thorpj

yes then if he can get the quadcore CPU and a GTX 750ti or R7 260 for example this should give him console like experience at 720p...even better in fact.

Console experience? You say that as if it's a good thing?

Sorry. Had to

It's a sh*tty cash grab from EA and I would give it max 5/10 because it has nothing new or inovative to offer. Heck I wouldn't even call it a decent game.

 

Other big FPS games like BF, COD, ARMA, etc. you can tell what makes each of these different from each other and what makes each one unique. 

For example:

 

BF is known for big epic battles with 64 player on big conquest maps with lots of vehicular warfare and destructible evnironments. Also you need some teamwork to win.

COD is known to be a fast paced arcade shooter and while a lot of people don't like COD for those who just want to casually play a very fast paced game for a couple of hrs they will like it.

ARMA is a simulator so it's for people that want some of the most realistic shooter gameplay.

 

Battlefront(2015 Battlefront not the old ones) is a game with no point to it, it's a brainless pew pew game where you just mindlessly walk around the map and shoot people, not to mention it has only 4 maps and none of those even look good(layout wise) it's just terrain with some hills and valleys. The dogfighting is so simplified it's all crap you don't even have to learn to do the maneuvers just press the F keys and that's all there is to it.

 

The game looks great and has awesome sound but that's it. I will definitely not pay 60 bucks for a game that will have me bored before I reach 10 hours of gameplay. And they want 50 bucks for the season pass. And they are gona milk the crap out of the Battlefront franchise with more sequels coming later in a few years.

 

Come on people don't let EA get away with your money with this sh*t. There are many better games that came out this year and will come out soon.

You've summed up exactly why i'm looking forward to the next Battlefront

Although, i disagree on the cash grab thing. That's just the hive mind mentality of people hating on EA.

I played over 300 hours of bf3, and got in 48 hours of bf4 while waiting for battlefront to launch. I played the beta the ton, and when it launched played for another 20 hours give or take. I've played all of these games mate.

Then you're clearly off your rocker. Mate

nuff said. 

You cannot see my points, and I cannot see your points. I see no reason to continue to debate this.

Me neither.

Perhaps you should go and play some more battlefield..

Vehicles when you change universes are going to change. Regardless there are equivalents to everything, you cannot look at exacts, with as big as a change as there was you look at general concepts and vehicle classes. However, that doesn't change the fact that there are basically the same types of vehicles, asside from walkers, those are alone very different from anything else.

Destructible environments, play through survival on there, or on tatooine, plenty of destructible features there mate.

Classes, specifically customizable is a feature that was very much so NOT a part of battlefront, but of battlefield and other fps. It's something that made battlefront what it was.

Player counts, aside from walker assault, its 16v16. BF4/hardline in the majority of matches, save on conquest and rush, where you had 32v32

Game modes, the vast majority of game modes they share with battlefield. They have only two game modes in similarity with battlefront, that being TDM and CTF in essence.

If you're not playing strategically with your PARTNER, which you're forced to have, then you're playing the game wrong. There's a reason you can spawn on your partner, it's because squads are still around, they're just smaller.

DLC means a lot. Preorder bonuses and exclusivity means a lot. Just another Dice/EA game that will shove it down your throat, whether you like it or not.

Battlelog is by far, the worst game launcher for a AAA game that I have ever seen. It's something I would expect to see in an indie game, coded by a 16yr old hyped up on red bull at 3 in the morning.

 

You're right, a game with only one, or two of those features, does not make it a battlefield clone. But when it matches up freaking 80% of the time on its core features of gameplay, then that's straight up just not okay. Its a battlefield game, not battlefront by any other means than its name, and the universe. Dice and EA fully understood this, otherwise they would have called it Battlefront 3: to capitalize on it being the sequel to one of the best star wars series ever made. But they removed so much, and had changed it so much, that it is by no means a battlefront game any more. 

God the formatting...

* We're talking about vehicle mechanics here, nor the look of the vehicles. If they are so different, then you can't say they make the games similar.

* The survival mode is a joke

* You listed a bunch of points that apparently make the games similar. The customisation systems are very different.

* Similar player counts, even so, that doesn't make the games similar.

* The squad system is a joke. The game doesn't promote team play in the slightest. Your partner gives you a spawn, and that's about it. 

* Like i said, the blaster and the ion torpedo, and possibly the emotes are not exclusive. I do love it when people complain about the DLC in EA games, because it's EA. DLC is a sad fact, but perhaps it's not so bad. Day 1 dlc. That's bad.

