The Video Game Thread - anything and everything...

[Solo4114]

I keep seeing people who say this and I just didn't have that experience. I really wanted to like it because it looked and sounded amazing, but as a kid who loved Rogue Squadron on the N64 and Gamecube I just couldn't wrap my head around the handling and kept flying into things. Never got used to the dual stick controls for flying.

So, three things.

1. I grew up playing the X-Wing/Tie Fighter/XvT/XWA games. I knew they were never gonna go anywhere near the control scheme or complexity of those games. I never played Rogue Squadron, so I don't know how they controlled things, but if I could learn, you can learn. (Though if the gameplay itself doesn't grab ya, it's probably not worth bothering at this point).

2. The game had a mode where you used one of the sticks for throttle that, I think, worked a lot better. It included roll on the stick responsible for pitch, too. Made it much closer to what I was used to. The more arcadey version of controls was a holdover from Battlefront 1.

3. Battlefront 1 was...nowhere near as good as this game was for flying. Their flying mode was, you know.....fine, I guess, but super arcadey. That's a big part of why I appreciated Battlefront 2 -- I'd already seen what they did to a flying mode before, and this was a major step up.


All that said, if this game basically ends up being the content I SHOULD have gotten for Battlefront 2, but split out into its own $40 game?

Screw. That.

The reason is simple: Starfighter Assault was utterly abandoned for 3 years when those who bought the game were promised a "live service" and ongoing support. To then break off the same gameplay and try to charge me again for it is incredibly sleazy, even for EA and I do not care to support such practices.

 

[Gen0]

Fallen order was amazing, aside from the backtracking. I'm willing to give them another shot.

 

[cboath]

So, three things.

1. I grew up playing the X-Wing/Tie Fighter/XvT/XWA games. I knew they were never gonna go anywhere near the control scheme or complexity of those games. I never played Rogue Squadron, so I don't know how they controlled things, but if I could learn, you can learn. (Though if the gameplay itself doesn't grab ya, it's probably not worth bothering at this point).

2. The game had a mode where you used one of the sticks for throttle that, I think, worked a lot better. It included roll on the stick responsible for pitch, too. Made it much closer to what I was used to. The more arcadey version of controls was a holdover from Battlefront 1.

3. Battlefront 1 was...nowhere near as good as this game was for flying. Their flying mode was, you know.....fine, I guess, but super arcadey. That's a big part of why I appreciated Battlefront 2 -- I'd already seen what they did to a flying mode before, and this was a major step up.


All that said, if this game basically ends up being the content I SHOULD have gotten for Battlefront 2, but split out into its own $40 game?

Screw. That.

The reason is simple: Starfighter Assault was utterly abandoned for 3 years when those who bought the game were promised a "live service" and ongoing support. To then break off the same gameplay and try to charge me again for it is incredibly sleazy, even for EA and I do not care to support such practices.

I think if you look up sleazy in the dictionary, it says: See EA. Disney should be embarassed to be associated with them, but we know from experience they don't care at all unless that license fee stops coming in.

 

[Gen0]

I think if you look up sleazy in the dictionary, it says: See EA. Disney should be embarassed to be associated with them, but we know from experience they don't care at all unless that license fee stops coming in.

It's hard from these companies to distance themselves from loot boxes and other easy money making tools once the cash starts to flow in.

 

[Seabass]

1. I grew up playing the X-Wing/Tie Fighter/XvT/XWA games. I knew they were never gonna go anywhere near the control scheme or complexity of those games. I never played Rogue Squadron, so I don't know how they controlled things, but if I could learn, you can learn. (Though if the gameplay itself doesn't grab ya, it's probably not worth bothering at this point).

I loved the XvT series. I started with Tie Fighter, then was primetime for XvT in college, playing online on the microsoft gaming zone. Great times. I think a total overhaul of those games would work pretty well. I've got them all on steam, but its really weird playing them now since they used the stick for pitch/yaw, then to roll you had to hold a button. The throttle control presets were super handy and very important, but with most sticks having a real throttle, its not really necessary. I just loved the interplay of managing your power allocation constantly throughout a fight to tweak the best performance while also flying, aiming with lead, and battlefield awareness.

