criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
Battle Point Event
Focused Feedback

Fun > Authenticity

Prev1
An EA exec or something made a public statement recently that "Fun > Authenticity". (It was said about Battlefield V, and we all know how well that's going.) It's a sentiment I've seen echoed here in the forums, but I don't think it really gets analyzed or deconstructed properly.

To me it's a bit like saying "Oxygen is better than water."

First, why is it being framed as an either/or, one or the other? Why not both?

Second, it ignores the fact that, for many of us, it's not fun if it's not authentic. No one is asking for 100% authenticity, but for myself and many others, a certain basic level of accuracy is needed to keep me from constantly being jerked out of my enjoyment.

Finally, and I think most importantly, it's a deceptively status quo oriented outlook. By which I mean, even the players who are defending the "fun" choices EA has made would probably have enjoyed the accurate option too, if that had been implemented instead.

Replies

  • t3hBar0n
    5001 posts Member
    edited September 2018
    duplicate
    Post edited by t3hBar0n on
  • I agree. Authenticity is a big part of the fun, not a separate value.
    m0j6n9yk2eer.jpg
    Xbox Live: Honorary Ewok



  • I don't think they mean it is broadly an either/or statement... I think rather what they mean is that in situations where specific either/or decisions have to be made when determining things like balancing etc... they are going to weigh fun factor more heavily than authenticity when making that determination.

    As far as the relative balance of authenticity... any level of authenticity which is not absolute is going to be a completely arbitrary line which is drawn and is going to displease some people as being too authentic, and is going to displease others as not being authentic enough.
  • t3hBar0n wrote: »
    I don't think they mean it is broadly an either/or statement... I think rather what they mean is that in situations where specific either/or decisions have to be made when determining things like balancing etc... they are going to weigh fun factor more heavily than authenticity when making that determination.

    As far as the relative balance of authenticity... any level of authenticity which is not absolute is going to be a completely arbitrary line which is drawn and is going to displease some people as being too authentic, and is going to displease others as not being authentic enough.
    Fair points.

    But we make arbitrary lines all the time, and so do game designers. Turning it into "Oxygen > water" just polarizes. A person will die without water just as certainly as without oxygen, it'll just take longer.
  • bfloo
    15821 posts Member
    The problem is we don't even have private matches or custom servers where we can set up an era authentic match.

    Those of us who enjoy immersion in games don't even have a possible way to go about it in this game.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • bfloo wrote: »
    The problem is we don't even have private matches or custom servers where we can set up an era authentic match.

    Those of us who enjoy immersion in games don't even have a possible way to go about it in this game.

    Exactly
    More options would never hurt
  • mellowshipslinkyb
    754 posts Member
    edited September 2018
    JackTHorn wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    I don't think they mean it is broadly an either/or statement... I think rather what they mean is that in situations where specific either/or decisions have to be made when determining things like balancing etc... they are going to weigh fun factor more heavily than authenticity when making that determination.

    As far as the relative balance of authenticity... any level of authenticity which is not absolute is going to be a completely arbitrary line which is drawn and is going to displease some people as being too authentic, and is going to displease others as not being authentic enough.
    Fair points.

    But we make arbitrary lines all the time, and so do game designers. Turning it into "Oxygen > water" just polarizes. A person will die without water just as certainly as without oxygen, it'll just take longer.

    Fun > authenticity is the same principle around which movies that are "based on a true story" are made, where narrative > facts. The writer is trying to create the best experience for the consumer in that particular medium. True-to-life events don't usually translate to the big screen as the most compelling narrative. Neither does the universe presented in the Star Wars films translate to the Star Wars game universe as the optimal video game experience.

    The AT-ATs are a perfect example of this. It's established in Empire that a fully operational AT-AT is virtually impervious to both vehicular and trooper blaster fire. The only way the rebels manage to destroy them is with harpoons and tow cables. However, it wouldn't make for a very compelling 20v20 multiplayer mode if the only way to destroy them was to do it exactly the way it was done in the films. Hence the reason for ion disruptors (and uplinks in 2015). They aren't canon, nor should there be any way an A280 can damage a walker significantly, but it makes for a more compelling gaming experience.
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    An EA exec or something made a public statement recently that "Fun > Authenticity". (It was said about Battlefield V, and we all know how well that's going.) It's a sentiment I've seen echoed here in the forums, but I don't think it really gets analyzed or deconstructed properly.

    To me it's a bit like saying "Oxygen is better than water."

    First, why is it being framed as an either/or, one or the other? Why not both?

    Second, it ignores the fact that, for many of us, it's not fun if it's not authentic. No one is asking for 100% authenticity, but for myself and many others, a certain basic level of accuracy is needed to keep me from constantly being jerked out of my enjoyment.

