Talk:Star Wars Battlefront (2015 video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Developer

I heard Battlefront III was under development by Pandemic. http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/videos/36163/Gaming-Update-011609.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumor

I was playing with my dad's phone and I was searching Star Wars for games online and new came up about Battlefront 3 saying there are rumors that battlefront 3 is going to be released/devolped in LA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remo652 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's tons of rumors floating around. I've even heard that Crytek UK (formerly Free Radical) was given the game back to finish. It's all just talk. Best to wait for official word. --Teancum (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Released in LA? Yes, I wouldn't imagine Lucasarts would not ship any copies to retailers in LA (only a joke :D). Developed in LA? I heard it was being developed by Pandemic, wherever they are. That is just speculation though. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sotry reworked into Elite Squadron

I've seen some video footage of Elite Squadron, and it seems as though the storyline is actually pretty much the same as Battlefront III's 'leaked' storyline of two clones, and a Dark Obi-Wan scene. Should we make note of the similarity? Ggctuk (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why it's Taking so Long

The reason why Battlefront 3 is taking so long to make is because Lucasarts is actually working on another game for Nintendo DS and PSP: Star Wars Battlefront Elite Squadron. They are putting some of the expected features from Battlefront 3 into this game. Starwars.com says it will be released in the fall so maybe they will start working on it again after Elite Squadron is released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.126.39.235 (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's speculation. Lucasarts themselves aren't the ones working on Elite Squadron, they're merely publishing it. There are plenty of game studios out there to choose from, so having a different SWBF game in development doesn't matter. --Teancum (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me, Elite Squadron was originally going to be the PSP and DS installments of BFIII, but when BFIII fell through the name changed... there's just too much similar now the game's out, between the leaked footage and Elite Squadron. Ggctuk (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sites ordered to remove BFIII material by 11th December

Should we mention that some sites hosting the leaked content of BFII, have been ordered to take them down by December 11, prior to the 'big announcement' of LucasArts' new Star Wars game on the 12th? Ggctuk (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends -- what sort of sources do we have that state it? --Teancum (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been discussed, as you know, on GameToast. I'm just trying to confirm it and locate a reliable source for it now. Ggctuk (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Just found the SWBF.de forum page regarding it. This is translated, but I cannot say whether it is a reliable enough source.

Turns out that it was Star Wars: The Force Unleashed 2...who knows why they had them taken down...(71.99.5.117 (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

Because, according to Kotaku, who sources this site, BFIII is still in development. Ggctuk (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What happened to this page?

This Battlefront III page was better the way it was. Why was good info. removed? --P dump —Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC).

Some editors came by and decided to remove unverified speculation. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Spike Awards and LA

I have been noticing many sites claiming that "LA shut down FR's BFIII." Is there any info on this? Should it be posted on the article? I was wondering what had happened, as I didn't catch these awards... Firetamer59 (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

thomas

Whene is it come out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.119.68.26 (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Gamestop, It's june 1st. This info is only available in-store and it's out for every sytem but the Wii and possibly the DS. C&C Modder 07:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.195.236 (talk)

Battlefront Online?

Lately, news has gotten out that Slant Six Studios has begun development on a game called Battlefront Online, I personally am not sold on this idea, but could it be related to this game?--Ezekiel 7:19 ^{S†rawberry Fields (sign)} 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No idea. Relevance to this article is predicated on substantiated by reliable third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

GameSpy lists BFIII

Probably not notable since I have no verifiable source to back this up but GameSpy servers have recently been showing BFIII on their lobby lists. Of course, there's no servers, but it lists the game alongside BF2, Renegade and Elite Squadron. If we do get proof of a third entry into the series, should this be mentioned in the article when the time comes and if we can provide a decent enough source? Ggctuk (talk)

It's the article now, a source has been provided. Actually, I checked GameSpy myself and those servers are indeed there, it should be in the article at least until GameSpy responds to the matter, which they have yet to do. Very intereting indeed.--Ezekiel 7:19 ^{†Go Sharks! (sign)†} 14:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars Celebration V

Why use a multi-format event when you have your own coming up soon? Isn't it obvious it will be announced at Celebration V! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.81.210 (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. That's speculation, all the same. It does not belong on this article. As much as I wish it were true. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

New characters

Pending the creation of the game, I hope they put Ahsoka from Heroes on Both Sides as a playable character. 74.75.248.107 (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Spark Unlimited and WP:BALL

First, let me point any editor to this page regarding unverifiable speculation and rumours: WP:BALL.

