Re: Successor to the Xwing series?

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.

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 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.

@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.

@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.

Interesting thread. I think you overstate the case for their difference, but I want to understand what you are saying, because I am an old XWA player too and love the game. 

I never played Battlefront, so I can't make that comparison.

Here's what I know: I spent a great portion of my free time in college playing XvT and XWA. After that game faded away gradually (2004-2005 for me) I was not much of a "gamer" - with the exception of a recurring Civ4 addiction. When Star Citizen came around, I was excited for a "space combat sim," and I became a backer of the game. But *I never played.* Because it wasn't Star Wars. It just couldn't stir me out of my busy adult life.

But Squadrons *has* got me to play. That's why it is a "spiritual successor." It has got the Star Wars space sim community going again, guys who haven't done anything game-wise since XWA, guys like me who have to learn all about Steam and Discord and all this stuff that wasn't around or was in its infancy the last time we were active. And it is *enough* like X-wing, Tie Fighter, and XvT and XWA to keep me wanting to play repeatedly.

That said, I am frustrated with the differences too. I just don't see the same ones as you.

On *power management* - I don't see how you could say that the Xwing series were "sims," but Squadrons is *not* a sim. Power management in Squadrons is actually *more* complicated and intricate than in those older games. I think it's great. This is not a defining factor for me; either system is fine.

I see your point about infinite re-spawns. That's definitely an "arcadey" thing. But it seems a small detail. Like, it could easily be re-programmed on a particular map to not be that way, right? And are we sure the old Xwing and Tie Fighter games never had infinite respawns? It was a long time ago that I played through both games, so I don't recall clearly. I think there were many waves of fighters in some missions, but you could eventually kill them all.

My main problems, as someone who was great at XWA but is just trying to be average in Squadrons, are these:

1) First and foremost, it's too freaking hard to come out of a turn facing the right direction! There is consistent "over-steering" across all ships and control inputs, as far as I can tell, making the need to "counter-steer" whenever you want to come out of a sharp turn. It feels like they did this on purpose to make it harder to hone in and shoot people. Just very frustrating. I used to be a good shot, able to go *quickly* from evasive maneuvers, to aiming and shooting, back to evasive maneuvers. But that kind of precise piloting is just not possible in this game. I SO wish they would change this, or at least dial it down (cut the response time of all the ships to the act of putting your controller back to neutral).

That is really the #1 main problem, with all other things being just interesting changes. But there are some other improvements they could make as options which would help us old XvT / XWA players:

2) Too much crap on the maps. I want to just focus on my opponents and my teammates, not constantly worry about running into a wall. I realize a lot of players like this, so that's fine. But I would like to see a preference for "style of map" in the matchmaking process just like there is a preference for faction. They could make options (with better names than this) for "crowded," "medium," and "open" (deep space).

3) Private matches, or the ability to select our opponents in some way. I know a lot of people are talking about this.

4) Empire vs Empire or New Republic vs New Republic options. Yeah, I know it's not "realistic," but it's the way these games used to be played *online,* so it would be nice to have as an *option* for Squadrons. The culture of the XvT / XWA communities was to get everything the same between the opposing teams, to isolate skill vs. skill and see which competitor would prevail. It would be nice to be able to do that here.

Those are all of the things I see as realistic changes or additions for them to make.

The final main complaint that I and other old players have is not one I would ever expect them to change, just something that's very annoying: it's much harder to kill stuff, in general. I miss the days of being able to take out a TF with one well-placed double laser shot, or a T/I with one well-placed quad shot. Squadrons is way different, way tougher. I am willing to accept that, and get used to that, and adjust tactics for it. I would just have a way easier time making that adjustment if I could TURN and AIM properly (see #1 above).

The turning issue I'm guessing is because you're using a joystick? They dont work properly, use a pad you'll be a god 😉

Remember xwing alliance where the joystick worked 😉

Remember xwing in dos...where the joystick worked...

The technical issues are a separate thing I wont bang on about them again here and bore everyone 🙂

I appreciate that they've taken bits of the DNA of the old games, I like that there is power management and shield placement toggling, all good im not even really bothered that they've made them a bit simpler and dumbed them down somewhat. If anything I use them more on this than in xwing, on that you basically set the cannon to increased rate and rarely changed it during combat. Fly out of danger and recharging shields wasnt a quick thing on that.