 

[Strikerkc]

I... but its really weird playing them now since they used the stick for pitch/yaw, then to roll you had to hold a button. ...

I don't know if it's this way for all versions of them. but you can use a full hotas and pedals for them also.

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

I loved the XvT series. I started with Tie Fighter, then was primetime for XvT in college, playing online on the microsoft gaming zone. Great times. I think a total overhaul of those games would work pretty well. I've got them all on steam, but its really weird playing them now since they used the stick for pitch/yaw, then to roll you had to hold a button. The throttle control presets were super handy and very important, but with most sticks having a real throttle, its not really necessary. I just loved the interplay of managing your power allocation constantly throughout a fight to tweak the best performance while also flying, aiming with lead, and battlefield awareness.

Yeah I didn't know you could roll because I had the torpedoes mapped to that button. When I finally got a Thrustmaster F-16 HOTAS setup I figured it out! I had CH rudder pedals because I played all kinds of flightsims, but they would never work for TIE Fighter or Alliance. In the X-Wing books they made up a term "etheric rudder" that I assume is doing what that roll button is doing. There's no ailerons on a space fighter so that would fit.

 

[Solo4114]

I loved the XvT series. I started with Tie Fighter, then was primetime for XvT in college, playing online on the microsoft gaming zone. Great times. I think a total overhaul of those games would work pretty well. I've got them all on steam, but its really weird playing them now since they used the stick for pitch/yaw, then to roll you had to hold a button. The throttle control presets were super handy and very important, but with most sticks having a real throttle, its not really necessary. I just loved the interplay of managing your power allocation constantly throughout a fight to tweak the best performance while also flying, aiming with lead, and battlefield awareness.

I played those games as soon as X-Wing came out (I actually remember pre-release articles when the in-engine graphics were more like Wing Commander than the 3D models they ended up using). So, I got used to the "Hold the target lock button to roll" thing. It just became habit. Same with cycling shield and diverting power from lasers to shields and rebalancing the shields to even them out. Eventually I had a Microsoft Sidewinder joystick with a twist feature that let me roll more effectively.

I never really got into XvT mostly because (1) the base game had no campaign and their missions were kinda blah, and (2) I HATED how overused missiles were. It improved considerably with Balance of Power, which I have fond memories of playing with a buddy in my dorm room, as I zipped around in an A-wing taking out fighters, while he fired torpedoes at the heavier craft.

For what it's worth, Good Old Games has the best collection of the X-wing games. The Steam versions, I think, are only the 1998 versions, and maybe the 1993 floppy disc versions. The best versions are the 1994 CD-ROM version of X-wing and the CD-ROM version of TIE Fighter, which actually included the final two (or three?) battles of the story. Those versions preserved the launch and landing cinematics that also showed your ship as damaged upon your return, if you took fire.

Occasionally, GOG lets you link cross-platform games and will give you copies of games on their platform if you already own them on another platform. Hopefully they'll do this with the old LucasArts games at some point, so if you already have them on Steam, you can use the GOG versions DRM-free.

 

[HanSolo2187]

It's nice to see that I'm not the only one on the planet who's sick and tired of this multiplayer junk.

Not to start a fight, but I have zero interest in single player games. I only game for 1.5 to 2 hours a night and don't feel like wandering vast open spaces doing fetch-quests or having to backtrack through levels just to unlock some random box. Single player action/fights are typically just whack-a-mole sequences that once you learn the pattern of the AI enemies, there is very little in regards to tactics or strategy needed to come out on top.

Multiplayer (to me) provides that constant action that I'm looking for, along with a competitive/varied environment that makes each match/game different. For me, a game excels when it can provide a balanced multiplayer experience. Battlefront 2 failed (imo) by having bad gunplay (hit detection and aim assist) along with unbalanced perks and Heroes brought into the game through a pay-wall system. Balance the gameplay and improve the controls and I could see a case where Squadrons could shine.

