-= Gametoast.com =-

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2015 1:49 pm**

Teancum wrote:True, but business-wise they don't really want you to stick with the same game for 10 years. Companies want you to buy the newest game, then all the DLC, then move on the the next game. I know DICE has previously been very hands-off for modders, and I doubt that'll change. In fact, given how much more involved making content for games is in the current generation I wouldn't be surprised if official mod tools die out completely in the next few years. What one person could do 6-7 years ago now takes a team of 10 modders.

It makes sense from a business standpoint, but it is still undeniably sad for us

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 12:36 pm**

The more I see about Dicefront the more I get the impression that they spend more of their development resources chasing the original trilogy look, than they do on actually making game content. Like yeah they nailed the look, but I'm looking at what we know about the content and it's just ehhhhh.

The fact that they said they want it to be multiplayer focused is a real turn off for me. Firstly because to me at least "multiplayer focused" for a game like battlefront usually means the same as "we didn't want to invest the resources for a good SP." Secondly because I avoid multiplayer anything when it comes to shooters, too much toxicity in the multiplayer shooter communities.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 12:56 pm**

ZoomV wrote:The more I see about Dicefront the more I get the impression that they spend more of their development resources chasing the original trilogy look, than they do on actually making game content. Like yeah they nailed the look, but I'm looking at what we know about the content and it's just ehhhhh.

Assuming that by "game content" you mean "gameplay," then well yeah, you can probably expect the typical Battlefield-style of gameplay (which is what Battlefront has always been about) with a few twists such as saber combat and spaceships and Jar Jar.

ZoomV wrote:The fact that they said they want it to be multiplayer focused is a real turn off for me. Firstly because to me at least "multiplayer focused" for a game like battlefront usually means the same as "we didn't want to invest the resources for a good SP."

DICE has always been this way with their games, so much so that I personally prefer that they don't waste any money and man-hours embarrassing themselves carelessly assembling some cheap, half-assed singleplayer campaign -- no, that's just not what DICE excels at. (see: Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4 [Bad Company 2's was decent though]) And besides, Battlefront has never really been a (campaign) singleplayer-focused franchise in the first place anyways, so.

I mean, what do you remember best from playing any of the existing Battlefronts? What are your "magic moments?" Their campaigns or the multiplayer (offline or online)? For me, and I'm assuming for most other people, it would be the multiplayer combat (but not online - LOL those pings though) and playing locally with my brother and my friends back in 2005-2007 when I was only 11-13.

ZoomV wrote:Secondly because I avoid multiplayer anything when it comes to shooters, too much toxicity in the multiplayer shooter communities.

Thankfully, when it comes to online-shooter communities, Battlefield's is generally more mature than others.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 12:57 pm**

I'm just gonna step in and remind everyone that in a development studio like DICE, the people responsible for art and sound assets are not the same people who code and design the gameplay.

Meaning it doesn't matter how good or bad the game looks, the game designers had the same amount of time to work on it as the art designers.

Worst case, they hire more artists and they can't afford to hire more designers, but this is DICE. That's not gonna be an issue with them.

So any and all issues relating to the gameplay are not tied to how it looks.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 1:40 pm**

It would be certainly cool to see Jar Jar Bings in the new Battlefront. Wouldn't be? I mean he's one of the most authenctic and one of the best Star Wars Characters in my opinion. Actually we all love Jar Jar. Don't we? I must say a Star Wars without Jar Jar Bings is not Star Wars anymore for me. He's one of the most important characters there..isn't he?

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 2:51 pm**

thelegend wrote:It would be certainly cool to see Jar Jar Bings in the new Battlefront. Wouldn't be? I mean he's one of the most authenctic and one of the best Star Wars Characters in my opinion. Actually we all love Jar Jar. Don't we? I must say a Star Wars without Jar Jar Bings is not Star Wars anymore for me. He's one of the most important characters there..isn't he?

Hidden/Spoiler:

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:08 pm**

Come on. We all will never forget his funny smiling face.

