Windows Star Wars: Battlefront

[SandboxGeneral]

Is anyone playing this game yet? If so, what do you think of it?

It looks great and exciting and I think I'll buy it this afternoon and see how it is.

​

Star Wars Battlefront: Battle of Jakku Gameplay Trailer ​

 

[monokitty]

I have it and played it to Rank 8 so far (not that high, I know). It's quite a bit of fun and visually it's stunning, even on lower settings if you have to settle due to hardware limitations (I play it on a PC). Unfortunately, I found it a bit repetitive. I still play it but not as frequently for this reason. The Walker Assault mode is my favourite mode by far--it's a lot of fun with a solid objective that requires some aspect of team work.

It's almost worth playing for the visuals and sounds alone - they are top notch, if not the best graphics and sounds presented in a video game to date.

 

[SandboxGeneral]

Yeah, I've been impressed with the visuals and sounds too in the videos I've seen. They appear to have done an outstanding job on that part.

In fact, that's what really caused me to look at this game a little bit closer.

I'm looking forward to downloading and playing it later today.

 

[vampyr]

no single player campaign... no story... just multiplayer on a handful of maps.
I'd rather have hoped to have a Star Wars game that is identical to something like Shadow of Mordor game mechanics.

 

[El Cabong]

I've been playing it on PS4, just hit level 36. It's fun, but pretty mindless and repetitive.

Given the graphics, and the depth of the past games in the series, it's really disappointing that they didn't do more with this game (e.g. single-player campaign, or even a Death Star map ffs). Among other gameplay issues, there isn't any team rebalancing/shuffling, so if you're on a crappy team, you're stuck with them. At least there isn't any IAP/P2W built into it.

 

[bry223]

Very shallow and linear gameplay. Save the $$ and put it towards something else.

 

[SandboxGeneral]

Shallow and linear is right up my alley.

I've been going through the training modules learning how to use the game and then doing the offline battles. So far I'm having a lot of fun with it. Though I am having trouble trying to figure out how to keep the snow speeder level when using the harpoon against the walkers.

But playing the hero battles as Lord Vadar is a lot of fun! I can't get enough of that. Using the the Force to choke people and fly somewhat is a lot of fun.

Tomorrow I'll try out the online play.

I think I'm going to like this game.

 

[backinblack875]

Love it! walker assault is awesome. As far as its limited gameplay, EA plans on releasing several expansions the word is, like legit expansions. (clone wars, etc). Ya i know, $$ for season pass, but i think it'll be worth it.

As for the harpoon, you need to keep it leveled in the middle with your mouse.

 

[BornAgainMac]

I play it in 4K on my PC. Really hooked on this game. It seems so real.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Waiting for a sale. On the bright side it means future Star Wars games are going to look crazy. I want VR.

 

[SandboxGeneral]

I did some online play last night, briefly (I was very tired), and it was fun. I'm still quite impressed with the visuals and sounds of the game.

I'l probably get a lot more time with it on the weekend. So far, I'm happy with the purchase.

 

[JZ Wire]

Speaking to those who have played, both the original battlefront and the new game, which is best? How do they compare.
From what I've read, they've "dumbed" down the new version.
I guess so as to make it so that everyone can play...?
IMO, the original was lots of fun. I guess I was hoping the new version would be similar in gameplay to the first. :/

 

[monokitty]

Speaking to those who have played, both the original battlefront and the new game, which is best? How do they compare.
From what I've read, they've "dumbed" down the new version.
I guess so as to make it so that everyone can play...?
IMO, the original was lots of fun. I guess I was hoping the new version would be similar in gameplay to the first. :/

Not the same game at all. No single player campaign story line for one. I think Battlefront is a fun game but it's just a multiplayer shooter at the end of the day, with a few twists and interesting game modes.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Speaking to those who have played, both the original battlefront and the new game, which is best? How do they compare.
From what I've read, they've "dumbed" down the new version.
I guess so as to make it so that everyone can play...?
IMO, the original was lots of fun. I guess I was hoping the new version would be similar in gameplay to the first. :/

Old version was dumbed down with the weapon accessories. This one requires you earn your weapons and extras as you level up. It won't take very long though. You have lots of variety but not as much as something compared to Battlefield 3/4. What I felt was missing was the Clone War era and space battles. I miss Yoda and Darth Maul in this game. Flying in the new game is just terrible with the keyboard and mouse compared to the old version of the game. It is difficult to fly for even a few seconds without crashing for some people and other people seemed to have mastered it and are practically unbeatable. If you are a hard core Battlefield 3/4 player, you will find Star Wars Battlefront 3 very basic and limited but the graphics are better. I like that the game isn't playing the Star Wars music constantly and only brings up the music during key points in the game.

 

[SandboxGeneral]

Flying in the new game is just terrible with the keyboard and mouse

I haven't had too much trouble with the flying and I am by no means an advanced or hardcore gamer. However, the speeders on Endor are tough to fly. The first time I did that, I crashed into a tree within 2 seconds!

 

[SandboxGeneral]

I finally got around to playing in the Battle Of Jakku tonight and I wish I had done so much earlier. This map and battle is a whole lot of fun!