* Battlelog, but it's better than having nothing.

You haven't got 80% of the core features. You've picked a few things about each game and tried to compare them, which i've disputed. 

Consider it in terms of actually playing the game. They don't feel similar at all! I cannot fathom how you could think they're similar, they're just so different, it's ridiculous.

DICE didn't call it Battlefront 3 because (according to content from them), they didn't want to follow in Pandemic's footsteps. They wanted to make their own battlefront. Also it seems to be a trend to name games after one of the previous old ones.

It is not a Pandemic Battlefront game, you're right. But it is sure as hell not a Battlefield game.

It's Dice's Battlefront.

I'd like to see future games implement more substance than what is offered in this game...like a traditional campaign as well as more to do in the online portions. If they decide to keep going without an offline version/traditional campaign, I hope they focus on improving the online part as much as possible. Because while I really like how fun it is it can be improved heavily. If they can offer different kinds of missions, diverse in as many ways as possible, I'd keep buying the games. But at the moment, what we have should not be charging people 60$. It is more like 40$.

 

 I disagree heavily with the try-hards who call it a "shit game" too.

It would certainly be nice to see those things implemented.

Part of what made SWBF2 fun was the ability to play with ai

As for the game being shit. To each his own. Some like it. I don't.

For reasons discussed earlier.

Do you really think that someone in their right mind would try gaming at 1080p with a Core 2 Duo?

How do you know that he's in his right mind?

He hasn't told us what resolution he's playing at, has he? (referring to OP)

Right,  thanks for finally telling us...

I think it's good now , just not enough content. the weapons are super casual (homing noob rocket)and, I like that, if I want a hardcore shooter I can play arma 3 or bf4. between fallout 4 and battlefront, I have been playing more of battlefront.  

Okay sure. Whether one likes it or not comes down more to personal preference. But, here's the thing that ruined Battlefront for me, and i don't get it.

It's a very casual game. Not necessarily that in and of itself, but the design choices that came about because of it, that's the problem.

So here's what i don't get. Whoever decided that a game has to fit into this scale (with the gap being an empty void)

Casual-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hardcore

See last time i checked, a game can have a balance of this. For example, look at Blizzard's games. Easy to get into, but very, very difficult to master. That's how it should be done.

This idea that a game meant for a more casual audience has to dumb down absolutely everything... it's rubbish! It's not so black and white as a stormtrooper's armour!

 

copy/pasta from a previous post i've already done on this ages ago.

 

 

What makes a battlefront, as set by Battlefront (1) and with the addition of Battlefront 2

• Swappable 3rd Person / 1st Person
• Unmodifiable, swappable classes giving all player equal ground
• minimum 32v32 matches, up to 64v64 (128 player cap)
• Space Battles
• Galactic Conquest gm - Both SP and MP
• Single Player story mode / Offline mode
• Many, many, many unique maps
• Addons allowing players to create mods for the game on PC.
• AI filling empty player slots on both online, and SP games, keeping the action across the map.
• Air Vehicles on some maps, ground vehicles on all larger than 'small' maps 
• Game modes like, conquest, CtF, KotH, TDM, FFA.

There are more there, but let's just leave that for a moment while we look at what this game has to offer.

 

Battlefield: Star Wars Edition, as it compares to the real Battlefronts

• Swappable 3rd and 1st person, 
• AI in offline/coop mode.
• Air vehicles in some maps, ground vehicles on maps.
• Similar game modes.

 

 

Alright, that's not looking very much alike. Only scoring 3.5/11 as what i've just compared to as being battlefront. Now lets look at how it compares to battlefield.

 

Battlefield, as established by Bad Company 2, Battlefield 3, 4, and Hardline.

• First Person - save special situation
• Vehicles on most maps, Air Vehicles on large maps
• Destrucible environments
• Modifiable classes, some loadouts particularly early are not efficient/require lots of play to make work.
• 16v16 normally max in a match. 32v32 in battlefield 3.
• Game modes like, Demolition, Rush, TDM, conquest.
• Bullet Drop / pseudo realistic munitions mechanics
• heavily based on Squad play
• DLC up the ass.
• Battlelog... the nightmare...