All of that said, I fully understand the issues that people have with multiplayer games and how they exist in today's gaming sphere:
- you die way too quickly
- if you aren't playing every day and leveling up your gear/perks/etc then you (again) get smacked down
- every game is sweaty/ultra-competitive
- every game has a steep learning curve to understand the meta
- playing solo/lone-wolf is frustrating
- if you try to join a random squad, nobody is using mics or communicating in any way

Developers have recently started to invoke Skill-Based Matchmaking (SBMM) to counter a lot of the issues that casuals/new players encounter by placing "like skilled players" all in the same lobbies. There are pros and cons to this approach, but I do think it helps new players get their feet wet before being dropped into the lions den.

Other games (The Division, Battlefront 2, etc) have brought in AI enemies into the multiplayer space to try to blend the two (single player and multiplayer). Games like Destiny have leaned heavily on the co-op multiplayer experience (still online multiplayer, but without the pvp competitive issues).

Not really trying to change anyone's mind here, I'm just a multiplayer-only perspective to the discussion.

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

I hear you, but for something like SW, I don't want some idiot yelling "YOLO! YOLOOOOOOO!" in the middle of the game and removing the immersion of it. That was the first and last time I tried playing SWTOR when it was free.

 

[Solo4114]

Not to start a fight, but I have zero interest in single player games. I only game for 1.5 to 2 hours a night and don't feel like wandering vast open spaces doing fetch-quests or having to backtrack through levels just to unlock some random box. Single player action/fights are typically just whack-a-mole sequences that once you learn the pattern of the AI enemies, there is very little in regards to tactics or strategy needed to come out on top.

Multiplayer (to me) provides that constant action that I'm looking for, along with a competitive/varied environment that makes each match/game different. For me, a game excels when it can provide a balanced multiplayer experience. Battlefront 2 failed (imo) by having bad gunplay (hit detection and aim assist) along with unbalanced perks and Heroes brought into the game through a pay-wall system. Balance the gameplay and improve the controls and I could see a case where Squadrons could shine.

All of that said, I fully understand the issues that people have with multiplayer games and how they exist in today's gaming sphere:
- you die way too quickly
- if you aren't playing every day and leveling up your gear/perks/etc then you (again) get smacked down
- every game is sweaty/ultra-competitive
- every game has a steep learning curve to understand the meta
- playing solo/lone-wolf is frustrating
- if you try to join a random squad, nobody is using mics or communicating in any way

Developers have recently started to invoke Skill-Based Matchmaking (SBMM) to counter a lot of the issues that casuals/new players encounter by placing "like skilled players" all in the same lobbies. There are pros and cons to this approach, but I do think it helps new players get their feet wet before being dropped into the lions den.

Other games (The Division, Battlefront 2, etc) have brought in AI enemies into the multiplayer space to try to blend the two (single player and multiplayer). Games like Destiny have leaned heavily on the co-op multiplayer experience (still online multiplayer, but without the pvp competitive issues).

Not really trying to change anyone's mind here, I'm just a multiplayer-only perspective to the discussion.

That's interesting. I've played plenty of multiplayer games, and I enjoy it, but I also really enjoy single player. For me, again, due to limited gaming time, I prefer a game I can pause and walk away from without worrying about screwing the team over.

All that said, a lot of what you reference tracks to my issues with much of multiplayer gaming. I loathe unlock/ranking systems that modify how your avatar plays. E.g., better armor, more guns, performance-changing attachments, etc. That's the WRONG way to design a game, but it's one that's persisted since about 2005 or so when Battlefield 2 came out. (I think that was 2005...) The way I see it, only cosmetics -- ones that don't confer an advantage -- should be unlocks and all your abilities should be the same throughout. That way if someone's just better than you, it's their own raw skill that determines it, not the gear they have.