It would be so awesome to see him and all the other gungans back in any Star Wars Game.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:09 pm**

thelegend wrote:It would be so awesome to see him and all the other gungans back in any Star Wars Game.

Dead, maybe. :p

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:10 pm**

The exclusion of the Clone Wars Era seems like an awful idea. I have to wonder why they did such a thing, and I can only think of two reasons: Either to pander to OT purists, or to rake in more dough when they add it as DLC. Beyond all that, it just seems so bare. It has almost none of the features that made Battlefront what it is, and having a loadout system instead of a class system is literally something Call of Duty does.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:33 pm**

Darth_Squoobus wrote:The exclusion of the Clone Wars Era seems like an awful idea. I have to wonder why they did such a thing

Perhaps because the Clone Wars has had the crap milked out of it and many fans of the games, such as the new game's designers as well as myself, are tired of it? Or maybe because Lucas wasn't there for once to enforce his own ridiculous "creative input" in the pre-production and development processes.

I know not everyone feels the same, of course, but I personally don't mind its absence in the new Battlefront. I'm sick of the era.

Darth_Squoobus wrote:Beyond all that, it just seems so bare. It has almost none of the features that made Battlefront what it is, and having a loadout system instead of a class system is literally something Call of Duty does.

You know what other game franchise uses a loadout system? Battlefield. Who develops Battlefield? DICE. You know what other exceedingly-common game mechanic Call of Duty uses? When you shoot and hit an enemy, that enemy gets hurt.

A game with a bad rep using a certain game mechanic doesn't make it a bad mechanic. Plus, the way Battlefield handles the loadout system is pretty different to the way Call of Duty does it: in Battlefield, you can change your loadout, but there are four different classes - Assault, Support, Engineer, and Recon - each of which has its own unique abilities, weapons, and equipment - the catch being that any class can still technically use any weapon, which makes the most sense logically for the most part, obviously setting requirements like advanced marksmanship training aside. So in other words, what you'll get will most likely be almost exactly the same as what Battlefront offers in terms of how unit selection is set up, except for the fact that your weapon set isn't exceedingly restricted like it is in Battlefront.

Think: what makes Battlefront what it is? The graphics? Probably not. The way the different unit classes physically move? Sort of. Fun game modes such as Conquest? Most likely. Conquest (and of course the Star Wars setting), at least to me, is what makes Battlefront, well, Battlefront, and it's undoubtedly a game mode that DICE more-or-less has mastered, seeing as how they've included it in every Battlefield game since Battlefield 1942. Obviously Conquest isn't the only aspect of Battlefront that makes it what it is, there's also its fast-paced action, but there's little doubt that will be an issue, since, well, it's never really been for DICE.

Come on, guys, give DICE at least a little credit.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:28 pm**

Marth8880 wrote:Think: what makes Battlefront what it is?

Instant Action, Space Battles, and all the Maps. What else could DICE leave out?
I did cry b/c space was left out though.. Am I the only one who played those regularly?

Hidden/Spoiler:

I'm going to need a new PC just to play this... High end games tend to lag. Any ideas on a great one for 500-750 dollars.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:31 pm**

I concur. The Clone Wars era has been milked to death. We've had 6 games under the Clone Wars flag since the launch of the series. It's time to give it a well-earned rest. I wouldn't say no to a future game with Clone Wars missions, though, just further down the line, I think.

A loadout system is not entirely new to Battlefront either. The PSP games had one.

As for Instant Action, I think that the missions are meant to be the equivalent. They've got the major battle maps from the OT in, and let's be honest, space battles weren't all that great in SWBF2. Granted, the right thing to do might have been to overhaul the idea, but I can appreciate that DICE want to take small steps with the franchise.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:06 pm**

Even if it has been overdone, I still feel like I'm buying half a game. And the fact that they left out space battles is pretty upsetting to me as well. Such a missed opportunity.....

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:09 pm**

Marth8880 wrote:Perhaps because the Clone Wars has had the crap milked out of it

It's no different than the original trilogy being milked as much as it has been for the last forty years. There are far more OT-centric and Post-OT games than there are Clone War themed games. The Prequels are just as much a part of Star Wars as the OT, so there's no logical reason to exclude it from a game that's supposed to be about recreating battle from the entire saga.