Once again, there are more, but those are core to what battlefield is. Now lets look at,

Battlefield: Star Wars Edition

• Swappable 3rd/1st Person
• Vehicles on most maps, Air vehicles on large maps.
• Semi-Destructible environments.
• Modifiable classes
• 16v16 matches
• Game modes like... Demolition, TDM, conquest, otherwise known as, the same game modes, but with different names.
• Pseudo realistic munitions mechanics
• Heavily based on squad play
• ALREADY DLC, AND EXCLUSIVE CONTENT FOR DELUXE PREORDERS
• Very luckily, no shitty battlelog.

Alright, so thats... 8.5/10 on core. Hmm... It's almost like... This game, when to take away the fact that its star wars and you have third person, that this game is almost exactly like battlefield... Hmmmmm.

 

The top part. i can agree with. But as soon as you got to Battlefield, i totally disagree.

For one, you can't just list off a couple of features and say they match up, therefore they're similar. But, let's roll with it, for a moment.

*Vehicles: They are vastly different between BF4 and SWBF. SO so much different, that i can't believe you try to relate them

*Destructible environments: Sorry, where?? I can't think of a piece of destructible environment in SWBF

*Classes; So having a customisable loadout = battlefield reskin?. BF4's customisation is miles apart from SWBF weak attempt

*Play counts: Usually 64 players in BF4. Max 40 in SWBF

*Game modes. There is no demolition in SWBF (or anything similar IIRC). Rush, yes, fairly similar to walker assault. TDm, yes. Conquest.. kinda. But still doesn't prove your point

*Squad play. What! There is absolutely no teamwork in SWBF. !!

* DLC. Nothing wrong with some DLC. Sure, free content would be nice, but the fact is, it gives them a reason to continu e supporting the game. Although one could argue, that's not a good thing considering how bad SWBF is to some of us. As for the exclusive content. The DL44 and iron torpedo can be unlocked normally, IIRC.

*Battlelog: Right, so not having a server browser is a good thing.

I'm sorry, but i'm going to have to call bullshit on your argument here. You seem woefully misinformed and some of your opinions seem objectively bad (no server browser, thinking that these games are similar), though you are of course, still entitled to them

It does not matter. There were previous Battlefronts before it and it's the third one - it is not a new series in any way. Additionally, TotalBiscuit would disagree with you on the whole idea that it's Battlefield with a Star Wars theme put over it.

 

Radical changes do not change the branding that it was given. If it's called Call of Duty, it is by legal rights Call of Duty.

I'm going to assume that you're not being pedantic.

By saying Battlefront 3, i'm suggesting a sequel to the SWBF2, you know, the game that was actually good.

And if you have E.g. Galactica  (Racing game), and Galactica (RTS), they may have the same name, but they are vastly different games. Yes, they have the same name, but don't be pedantic...

It kinda sucks.

 

I played it on my friend's PC and got bored in a few hours. He had everything unlocked. Nothing is overpowered, which is nice, but it's so cut and dry casual that I can't stand it.

 

I have to admit, the jump pack is fun, but flying ships and driving vehicles is mostly dumb. 

Yeah the jump pack was nice.

As for nothing being overpowered. The DL44 (instantly unlocked for premium edition owners) is very powerful. And then there's all the "cheese"

Incorrect.

 

You sir, are referring to Battlefield: Star Wars Edition. Now, the only reason I still call it that, is because it has far more in common with battlefield than it ever has with battlefront.

 

Its not made by the same people. 

It has almost no likeness asside from name and universe, to the real battlefronts.

It is not a battlefront game, it is merely battlefield with a star wars blanket on.

 

If CoD released a new game, CoD 13, that was a side scrolling rpg, none of you would see it as CoD. This is why I and MANY others still say this is not battlefront.

I agree.

Except. Battlefront is in no way similar to Battlefield. Other than running the same engine, and you know, being a shooting game.

Depends on where you are in the game, but at 1440x900 I was getting 60fps most of the time. Ultra settings, no mods, but pretty respectable for what I'd consider to be a very average graphics card when it comes to gaming.

Hell no, I'm talkin' like Skyrim. You can run Ultra settings with the GTX650, but neither cards will go beyond that.

So you come along with.

"yeah i get great fps at max settings with my old hardware" You're running at a lower resolution in an older game. OP wants to play Battlefield 4.

OP wants to receive advice, not to be misled.

Forget battlefront I want a new Outcast or Academy!!

