Topic: Battlefront (PS4 - 2015) vs Battlefront II (PS2 - 2005)

A friend of mine just sent me the comparison chart shown in this article, expressing a fair amount of concern for over the upcoming Battlefront reboot: http://ps4daily.com/2015/04/star-wars-battlefronts-features-c...

I know there's always the argument of quality over quantity, but it is quite startling to see some of the figures laid out like that. Arguably, expectations for Battlefront 2015 were always set to be sky high, meaning they were never likely to be met. But it's fair to say that (looking purely at the current details) people were probably expecting at least a little more than what has currently been detailed.

At the end of the day it's still too early to really say anything for sure, as we've still not heard a whole lot re the new Battlefront and the trailer doesn't really show much - there could be a lot more to it than has currently been revealed. Either way, it makes for a good topic for discussion - do you think this is simply an attempt at streamlining in the name of improved quality, or are you concerned that EA are just looking to cash in on the Star Wars hype?

Personally, I'm undecided for now, but I'd be interested to hear what everyone else's thoughts on the subject are.

Lets be honest - Battlefront 2 was years ahead of its time in a lot of ways. Its amazing to think of the things they achieved in that game that many newer games seem incapable of. Just in terms of numbers of players, I can't think of any game on Generation 7 consoles (PS3, XB360) that managed to deliver the same player count. In some ways that may not be that important as a 6v6 or even 9v9 can feel more intense if the map size and structure suits this more. 32v32 can also seem a mess with no real flow.
I don't see what Dices 2015 game will be offering in terms of 'quality'. At the time Battlefront 2 looked incredible. I know the new Battlefront will look good too but not as good as the recent teaser trailer showed. In terms of maps though, it has been said recently that there will be more than 8 - whether that means 9, 10, 12 or so, I really doubt it will have as many as Battlefront 2 did.
I get the impression that Battlefront (2015) will have a significant Single Player experience. It sounds more like an MP training mode with Bots instead of other real players - maybe with a few objectives shoe horned in utilising the MP Maps. It can't be as bad as Titanfalls though. Talking of which, the biggest disappointment and reason Titanfall fell quickly out of favour was the lack of options. Its MP only had a few modes, limited customisation etc but it also lacked a campaign and co-op modes. I don't know about you but I can't play the same thing over and over and often find MP is a more vacuous experience in general. Great when you want a bit of mindless fun and/or have a few friends online at the same time as you but can get boring on your own. Games like CoD (for example) offer a traditional campaign (maybe not the best but still an enjoyable option), Co-op modes as well as the MP. Its keeps the game in the tray as you can lay the campaign until friends come online and jump into co-op or MP.
What I don't understand is why Dice decided not to offer a campaign of note. The characters and universe is rich and diverse and with so much literature and stories, it lends itself to o many opportunities. It doesn't necessarily fall into the cliched war story that Dice often do.
I must admit that generally I am disappointed with quite a bit of the news surrounding the new Battlefront. I guess I hadd hoped it would be an updated Battlefront 2 in many ways. I suppose though there is a 'trend' of limited content in modern gaming - The Order - very short story no other options, Titanfall - limited MP no other options, Wolfenstein - campaign only. I do wonder if the limitations are now down to the increase in graphics and particle effects. Same games on PS3 - PS4 are radically different in terms of size - much more than 4x the size. I can't help feeling disappointed though as I was hoping for more from this. I know the previous Battlefronts were MP focussed but considering the quality AND quantity of those games, I hoped Dice would at least match these.

Just in terms of numbers of players, I can't think of any game on Generation 7 consoles (PS3, XB360) that managed to deliver the same player count

Resistance 2 & MAG come to mind on the PS3.

From what I've been reading they will be revealing more the closer the game comes.

The single-player looks better. 2 had multiplayer with different objectives and a story for a campaign.
The vehicle thing is just stupid, we know there will be a number of them playable. Actually, it's outdated since the E3 trailer.
On space battles, it's a shame, but 2 also got rid of any flight vehicles on land battles (with the exception of Hoth), and if you think about it, it's best that At-Ats aren't drive-able. If they're tied to an objective, it just takes one idiot driver to ruin the entire battle.
The maps part if wrong, they said more than 8 maps at launch, and they will add more maps later on for free I believe.
The heroes part is also stupid. They showed Boba Fett in a trailer, they will have more than Luke and Darth Vadar.
Modding? We're getting this on a PS4, it doesn't matter.
The only real losses are the bots, era, and less maps. It's a cool chart, but way too focused on hating the Battlefront to be reliable.

It is too early to tell, but I can understand the waryness people are showing so far. I'm personally excited for the game while hoping EA doesn't fudge it up.

I personally think it's better that the number of players is scaled down. Granted, Battlefront can work with a high number, but most of the time big isn't always better. 20 v 20 is fine. Space battles are definitely a loss, very fun thing in Battlefront II. Mods I don't care about. 5 DLC packs isn't a bad thing as long as it's done right. This is EA, so scepticism is understandable. I'll personally miss Galactic Conquest. That was my favorite mode. It's better if AT-ATs aren't playable since I remember them being kinda clunky, but it'll stink if the bipedal mechs that were on Endor (don't remember the name) aren't as well. Most fans dislike the prequels, so I doubt there'll be much lament for that.

Like I said, too early, but who knows.

I must admit after watching the E3 showcase of this. I still have concerns but some were eased too. Visually impressive and the combat was acceptable. It seems the couch co-op/single player option is a 15 wave 'survival' mode on each of the locations and the MP looks 'different' enough from Battlefield. I still wonder if it will have longevity and variety though