Marth8880 wrote:in Battlefield, you can change your loadout, but there are four different classes - Assault, Support, Engineer, and Recon - each of which has its own unique abilities, weapons, and equipment - the catch being that any class can still technically use any weapon

any class can still technically use any weapon

That is the exact opposite of what classes are about. The point of classes is that each unit is unique and can only access weapons suited for its role. When everyone has access to all the same weapons, any stated distinctions are total bupkiss.

Marth8880 wrote:Think: what makes Battlefront what it is?

As far as gameplay is concerned?

Class-based tactical combat
Aerial and orbital Dogfighting
Varied ground-based vehicle combat
Conquest
Instant Action

Superficially, the game has four out of five of those things. But why don't we took a closer look at how Battlefront 2015 handles all of these?

As discussed above, classes are there in name only.
Dogfighting has been restricted to land-based maps, because, in the developers own words, STAR Wars is about epic ground battles. I don't know about you, but 20vs20 doesn't sound very "epic" to me. Just as well, Y-wings are a scripted event rather than flyable vehicles.
Vehicles aren't faring too well. AT-ATs are scripted, following a predetermined path while all the player can do is fire the cannons. Speeder bikes are sluggish compared to their predecessors.
You can't really screw up conquest. However, DICE has a habit of making cramped bottleneck maps, which goes against the grand "epic" feeling of Star Wars. People will of course say that large maps became boring due to the vast distance between command posts and the time needed to traverse it, but you know what helps with that? Vehicles. Fast vehicles. Which both of the first two games had. Even the AT-AT was marginally faster than the player on foot and required sprinting or a smaller vehicle to reach when it had gained some distance.
Finally, there seems to be no indication of an Instant Action mode being present. This is neither confirmed nor denied, but given DICE's lack of confidence about showing what they have, it probably isn't there. If there is, there won't be a whole lot of variety, since there are only four planets in the vanilla game (Tatooine, Hoth, Endor, and Sullust), and the fifth DLC planet, Jakku, will very likely be a repackaged Tatooine.

We've all played he first two Battlefront games, we know what's in those games and we know what's going to be in Battlefront 2015, so we should all be able to see just how much of a downgrade the new game is.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:01 pm**

I just don't want to be in first person sprinting around the deserts of Tatooine for an hour to get to that command post on the other end of the map so that I can win and unlock that cool looking blaster that's still not as good as the one you can buy in that new DLC that's going to be coming out in a week that's going to be replaced by a superblaster DLC the week after.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:42 pm**

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Battlefront'15 is meant to recreate the battles of the entire saga. That might have been the case for Battlefront I and II but those are games from a different series. This is a reboot. You might not agree with the new goals they have but that is how it is.

Classes are just means to tactical combat by restricting equipment in some way. Other systems can achieve the same effect (given they're well executed of course), and possibly be even better.

Battlefield 3 and 4 had 64 player servers, but lesser player counts (32-48) tightened up the gameplay a lot and made it a lot more fun (and not any less "epic"). IMO the "epicness" of the battles in Star Wars mostly comes from how they were presented, where they took place, how the actual fighting happened, not how many people ran around.

And finally, you look at all the more or less well executed features SWBFI and II had and compare that to what you might know about Battlefront'15. But you know what neither of the previous Battlefronts had? Truly great gameplay. They had their moments, but both of them have major problems both subjective and objective. If it weren't for Star Wars who would even remember those games?
If I can get a Star Wars shooter with great gameplay but have to miss out on some features I'll gladly take that. While there might be a lot of stuff around it you can legitimately complain about, the core gameplay in any DICE game has never been disappointing.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:05 pm**

Darth_Squoobus wrote:
Marth8880 wrote:Perhaps because the Clone Wars has had the crap milked out of it
It's no different than the original trilogy being milked as much as it has been for the last forty years. There are far more OT-centric and Post-OT games than there are Clone War themed games. The Prequels are just as much a part of Star Wars as the OT, so there's no logical reason to exclude it from a game that's supposed to be about recreating battle from the entire saga.