Why not have both

I like it. I just wish there were more levels or "worlds". Weapons are great, power ups are cool. its a fun game. $60 is a lot for this game even if I am having a good time. i feel like when all  the dlc comes out it will feel like more of a complete game, sad it comes to that. big star wars nerd, its a win, looking for a long term sci-fi shooter, better wait for a sale or game of the year. 

I did have some fun with it, but there's not enough of anything to keep me interested for very long. And the gunplay. It's disgusting. So long term? I'm not so sure

As for the DLC. Surely it doesn't bode well when you're relying on the DLC to make a game good?

It technically is a Battlefront 3. It is the third Battlefront in the series.

..... Surely you know what i mean.....

I've played games with it just fine with a GTX650 at max settings and great FPS, and it runs with my R9 270X but you start to notice bottlenecking with the higher-end games.

What games at what settings? because i can tell you right now, you did not get "great FPS" with that setup in something like BF4... at max settings!

Was. Because it means that the next one is gonna be good!

EA will be releasing more Battlefront games (or at least, more Star Wars games), and i'm really looking forward to a throwback to SWBF2. I Think Totalbiscuits review described the game perfectly, although i would argue that for some people (casuals), they're going to like SWBF.

But for the rest of us, let's hope for a Star Wars Battlefront 3!

Thoughts? 

I can only speak for the Z97, as that's what I have. I've heard mixed reports on other board types. But if you have a multiplyer in the bios you're golden. And ready to spin the silicon lottery wheel lol.

Ah okay, i thought so.

I will OC at some point. Right after i get a decent case and CPU cooler (since i will OC that as well)

The cool thing is if you have a Z97 MOBO, the chances are you can overclock your RAM and have the benefit of it for free. Only side effect I have noticed is it runs a little hotter, but I have a fan on it now and the temps are well under control.

This is true for any motherboard that can overclock a cpu, isn't it.

I wouldn't imagine that it's exclusive to Z97.

Draw calls, and yes a RAM bottleneck. I could stand in a spot in Lexington while playing Fallout 4 and have 60% GPU and 50%CPU usage while getting under 40fps. The switch to 2200MHz RAM speed raised the usage on the GPU and my fps to the mid 40s, usually 45fps. That's the difference between noticing the dip and not noticing it.

Wow. I never thought RAM could ever be a bottleneck unless you didn't have enough of it, or it was *really* slow.

The common wisdom was usually that 1600mhz (DDR3) is perfectly fine. As such i thought this rush for super fast RAM was a waste of time (especially considering that the cas latency goes up as you increase the frequency).

Thanks for straightening things out.

How does RAM frequency affect the framerate? Unless there's a bottleneck where the RAM wasn't fast enough with the lower speed RAM (which cannot be the case, it's high speed DDR4), i don't see how that could happen.

Perhaps shaders are stored on the RAM?

-snip-

 

Firstly, welcome. A big part of PC gaming is that you get to learn more about the stuff that you've invested money into.

Troubleshooting is the name of the game. Problems happen here, (just as they happen on consoles). But the difference is, you can fix it!

Backup the files for a game (ie copy them elsewhere) and then mod. Restore your backup if needed.

3. Install the mods whenever you like. Although, read the instructions, some mods may require another, or something like that.

4. I'm also running windows 10. Ensure that you go through all the settings in the win10 settings menu (there aren't that many, but there are some important ones to disable).

Some important settings include the peer to peer updates, some of the privacy stuff, auto joining hotspots. etc...

Although, give us your pc's specs. Just in case.

Edit that's a nice pc (room for an ssd upgrade, and replacing that cx power supply). It'll be fine with Windows 10

It's so difficult to pick a particular video. Why? Because all of them were so good. Sure, the production quality was terrible (for ... reasons), but there was so many useful tidbits, handy tricks, combined with jokes, and an entertaining host. This was how i got into PC HW and SW: start with the basics, and that's what was great about NCIX tech tips.

Although, the futureproof video was pretty useful to me as someone who was about to spec out a pc.

I know that its not a ionizing radiation but wifi was boomed in the mid 2000s and we still don't know what the long term effects are.....

and i sleep right next to the router every night :mellow:

 

so it wifi 100% safe??

Wifi transmits via microwave waves, or at least, it sits around there on the electromagnetic spectrum

Anything right of visible light is dangerous (because it has enough energy to ionise). Radio and Microwave waves sit to the left. Our current scientific theory says no. Wi-fi is not dangerous

If radio waves were dangerous it wouldn't matter, because light would kill us first.

ARRGH MY EYES.