Personally I'd have preferred a more expansive and engaging campaign. Whats all this nonsense inbetween missions...its a bit cringe. Tell me all about your past even though I never asked or cared.

That part feels like someones played wing commander...but in Wing Commander when you talk to people theres a point in there somewhere...like Dralthi always turn a certain direction. Not that this plastic Disney character never takes his helmet off. Meh maybe thats just an old man cynic view on that part 🙂

The budget and time that was spent on that part could have been used better elsewhere. How much is the mocap studio for a day ..

I imagine the people who made this would have loved to have made a more expansive game but their hands were tied quite firmly by the powers that be.

A 35 quid budget game with a focus on 5v5 one mode multiplayer from EA, dont worry I set my expectations realistically 😉

And actually the single player missions are a pleasant surprise, better than I thought they would be. Its fast and I can shoot Tie Fighters. Well...if you dont play it VR or a hi refresh monitor....

Its nice to see all the old XvT clans coming out of the woodwork, of course they would cause they think they're going to get a new xwing game with modern graphics and controls. Lets see how long they stick around 😉

But thats basically my point, this game is not comparable to the xwing series, but at the same time I never expected it to be but seems alot of other people are gushing over it. Gush over it cause its a fast paced star wars space shooter that you (maybe one day) can play in VR and its fun. Not cause its the spiritual successor to the xwing series.

@Savagebeasty I'm sorry you're having issues, as I said I play in VR and it's nearly perfect (Just the low res skybox that annoys me) and with a flight stick (A classic MS Sidewinder Forcefeedback 2 from the late 90s, which still works! Plus a second joystick next to it for more easily findable buttons) which works perfectly also. Maybe the bugs and issues you're having getting it to work is colouring your view, maybe you made your mind up that it was a battlefront 2 spin off and can't see the x-wing shining though. Maybe you just like a grumble (who doesn't). But all I can tell you is I'm not a fan boy, I can be highly critical of games and I had to give EA a suspension from the 10 year boycott I've had them under to get this game, but I'm loving this game precisely because of how much it reminds me of playing X-wing and Tie fighter. 

So for me, and lots of other people this absolutely is a successor to X-Wing, that's just the way it is. 

@Savagebeasty I can assure you I'm not lying, and don't blame me for EA. Like I said prior to Squadrons I'd not bought a game from them for 10 years. But just as I am prepared to punish companies for poor behaviours and products, I'm also prepare to reward them for good ones.

Sorry you don't like it. I hope you don't have to wait another 20 years for another star fighter game that might be more to your tastes.

Aha I'm not blaming you for EA that would be ridiculous. Im not blaming you for anything in fact 🙂

Im not even saying the game is rubbish no need to get offended for them. Didnt even say I didnt like it 🙂

Just saying its not xwing alliance.

Out of interest, what specs have you got and whats your headset if its working fine? Im not trying to catch you out or call you a liar, genuinely interested 🙂

---

@JesuJuvaOU wrote:

Interesting thread. I think you overstate the case for their difference, but I want to understand what you are saying, because I am an old XWA player too and love the game. 

I never played Battlefront, so I can't make that comparison.

Here's what I know: I spent a great portion of my free time in college playing XvT and XWA. After that game faded away gradually (2004-2005 for me) I was not much of a "gamer" - with the exception of a recurring Civ4 addiction. When Star Citizen came around, I was excited for a "space combat sim," and I became a backer of the game. But *I never played.* Because it wasn't Star Wars. It just couldn't stir me out of my busy adult life.

But Squadrons *has* got me to play. That's why it is a "spiritual successor." It has got the Star Wars space sim community going again, guys who haven't done anything game-wise since XWA, guys like me who have to learn all about Steam and Discord and all this stuff that wasn't around or was in its infancy the last time we were active. And it is *enough* like X-wing, Tie Fighter, and XvT and XWA to keep me wanting to play repeatedly.

That said, I am frustrated with the differences too. I just don't see the same ones as you.

On *power management* - I don't see how you could say that the Xwing series were "sims," but Squadrons is *not* a sim. Power management in Squadrons is actually *more* complicated and intricate than in those older games. I think it's great. This is not a defining factor for me; either system is fine.

I see your point about infinite re-spawns. That's definitely an "arcadey" thing. But it seems a small detail. Like, it could easily be re-programmed on a particular map to not be that way, right? And are we sure the old Xwing and Tie Fighter games never had infinite respawns? It was a long time ago that I played through both games, so I don't recall clearly. I think there were many waves of fighters in some missions, but you could eventually kill them all.

My main problems, as someone who was great at XWA but is just trying to be average in Squadrons, are these:

1) First and foremost, it's too freaking hard to come out of a turn facing the right direction! There is consistent "over-steering" across all ships and control inputs, as far as I can tell, making the need to "counter-steer" whenever you want to come out of a sharp turn. It feels like they did this on purpose to make it harder to hone in and shoot people. Just very frustrating. I used to be a good shot, able to go *quickly* from evasive maneuvers, to aiming and shooting, back to evasive maneuvers. But that kind of precise piloting is just not possible in this game. I SO wish they would change this, or at least dial it down (cut the response time of all the ships to the act of putting your controller back to neutral).

That is really the #1 main problem, with all other things being just interesting changes. But there are some other improvements they could make as options which would help us old XvT / XWA players:

2) Too much crap on the maps. I want to just focus on my opponents and my teammates, not constantly worry about running into a wall. I realize a lot of players like this, so that's fine. But I would like to see a preference for "style of map" in the matchmaking process just like there is a preference for faction. They could make options (with better names than this) for "crowded," "medium," and "open" (deep space).

3) Private matches, or the ability to select our opponents in some way. I know a lot of people are talking about this.

4) Empire vs Empire or New Republic vs New Republic options. Yeah, I know it's not "realistic," but it's the way these games used to be played *online,* so it would be nice to have as an *option* for Squadrons. The culture of the XvT / XWA communities was to get everything the same between the opposing teams, to isolate skill vs. skill and see which competitor would prevail. It would be nice to be able to do that here.

Those are all of the things I see as realistic changes or additions for them to make.

The final main complaint that I and other old players have is not one I would ever expect them to change, just something that's very annoying: it's much harder to kill stuff, in general. I miss the days of being able to take out a TF with one well-placed double laser shot, or a T/I with one well-placed quad shot. Squadrons is way different, way tougher. I am willing to accept that, and get used to that, and adjust tactics for it. I would just have a way easier time making that adjustment if I could TURN and AIM properly (see #1 above).

---

Agree to all points. I do think that #1 comes from the need to support gamepads though. The more inertia, the more control inputs are used at the extremes, and the more timing inputs is emphasized (say, the timing to countersteer). These are all things that favor the gamepad. The inertia and the always-on aim assist are for gamepads, and every control method is dragged down to their level. Also the tanky TIEs are a result of aim assist that completely negates their advantage of smaller profile. There's no "well-placed quad shots" anymore, because all of them are well-placed, and hitbox sizes are of zero concern.

So yeah it's unfortunate things evolved this way. But it's better than not having a game.

@Savagebeasty I'm running a RTX2070 super and old i7 with16gb ram. The headset is an original Vive. Bought the game from steam and play it with steamVR. The joystick as I said is a really old Sidewinder 2 which I have tested and the 1% deadzone set in game is what I'm getting, very slight movements are enough to make fine adjustments and it scales up to full speed turns smoothly across the joysticks travel.

You were a little rude though eh 😉 Not that I did take offence but a robust response was none the less what ya got, all in good humour of course.

@CoreBlueDaveThen I apologise profusely sir no rudeness intended 🙂

None of my grumpiness was directed at you I assure you, a poor choice of wording on my part.

Maybe the oldness of the joystick haa worked in your favour on this 🙂

Actually I do have an old Saitek kicking about somewhere I'll give it a go.

Well...all I can say regarding the VR is you are a very lucky guy, Im not jealous at all...honest 🙂

Hopefully tomorrows fix will sort all the issues and I'll stop being a grump 🙂

@Savagebeasty 

"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?"

I guess you didn't get the memo that only a small team worked on this game. It's a passion project of a handful of EA Motive Devs. It's a wonder this game has been green-lit to begin with. I do think that this game at it's core is indeed a modern take on X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter and a spiritual successor, and definitely not the Frostbite Battlefronts, even though they use the same engine. Would I like it to have more content, like fully fledged campaigns with optional co-op multiplayer like X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter: Balance of Power? Absolutely. Am I missing some details from the X-Wing Series? But it's the closest thing we've had in a long, long time and it's very much enjoyable.

@Cave_WaveriderAha yeah funny enough I'm not on the EA memo distribution list. How do I sign up?

I dont think I've ever got a memo...does anyone get memo's anymore?

Anyway...at no point ever did I say it wasnt enjoyable. Far from it, I'm sure I'll love it if this patch tomorrow fixes the VR.

Maybe I should have been more specific with my xwing games, xwing, tie fighter and alliance. XvT sort of fair enough as that was just a multiplayer centric game until the expansion, which I've only ever played in the xwing alliance engine so I cant judge that fairly.

Maybe I've worded my argument poorly and you think I'm saying the game is rubbish. I'm not, I'm saying I wanted more and it should have been given a massive budget and made a game that people would still play in 20 years time. Add the ability for user content through a modding system (we all know EA would never go for that). They could have made the greatest game ever. It dissapoints me that its not the game it could have been.

At no point you may have noticed have a complained about the actual gameplay other than the joystick not being great 🙂

You can like and enjoy a game but still be dissapointed, even if the dissapointment is that you want more 🙂

(Xwing alliance is still better though 😉 )

I havmt explained myself very well so I'll try clear up this mess 🙂

Im not comparing multiplayer to battlefront 2's multiplayer which might be where the confusion is, neither really interest me unless you could do some proper good co op stuff like you could in the old xwing games. Custom battles added some depth. With mods you can play the entire campaign of alliance in co op. I'd love to be able to do the single player of squadrons co op. You'd hope in this day and age of online multiplayer focus that would have been a shoe in.

Im not even on about how the ships handle or how the game plays compared to battlefront 2, obviously the flying is much better than battlefront. More the design of the single player campaign and the general level of depth to the game.

Battlefront 2 single player space missions were big cinematic affairs. Fast paced, explosions, michael bay levels of madness. Great fun but not alot of choice in how battles took place, follow the objective flashing up on the screen and shoot everything. Nothing wrong with it. More tie fighters that burn the better.

Xwing missions were generally more plodding, took more thought, had to juggle various systems and had a sense of freedom to them. Completing a complicated mission first go was rare, you'd really have to learn the levels, know that at this moment a destroyer would appear, bombers go for that capital ship 1st so that needs protecting. A multitude of things all going off at the same time. You had to be constantly thinking and the game didnt hold your hand very much. You had the objective but no set way of how you meet that objective. At the same time when that game kicked off it didnt half kick off.

Squadrons missions are big fast cinematic affairs, at no point do you have to make your own decisions other than, you can carry on shooting these people or move on to the next nav point. Throw in the odd nod to the older series like scanning some ships.

Theres a good example...I scan ships when the game makes that the objective. I cant scan a ship when I choose to. If it was the spirtitual successor to xwing it would let me pointlessy scan transports just to see what they're carrying, just for no reason 😉

Its all very linear and you dont really have to think much, if some tie bombers are going to attack a ship you dont really have to be switched on cause the game will make sure you know about it and make you do that exact thing when they deem it so. Its a lack of freedom, the levels are too tightly controlled.

Maybe its old game design ethos vs new game design ethos. Everything has to be quicker and easier to access and the game gets dumbed down somewhat to appeal to more people. If thats the case...then its more like battlefront 2 single player than any xwing game.

Is it still fun. Yes. 

Is it xwing? Not really.

I agree with the silly damage a tie fighter takes sometimes. The spiritual successor of the xwing games and you cant even set the lasers to all fire at once 😉

I thought they'd at least do what Rogue Squadron 2 did and have the 1st shot of a charged weapon fire all 4, then rapid single shots after.

Right, so the mission design is not like X-Wing. Besides that, it's the most similar we can get in this day and age.

I'm somewhat pessimistic about getting the old experience of high freedom mission design back. Modern players are easily confused if you don't give them explicit instructions - go here, shoot that. It's like if there's no giant blinking icon and an arrow pointing to it, then they don't know what to do. Even the mission areas are the size of kiddie ball pits. Turn back towards the mission or no ice cream today!

At least it's better than BF1&2. Hopefully they will make a more complex expansion once people are used to the flying/fighting mechanics.