this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
96 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
14 readers
1 users here now
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I can't help but feel that all of us old timer "why won't they make another Tie Fighter?" guys did not show up when they did exactly that on Star Wars Squadrons.
But also, hey did you know they made another X-Wing/Tie Fighter game called Star Wars Squadrons? That happened.
Squadrons was kind of boring in my opinion. Lots to love in the gameplay itself and all the details, but by the end of the campaign I wanted to be done and haven't thought about it since. It would be a great buy for $10 though.
Played the shit out of Squadrons. Multiplayer was fun, story was fun. For whatever reason it breaks my PC now when I launch it so it's on hold for me
Um, old timer here and squadrons is a different genre than tie fighter. One is a single player campaign, the other is a multiplayer game. Squadrons was nothing like x-wing imo. If space battles were a sport, squadrons would capture that level playing field. If you're looking for the experience of being a Jedi pilot who turns the tides of battles, squadrons isn't it.
I'm gonna let the "Jedi pilot" bit go because I feel I'd have to give myself a wedgie at that point.
But... no, there's a pretty hefty campaign in Squadrons. The fact that there's also a solid multiplayer mode in there is nice, too, but there's definitely single player content to pop enemy fighters like so much bubble wrap, if that's your thing.
It's also not the first time the franchise (assuming you count it as a X-Wing/Tie Fighter sequel, which I do) has multiplayer. Both Alliance and X-Wing Vs Tie Figher had multiplayer modes, too. Hell, X-Wing Vs. Tie Fighter didn't even launch with a narrative campaign, they had to add it as an expansion.
I absolutely did, and did not like it. It's far faster paced, which I guess isn't surprising since it's basically came about from Battlefront 2's space battles, and isn't as thoughtful compared to the X-Wing line.
Heh. I've weirdly had people tell me they didn't understand why it was so slow, especially if they hadn't played the original Tie Fighter.
I'll say that I don't know if I'd want a modern game to be paced as the old ones were. We can talk about the mission design and other elements and I'll hear you out about the differences, but I wonder if there's some rose tinted glasses type of thing going on as well.
I've done TIE Fighter streams on 4th May a couple of times in the recent years, and the game play is as good as ever. So no, it's not some rose-tinted glasses.
Fair enough. I do still like it as well, but that game does have some dead air. I'm not surprised that the read on Squadron's pacing would be heavily dependent on how much Tie Fighter/X-Wing you played, or that the devs split the difference to some degree.
I really appreciated having the 4x time compression option in TIE Fighter to hurry things along when you're just flying from A to B. They then inexplicably removed that capability from X-Wing Alliance.
Most of the time, I thought the missions were ok. I like the tension when the designers used the dead air effectively, like the calm before the storm.
There are times when the time compression helps, but I don't remember using it very often.
I played Squadrons on day 1 and quickly got sick of it. Also that drift maneuver, wtf? It ain't no X-Wing or TIE Fighter.