Soldato
That's leaked footage of the old battlefront 3 which was canned. Wasn't even on the same engine.
**** Star Wars: Battlefront ****
- Thread starter valkia
- Start date
That's leaked footage of the old battlefront 3 which was canned. Wasn't even on the same engine.
Soldato
In that video lvlcap says that the ingame footage that he has seen looks just like the reveal trailer and that it will blow you away
Permabanned
No doubt he did, he wants his review copy.
More like he wants his Ronku commission from views.
Had to google Ronku, now that I have I totally agree with you.
Not only that, when you're rendering fixed camera you can cull everything else from the scene which gives a huge boost. I think we all know what the engine is capable of though, it'll look great on a meaty rig.
Caporegime
thing is, if you're watching the video to hear that. He's already got his views.
He's just one of those "omg i'm super excited to bring you news of" type guys that are plentiful on youtube.
Permabanned
I never even clicked on it
Unfortunately others do.
I read about the Ronku programme a couple of years ago and it obviously wants content creators to publicize and hype their games in exchange for cash. I won't go into how cash is generated.
It touches upon key items that Youtubers should address in order for them to get paid. After a set time they can criticize the game but only when EA say so, by that time the brain dead would have purchased the game anyway so EA and their partners have their money.
Caporegime
Thing is, ronku is just one of their revenue streams.
Not all their videos are part of the ronku agreement. Sure you are binded to that agreement if you want to use footage you shot at an EA event, but there is nothing to stop a youtuber making a non ronku video, using stock footage from a previous game and doing a commentary criticizing the game.
I pointed this out in the last thread, but everybody acted like the only reason any of us bought Battlefield 4 was because the youtubers were all paid to tell us it was good. The thing everybody forgets is, that we played the game too. We all played the beta, we all sat and watched the Gamescon / E3 livestreams where they had playable games for everybody to join. People came out of E3 having played the game on reddit and told everybody how much fun it was. Sure it had the odd glitch, and stuff wasn't entirely finished, but hey its a pre release alpha build, this stuff is expected in Alpha right ?
Those Early Gamescon / E3 builds didn't crash like the release versions did. They weren't a huge buggy unbalanced mess. The biggest issue with the battlefield 4 release was that all they had shown in the run up to release was early builds that ran fine. They ran out of time and ended up releasing an unfinished build full of bugs and issues that nobody had seen in the beta / gamesconn & e3 builds. The youtubers had been conned just as much as we had. The idea that they knew the game was crap, but were paid to keep quiet was ridiculous, because we all played that same build in the beta. But of course, the beta wasn't a beta. They had left it too late in the day to actually make any changes on the feedback of the beta, and the "beta" just ended up being a demo that fooled us all into thinking a half decent game was coming along.
When talking about ronku being used to silence criticism, battlefield 4 is always what people talk about. Because it didn't happen with Sim City. There were plenty of videos out there telling everybody how crap Sim City was and how it didn't work. If you go back and watch the ronku videos of battlefield 4, most of them refrained from actually passing comment on how good the game as, they were just told to showcase levolution. Which they did, showing you all the maps and what levolution events took place on each one. All the hype was based off the beta & gamesconn / E3 builds that ran fine.
Not all their videos are part of the ronku agreement. Sure you are binded to that agreement if you want to use footage you shot at an EA event, but there is nothing to stop a youtuber making a non ronku video, using stock footage from a previous game and doing a commentary criticizing the game.
I pointed this out in the last thread, but everybody acted like the only reason any of us bought Battlefield 4 was because the youtubers were all paid to tell us it was good. The thing everybody forgets is, that we played the game too. We all played the beta, we all sat and watched the Gamescon / E3 livestreams where they had playable games for everybody to join. People came out of E3 having played the game on reddit and told everybody how much fun it was. Sure it had the odd glitch, and stuff wasn't entirely finished, but hey its a pre release alpha build, this stuff is expected in Alpha right ?
Those Early Gamescon / E3 builds didn't crash like the release versions did. They weren't a huge buggy unbalanced mess. The biggest issue with the battlefield 4 release was that all they had shown in the run up to release was early builds that ran fine. They ran out of time and ended up releasing an unfinished build full of bugs and issues that nobody had seen in the beta / gamesconn & e3 builds. The youtubers had been conned just as much as we had. The idea that they knew the game was crap, but were paid to keep quiet was ridiculous, because we all played that same build in the beta. But of course, the beta wasn't a beta. They had left it too late in the day to actually make any changes on the feedback of the beta, and the "beta" just ended up being a demo that fooled us all into thinking a half decent game was coming along.
When talking about ronku being used to silence criticism, battlefield 4 is always what people talk about. Because it didn't happen with Sim City. There were plenty of videos out there telling everybody how crap Sim City was and how it didn't work. If you go back and watch the ronku videos of battlefield 4, most of them refrained from actually passing comment on how good the game as, they were just told to showcase levolution. Which they did, showing you all the maps and what levolution events took place on each one. All the hype was based off the beta & gamesconn / E3 builds that ran fine.
Last edited:
Soldato
My hope is that they have CTE on day one for this game and they continue the engagement approach which DICE LA have fostered with the community - when you're pushing the boundaries of gameplay and graphics which DICE have done with BF3/4 I think it's inevitable that there will be bugs but it will be the way they manage these bugs which will make all the difference. It's taken a separate team based in the US to show DICE Stockholm how it's done. Hopefully they have taken this success story on board.
