dinosaurs decided they only wanted to mate with those that could potentially fly, and we should put our own lives in perspective. The next person you mate with ought to have at least some beginner wings.
Because DICE Stockholm has a great track record of releasing bug-free products like Battlefield 4? Because there's no way EA would force a dev to launch Battlefront in November for Christmas/The Force Awakens even if the game isn't ready?
Granted, I'm pretty anti-pre-order to start with, but after being burned by Battlefield 4 (and from what I've heard about Sim City) I'm going to wait on Battlefront. I would be interested in hearing counter-arguments about why pre-ordering would be advantageous.
I have to interpret your post as asking me why I'm enthusiastic and taking some cracks at guessing, which are wrong. It's because I have had a fantastic time with Bf3,Bf4,and Hardline. I also love Star Wars. This is a no brainer for me, for you it may be entirely different and that's cool too.
itt: EA sux gamer entitled skeptic blah blah
You know what would be fantastic? If this game had the single player experience of Mass Effect and I could use my same character for multiplayer. I don't have a clue how that would be done, but my issue with the battlefield games, if anything, is that the single player doesn't build a character up. There is no investment beyond finish single player for a few more multiplayer perks. If there could somehow be a more fluid experience along with character development across single player and multiplayer that would be sweet. Regardless, I'm excited about what could be the first good star wars fps in quite some time.
I second the fantastic time with BF3/BF4. I never have had an issue with a Dice game and I suspect that will remain true with Battlefront.
Destiny does this, to an extent. Most of the game can be single player, then there are multiplayer-only things as well as raid type things for between 3-6 people. It worked pretty well and stayed decently balanced.
I should really get around to reinstalling origin.
I played for about an hour last night. Was pretty good, got wrecked by some people who had "all the gear" in multiplayer.
I watched an IC Crew get wrecked/wreck it on a stream the other night.
*cough* Vanilla runs their forums *cough*