 

[SandboxGeneral]

Weird, your specs meet the minimum for that one. As long as it plays fine though is all that matters! How do you like Battlefront? I've heard mixed reviews from people.

I enjoy it quite a bit actually. I'm more of a casual gamer and not into them to be super competitive or get the best scores; just there to have fun for a little bit.

But the game is a lot fun for me with all the different styles of games and objectives it has.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Got to level 50. I paid $129 for the Deluxe version and got 444 games out of it. Comes out to 29 cents per game if I were to stop playing today. One game I starting to play within the game now is Hero Hunt. There is a book called Star Wars Lords of the Sith with Darth Vader and the Emperor on a planet and some rebels are trying to take them. This game sort of lets you play a scenario from this book in the game.

 

[legodb]

Has anyone run Battlefront on a non-EFI video card? Did you see much of a performance hit running at PCI-E 1 speeds under windows/bootcamp?

I ask because I received a copy of Battlefront for Christmas but didn't notice it requires a 2GB VRAM card...
My machine is a:
MacPro5,1 (mid2010)
3.33 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon
13 GB 1333 MHz/DDR3 RAM
Original SATA 1 TB Drive
1 GB - ATI Radeon HD 5870

I was looking to buy an EVGA or ASUS GeForce GTX 950 2GB card to replace my ATI because it looked like a good compromise between price, latest Maxwell architecture, and card performance. I need to stay under the $200 mark for a new card unfortunately (so 960/960/titan/etc are all out of my budget). Before I shell out the money, trying to find out what kind of gameplay I could expect or what others are seeing. I don't need to run on Ultra settings but hoping 1080p on at least medium.

Any thoughts/feedback/assistance would be greatly appreciated!

 

[TechZeke]

Has anyone run Battlefront on a non-EFI video card? Did you see much of a performance hit running at PCI-E 1 speeds under windows/bootcamp?

I ask because I received a copy of Battlefront for Christmas but didn't notice it requires a 2GB VRAM card...
My machine is a:
MacPro5,1 (mid2010)
3.33 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon
13 GB 1333 MHz/DDR3 RAM
Original SATA 1 TB Drive
1 GB - ATI Radeon HD 5870

I was looking to buy an EVGA or ASUS GeForce GTX 950 2GB card to replace my ATI because it looked like a good compromise between price, latest Maxwell architecture, and card performance. I need to stay under the $200 mark for a new card unfortunately (so 960/960/titan/etc are all out of my budget). Before I shell out the money, trying to find out what kind of gameplay I could expect or what others are seeing. I don't need to run on Ultra settings but hoping 1080p on at least medium.

Any thoughts/feedback/assistance would be greatly appreciated!

If the need to game now isn't critical, I'd personally just wait and save up the pennies to buy a GTX 970. A 970 will only be $100 more over your budget and offer significantly more performance. $100 shouldn't take long to save up for and you will thank me later.

 

[legodb]

If the need to game now isn't critical, I'd personally just wait and save up the pennies to buy a GTX 970. A 970 will only be $100 more over your budget and offer significantly more performance. $100 shouldn't take long to save up for and you will thank me later.

Yes a 970 would be great but I can't justify that kind of money for a card based on my casual play style.

So even with the higher end cards, running within windows/bootcamp, non-efi (therefore just pce 1 speeds instead of 2), you don't see the pci bus speed being a bottleneck?

 

[TechZeke]

Yes a 970 would be great but I can't justify that kind of money for a card based on my casual play style.

So it's a justification thing more than budget. That makes allot more sense.

I guess if Star Wars Battlefront is the only graphically intensive game you want to play, a 960 should be a good compromise. SWB is pretty well optimized, and a 960(around $200) should run it at Ultra 1080p 60 fps.

So even with the higher end cards, running within windows/bootcamp, non-efi (therefore just pce 1 speeds instead of 2), you don't see the pci bus speed being a bottleneck?

That I'm honestly not sure about that.

 

[legodb]

For anyone else in the market, the Asus 950 (non-efi) is running quite well for me. I haven't played around with the settings much yet and just took the "optimized" settings from NVIDIA GeForce Experience. Using these settings the Battle of Jakku map plays at a constant 80 fps and looks awesome. I want to check the Hoth Walker Assult map but haven't had the chance to join a game and check the FPS.

These are the optimal settings I'm using:
Resolution: 1920x1080
Texture Quality: Low
Texture Filtering: Low
Lighting Quality: Ultra
Shadow Quality: Ultra
Post Process Quality: Ultra
Mesh Quality: Low
Terrain Quality: Medium
Terrain Groundcover: Low
Anti-Aliasing: FXAA Medium

Load times haven't been an issue. Usually sitting in the game waiting to go.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Getting just over 60 fps in 4K with Ultra. Using a ASUS Strix GTX 980 Ti card that is overclocked over the standard 980 Ti and it has extra cooling so gaming is quiet. 1080p was over 150 fps.

 

[MeValonicAcid]

Started Playing the game and both my son and I are loving it!
I play it in bootcamp Win10 on an iMac 3.4 GHz Core i7 (I7-3770 - Late 2012) - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2 GB. Visually it's stunning, even on lower settings.
I will post my game settings below (later today)