Except that's just the thing, there is a difference: one has been milked more-recently than the other. You can milk a cow, but you can't milk two cows at once (unless you're a cow-milking god or something lol). Regarding various complaints that we'll be getting "half a game because omfg only OT eraz??", the theory I like to adopt is that there will be a Force Awakens era. It would make perfect sense from a marketing and timing standpoint (in terms of film-to-game release dates); I mean I'd be genuinely surprised if the idea hasn't at least been tossed around at DICE, you know? In fact, from a budget and time-constraint standpoint, it'd make sense for the Clone Wars era to have been cut in order to be able to instead develop a Force Awakens era in its place.

Darth_Squoobus wrote:
Marth8880 wrote:in Battlefield, you can change your loadout, but there are four different classes - Assault, Support, Engineer, and Recon - each of which has its own unique abilities, weapons, and equipment - the catch being that any class can still technically use any weapon

any class can still technically use any weapon
That is the exact opposite of what classes are about. The point of classes is that each unit is unique and can only access weapons suited for its role. When everyone has access to all the same weapons, any stated distinctions are total bupkiss.

Fair enough, but at the end of the day, is going to a CP and changing your weapon loadout while staying the same class really very different from changing your class that has a different loadout? I mean think about it, it's a mostly-abstract concept, really. The only real differences are the way your character looks and your set abilities, which is exactly why having classes with unique gadgets/abilities makes more sense from a design point of view. However, I decided to look into the case of all weapons across all classes in Battlefield (4) and it turns out that I was wrong. In Battlefield 4, the following classes can use the following types of (primary) weapons (all classes' secondary weapons are pistols):

Assault:
- Assault Rifle
- Carbine
- DMR
- Shotgun

Engineer:
- PDR
- Carbine
- DMR
- Shotgun

Support:
- LMG
- Carbine
- DMR
- Shotgun

Recon:
- Sniper Rifle
- Carbine
- DMR
- Shotgun

So each class has a type of weapon that is specific to that class, but each class can also equip a carbine, DMR, or shotgun. From all of the matches I've witnessed and played over the years, most players seem to use their class's unique weapon type or a DMR (depending on the map of course). In a way, the class system is set up very similar to Battlefront's: each class has some unique primary weapon, a secondary pistol, and some arrangement of mostly-unique "gadgets" or "abilities," the biggest and only real difference between the two games' class systems being that in Battlefield 4 you also have the option to swap your unique primary weapon out for some other-but-really-usually-not-very-as-good-overall-weapon.

Darth_Squoobus wrote:
Marth8880 wrote:Think: what makes Battlefront what it is?
As far as gameplay is concerned?
Aerial and orbital Dogfighting

Meh... To me, Battlefront left a LOT to be desired with its hastily-assembled flyer/space combat - if anything, it left a negative mark on me. :V

Darth_Squoobus wrote:Dogfighting has been restricted to land-based maps, because, in the developers own words, STAR Wars is about epic ground battles. I don't know about you, but 20vs20 doesn't sound very "epic" to me.

Battlefront 1 and 2 supported up to 16v16 on the consoles and it felt relatively epic-ish. :u Jokes aside, some of the largest reasons why Battlefield 4 suffers/suffered from so many netcode issues is because of low server tickrates and high-population servers, specifically servers with populations over ~24. Each player that's spawned adds a TON of processing load to the server, which gradually destabilizes said server. Yeah, yeah, it sucks not being to reasonably have more players than 20 per team, but it's for the better. However, a theory that WULF and I adopt is that DICE will take the Titanfall approach and add AI-controlled units to each team. I know, it's not the best solution, but hey, it's better than having a smaller number of players.

Darth_Squoobus wrote:Just as well, Y-wings are a scripted event rather than flyable vehicles. Vehicles aren't faring too well. AT-ATs are scripted, following a predetermined path while all the player can do is fire the cannons. Speeder bikes are sluggish compared to their predecessors.

