Successor to the Xwing series?

[Savagebeasty]

I keep seeing this phrase in relation to this game and I personally think...its complete nonsense.

Its not even comparable, its not even the same type of game other than you fly about in space.

Can we all just stop this nonsense and refer to what the game actually is. A standalone version of Battlefront 2's single player space missions.

Now thats not a bad thing, I thought that the single player ship missions were the best part about that game.

Im not even saying the game is rubbish (its hard to make an informed decision when the game doesnt work in VR or joysticks dont work properly) but if you push this game as a successor to the Xwing series then it can only lead to disapointment from people who think they're going to get a fully fleshed out Star Wars space sim.

If you come to this game knowing its a fast arcadey game where you can fly about in Xwings blowing up Tie Fighters in VR (maybe one day VR work)  then thats all good. Its hard not to have fun shooting tie fighters, hell even rebel assault was fun even though it's a terrible game.

Just...lets not pretend its an Xwing game and manage peoples expectations realistically.

[Carbonic]

People might not consider this a successor to the X-wing series, fair enough, but I don't think it's fair to consider this a "A standalone version of Battlefront 2's single player space missions", it simply is not close to that either. Reporters will always try and make easy comparisons and so will people for that matter.

If it is it's own thing that is fine.

[CoreBlueDave]

It's the closest thing to a successor we've had in 20 years. Personally I find the singleplayer campaign reminds me a lot of X-Wing and Tie Fighter, accepting that I've not played those games in probably 25 years. It is faster and more frenetic (which is more in keeping with the movies anyway), but the main difference is in some of the mission design and sadly the much shorter campaign. 

For me, in VR (which works fine on my Vive) it's very much a spiritual successor to X-Wing and I really hope it does well enough that we might get another sequel or expansion pack without having to wait another 20 years for it.

[Savagebeasty]

Just cause it has xwings and tiefighters in it it bears no resemblance to the xwing games.

You cant say it doesnt match battlefront 2 the most, its made by the same people on the same engine. Its just a better more focussed version of those missions. Like I said thats fine,  the one positive thing for me about battlefront 2 were those space missions. They even use some of the same tricks...infinite spawning enemies in certain parts. I played mission 8 or 9 cant remember which one...for about 2 hours the other day until I realised they just kept on respawning. So much for taking out the escort wing so you can concentrate on the capital ships. You know...like you do in every other space sim. Thats arcadey.

Can we consider rogue squadron series a spirtual successor to xwing alliance? No..its nothing like it.

Look I'm trying to not be a whinger, I enjoy the single player missions for what they are. Just dont think the comparision between the games is a fair one on either side

[CoreBlueDave]

Amount of content not withstanding Squadrons is as much a successor to X-Wing as Skyrim is a successor to Arena. A great deal is different obviously, decades have passed after all and that affects both the technical qualities of the game and the game design that prevails. There will always be purest who insist the older games were better for one reason or another and for them they are right, but rose tinted glasses and nostalgia for a long lost era of gaming shouldn't get in the way of celebrating just how much this game takes from those classics.

is this a direct sequel? No there is a clearly difference in the design language with Squadrons singleplayer focusing much more on close in manoeuvring and seat of the pants flying (which frankly I always though was sorely missing in the classic games). But it clearly also draws a lot of inspiration too, with far more complex ship systems, missions that involve a variety of tasks like scanning and taking out specific sub systems and even the way you return to the hanger and can talk to people or get your mission briefings. These are all strongly evocative of the classics and while a direct comparison is impossible, it would be very unfair to suggest this game is more Battlefront 2 than it is X-Wing, at least in my opinion.

[CoreBlueDave]

Amount of content not withstanding Squadrons is as much a successor to X-Wing as Skyrim is a successor to Arena. A great deal is different obviously, decades have passed after all and that affects both the technical qualities of the game and the game design that prevails. There will always be purest who insist the older games were better for one reason or another and for them they are right, but rose tinted glasses and nostalgia for a long lost era of gaming shouldn't get in the way of celebrating just how much this game takes from those classics.

is this a direct sequel? No there is a clearly difference in the design language with Squadrons singleplayer focusing much more on close in manoeuvring and seat of the pants flying (which frankly I always though was sorely missing in the classic games). But it clearly also draws a lot of inspiration too, with far more complex ship systems, missions that involve a variety of tasks like scanning and taking out specific sub systems and even the way you return to the hanger and can talk to people or get your mission briefings. These are all strongly evocative of the classics and while a direct comparison is impossible, its unfair to suggest this game is more Battlefront 2 than it is X-Wing, at least in my opinion.

[Savagebeasty]

@CoreBlueDave hhmm I play Xwing Alliance alot still, especially thanks to the active modding community doing wonders with it, so its not rose tinted glasses for me.

I'm not saying xwing alliance is a better game (well it is but thats not my point), I'm saying the games are not comparable cause its nothing like it. Xwing alliance is a sim, this is not a sim...