    Finally, and I think most importantly, it's a deceptively status quo oriented outlook. By which I mean, even the players who are defending the "fun" choices EA has made would probably have enjoyed the accurate option too, if that had been implemented instead.

    I agree, fun and authenticity can be one and the same. However, I do understand that if a decision has to be made in which it is either fun or authenticity, fun has to come first. But then again, there are ways to make something fun by using something that is authentic. It’s just a never ending circle.
  • I’d rather have stuff like cross heroes, and if its authentic enough with a few things like that breaking the mold its fine by me
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    I don't think they mean it is broadly an either/or statement... I think rather what they mean is that in situations where specific either/or decisions have to be made when determining things like balancing etc... they are going to weigh fun factor more heavily than authenticity when making that determination.

    As far as the relative balance of authenticity... any level of authenticity which is not absolute is going to be a completely arbitrary line which is drawn and is going to displease some people as being too authentic, and is going to displease others as not being authentic enough.
    Fair points.

    But we make arbitrary lines all the time, and so do game designers. Turning it into "Oxygen > water" just polarizes. A person will die without water just as certainly as without oxygen, it'll just take longer.

    Fun > authenticity is the same principle around which movies that are "based on a true story" are made, where narrative > facts. The writer is trying to create the best experience for the consumer in that particular medium. True-to-life events don't usually translate to the big screen as the most compelling narrative. Neither does the universe presented in the Star Wars films translate to the Star Wars game universe as the optimal video game experience.

    The AT-ATs are a perfect example of this. It's established in Empire that a fully operational AT-AT is virtually impervious to both vehicular and trooper blaster fire. The only way the rebels manage to destroy them is with harpoons and tow cables. However, it wouldn't make for a very compelling 20v20 multiplayer mode if the only way to destroy them was to do it exactly the way it was done in the films. Hence the reason for ion disruptors (and uplinks in 2015). They aren't canon, nor should there be any way an A280 can damage a walker significantly, but it makes for a more compelling gaming experience.

    Another breath of fresh air. Don't expect any logical responses from those hard set on the opposite viewpoint. This logic will certainly fall on deaf ears.
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    I don't think they mean it is broadly an either/or statement... I think rather what they mean is that in situations where specific either/or decisions have to be made when determining things like balancing etc... they are going to weigh fun factor more heavily than authenticity when making that determination.

    As far as the relative balance of authenticity... any level of authenticity which is not absolute is going to be a completely arbitrary line which is drawn and is going to displease some people as being too authentic, and is going to displease others as not being authentic enough.
    Fair points.

    But we make arbitrary lines all the time, and so do game designers. Turning it into "Oxygen > water" just polarizes. A person will die without water just as certainly as without oxygen, it'll just take longer.

    Fun > authenticity is the same principle around which movies that are "based on a true story" are made, where narrative > facts. The writer is trying to create the best experience for the consumer in that particular medium. True-to-life events don't usually translate to the big screen as the most compelling narrative. Neither does the universe presented in the Star Wars films translate to the Star Wars game universe as the optimal video game experience.

    The AT-ATs are a perfect example of this. It's established in Empire that a fully operational AT-AT is virtually impervious to both vehicular and trooper blaster fire. The only way the rebels manage to destroy them is with harpoons and tow cables. However, it wouldn't make for a very compelling 20v20 multiplayer mode if the only way to destroy them was to do it exactly the way it was done in the films. Hence the reason for ion disruptors (and uplinks in 2015). They aren't canon, nor should there be any way an A280 can damage a walker significantly, but it makes for a more compelling gaming experience.

    Another breath of fresh air. Don't expect any logical responses from those hard set on the opposite viewpoint. This logic will certainly fall on deaf ears.

    So. Jumping straight to insults are we?
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    I don't think they mean it is broadly an either/or statement... I think rather what they mean is that in situations where specific either/or decisions have to be made when determining things like balancing etc... they are going to weigh fun factor more heavily than authenticity when making that determination.

    As far as the relative balance of authenticity... any level of authenticity which is not absolute is going to be a completely arbitrary line which is drawn and is going to displease some people as being too authentic, and is going to displease others as not being authentic enough.
    Fair points.

    But we make arbitrary lines all the time, and so do game designers. Turning it into "Oxygen > water" just polarizes. A person will die without water just as certainly as without oxygen, it'll just take longer.

    Fun > authenticity is the same principle around which movies that are "based on a true story" are made, where narrative > facts. The writer is trying to create the best experience for the consumer in that particular medium. True-to-life events don't usually translate to the big screen as the most compelling narrative. Neither does the universe presented in the Star Wars films translate to the Star Wars game universe as the optimal video game experience.

    The AT-ATs are a perfect example of this. It's established in Empire that a fully operational AT-AT is virtually impervious to both vehicular and trooper blaster fire. The only way the rebels manage to destroy them is with harpoons and tow cables. However, it wouldn't make for a very compelling 20v20 multiplayer mode if the only way to destroy them was to do it exactly the way it was done in the films. Hence the reason for ion disruptors (and uplinks in 2015). They aren't canon, nor should there be any way an A280 can damage a walker significantly, but it makes for a more compelling gaming experience.

    Another breath of fresh air. Don't expect any logical responses from those hard set on the opposite viewpoint. This logic will certainly fall on deaf ears.

    So. Jumping straight to insults are we?

    That's what Rivershark has been doing for months....all condescension and "I'm right and you just won't understand".
  • Devlin21 wrote: »
    I like everything to look as accurate as it could be, but I don't mind the cross era stuff.


    But that's just me, i know theres a lot of people that don't want cross era, so hopefully for those that want it, something happens.

    If the game started without cross era, I'd be fine, but the game is designed with cross era in mind, and any changes to that now would effectively be changing what the game is a it's core, and I like it the way it is now.
    #JoinTheBuzz
    8fqc6br4b0gm.jpeg
    Never forget
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    I don't think they mean it is broadly an either/or statement... I think rather what they mean is that in situations where specific either/or decisions have to be made when determining things like balancing etc... they are going to weigh fun factor more heavily than authenticity when making that determination.

    As far as the relative balance of authenticity... any level of authenticity which is not absolute is going to be a completely arbitrary line which is drawn and is going to displease some people as being too authentic, and is going to displease others as not being authentic enough.
    Fair points.

    But we make arbitrary lines all the time, and so do game designers. Turning it into "Oxygen > water" just polarizes. A person will die without water just as certainly as without oxygen, it'll just take longer.

    Fun > authenticity is the same principle around which movies that are "based on a true story" are made, where narrative > facts. The writer is trying to create the best experience for the consumer in that particular medium. True-to-life events don't usually translate to the big screen as the most compelling narrative. Neither does the universe presented in the Star Wars films translate to the Star Wars game universe as the optimal video game experience.

    The AT-ATs are a perfect example of this. It's established in Empire that a fully operational AT-AT is virtually impervious to both vehicular and trooper blaster fire. The only way the rebels manage to destroy them is with harpoons and tow cables. However, it wouldn't make for a very compelling 20v20 multiplayer mode if the only way to destroy them was to do it exactly the way it was done in the films. Hence the reason for ion disruptors (and uplinks in 2015). They aren't canon, nor should there be any way an A280 can damage a walker significantly, but it makes for a more compelling gaming experience.

    Another breath of fresh air. Don't expect any logical responses from those hard set on the opposite viewpoint. This logic will certainly fall on deaf ears.

    So. Jumping straight to insults are we?
    JackTHorn wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    I don't think they mean it is broadly an either/or statement... I think rather what they mean is that in situations where specific either/or decisions have to be made when determining things like balancing etc... they are going to weigh fun factor more heavily than authenticity when making that determination.

    As far as the relative balance of authenticity... any level of authenticity which is not absolute is going to be a completely arbitrary line which is drawn and is going to displease some people as being too authentic, and is going to displease others as not being authentic enough.
    Fair points.

    But we make arbitrary lines all the time, and so do game designers. Turning it into "Oxygen > water" just polarizes. A person will die without water just as certainly as without oxygen, it'll just take longer.

    Fun > authenticity is the same principle around which movies that are "based on a true story" are made, where narrative > facts. The writer is trying to create the best experience for the consumer in that particular medium. True-to-life events don't usually translate to the big screen as the most compelling narrative. Neither does the universe presented in the Star Wars films translate to the Star Wars game universe as the optimal video game experience.

    The AT-ATs are a perfect example of this. It's established in Empire that a fully operational AT-AT is virtually impervious to both vehicular and trooper blaster fire. The only way the rebels manage to destroy them is with harpoons and tow cables. However, it wouldn't make for a very compelling 20v20 multiplayer mode if the only way to destroy them was to do it exactly the way it was done in the films. Hence the reason for ion disruptors (and uplinks in 2015). They aren't canon, nor should there be any way an A280 can damage a walker significantly, but it makes for a more compelling gaming experience.

    Another breath of fresh air. Don't expect any logical responses from those hard set on the opposite viewpoint. This logic will certainly fall on deaf ears.

    So. Jumping straight to insults are we?

    That's what Rivershark has been doing for months....all condescension and "I'm right and you just won't understand".

    Oh please. I share a much different viewpoint from you guys, and it's been like that for all these months. Probably because it's exhausting getting on here and seeing the constant whining for things that are obviously:

    1. Split in popular demand
    2. Never gonna happen
    3. Not thought out or analyzed

    For example, one thing I've always wished we would get is a Rogue One Season with Krennic as a highlighted character. But this isn't my game. I didn't create it, I don't own the rights to it, and I don't expect EA or DICE to bend at my will just because I'm passionate about it. I'm actually very pleased with the product I've bought and have had a great time playing. More than my money's worth. And as much as I would like to see you happy, it's no one's responsibility to give that to you. So yeah, it's exhausting watching the same old crew whine about this and that when we all know we've gotten our money's worth. But yeah, that's just two very worthless penny's worth of thought.
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    I don't think they mean it is broadly an either/or statement... I think rather what they mean is that in situations where specific either/or decisions have to be made when determining things like balancing etc... they are going to weigh fun factor more heavily than authenticity when making that determination.

    As far as the relative balance of authenticity... any level of authenticity which is not absolute is going to be a completely arbitrary line which is drawn and is going to displease some people as being too authentic, and is going to displease others as not being authentic enough.
    Fair points.

    But we make arbitrary lines all the time, and so do game designers. Turning it into "Oxygen > water" just polarizes. A person will die without water just as certainly as without oxygen, it'll just take longer.

    Fun > authenticity is the same principle around which movies that are "based on a true story" are made, where narrative > facts. The writer is trying to create the best experience for the consumer in that particular medium. True-to-life events don't usually translate to the big screen as the most compelling narrative. Neither does the universe presented in the Star Wars films translate to the Star Wars game universe as the optimal video game experience.

    The AT-ATs are a perfect example of this. It's established in Empire that a fully operational AT-AT is virtually impervious to both vehicular and trooper blaster fire. The only way the rebels manage to destroy them is with harpoons and tow cables. However, it wouldn't make for a very compelling 20v20 multiplayer mode if the only way to destroy them was to do it exactly the way it was done in the films. Hence the reason for ion disruptors (and uplinks in 2015). They aren't canon, nor should there be any way an A280 can damage a walker significantly, but it makes for a more compelling gaming experience.

    Another breath of fresh air. Don't expect any logical responses from those hard set on the opposite viewpoint. This logic will certainly fall on deaf ears.

    Lol, I’ve given up trying to change anybody’s mind here. I’m just sharing my perspective because I know the devs take feedback from this board. If I happen to pick up a “like” or step on a few toes, well that’s just a bonus.
  • 2015front beta all snow troops on imperial side
    immersion factor 9.6
    463542123611029514.png?v=1463542123611029514.png?v=1463542123611029514.png?v=1


    [+3748 posts]
  • Relmets wrote: »
    2015front beta all snow troops on imperial side
    immersion factor 9.6
    463542123611029514.png?v=1463542123611029514.png?v=1463542123611029514.png?v=1


    And then they completely removed the option for helmetless stormtroopers, buffing up the authenticity rating to about a 6 to a 7
  • I agree with my whole heart.

    People who don't get this are missing the point on purpose to make their point more valid.
    Nothing turns off my EPIC STAR WARS feel like seeing Darth Vader charging at clone troopers while droids fight at his side.

    The game could have been built to have locked era weapons and heroes but DICE and EA took the lazy path. There are plenty of source material to build more than 4 heroes to each era and make them balanced.

    I was disappointed and I still am. Maybe one day a New Hope emerges and they decide to impose era lock when new heroes are released.
  • I don't believe in "canon" or even if things are correct or not, all I care about is if the gameplay is good or not, having things "canon" restricts what you can do and that isn't good for a game...cross era hero's aren't a issue what's a issue is them not being customisable, guns not being correct is not a issue the lack of them is, you see where I am going with this...
  • I don't believe in "canon" or even if things are correct or not, all I care about is if the gameplay is good or not, having things "canon" restricts what you can do and that isn't good for a game...cross era hero's aren't a issue what's a issue is them not being customisable, guns not being correct is not a issue the lack of them is, you see where I am going with this...

    I kind of agree. I do think if there was a surplus of heroes, skins, weapons and maps that "locking" things would make sense. Like if Hoth Luke was just the default skin if you choose him on Hoth. Or only the correct weapon choices were available depending on the era assuming we had triple the weapons. Heroes locked to the correct era assuming you had at least 6 per side per era and they were designed to be balanced against each other. I think that would be cool.

    Truth is, that's not how this game was designed...at all. Skins are available for purchase so they should be available on every map. There aren't enough heroes to restrict them to era and even if there were, they weren't designed to balance each other out. There aren't enough maps to support all the different skins. And there definitely aren't enough weapons to lock them by era, and even if there were, most require gameplay to unlock so it would make sense to lock them by era.

    This game was designed against era restrictions and authenticity. Like it or not, that's what it is.

    Considering the comments from each in regard to BFV, I get the impression that it's 100% intended to be this way and it's their right to make the game as they see fit. Don't like it? Don't play. This is arguably not a very successful business model for EA. They aren't the shiniest tools in the shed when it comes to Public Relations. But they can do and act however they want. They own their company and make their own toys and it's up to the consumer as to whether you want to buy or not. This is the simple, sad, brutal truth. And it doesn't really bother me. If I owned EA or DICE or Disney I would have done a lot of things differently in this game. But I am not in charge. But the game is fun. So I play it. There is no right or wrong way to make a game.
  • EA_Cian
    1225 posts EA Staff (retired)
    Folks, as there's been a 'lil bit of this already, let's please keep it civil.

    giphy.gif
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    An EA exec or something made a public statement recently that "Fun > Authenticity". (It was said about Battlefield V, and we all know how well that's going.) It's a sentiment I've seen echoed here in the forums, but I don't think it really gets analyzed or deconstructed properly.

    To me it's a bit like saying "Oxygen is better than water."

    First, why is it being framed as an either/or, one or the other? Why not both?

    Second, it ignores the fact that, for many of us, it's not fun if it's not authentic. No one is asking for 100% authenticity, but for myself and many others, a certain basic level of accuracy is needed to keep me from constantly being jerked out of my enjoyment.

    Finally, and I think most importantly, it's a deceptively status quo oriented outlook. By which I mean, even the players who are defending the "fun" choices EA has made would probably have enjoyed the accurate option too, if that had been implemented instead.

    Water contains oxygern, so water is indeed better than oxygen
    Just wanted to state that. Bye
  • I'm a fan of authenticity, and having crossover heroes/weapons just highlights the actual lack of content in the game. I don't understand how a game developed and released an actual decade ago has more content than a AAA game. We STILL don't have Anakin, Obi Wan, Grievous or Dooku, that's not even scratching the surface of heroes left out from the original BF2. Not to mention there are even more characters they could have touched on from previous games and the Clone Wars series. Everything in this game just screams laziness. But thank god we got Tallie Lintra. The most recognizable hero in the entire series. Got a whole 1 second of screen time
  • Kenobi_Dude
    1485 posts Member
    edited September 2018
    I think they should have tried to be more accurate with the heroes since some are obviously out of place. It’s not about canon... it just doesn’t make sense to have Darth Maul in a ST map long after he died. They are major things that stick out and people could just play HvV for random hero fun. They were definitely making due because of lack of heroes/content.

    Other things are small to me like maybe the uniforms or blasters aren’t totally accurate. Like how people got all up in arms about the clone trooper skins not being as accurate as they could have been. At the same time, it wouldn’t be that hard to make them correctly.
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    I don't think they mean it is broadly an either/or statement... I think rather what they mean is that in situations where specific either/or decisions have to be made when determining things like balancing etc... they are going to weigh fun factor more heavily than authenticity when making that determination.

    As far as the relative balance of authenticity... any level of authenticity which is not absolute is going to be a completely arbitrary line which is drawn and is going to displease some people as being too authentic, and is going to displease others as not being authentic enough.
    Fair points.

    But we make arbitrary lines all the time, and so do game designers. Turning it into "Oxygen > water" just polarizes. A person will die without water just as certainly as without oxygen, it'll just take longer.
    Fun > authenticity is the same principle around which movies that are "based on a true story" are made, where narrative > facts. The writer is trying to create the best experience for the consumer in that particular medium. True-to-life events don't usually translate to the big screen as the most compelling narrative. Neither does the universe presented in the Star Wars films translate to the Star Wars game universe as the optimal video game experience.

    The AT-ATs are a perfect example of this. It's established in Empire that a fully operational AT-AT is virtually impervious to both vehicular and trooper blaster fire. The only way the rebels manage to destroy them is with harpoons and tow cables. However, it wouldn't make for a very compelling 20v20 multiplayer mode if the only way to destroy them was to do it exactly the way it was done in the films. Hence the reason for ion disruptors (and uplinks in 2015). They aren't canon, nor should there be any way an A280 can damage a walker significantly, but it makes for a more compelling gaming experience.
    Another breath of fresh air. Don't expect any logical responses from those hard set on the opposite viewpoint. This logic will certainly fall on deaf ears.
    Lol, I’ve given up trying to change anybody’s mind here. I’m just sharing my perspective because I know the devs take feedback from this board. If I happen to pick up a “like” or step on a few toes, well that’s just a bonus.
    LOL, yeah. I'm at the same point, pretty much.
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    Fun > authenticity is the same principle around which movies that are "based on a true story" are made, where narrative > facts. The writer is trying to create the best experience for the consumer in that particular medium. True-to-life events don't usually translate to the big screen as the most compelling narrative. Neither does the universe presented in the Star Wars films translate to the Star Wars game universe as the optimal video game experience.

    The AT-ATs are a perfect example of this. It's established in Empire that a fully operational AT-AT is virtually impervious to both vehicular and trooper blaster fire. The only way the rebels manage to destroy them is with harpoons and tow cables. However, it wouldn't make for a very compelling 20v20 multiplayer mode if the only way to destroy them was to do it exactly the way it was done in the films. Hence the reason for ion disruptors (and uplinks in 2015). They aren't canon, nor should there be any way an A280 can damage a walker significantly, but it makes for a more compelling gaming experience.
    Okay, that's a really good example. It illuminates in both directions. You make a very good point and I agree with you -- what I'm saying just goes a step further with the concept.

    First, there are degrees of canon violation. On one end of the spectrum you have relatively small violations, like Droids carrying FWMB-10s, Boba Fett fighting on Endor, lightsabers doing the same damage as melee. Things that don't really make sense, but aren't that hard to overlook, and maybe aren't even really noticeable unless you stop to think about it. Your example of walkers being vulnerable to small arms fire fits here.

    And my point about the status quo doesn't really apply to these more minor inaccuracies. Because if they were "fixed", it would impact the game substantially and people would notice. It would be problematic.

    But there's a whole other type of accuracy violation, on the larger end of the spectrum. To use your example: Sure, AT-AT being vulnerable to small arms fire is inaccurate, but only if you really stop and think about it, it's not glaring. It makes the game work. But if they had AT-ATs on the Droids side and the Clones had to Bring them down, that would be a bigger, more glaring inaccuracy. If they had done it, we'd have people who prefer the AT-AT and its Orbital Strike defending the choice, saying it's fine the way it is. "Fun > Authenticity", they'd say. "They don't need to waste time removing AT-ATs when the matchmaking is so bad." There would be forum wars, debates on whether to remove the AT-ATs from Kashyyyk and Theed. Those who want them removed would be called "whiners" and "idealistic purists".

    But here in the reality where the game didn't start with AT-ATs on Kashyyyk, we don't have anyone demanding them. It sounds like a ludicrous idea. Because it's not the status quo. That's my point.

    The people defending the inaccurate elements of the game would mostly be just as happy with accurate versions, if that's what they'd started out with. No one would be demanding cross-era heroes outside of Hero Modes, if the game had released with five heroes per faction, all balanced against their opposite faction. No one would be demanding rainbow legions of clones, if the game had released with Legion skins as defaults per map, and a customization system full of BARC helmets and ARF Troopers and customized armor markings.

    Bringing this back to my main point, fun can't be more important than authenticity when a certain level of authenticity is required for it to BE fun. That "certain level" is vague and varies from person to person, but we can agree on certain levels. The minor levels I listed above at the very least, Fett on Endor, Walkers not being impervious to blaster fire. For a lot of us (but by no means all), the level of inaccuracy that impacts fun includes heroes being in the wrong eras, and clones not fighting together as a Legion. And I posit that the only reason that level of inaccuracy is acceptable to others is that it's established already, it's the status quo.

    I'm not at all in disagreement with you on many aspects of authenticity. My reply was simply an attempt to clarify the concept of "fun > authenticity" in response to this portion of your initial post:
    JackTHorn wrote: »
    First, why is it being framed as an either/or, one or the other? Why not both?

    You make some good points, especially about how what's available at the beginning ends up dictating the standard for what are considered acceptable violations of authenticity by the community. For my part, I agree with you on cross-era heroes and weapons - I'm not a fan.

    But, as was previously discussed, the devs have to draw a line between what they consider the correct balance between the two factors, and that line will be different for everyone who plays. I also think, however, some of the other replies hit the nail on the head when they said some of the decisions about where that line lay for the devs were dictated more by resources than fun or authenticity factors.
  • Unwarycoin wrote: »
    Devlin21 wrote: »
    I like everything to look as accurate as it could be, but I don't mind the cross era stuff.


    But that's just me, i know theres a lot of people that don't want cross era, so hopefully for those that want it, something happens.
    If the game started without cross era, I'd be fine, but the game is designed with cross era in mind, and any changes to that now would effectively be changing what the game is a it's core, and I like it the way it is now.
    To clarify: When we complain about cross-era, we're not complaining about the game having an element of cross-era in it. Battlefront has had a cross-era element since it introduced the Hero Arena Battle in 2005, which was basically a Hero Blast mode. I'm fine with fantastical dream modes (such as the Hero Modes in this game) having cross-era for those who enjoy that.

    What we're complaining about is the fact that cross-era has now taken over the entire game. There is NO INSTANCE of a mode that has heroes without having them be cross-era.

    The game wasn't designed to be ALL cross-era. But it did end up being continued as such. The early promotion described how certain modes would allow heroes to battle each other cross-era, and we all expected that to be the same as it was since 2005 -- a fantasy Hero mode where anything goes. But they didn't have enough heroes finished by the release date, so they let it stand in GA, and now it's a status quo that people are defending.
  • I don't believe in "canon" or even if things are correct or not, all I care about is if the gameplay is good or not,
    I getcha. Some people feel that way -- gameplay is the only thing. Others (like me) play because it's Star Wars, and gameplay is secondary. Both perspectives are valid, and DICE has to try to make both groups happy.

    having things "canon" restricts what you can do and that isn't good for a game...
    See, people keep saying that. But it doesn't, really. I was arguing with a guy who was demanding some really lame EU elements be included for skins, he said "If we just go by what's canon, there will hardly be any skins at all." I replied with a list of more than 150 canon skins, and those were just the easy-to-make ones. Canon is only really restrictive if you don't know much about canon.

    cross era hero's aren't a issue
    To you.

    what's a issue is heros not being customisable,
    Agreed.

    guns not being correct is not a issue
    To you.

    the lack of them is, you see where I am going with this...
    Agreed.
  • Relmets wrote: »
    2015front beta all snow troops on imperial side
    immersion factor 9.6
    463542123611029514.png?v=1463542123611029514.png?v=1463542123611029514.png?v=1


    maximum immersion
    nrwZvP.gif
    61tgj36mc1n9.png

  • Alex64 wrote: »
    For me it would be better to grab my DH-17 as Officer on every map, it's fun.

    I can understand why the base ones are exclusive, but I want the DC-15/E-5 on every map. Only base rifle with no scope zoom in 1st person, it's the best.
  • Alex64 wrote: »
    For me it would be better to grab my DH-17 as Officer on every map, it's fun.
    I can understand why the base ones are exclusive, but I want the DC-15/E-5 on every map. Only base rifle with no scope zoom in 1st person, it's the best.
    I had my comfort blasters in the beginning too, the ones I thought were "best". But in time, I found that being forced to use certain ones that I didn't like as much taught me valuable skills and techniques, and some of the blasters I initially thought were useless became my favorites.
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    Alex64 wrote: »
    For me it would be better to grab my DH-17 as Officer on every map, it's fun.
    I can understand why the base ones are exclusive, but I want the DC-15/E-5 on every map. Only base rifle with no scope zoom in 1st person, it's the best.
    I had my comfort blasters in the beginning too, the ones I thought were "best". But in time, I found that being forced to use certain ones that I didn't like as much taught me valuable skills and techniques, and some of the blasters I initially thought were useless became my favorites.

    I even put up videos on using nothing but base blasters to show how good they were. My one and only issue is that they aren't really good at medium range because of the accuracy bloom kicks in way too fast. If they toned that down a bit, it'd be good at everything, like it's supposed to. Not the best, but enough to be viable all around. Like the TL-50's reduced spread, if they just made it reduce the bloom speed, it's be an actual attachment. Right now it's basically useless.
  • I really don't understand the immersive role playing. But if that's what you want, a mass-market game isn't the place for you. Go do pencil and paper stuff. I know you think you're the biggest Star Wars fans and therefore the ultimate target for the game, but you're not. You are a really small segment of the community. Frankly, you're a segment of this forum community and there's only a segment of the overall community that bothers with forums.

    Yes, I absolutely want fun to supersede authenticity. Unfortunately, they're failing at fun.
  • I really don't understand the immersive role playing. But if that's what you want, a mass-market game isn't the place for you. Go do pencil and paper stuff. I know you think you're the biggest Star Wars fans and therefore the ultimate target for the game, but you're not. You are a really small segment of the community. Frankly, you're a segment of this forum community and there's only a segment of the overall community that bothers with forums.

    Yes, I absolutely want fun to supersede authenticity. Unfortunately, they're failing at fun.

    This is the same argument that led TLJ to the largest drop off for a star wars movie and Solo to box office failure. "The people who have been supporting and buying the merchandise for years aren't the target audience anymore, let's pander to the people who never cared about star wars in the first place"
  • Pink vader = fun!!!!!!!!
  • I'm happy to relax at the end of the day by stomping around in a game-world that is a lot more than vaguely Star Wars.

    While authenticity isn't a cause that I get worked up for, I do appreciate JackTHorn and the others who fight for it.