AT-ATs are probably scripted for a very good reason. I mean, did you see that super-dense environment it was romping around in?!? That'd be ridiculous to set up accurate collision in such a confined environment, and even then, it's not like there's really any room to maneuver in anyways.

In regards to the Y-Wings, all we know from what we saw is that there's a scripted bombing-run event mechanic in the game. That doesn't mean there won't eventually be Y-Wings that can be piloted whether it be in space battles or whatever.

Darth_Squoobus wrote:Finally, there seems to be no indication of an Instant Action mode being present. This is neither confirmed nor denied, but given DICE's lack of confidence about showing what they have, it probably isn't there. If there is, there won't be a whole lot of variety, since there are only four planets in the vanilla game (Tatooine, Hoth, Endor, and Sullust), and the fifth DLC planet, Jakku, will very likely be a repackaged Tatooine.

Lack of confidence? Oh please, give me (or better yet, DICE) a break. Maybe they haven't shown us more because they want to keep it a secret until a further time? You know, like every other development studio? I hate to sound so harsh, but come on, man. I could be wrong, but I don't think most AAA developers post the entire contents of their design documents to the net for the public to see, which is essentially the same as what you expect DICE "lacks the confidence" to do.

Regarding the number of planets, just because there are only four (publicly-announced) planets in the vanilla game does not necessarily mean that there will only be four maps in the whole game. DICE could easily have 2 or 3+ maps based on each planet alone similar to what the first Battlefront did. Even if they did have a significantly smaller number of maps than the previous Battlefront games, you must take into account how much longer it takes to design large-scale levels in this day and age of gaming. There's SO many more things to take into account, especially in a complex engine such as Frostbite 3. It'd simply be unrealistic and unreasonable to demand 15+ medium-large-scale maps and expect the game to be out by Christmas. With all that said, assuming that each planet includes 2 maps each, you'll have a total of 8 maps to play on immediately after release - then, a week after release, you'll be able to grab the free Jakku DLC, which again, assuming it follows the 2-maps-per-planet model, you'll then have a total of 10 maps to play on, which should be plenty, and is also the same amount of maps Battlefield 4 initially shipped with.

Darth_Squoobus wrote:we know what's in those games and we know what's going to be in Battlefront 2015

This is literally a false statement. We've seen less than 10 measly minutes of the game and we've heard a very minute number of actual hard details about any specifics of the game.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:11 pm**

Not that I want to go to an aside or detract from the current discussion, as that hasn't had a conclusion, but I stumbled across this.

There are going to be female stormtroopers.

Okay we need to clarify a couple things before I go further. I play as both females and males in video games. I can relate to both, I'm not limited to one or the other. I'll actually often choose to play as a female character over a male one, just because it's different and interesting (especially in games like Mass Effect with entirely different characters to romance). I just started another playthrough of JKA, and guess who I'm playing as? Female Jaden.

But did the Empire need to be made politically correct? Wasn't the point behind the lack of diversity in the empire to show that they were very much so akin to the white supremacists of a certain aggressive European power in the mid 20th century? We saw exactly 0 female stormtroopers and 0 female Imperial officers in the original trilogy, and they barely existed in the EU. Where did we see the women of Star Wars fighting? In the Rebel Alliance. That was the entire point. The Alliance welcomed anyone and everyone, not just because they needed the bodies but because they had no prejudices against you, whether you were a man, woman, Sullustian, Wookie, Calimari, or any under species in the galaxy. It was about fighting for your freedom under the boot of the oppressive Empire. If you make the Empire diverse, how do you make the argument that they are oppressive?

By giving the Empire female stormtroopers, we're doing the same kind of bullcrap that Lucas did with A New Hope. He reduced the blaster hit effects (making it less violent), and had Greedo shoot first so that Han acted only in self-defense. We're lessening the art for the purpose of political correctness or being more kid friendly. George Lucas didn't understand art, neither do the heads of DICE apparently. Which is weird, because I'm pretty sure you can't play as women in Battlefield 4. Not sure about Hardline. So why the change DICE?

Obviously I'm not gonna hate an entire game based on something like this, I just think it's as poor of a choice as making Greedo shoot first. You're ruining character for an attempt at appeasing a certain crowd. Be in the character of Han Solo, or the character of the Empire.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:18 pm**

THEWULFMAN wrote:Not that I want to go to an aside or detract from the current discussion, as that hasn't had a conclusion, but I stumbled across this.

There are going to be female stormtroopers.

[...]

But did the Empire need to be made politically correct? Wasn't the point behind the lack of diversity in the empire to show that they were very much so akin to the white supremacists of a certain aggressive European power in the mid 20th century? We saw exactly 0 female stormtroopers and 0 female Imperial officers in the original trilogy, and they barely existed in the EU. Where did we see the women of Star Wars fighting? In the Rebel Alliance. That was the entire point. The Alliance welcomed anyone and everyone, not just because they needed the bodies but because they had no prejudices against you, whether you were a man, woman, Sullustian, Wookie, Calimari, or any under species in the galaxy. It was about fighting for your freedom under the boot of the oppressive Empire. If you make the Empire diverse, how do you make the argument that they are oppressive?

By giving the Empire female stormtroopers, we're doing the same kind of bullcrap that Lucas did with A New Hope. He reduced the blaster hit effects (making it less violent), and had Greedo shoot first so that Han acted only in self-defense. We're lessening the art for the purpose of political correctness or being more kid friendly. George Lucas didn't understand art, neither do the heads of DICE apparently. Which is weird, because I'm pretty sure you can't play as women in Battlefield 4. Not sure about Hardline. So why the change DICE?

anyta sarcheesyan: 1!!
wolf man: 0!!!!

!!1!!!11

But yeah, I agree. :V

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:28 pm**

Darth_Squoobus wrote:
As discussed above, classes are there in name only. - Only by your cramped description of classes. A class with less health, but more movement speed that has access to a portable spawn beacon and a buff to long-range accuracy is MUCH different than a base soldier, even if both are able to wield either an assault rifle or a sniper rifle.

Dogfighting has been restricted to land-based maps, because, in the developers own words, STAR Wars is about epic ground battles. I don't know about you, but 20vs20 doesn't sound very "epic" to me. Just as well, Y-wings are a scripted event rather than flyable vehicles. - So did SWBF1, a game with a default 16v16, and that game was still great.

Vehicles aren't faring too well. AT-ATs are scripted, following a predetermined path while all the player can do is fire the cannons. Speeder bikes are sluggish compared to their predecessors. - AT-ATs are only scripted in a game mode called Walker Assault. Along with the scripted Y-Wings, used to stop the walkers in Walker Assault. And idk about you, but if I'm remembering correctly, speeders on SWBF2 were WAY too fast to do anything but get from point A to point B, kinda defeating the purpose of using them for combat as they appear to be used for in the new Battlefront

You can't really screw up conquest. However, DICE has a habit of making cramped bottleneck maps, which goes against the grand "epic" feeling of Star Wars. People will of course say that large maps became boring due to the vast distance between command posts and the time needed to traverse it, but you know what helps with that? Vehicles. Fast vehicles. Which both of the first two games had. Even the AT-AT was marginally faster than the player on foot and required sprinting or a smaller vehicle to reach when it had gained some distance. - Speculation

Finally, there seems to be no indication of an Instant Action mode being present. This is neither confirmed nor denied, but given DICE's lack of confidence about showing what they have, it probably isn't there. If there is, there won't be a whole lot of variety, since there are only four planets in the vanilla game (Tatooine, Hoth, Endor, and Sullust), and the fifth DLC planet, Jakku, will very likely be a repackaged Tatooine. - Speculation. Also, taking examples from SWBF and SWBF2: Rhen Var, Tatooine, Bespin, and Naboo are four planets with multiple maps that were EXTREMELY varied.

-= Gametoast.com =-

Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

Re: Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)