Skill-based matchmaking would help, but I've seen that.......baaaaasically never. Maybe in games like The Division, or Destiny 2, but I've played those almost entirely as singleplayer games (and they're pretty dull that way).

But what I most enjoy is a game where I can do a discrete thing, at my pace, pause and save it where I want, and then come back to it later. That's why I enjoy singleplayer games. Multiplayer can be like that, but I tend to feel bad leaving a team actively in the middle of a game and just bailing. So if I'm playing multiplayer stuff, it's usually for a longer bloc of time (minimum 1hr), whereas I can do a singleplayer game for, like, 20-30 min sometimes.

 

[The Terminator]

It's nice to see that I'm not the only one on the planet who's sick and tired of this multiplayer junk.

It could be great. But they choose to only focus on individual's kill death ratios. So team work, and all that goes out the window. Everyone is busy focusing their next unlock.

So while Battlefront 4 looks amazing, plays like a turd.

 

[Cephus]

It could be great. But they choose to only focus on individual's kill death ratios. So team work, and all that goes out the window. Everyone is busy focusing their next unlock.

So while Battlefront 4 looks amazing, plays like a turd.

The problem is that so many of the people you have a choice of playing with are... crap. It's why I walked away from MMO-style games years ago. It's all hyper-competitive grind-fests. I have zero interest in that. I play games to have fun. I play to be entertained. I don't play to be constantly trying to get to the next arbitrary level so I can do it all over again. Most of the people on these games, at least in my experience, are crap. They're ********. They're either taking it way too seriously or not seriously enough. I have no interest in just racing from target to target so that people can maximize their XP intake. I like to stop and loot, I like to see what's going on, take in the sights, enjoy the effort that the programmers put into the world, but nope, that doesn't increase your XP-per-second so... RUN! It's why I have absolutely no interest in things like Fallout 76. I mean, other than the fact that it's a buggy mess. I do not want to see other people in my game. I don't want some loser named "KissMyAss" running by and breaking my immersion. I don't want to see people doing dances and talking smack. I am here to play and enjoy myself and absolutely none of that is conducive to my enjoyment. I am not playing to be competitive at all. I just want to have a good time and multiplayer games simply do not provide it. So I entirely pass.

 

[StevenBills]

So here's the "gameplay" trailer that was released about an hour ago:

Still just not feeling anything from it.

SB

 

[Ron]

There's diversity in this game in case anyone missed it.

Now if only there was some informative gameplay shown.

 

[Solos blaster]

It could be great. But they choose to only focus on individual's kill death ratios. So team work, and all that goes out the window. Everyone is busy focusing their next unlock.

So while Battlefront 4 looks amazing, plays like a turd.

So much this.

I moved to Battlefield 3 from COD, because I liked the idea of "classes" and working together. But...as you said, that all goes out the window. Even sometimes when playing with people you know. One time, pretty much the last time I played BF3, I was playing with a couple guys from work and playing "conquest" on the oil derrick maps(sorry, I can't remember anymore and don't really care), anyways I was holding down the bottom by myself setting booby traps with claymores everywhere. I had the ammo crate hidden in the connex and would reload myself after killing off the wounded casualties as they moved into the area.

My two compatriots (1 medic, 1 sniper) and they were up on the gantries having their own "sniper challenge" rather than support me. After multiple attempts of losing or nearly losing the zone I quit. Now I pretty much refuse to play MP with other people. Every once in a while I'll pop on GTAO or RDRO and do my thing, running missions and doing stuff by myself. Everyone is treated as a hostile and I avoid them. GTAO is ridiculous though for "tryhards" just out to make other players miserable and I don't think I've played that game in about a year or so.
RDRO it's been a few months since I played it too.


I hate and LOATHE MP.

 

[The Terminator]

There's diversity in this game in case anyone missed it.

Now if only there was some informative gameplay shown.

Nothing wrong with that. Unless it's forced just for the sake of it.

I mean really, both Star Wars and Star Trek are filled with not just humans of different shades of orange. But also actual aliens, of all sizes colors and whatever.