So, Spark has a big title in development, publisher not announced, title not announced, series not announced. Therefore it is specualtion that they are developing this game, so please, keep this off the page unitl a verifiable and valid source states if Spark are developing this game. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See note at #The rumor mill above. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The rumor mill

Please don't add Rebellion Developments as a developer. All sources say that it's believed or rumored to be the new developer. Same way with Pandemic. Wikipedia isn't for rumors --Teancum (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, rumor does not belong on WIkipedia. However, a rumor that has been vastly covered by secondary sources does belong on Wikipedia. For example, if a number of gaming websites have articles about the rumor of Star Wars: Battlefront III being made by Rebellion Developemnts, than this 'rumor' is worthy of inclusion in the article (as long as the article says that the information is rumor). Does this make sense? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but given that both Rebellion AND Pandemic have been cited as taking over the project the situation is such that we can't really add Rebellion with these conflicting reliable sources. I guess that's more my point. If all sources pointed to Rebellion I suppose I could concede, but they don't. --15:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, although I think that it is worth mentioning what you just said above (that sources give conflicting information unto who is actually developing the game). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, perhaps a Future Development section would be more appropriate. That can cite both the Pandemic and Rebellion sources at the same time.--Teancum (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeings how everything right now has been a rumor, do not add anything without a valid reference. No speculation or anything. You guys know the rules around here. --ZookPS3 (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a reference on gameinformer.com and on various other sites about this Spark Unlimited rumor. I don't see why we shouldn't add Spark Unlimited in the article (as long there is a reference) Ar1994 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good find, I have added it to the article. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have also added this information to the Spark Unlimited article. Ar1994 (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Pre Alpha Footage

Hey all, my brother is uber hyped about this, so he found this : http://www.battlefront3.net/2012/04/training-and-first-mission-footage-star-wars-battlefront-3/ Pre alpha footage is quite substantial, no? Is it worth mentioning here? Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing all that special. Reference to leaked visuals is already in the article, and we don't need to delve into more granular detail -- that's what the fan sites are for. --EEMIV (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I also read a few months back that Lucas Arts got a license to use the Unreal 3 engine, is this worth mentioning here or is that more for the Lucas Arts page? Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

YouTube Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJfc4bAiByM&feature=player_embedded

Definitely worth mentioning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbionicjive (talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Discuss: redirect or retain?

Stop reverting, please. I'm at this point apathetic as to the outcome here. I suggest posting requests for input at the Star Wars and video game wikiproject talk pages. --EEMIV (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Retain per rationale given by User:TaerkastUA. Highly covered by mainstream media. --Teancum (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What is covered by sources? Some game that doesn't exist in any form? Wikipedia doesn't print rumors. JOJ ^Hutton 18:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• *sigh* At this point, best to direct input to the AfD page; this is redundant. --EEMIV (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

99% When Scrapped

Mention that it was 99% complete when scrapped!

• http://kotaku.com/5964799/battlefront-iii-was-99-percent-done-when-lucasarts-scrapped-it

--88.111.117.144 (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note a former LucasArts employee refuted that, and essentially said the game was a total mess when scrapped [1] --Teancum (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a bit to the article to address these conflicting reports. --EEMIV (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Trimming rumor

Hi, all - I've removed (but pasted below!) some of the material from this article that speculates about studies other than Free Radical taking on the game, about game lobbies showing up, E3 speculation, etc. This article is oddball in that it's about a non-existent but still well-covered product, but there's also been some valid criticism about all the speculation it contains. I think excising this "rumors that didn't pan out" material is a good step. But, if at some point there is some further development/confirmation about these things being relevant, they're right here to be re-integrated. --EEMIV (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In March 2009, a Pandemic Studios spokesperson refuted speculation that Pandemic had taken over the project, saying "the title seems to be up in the air." Later rumors suggested Rebellion Developments had assumed development of Battlefront III. After this, Rebellion Developments announced Star Wars Battlefront: Elite Squadron. On May 14, 2010, Battlefront III lobbies were found on GameSpy, leading to speculation that the game would be announced at E3. However, the game was not revealed at that time. It was rumored that Spark Unlimited's project with an as-of-yet unconfirmed publisher was Battlefront III.

Time to consider a merge & redirect?