Dont get me wrong, it obvious they've played those games and its nice they've tried to incorporate some of the old things like power management, again though its lite version of how those systems work in xwing.

I don't really get your Skyrim point..skyrim is a direct sequel of Arena...elder scrolls 5...made by the same people...surely you've just proved my point... this game wasnt made by the people who made the xwing games? I dont get it...

Obviously tech and graphics have moved on...doesnt that make this game more disapointing for you? That a small team of guys back in the 90's/2000's can make a more in depth game than a team of god knows how many with all the modern tech and streamlined workflows?

[CoreBlueDave]

@Savagebeasty I've not played X-Wing Alliance though I will give the VR mod a go at some point. But I agree those older games had much more a simulation focus, in the same way as Arena had much more of an RPG focus than Skyrim. Yet Skyrim is still a successor to Arena even though it's far more of an action game than the classic game was. Yes Skyrim was made by the same company, though probably not any of the same people, at least not in anything other than a managerial role. It is both a canonical sequel and a successor. Squadrons is not a sequel but it is a successor.

My point is there is enough of the DNA of what made X-Wing great replicated here, it's not a 2020 version. But it has some of it's blood running through it's veins. Power management is one example, it's pretty well identical once you enable advanced mode in the options, except for the overcharge features they've added. You wouldn't see that in this game if it wasn't channelling X-Wing.  

You have to be realistic, no game is ever going to be perfectly they way you would want it, unless you make it yourself and somehow acquire an unlimited budget (even then maybe not, I'm looking at you Star Citizen). Expecting EA, or anyone with deep pockets to make a new Star Fighter game as much of a simulation as X-Wing was, is a long wait for a train that isn't coming. What we have is a worthy successor, if not the perfect game for lovers of deep complex simulation. I for one would have happily dumped the entire multiplayer part in exchange for more single player campaign. But I realise that would likely have reduced it's mass appeal. It certainly would have made it a bigger risk.

It is what it is, and I am loving it for what it is. I just want more singleplayer content for it.

[CoreBlueDave]

@Savagebeasty I've not played X-Wing Alliance though I will give the VR mod a go at some point. But I agree those older games had much more a simulation focus, in the same way as Arena had much more of an RPG focus than Skyrim. Yet Skyrim is still a successor to Arena even though it's far more of an action game than the classic game was. Yes Skyrim was made by the same company, though probably not any of the same people, at least not in anything other than a managerial role. It is both a canonical sequel and a successor. Squadrons is not a sequel but it is a successor.

My point is there is enough of the DNA of what made X-Wing great replicated here, it's not a 2020 version. But it has some of it's blood running through it's veins. Power management is one example, it's pretty well identical once you enable advanced mode in the options, except for the overcharge features they've added. You wouldn't see that in this game if it wasn't channelling X-Wing.  

You have to be realistic, no game is ever going to be perfectly they way you would want it, unless you make it yourself and somehow acquire an unlimited budget (even then maybe not, I'm looking at you Star Citizen). Expecting EA, or anyone with deep pockets to make a new Star Fighter game as much of a simulation as X-Wing was, is a long wait for a train that isn't coming. What we have is a worthy successor, if not the perfect game for lovers of deep complex simulation. I for one would have happily dumped the entire multiplayer part in exchange for more single player campaign. But I realise that would likely have reduced it's mass appeal. It certainly would have made it a bigger risk.

It is what it is, and I am loving it for what it is. I just want more singleplayer content for it.

[CoreBlueDave]

@Savagebeasty I've not played X-Wing Alliance though I will give the VR mod a go at some point. But I agree those older games had much more a simulation focus, in the same way as Arena had a lot more RPG focus than Skyrim. Yet Skyrim is still a successor to Arena even though it's far more of an action game than the classic game was. Yes Skyrim was made by the same company, though probably not any of the same people, at least not in anything other than a managerial role. It is both a canonical sequel and a successor. Squadrons is not a sequel but it is a successor.

My point is there is enough of the DNA of what made X-Wing great replicated here, it's not a 2020 version. But it has some of it's blood running through it's veins. Power management is one example, it's pretty well identical once you enable advanced mode in the options, except for the overcharge features they've added. You wouldn't see that in this game if it wasn't channelling X-Wing.  

You have to be realistic, no game is ever going to be perfectly they way you would want it, unless you make it yourself and somehow acquire an unlimited budget (even then maybe not, I'm looking at you Star Citizen). Expecting EA, or anyone with deep pockets to make a new Star Fighter game as much of a simulation as X-Wing was, is a long wait for a train that isn't coming. What we have is a worthy successor, if not the perfect game for lovers of deep complex simulation. I for one would have happily dumped the entire multiplayer part in exchange for more single player campaign. But I realise that would likely have reduced it's mass appeal. It certainly would have made it a bigger risk.

It is what it is, and I am loving it for what it is. I just want more singleplayer content for it.