I would imagine both franchises are like a nightmare for actual racist people. Unless there really are people out there rooting for the Empire. "Yeah, go space nazis, kill 'em teddy bear-Ewoks!". (I don't have a problem with Ewoks, and yes I am a millennial lol).

Just, make a fun and entertaining game that can please both casual "I only have 25 mins to play", as well as the folk who have the time to really get immersed and work as a team to *what ever end goal*. Different game modes for different people.

Hell, why not just have all the stupid unlocks unlocked for part of the game? And don't award selfish game play.

We really don't need 8954 different shades of Call of Duty. That's what we had Doom and Quake for.

Not everything has to be political. (including fictional Prequel-politics). How many eight year olds care about trade disputes?

To be real for a moment, I hate nazis, but I can still enjoy playing on the side of the Empire in a Star Wars game. I don't have a problem with playing on the side of the Germans in a WW2 game either. It's just a game. In real life I don't like guns. I have tested firing guns and it's not my thing. People are different. But I still really like shooting guns and blasters in video games.

Games are not real life. Games are supposed to be fun. Games are supposed to be escapism. A way for a moment at least, not having to deal with viruses and a-holes.


"Covid-19 SIMULATOR 2022" - no thanks.

 

[Solo4114]

I will say that some classes are really built to play support roles well. In Battlefield V, the Support and Medic classes are all about that and I find that the majority of my points for Medic come from healing and reviving people rather than kills. You also rank your guns up simply based on accumulating points instead of kills, and you get points for things like assists and suppression, so eventually you'll rank them up. In Battlefront 2, the fastest and often highest-scoring class used to be the Officer class, which is all about support buffs. They may have changed that, though. I don't play Battlefront 2 as much these days.

But yeah, focusing on kills as the goal instead of teamplay is always a problem. Likewise, this game appears to have unlocks in it, which could be a seriously unbalancing problem unless they have really good matchmaking (and neither BFV nor BF2 do...).

Anyway, I remain cautious about this. I'll wait to see more details.

 

[Solos blaster]

I will say that some classes are really built to play support roles well. In Battlefield V, the Support and Medic classes are all about that and I find that the majority of my points for Medic come from healing and reviving people rather than kills. You also rank your guns up simply based on accumulating points instead of kills, and you get points for things like assists and suppression, so eventually you'll rank them up. In Battlefront 2, the fastest and often highest-scoring class used to be the Officer class, which is all about support buffs. They may have changed that, though. I don't play Battlefront 2 as much these days.

But yeah, focusing on kills as the goal instead of teamplay is always a problem. Likewise, this game appears to have unlocks in it, which could be a seriously unbalancing problem unless they have really good matchmaking (and neither BFV nor BF2 do...).

Anyway, I remain cautious about this. I'll wait to see more details.

Agreed. I remember some of the hardest fights I had were against teams that obviously played well and frequently together, where they would run 2-3 medics and 1-2 supports for their 4 man teams. They could stay alive and stay loaded with weapons and continuous suppression with grenades and other explosives, completely holding down a position. I know my highest scoring games were when I was playing as the medic.

I know a couple games my buddy and I got in a Little Bird and since I was an engineer, he flew and all I did was fix the helicopter and we only got taken out of the sky once because I kept us in the air and he kept killing other players. They had to sync missiles whether in the air or on the ground to take us out because I could usually keep us going. I ranked up twice during that particular round. One time I got another engineer on board and we were unstoppable until he got bored "just fixing the helicopter in flight", even though we were picking up xp left and right.

 

[Strikerkc]

I've been enjoying Modern Warfare recently. The bulk of your progress as a character is simply based around time in game. Your weapons get better and new weapons unlock, but it's really just small tweaks to how they work, and allow you to customize for your play style. Most guns unlock as you play, and the ones that require specific stuff aren't game breaking and aren't to hard to get.

While there no "support" options, even without using a mic, you can just pick other players and stay with them, and work as a pretty good little fire team.