I finally put my eyes on the main Battlefront franchise article, and the block of text for BF3 over there is about the same quantity & information over here. The more I think about it, the more this article seems an unnecessary spin-off. Thoughts? --EEMIV (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but maybe it is preferable to simply trim the section at Star Wars: Battlefront (series). The article on the series would be simplified by containing the complicated leakage history in this article. Does that make sense? Either way, though. Thanks for all your work on this article and the series, EEMIV. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Arbitrarily0, mainly because all other entires for the series on said page are much more condensed compared to the entry from Battlefront III's entry on that page. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions that Rebellion have the deal

http://crytekuk.info/archives/222 On my blog there I have confirmation that Battlefront II has moved company but also a blog has gave information that it was moved to Rebellion. I have the feeling it is the truth as the blog is right on several things.

I never was aware of any announcement in October.

-- note the comments "on my blog" and "the blog is right on several things" end of day this is not reliable source and falls down to WP:OR152.91.9.153 (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ultimately blogs are fail WP:RS, regardless of if they are "right on several things". – Richard BB 08:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

New title

I just moved this page from Star Wars: Battlefront (2013 video game) to Star Wars: Battlefront (DICE). I am not at all attached to the new title, but I do know that 2013 is not going to be the year this game comes out. What do you guys think of (DICE)? Alternatives I was considering include (DICE video game), (EA DICE), and (EA DICE game). If you guys think other names make more sense, discuss and then go for it. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually needs to go back to the old name. (DICE) is non descriptive and doesn't say anything other than ambiguating the article from the other artices. (2013) is fine for now and if the game is released after that, the article title can easily be moved at that time.JOJ ^Hutton 23:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The stuff in brackets is mainly meant to disambiguate, and it's descriptive enough to do that. I'd generally go with a year date -- that's the standard, and I think more, in general, people would identify something by its year than by its developer -- but in this case, putting a year would be inaccurate (it's not actually a 2013 game). I'm not really in favour of (DICE), though, but I don't think 2013's the way forward; prefer DICE over it, at least. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not ok with the DICE title, but i understand it is temporary until we have some info about the release year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.1.23 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

With a window release of 2015, I was so bold to move it to the current title. I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF, but compare James Bond 007 (1983 video game) and James Bond 007 (1998 video game), or Robin Hood (film), which are also sorted by year, not developer or studio. --Soetermans. T / C 13:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge "As Battlefront III" content

I haven't seen anything to suggest the earlier development of Battlefront III has anything to do with the game being developed by Dice. It seems appropriate that, since the coffin is all sealed up on that earlier iteration, that it would be best to merge the earlier "As Battlefront III" content over to the franchise article, and let this article stand alone to focus on the game currently under development. Thoughts/dissent? --EEMIV (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree - EA themselves want to differentiate between this game and Star Wars: Battlefront III. It's a reboot, not Battlefront III. So it should be merged with the main article to allow this one to focus on the new game. The article should, I think mention the development hell of SWBFIII before cancellation given that this is the first attempt to make a new game since others tried SWBFIII. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: This article is, and always will be, about the next Battlefront game, mo matter how different the final product is. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen anything that indicates the game being developed now by EA/DICE is a direct continuation of the various development pursuits presented in the "As Battlefront III" section of the article? If this is a continuation of the same development/work, then certainly keeping them together makes sense. Otherwise, they are distinct projects and coverage under the same banner seems inappropriate. It seems the games half-baked and aborted are not at all related to "the next Battlefront" -- which, as you point out, is the subject of this article. --EEMIV (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - this source differentiates the two titles [2]. Jonjonjohny (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Strong agree as per Jonjonjohny's provided link. They're two unrelated games (for all intents and purposes). A mention of Battlefront III on this article – or the DICE version wherever Battlefront III ends up – wouldn't go amiss, though. — Richard BB 10:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've done the merge. Jonjonjohny (talk · contribs)'s link above (here) makes clear this article's subject and the canceled Battlefront III are distinct subjects. --EEMIV (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose There never was another game called Battlefront 3. Only unconfirmed rumors and speculation by bloggers who are unreliable. In Wikipedia terms, this game is the third incarnation of the Battlefront series and "Battlefront 3" should link here.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Series Progression

I know this is a small issue, but I am not comfortable editing the main page myself, but I wanted to comment that the original Battlefield was just Star Wars: Battlefield, not the one listed currently. If someone more experienced than I could fix the text and link that would be great.66.194.118.10 (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The chronology of the Star Wars: Battlefront games can be found at Star Wars: Battlefront (series). Is this what you mean? I assume you meant Battlefront not Battlefield, right? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he meant Battlefront, because Battlefield (a mainly modern-combat FPS series) is completely different from Battlefront. Link 486 (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have NO idea what "Holiday 2015" means as a release date, does that mean summer holidays or the Christmas period or what? It's a very America-centric term, and using quarterly dates seems more standard for game releases so, if it does indeed mean December 2015 or so, would "Q4 2015" be a better date to put? Ronmoger (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Release date

Has anyone heard anything about a release date?

We don't know the state of the game at all at the moment. The game may be dropped due to Free Radical being downsized, another developer may take over, we just don't know yet. --Teancum (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is set in stone for this game (well, of course, except its name), including a release date or a developer. We'll just have to update the article as soon as more news regarding its state is made available. Personally, I'm keeping my fingers crossed because I liked Battlefront II, and the leaked alpha trailer looked pretty good. Link 486 (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Gamestop has it listed as Dec 1, 2009 according to games that they take preorders for. This is for the PC/PS2 versions from what I saw. I'll check up on it tommorrow. C&C Modder 19:12 09 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by C&C Modder (talk • contribs)

Really? Awesome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.49.94 (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Await consensus to merge before changing the title within the article.

I have undid a revision to remove the colon from within the article body itself. Please await edits like this prior to a consensus to merge the article into the proposed location. Thanks. Chambr (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars: Battlefront or Star Wars Battlefront

I know this is really getting nit-picky, but is there actually a colon in the title? I know it's very common for games to have one (Batman: Arkham City, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare, and so on), but every piece of official promotion material for the game lists it as Star Wars Battlefront (the official website, the official trailers, etc.). Infamous Second Son has a similar situation: though it seems fairly obvious that there should be a colon, official information says otherwise. I'd like to hear other opinions on this, and possibly get the page moved. Thanks. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 21:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh. Hadn't thought of it. The official site eschews the colon, along with the developer's page for it ([3]). I see third-party press using the colon in article copy, ditching it in headlines. So: hmm. I wouldn't oppose a move. But I'm apathetic about it enough not to endorse one :-]. --EEMIV (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Additional comment: Wikipedia should be correct and ethical. Giving a game an improper title is neither and quite the opposite. Star Wars Battlefront is the official title of the game, not Star Wars: Battlefront 3, nor Star Wars: Battlefront, thus the article should be titled correctly. If you want the practicality argument: many people mistaken the game for a sequel instead of a reboot, many also mistaken it for a reboot of the entire franchise instead of just the first game. The game is massively being mistitled. - Masta Sukeh (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, just to add on to what you are saying, I noted this in the section below as well: Both EA's website and the EA Origin store list the games as Star Wars Battlefront. Chambr (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars: Battlefront 3/III

Currently, both Star Wars: Battlefront 3 and Star Wars: Battlefront III redirect here as this is the 3rd main game in the series. However, we also have the cancelled Battlefront III project over at Star Wars: Battlefront (series)#Star Wars: Battlefront III, and a case could be made for redirecting them to that section as DICE's game isn't officially titled Battlefront 3. An alternate solution could be creating a disambiguation page or more appropriately including a hatnote. Any thoughts on this? --The1337gamer (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think Battlefront 3/III should redirect to the cancelled project. If Wikipedia article about it doesn't exist, someone should create one. But Battlefront 3/III should not redirect to here as it only adds confusion, especially considering that this is meant to be a reboot of the original, not just a sequel. Adding disambiguation seems like a fairly good solution. - Masta Sukeh (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Is there a precedent for previous, cancelled yet notable projects? I think, for instance, we have an article on Star Wars 1313 even though it is known to have been cancelled, but unlike SWBFIII, 1313 was actually announced. Gistech (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• There are articles on other cancelled projects: Shadow Realms, StarCraft: Ghost (both officially announced then cancelled). The cancelled Battlefront 3 was originally a separate article. Content was moved to the series article, probably due to a lack of coverage. Most of the coverage on that game is from information that has been leaked. If it could be expanded enough on the series article then a split might be a possible, but I haven't looked through the sources of information available. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Star Wars Battlefront (2015 video game). It appears there's consensus that the subjects name should be written "Star Wars Battlefront" without the colon, but there's no consensus that it is the primary topic of the spelling. As there are now three articles with effectively the same name (this, Star Wars: Battlefront and Star Wars: Battlefront (series)), it's time to create a disambiguation page. I'll do that, and the base name "Star Wars Battlefront" will redirect there. With this new release impending, it may be time to revisit the primary topic question. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Star Wars: Battlefront (2015 video game) → Star Wars Battlefront – The colon is not present in any official mention of the game (see the new trailer, and the official website). Requested title article is simply a direct to a previous game in the series. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 01:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, it's not odd for sources to list it with the colon in it and the series page has the colon in it along with all other articles for games in the series. Kymako (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand that the other articles have a colon in the title, but this game appears to be different. The fact that Electronic Arts are listing the game as "Star Wars Battlefront" should already be enough basis to move the page. This isn't entirely unusual, either; a similar situation occurred with Infamous Second Son last year. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 05:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose primary topic change with no proper rationale. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - It seems that the official title don't have a colon in middle. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• also suggest

Star Wars: Battlefront → Star Wars: Battlefront (2004 video game) and

Star Wars: Battlefront II → Star Wars: Battlefront II (2005 video game)

the topic clarification may aid navigation, if the force is not with you. GregKaye 05:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary; Star Wars: Battlefront can simply keep its About template at the top of the page for further clarification, and there should be no confusion with Star Wars: Battlefront II anyway, as there is nothing else with the same name. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

At the very least we don't need to do anything with Battlefront II since neither this or the original Battlefront have a II in the title.--67.68.209.200 (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support - It should be changed to Star Wars Battlefront as that is the official name of the video-game, adding (reboot) or (2015 video-game) is optional. Additionally you could clarify the original game as (2004 video-game) or (Pandemic Studios video-game) - Masta Sukeh (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose disambiguation removal. I don't think the colon, whether there or not, whether referring to the original game or not, will be that noticeable to the average reader. If the original game is the primary topic for Star Wars: Battlefront, it's probably going to be the primary topic for Star Wars Battlefront. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• People confuse this for a regular sequel or even continuation of the cancelled project. This is a reboot of the original and has the respected title Star Wars Battlefront, thus the Wikipedia should be titles like the game. It is not about what an average reader will notice or not, it is about being ethical and correct. - Masta Sukeh (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  "Star Wars Battlefront" is repeatedly used to refer to the original game, and said redirect has understandably existed since long before the announcement of the recent one. Note that my objection isn't to removing the colon, but merely to a move to Star Wars Battlefront with no disambiguation -- it's too easily confused with the first game, and any difference between them is an argument in technicalities. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 21:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – See my suggestion below. Chambr (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment – As of right now, I believe it would be better to move this article to Star Wars: Battlefront and then move that article to Star Wars: Battlefront (2004 Video game), although I do not see the problem with how the article is named now. Chambr (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've already given reasons above as to why the article should be moved. However, I do entirely understand The Millionth One's suggestion of moving it to Star Wars Battlefront (2015 video game); it definitely makes sense, and I wouldn't be against it. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

See, I just don't think that is significant enough of a change. Just like with the original Battlefront and all things Star Wars, some use colons and some don't. I don't think it is relevant enough to change it just because of a colon. I do know that typically at WP:STARWARS, colons are almost always present as with anything Star Wars media related. Chambr (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand and respect what you're saying, but if the game is being officially referred to as "Star Wars Battlefront", then I believe that this is how we should be referring to it. Of course, you're welcome to oppose this by presenting counter-arguments. Also, I realise that the presence of a colon appears to be very minor and irrelevant, but it's those small details that we must be accurate about on Wikipedia. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 09:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand what I mean. Let me rephrase. If the official wording is Star Wars Battlefront, then that is what the page should be called. I simply thought you were saying it was listed at both, and if that is the case then it should keep the colon because usually in Star Wars articles, there is a colon. That being said, I misread you. You were saying that the official reading is without a colon. If EA has it listed without a colon on their website, then I retract my original position. Chambr (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, I understand. No harm done! -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 20:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support – Both the Origin store (EA's official store) and Electronic Arts list the game on their official website as Star Wars Battlefront without a colon. Chambr (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Additional comment: Wikipedia should be correct and ethical. Giving a game an improper title is neither and quite the opposite. Star Wars Battlefront is the official title of the game, not Star Wars: Battlefront 3, nor Star Wars: Battlefront, thus the article should be titled correctly. If you want the practicality argument: many people mistaken the game for a sequel instead of a reboot, many also mistaken it for a reboot of the entire franchise instead of just the first game. The game is massively being mistitled. - Masta Sukeh (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:OFFICIALNAME Wikipedia does not use official names just because they are official. MOS:TM indeed we don't use official names when they are stylized. So "correct and ethical" is to use the common name without advertising flourish, and not the official stylization. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: It may be worth noting, colons are fairly often dropped on listings and so forth. For instance, the second game is referred to without the colon in both the Steam store and GOG, and official media often advertises with trademarks or might present it as, in the former examples case "Star Wars™ Battlefront™ II". Of course, those examples aren't primary sources, and dropping TM signs for our articles probably isn't that controversional. In this case otherwise-reliable sources aren't really clear or dominant over primary sources, so it's a slightly murkier issue than ideally. I do think it's worth taking the official media at its word unless given heavy reason otherwise, but it'd be remiss not to mention these relatively minor issues of punctuation are often glossed over. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

BFIII Became Elite Squadron

There is some proof that BFIII became Elite Squadron is inside the DS version of the game Elite Squadron as the dialogue and certain scenes actually match the leaked footage. There's further proof inside the UMD of the PSP version, as the BFIII logo is present inside the UMD. Ggctuk (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but Wikipedia requires reliable, published sources to post that info since it's an encyclopedia. Most gamers believe it, but it has to come from a reliable source. --Teancum (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well here you have it... it's in french I know -- http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crytek_UK --Ar1994 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that a Wikipedia page doesn't count as a Reliable Source. Jcmcc (Talk) 05:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Mixed to positive"

How can reviews be 'mixed to positive'? Surely it's one or the other? While I wouldn't say this game got critical acclaim in any shape or form, given that so far it has received no less than 7/10 or 70%, I would hardly call that 'mixed'. Gistech (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It should just be mixed. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll ask again: why are we putting "mixed to positive"? It's either one or the other, it should not be both, and the scores given by the sources that have reviewed this so far do not reflect this at all (The Destructoid review and the Giant Bomb review being the only reviews sourced that assigns it lower than the equivalent of a 7/10 or 70%). The aggregate sites' scores are certainly not 'mixed' and definitely lean towards 'favourable'. Gistech (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a fairly wide difference in review scores for PS4 and Xbox One. For PS4 the aggregators are referring to it as positive or favorable, while the Xbox One release is barely in the low 70s and is labelled mixed. Since there's a discrepancy between the scores for platforms, showing a range makes sense. -- ferret (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Then it might be an idea to separate the sentence out, something like: "Star Wars Battlefront received positive reviews on PlayStation 4 and mixed reviews on XBox One." Gistech (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"Mixed reviews" means there is a mix of positive and negative reviews. Mixed reviews can signify a middling reception overall, but they can also lean more to one side or the other. I think what we're trying to say here, though, is that the reviews were "average to positive". That the reviews weren't necessarily wildly mixed, but rather fell in the range between "meh" and "pretty good". But it's a good point that the Xbox and PS4 versions received notably different scores according to the aggregators. I'll take a stab at some new wording separating them out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The PS4 Metacritic score has tanked today as more reviews came in, and now both PS4 and Xbox One are at 74, which is described as "mixed or average". -- ferret (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it was dropping even as I was rewriting it. At this point we could just say the game got mixed reviews.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There's something of an edit war going on for this. Let's keep it at "mixed to positive" (which seems to be the slight consensus of this talk page) and review it once the score has settled down a bit. BananaBork (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Because "mixed to positive" doesn't mean anything. "Mixed" already means that there's, well, a mix of positive and negative reviews. It can be "mixed, but generally positive" or it can be "average to positive". Or we separate it out by platform.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with "mixed, but generally positive". Not convinced it's worth separating out by platform though; unlike ZombieU the game is essentially the same on every platform, and differences in score are probably within margin of error. BananaBork (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Initially, there was a spread between the platforms, but it has now disappeared. I am personally for just "Mixed" now that the PlayStation 4 review scores have dropped from their initial high. -- ferret (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

As the spread between platforms has reduced, and both are clearly within what Metacritic calls the "mixed or average reviews" range, I'd support just saying "mixed" for now. As with any big release this is going to be subject to change for some time, our job is to stay on top of it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I say mixed, because that is exactly what every aggregate review websites are calculating (in which they take ALL reviews of the game by professional critics and take the average). I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for some to grasp, I mean I had this issue with Assassin's Creed Unity when it first came out too...it got the lowest scores of any game in the series yet people still wanted to put mixed "to positive" because a few people liked the game. It should honestly be just mixed.TJD2 (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Would "partially positive reviews" work because the game does not have a critic's negative review? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen that used on any WP article. Like I said, I had this issue on multiple game pages (AC Unity, Black Ops II, MW3, etc.) and it seems like the ones who always want a more positive reception are just wanting to sugarcoat it. The game got mixed reviews; meaning a mixture of positive and not so positive reviews. When that happens, such as the case with Assassin's Creed Unity, a game's reception should be labelled as mixed.TJD2 (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with TJD2. The aggregators refer to it as a "mixed or average" reception. This is what we should show, because we can source it. Any other label would be OR/Synthesis. -- ferret (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I've protected the article for a week. My 2 cents:

• "Mixed" is a more appropriate term than "mixed to positive". That phrase is awkward and redundant. It does not mean "medium to positive", as people seem to think, but rather mixed means "varying scores across the board", which in fact, includes "positive" already. So the phrase sounds more like "negative to positive to positive". For that reason, I always try to avoid that phrase.
• "Disappointing" is not a good word choice either, as the reviews are typically described on some sort of "good to bad" scale, something that disappointing doesn't quite fit that scale. However, if it truly is reliably sourced, it could very well be added in other ways. Something to the capacity of "Source X observed that Critics Y found the review scores to be disappointing (or whatever is the most accurate way to summarize what the source is saying.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

So you do think that the source is okay and that the wording was awkward. Also, do note that I did not intend to threaten because I thought that they might have been making unconstructive edits because they did not explain why they removed the text...twice. Would "considered 'disappointing' by a" work? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, conceptually, I think you're on to something, I just thought the wording/placement needed some tweaking. I'm fine with how it is now, though you may want to clarify what exactly was disappointing. Was the analyst disappointed that the game didn't score higher than it did? Or were they disappointed with the reviewers themselves, like the reviews were shoddy or not fairly written? I assume the first one, considering earlier wordings, but someone reading it now may not be sure... Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

In-universe date

So even though Battlefront has no story, according to http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Battlefront#Overview there are some battles from episodes 4, 5 and 6, as well as events that lead up to episode 7. Should we talk about that in the page's intro? Epic Wink (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• If third party, reliable sources find it important enough to mention, then it could be worth a mention here.
• The "Star Wars Wikia" is not usuable, it violates WP:USERG. Short version, since anyone can edit/change them, they can't be used as sources on Wikipedia.
• If no sources are documenting this, then it's probably not worth mentioning. Worse, if its something that's just been randomly observed and put together in your own mind, then it violates Wikipedia's policy of original research. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Episode VII Tie-In?

We have the Episode VII template, which includes content featured in the film, as well as tie-ins that are part of Journey to Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and soon the soundtrack and novelization. However, I am curious if the template should also include Battlefront, considering its depiction of the Battle of Jakku? What do you guys think? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Changed Current Status

Current Status is as follows with references:

(Added below on the topic)

IF REMOVED PLEASE DISCUSS HERE WHY.

According to a recent post made by the administrator on the official Pandemic forums, Pandemic is not making BF3. This administrator who was also a company spokesperson said

"As of right now I can say Battlefront 3 is not currently at Pandemic. While I know the title seems to be up in the air from all the buzz around the web... Lucas Arts will be the only one knowing where the title is at right now."

References

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2016

I want to fix something that is wrong. 80.2.72.11 (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- ferret (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2016

Please make the page editable on February 1, 2016. 80.2.72.11 (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. -- ferret (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sales section

The section on Sales is a little messy. In the sentence "The company exceeded the goal [13 million units] by the end of 2016" in paragraph 1, is it supposed to say 2015 (which is what the reference seems to indicate)? Also this seems to conflict with the final sentence: ". . . the game has sold 12 million units, as of December 31, 2015". Could someone please clarify?

Snittle timberry (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Wars Battlefront (2015 video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-12-03-ea-defends-star-wars-battlefront-sales-after-gamestop-claim-launch-underperformed

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Expanded Universe

Should we make a note that the Bespin DLC will include Star Wars Legends content? [4]

"Take a few steps into the Star Wars™ Legends with the map called the Bioniip Laboratories, where cybernetics and other bio-implants were manufactured."

DarkKnight2149 02:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)