Successor to the Xwing series?

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.

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.

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 🙂

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).