RaithHarth Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommmsunb Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) because GSF is an arcade shooter from 2013 and Battlefront is an upcoming 2015 AAA battlefield clone? Duh? Edited June 16, 2015 by tommmsunb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderKiko Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 because ours isn't a dedicated game type, it's a low resource minigame using a flight engine built onto an old but heavily modified MMO engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemarus Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 I bet GSF will have far more depth than fighter combat in BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickDagles Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Because GSF doesn't use the Battlefield engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archonitek Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 I don't think you're using the phrase 'pales in comparison' correctly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALaggyGrunt Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Shiny. Space combat isn't really the point, so it's not going to be as complex as it is here. It will support joysticks, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danalon Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) It looks slow paced. Can't see any rockets or missiles. I'm not sure how you want to compare this to GSF. Edited June 16, 2015 by Danalon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramalina Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 There wasn't any space combat in that video. There are different definitions of space, but in general being less than 100 meters off of the surface doesn't qualify. The flight speeds were also extremely slow. In GSF even bombers can hit about 6 times the speed of sound in air at sea level, which is rather fast for something notionally based on WWII fighter battles. Battlefront seems to be going in the other direction, and making sure that it's easy enough for someone flying a crop duster to down TIEs and X-wings by sliding back the canopy and throwing bricks at them (this is to make it easy for infantry and slower ground vehicles to hit the "space fighers" but it really prevents a space fighter type experience if you're piloting). Honestly it wasn't even really air combat shown, more like hover ground vehicle combat. The graphics were pretty, but it would need a much bigger 3D battlespace and higher performance spacecraft to start being interesting to me. In terms of air/space combat it looks like it's even worse than ARMA 3, which doesn't really do a very good job of air combat. To be fair to the ARMA and Battlefront developers, current consumer computers don't have the graphics and physics computational power to handle the detail of a good infantry sim at the scale of battlespace that a good air or space sim requires. Not to mention that getting gameplay organized in a manner so that it doesn't degenerate into each side being composed of a bunch of fighters plus a single bomber to carpet bomb noobs on the other team that were fool enough to pick infantry or ground vehicles tends to be a problem. Maybe in 5-10 years computers will have enough capacity to handle a true combined arms battlespace sim at the level of graphical detail that infantry FPS/sim/mmo players expect today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danalon Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Maybe in 5-10 years computers will have enough capacity to handle a true combined arms battlespace sim at the level of graphical detail that infantry FPS/sim/mmo players expect today. I think Planetside2 comes closest to this at the moment. The more complex a game becomes, the more difficult becomes balancing. Infantry classes, vehicles and aircraft need to be balanced against themselves and each other while teamplay, skill, terrain and the number of players currently present in a battle need to be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderKiko Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 IIRC the canceled battlefront 3 project came close to balancing everything before it was, well, canceled. Ship speeds were fairly fast, multi-layered space combat was a thing without loadscreens and ship/ground balancing wasn't the primary focus. Rather spacecraft were meant to balance teams out themselves in order to keep the ground game under control, as infantry and armor handled objectives, and anti aircraft was meant to me an actual deterrant and focus for the ground game to take down or hold. I may be wrong on points of this, but this is old knowledge from a long canceled game "almost playable" project. Some videos of the canceled game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AceFirstCav Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 I would add one more reason why not compare these two games. SW Battlefront seems like true thematic game from SW universe meanwhile GSF is arcade shooting game with sticker "SW" but without any similarity to SW battles. When you are comparing speed, max. atmospheric speed of X-wing is 1050 km/h (wiki) and Kuat Mesas map is in the atmosphere for sure. So ships in the GSF are actually flying too much fast When you are missing rockets or missiles, in the original movie trilogy was not fired even single missile against enemi fighter (if I remember it correctly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom_VI Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 I bet GSF will have far more depth than fighter combat in BF. This^^^ Dicefront's flight system looks to be the same as Battlefront 1's flight system. Basically random fighters zooming around strafing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verain Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I bet GSF will have far more depth than fighter combat in BF. Didn't have to scroll far to find the correct answer. The video looks great, but I had to skip around to find something that looked like a space ship. When I did find it, it was a speeder going really slow, presumably so ground people can shoot at it and stuff. Later I found a TIE Fighter and wasn't convinced there was even a roll control. When he did a 180, it looked like he consumed a resource- I think he pressed a button with a cooldown that means "flip over", like in Starfox. I could be mistaken- that could be the equivalent of a snap turn, something you can totally do with normal flight, but is faster as a cooldown- but I didn't see signs of that. Or rolling. It looks pretty, but that's not an arcade space sim. I'm sure I'll play it and have fun, but I don't think it's the same thing as GSF, nor does GSF "pale in comparison". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obviousenuendo Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 but gsf is more or less an extension of battlefront 2's amazing space combat.. that's what I treated it as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adproduction Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 . Because we don't want the kids being unable to play GSF because they would have to upgrade their computers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zharik Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 <snip> The flight speeds were also extremely slow. In GSF even bombers can hit about 6 times the speed of sound in air at sea level, which is rather fast for something notionally based on WWII fighter battles. Battlefront seems to be going in the other direction, and making sure that it's easy enough for someone flying a crop duster to down TIEs and X-wings by sliding back the canopy and throwing bricks at them (this is to make it easy for infantry and slower ground vehicles to hit the "space fighers" but it really prevents a space fighter type experience if you're piloting). <snip> You know that GSF's ratio of size and speed a WAY out of whack, right? Need some proof? Check out the visuals the next time you are "500 meters" from your target and try to imagine FIVE FOOTBALL FIELDS in between your ship and the target. Your ship is the size of a small NFL stadium... I think that BW bumped up the numbers by at least a factor of 10 (imagine that close range for your weapon is 50m, not 500m etc... and you are moving at 1/10th the speed listed) and to be honest I have no idea why they made the boost speed so much faster than the "normal" speed but they did. I think that they made the numbers bigger because of what I like to call the DBZ Syndrome . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickDagles Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 You know that GSF's ratio of size and speed a WAY out of whack, right? Need some proof? Check out the visuals the next time you are "500 meters" from your target and try to imagine FIVE FOOTBALL FIELDS in between your ship and the target. Your ship is the size of a small NFL stadium... I think that BW bumped up the numbers by at least a factor of 10 (imagine that close range for your weapon is 50m, not 500m etc... and you are moving at 1/10th the speed listed) and to be honest I have no idea why they made the boost speed so much faster than the "normal" speed but they did. I think that they made the numbers bigger because of what I like to call the DBZ Syndrome . I think it's necessary that the speed boost is so huge. Otherwise Bombers would be way too easy to kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts