Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Even if they manage to fix all of it's crash and performance issues, I doubt that it would be a better game than original Battlefront 2.
1.Maps were too large and would have resulted in empty maps in less populated servers.
2.The game would have been an unbalanced mess since from what I saw FRD spent all their time in making the game to run on PS3 and Xbox360 rather than making it fun to play and more balanced.(Lucasarts never showed the game on E3 2007 and E3 2008 despite this that it was considered.Due to quality concerns.)
3.They also wasted their time on a 4-5 hour story mode that I doubt it would have been better than Battlefront 2(2005) story since it lacked split screen.
Also no one plays Battlefront for story.
Becareful don't want this forum locked lmao knowing EA. But i agree with the new star wars jedi game, EA know's how to ruin a franchise even on battlefield v.
2. I do agree with this. I do think it needs more maps than just Clone Wars maps. But everyone basically knows more maps are on the way, if DICE teasing Capital Supremacy and IA coming to the GCW era has anything to say about it.
3. Subjective.
4. What this guy said: