Star Wars: Battlefront Aiming for 60fps, Will Have Destruction Where Appropriate

[Chazore]

JustBeingReal said:

 

LOL your pictures just prove my point.

For one thing the you can't build an artificial solid moon sized structure without super strong materials, the stresses a structure that big would undergo are well beyond real world technology.

The Executor Class ship is over 17KMs long, yet the Death Star still stands after that enormous ship lands into it, most definitely an example of super strong materials.

The Death Star was destroyed by it's reactor exploding, that's a power source sufficient enough for a moon sized space station/ship, in order to blast something that big apart and keep it apart you have to break it's gravitational bonds, meaning that power source is probably millions of times more powerful than anything in the modern world, by which I mean all potential explosive armaments on the planet today.

 

My point is that a regular dude running around with a blaster isn't blowing a hole in a wall, unless he has some advanced explosive, but said explosive will probably wipe out him, his buddies and leave a huge crator in the area of the map if he uses it, basically end game style stuff.

Unless it's a regular concrete wall, there are tonnes of examples of super strong materials in Star Wars, unless you're going to ignore the laws of physics.

 

Regarding the AT-AT it's still in one piece, right up until it's defenses are warn down by super strong lasers from snowspeeders.

I've watched every star wars film, multiple times, the events you showed actually prove my point.

"For one thing the you can't build an artificial solid moon sized structure without super strong materials, the stresses a structure that big would undergo are well beyond real world technology."

That still sounds like an architectural point rather than the materials withstanding actual explosions and the eventual demise from within, sure it makes complete sense in the universe that they needed materials that could stand being in space and being in a cricular shape but standing against outside interference wasn't so great.

"The Executor Class ship is over 17KMs long, yet the Death Star still stands after that enormous ship lands into it, most definitely an example of super strong materials."

back in the 80's the special fx really didn't do the Executor class destruction real justice, if it was done today the visual damage it had done would be shown in full, I feel a ship of that size did more damage than a V bomber crashing into the Star Destroyer's communications section.

"The Death Star was destroyed by it's reactor exploding, that's a power source sufficient enough for a moon sized space station/ship, in order to blast something that big apart and keep it apart you have to break it's gravitational bonds, meaning that power source is probably millions of times more powerful than anything in the modern world, by which I mean all potential explosive armaments on the planet today."

It still shows that the entrance to the reactor along with it's general design was still the weakness, in essence it was both ana rchetictual and material flaw that let to their demise not once but twice.

"My point is that a regular dude running around with a blaster isn't blowing a hole in a wall, unless he has some advanced explosive, but said explosive will probably wipe out him, his buddies and leave a huge crator in the area of the map if he uses it, basically end game style stuff."

Well that's what I'm on about, using mere grenades,C4, rockets and tanks/fighters could all do good amounts of battlefield damage in games like bad Company 2, that game had great levels of allowed destruction, BF3 had visually toned that down and then by 4 they rebranded it as "levolution" and it's limited to a point where most are scripted when you do something rather than it being complete up to what you do to the battlefield.

What I'd at least expect out of this is being able to knock down trees, blow apart walls completely, cripple buildings to a point where you cannot stay within them (battlefield Bad Company 2 was known for allowing you to blow buildings to a point where they collapse), being able to blow up AT-AT's is a complete gurantee but I just want to see more battlefield destruction rather than tiny little pieces with scripted parts, it's already bad enough the AT-AT's are on rails yet the ones from BF2 you could pilot them to go anywhere and still fend off armies and if you were a good shot, snowspeeders as well.

I just feel that with a tiny graphical advancement we've gone back a few steps on what previous games had and trying to ham up what's elft as being more sound and reasonable than what was available before, if there's not enough adiquate and bigger battlefields with good amounts of destruction then it'll just look like Battlefield but with a SW paintjob.