Would be nice to have beta test as Hardline had, like at least for a month so everyone can dig around and make sure there are not too many bugs around. Better start saving up for all those 'glorious cheap' DLC's or a premium edition.
Soldato
Good advice 
Soldato
Yeh I don't think I'll pre-order without a beta. I'm really worried that they are going to ram this one home to meet the movie release date without thinking about the long term damage it will do to the community.
Caporegime
BF4 had a beta that was fine. Just look at how well that turned out. NOT.
the lack of clarity at the reveal makes me think otherwise. I think they've gone back to their old ways here. Why is everybody so reluctant to show game footage, find out what we think of it and engage with us, the community on what we think ?
BECAUSE THEY DONT CARE !
I'm not sure how much a beta would make the game better on launch, but I want a beta because I want to play NOW!!!
Anyway BF4 was fine 1 year after release
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,383
One of the best releases I played for Beta testing was Titanfall. It was precisely because of how well the devs engaged the players during the beta phase that I paid full price for the game on release as well as the season pass. Well, that and the game was actually good fun to play with great hit reg.
But look what happened there. Game went stale, a year after release its as good as dead. To this day I still dont know why because it played really well, but ask anyone and after a while it becomes meh. It makes no sense because it offers a similar play experience to the likes of CoD. There have been 3 expansion packs I have never even played. I paid £20 for a season pass I didn't use because when I came back to play nobody was on the new maps. OK, partly my fault - but I believe from talking to others that even when people were playing a lot, it was mostly on the core game maps not the expansion ones.
I think the biggest issue for me with gaming in the last 8 years or so is that nothing is built to last. Nothing is built to have a future and a healthy community.
I think that is a direct result of a sales driven development environment. Take the old school arena shooters - people are still playing them today because of user dedi support and the allowance of user created maps / mods. They were also damn fine games in their own right. They were built to last and in the case of Quake 3 - it still runs just fine on a PC in 2015 as it did on release, even though official support for it stopped back in something like 2005. Can you really imagine anyone playing any of the recent online FPS titles in 10-15 yrs? Game content aside, would it even be technically possible?
As with many things in life, to me the culture has become throw away, transient and shallow.
I believe that until consoles offer the performance/functionality/versatility of a decent PC, FPS gaming is unlikely to get better because devs can't afford to alienate their biggest market. Online FPS gaming will remain in the realms of casual with only niche games on PC receiving anything more complex with any kind of longevity. But then consoles have never been designed to be more than an affordable casual gaming platform so to try and make them any more just defies the point of their existence.
So I think quality online FPS of old will remain in memory (still got my fingers crossed for the new UT though! ). I can honestly say Tribes Ascend has been the best online game I have played in a very long time, even though it isn't actually finished and is no longer supported. I hope there is a version of Tribes in the pipeline that isn't let down by the devs, but I won't hold my breath lol
I hope Battlefront is different, but I have been let down so many times in recent years I just feel cynical and jaded. GTAV has gone some way into restoring my faith in quality games being possible, though, so who knows - perhaps Battlefront will pull it off?
But look what happened there. Game went stale, a year after release its as good as dead. To this day I still dont know why because it played really well, but ask anyone and after a while it becomes meh. It makes no sense because it offers a similar play experience to the likes of CoD. There have been 3 expansion packs I have never even played. I paid £20 for a season pass I didn't use because when I came back to play nobody was on the new maps. OK, partly my fault - but I believe from talking to others that even when people were playing a lot, it was mostly on the core game maps not the expansion ones.
I think the biggest issue for me with gaming in the last 8 years or so is that nothing is built to last. Nothing is built to have a future and a healthy community.
I think that is a direct result of a sales driven development environment. Take the old school arena shooters - people are still playing them today because of user dedi support and the allowance of user created maps / mods. They were also damn fine games in their own right. They were built to last and in the case of Quake 3 - it still runs just fine on a PC in 2015 as it did on release, even though official support for it stopped back in something like 2005. Can you really imagine anyone playing any of the recent online FPS titles in 10-15 yrs? Game content aside, would it even be technically possible?
As with many things in life, to me the culture has become throw away, transient and shallow.
I believe that until consoles offer the performance/functionality/versatility of a decent PC, FPS gaming is unlikely to get better because devs can't afford to alienate their biggest market. Online FPS gaming will remain in the realms of casual with only niche games on PC receiving anything more complex with any kind of longevity. But then consoles have never been designed to be more than an affordable casual gaming platform so to try and make them any more just defies the point of their existence.
So I think quality online FPS of old will remain in memory (still got my fingers crossed for the new UT though!
). I can honestly say Tribes Ascend has been the best online game I have played in a very long time, even though it isn't actually finished and is no longer supported. I hope there is a version of Tribes in the pipeline that isn't let down by the devs, but I won't hold my breath lol I hope Battlefront is different, but I have been let down so many times in recent years I just feel cynical and jaded. GTAV has gone some way into restoring my faith in quality games being possible, though, so who knows - perhaps Battlefront will pull it off?
If anyone is interested
http://www.cdkeys.com/pc/games/star-wars-battlefront-pc-cd-key-origin?mw_aref=74dth566
http://www.cdkeys.com/pc/games/star-wars-battlefront-pc-cd-key-origin?mw_aref=74dth566