    Because of their efforts, we're getting updated, more accurate clone skins, and that is a win for us all.
  • Moral of the story is... I DEMAND A BATCLONE SKIN!
  • Let's also acknowledge the difference between immersion and authenticity. Not only is immersion the thing people want, but authenticity makes everyone's "suggestions" completely pointless and juvenile to the point of stupldlty.
  • I really thought cross era heroes would drive me crazy but they don't, I actually like the mechanic, although most of the heroes currently don't look out of place on any map, Grievous will look out of place on the Deathstar IMO.
  • I really thought cross era heroes would drive me crazy but they don't, I actually like the mechanic, although most of the heroes currently don't look out of place on any map, Grievous will look out of place on the Deathstar IMO.

    At least with ones like Rey, Luke, and Kylo, you can easily place them in any era and there is an idea of why people like that are there. Palpatine is clearly ok with Sith acolytes doing his work, so Kylo being there fits in that way in the Clones Wars. Jedi, enough said. There's always a way to implement cross-era and have it make sense if you actually think creatively.
  • For me, cross era heroes isn't an issue... it doesn't take me out of the immersion of the game and it's fun.
    I have however been thinking about it whilst reading through the thread and there's one thing that stands out for me:

    Locking heroes to era specific maps would most likely (almost definitely) increase my enjoyment of certain maps that I currently don't like playing.
    If for example I could only play my favourite hero on a certain maps - then I would look forward to using them and that would out weigh playing on maps I don't enjoy.

    So even though I'm not passionate about cross era either way - I definitely think it would increase my enjoyment (or "fun") of the overall game to have era locked heroes
  • NomiSunstrider
    3103 posts Member
    edited September 2018
    I'm all for era specific with heroes but right now the hero roster is too small to accomplish that. You would have 2 heroes available for every era. Theres not much choice there.
    ''The difference between a fall and a sacrifice is sometimes difficult, but I feel he understood that difference, more than anyone knew. The galaxy would have fallen if he had not gone to war. Perhaps he became the Dark Lord out of necessity to prevent a greater evil''
    9qkoakxcje0l.gif

  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    Finally, and I think most importantly, it's a deceptively status quo oriented outlook. By which I mean, even the players who are defending the "fun" choices EA has made would probably have enjoyed the accurate option too, if that had been implemented instead.

    For me, this is the most important point. Players would have accepted a game with era-specific heroes and canon-accurate, planet-specific clone legion skins if that's what they'd been given from the start. This also would've avoided some of the backlash because, as is now clear, many Star Wars fans want at least this level of authenticity and so not having heroes from different eras and having proper clone skins would've kept them relatively quiet.
    Unwarycoin wrote: »
    Devlin21 wrote: »
    I like everything to look as accurate as it could be, but I don't mind the cross era stuff.


    But that's just me, i know theres a lot of people that don't want cross era, so hopefully for those that want it, something happens.

    If the game started without cross era, I'd be fine, but the game is designed with cross era in mind, and any changes to that now would effectively be changing what the game is a it's core, and I like it the way it is now.

    Not true. I feel like this belief some people have that "cross-era was intentional" is why we have so much push-back from people when some players say they it should be removed.
    When this game was first announced, they said that heroes would be "authentic to their era". A few months later, the messaging on heroes changed to something along the lines of, "heroes from different eras join the battlefield". The fact that they went from "authentic to their era" to "heroes from different eras" shows that during the production they realised they wouldn't have enough heroes per era for this to be possible and therefore made the heroes cross-era. Thus, cross-era heroes were not intentional but rather implemeneted by necessity because they realised they wouldn't be able to deliver enough heroes for launch to keep them in their own eras.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • bfloo
    15821 posts Member
    Now we can have fun chasing the chicken that will authentically run away.

    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • bfloo
    15821 posts Member
    I have a better quit penalty.

    Now if you quit a game, you can't join another until you catch the chicken on Takodana. :)
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • Companies change plans based on lots of things. It may be that they didn't have enough heroes to make it work, or it could be that the feedback they got from testers was that they wanted heroes available more often.

    Regardless of personal opinion on this matter, I think it would be difficult for them to suddenly era-lock heroes at this stage of the game, as it would cause a lot of backlash. Someone said earlier that they would look forward to specific maps more because they would get to play as their favorite hero. Well, right now, you have a chance of playing as your favorite every other match, regardless of who that hero is. If you era lock the heroes, suddenly that character will only be available once every what....6 rounds or so, depending on character? So you'd have to slog through 5 rounds of not having your favorite character available, and then when you get to a map and side where they are available, everyone is going to be going for it. You'd get a lot more hero menu camping I think.

    Because we can't pick maps, and not everyone has hours and hours to commit to playing the game every night, I just think you'd get a lot of yelling if they era locked the heroes, and yes, even more than the loud minority that now do not like cross era. If they did era lock heroes, they would have to implement map selection.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!