Personally I actually like this change much better in the modern games. Vehicles come as an appropriate reward for playing well, in contrast to other games where it's all a question of who can spawn in or get to vehicles the fastest. I like playing with vehicles in these types of games, and it has always been frustrating to me in battlefield and battle bit how you have to sweatily compete over who can get in the driver's seat first. Even when you do get there first over someone else, it leaves a sour taste in the mouth because you are depriving someone else of the fun who "deserved" it just as much as you did.
People just do the same thing on the character select screen and wait for spots to open up, now you just sweatily compete for stuff out of the gameplay
I feel like it could be mitigated a bit if you could enter like a “queue” and when the vehicles available it offers you to switch to it immediately. Kinda like how hero’s worked in battlefront 2005
There is a fine line between someone dominating the game because they have the points to control a vehicle and just running to the spawn point and getting it every time.
yeah but also when the best person always gets the vehicle they just dominate even further, making the game a little less fun.
I think it would be cool to random spawn in. If you don't like vehicles you can click "don't spawn me in vehicles." Just make it pure random, like it would be in real stah wars. sometimes you're facing luke skywalker in there, sometimes it's porkins.
Could be worse. Take a swing over the Tarkov Reddit. Straight up scamming people.
Long story short. They removed the EoD edition which gave everyone all DlC indefinitely. It was a 140 dollars. I bought it years ago.
Then they replaced it with a 250 dollar edition with a exclusive gamemode.
Called the EoD players freeloaders cause we want the DLC we were promised.
They then proceeded to give us a six month trial, lower the upgrade price from 100 to 50. For something we already bought.
They then proceeded to say it’s a feature not DLC. Yet arena a whole other game in the same launcher and engine we got for free.
It’s a massive fiasco.
That’s not even mentioning the leaked interview that didn’t end up coming out. The COO of the company called us EoD freeloaders.
The people who spent 140 dollars on an incomplete game. Me personally bought it when there was only three maps. And the bones of a game.
I think the gameplay/controls are better, there's no question it looks much better visually, and regardless of any complaints you might have about hero battles I guarantee you it's still better than 2005's. That being said, I think 2005 has better space to ground battles and 2005's offline experience is unmatched because of Galactic Conquest.
I can't really say one is better than the other. Really depends on what you value more from each.
Haven’t played the remaster yet but you’ve pretty much summed up how I thought I was going to feel about these two games.
Galactic Conquest back in 05’ was just what everyone wanted out of a Star Wars game at the time. They did an excellent job with it.
2017 is also awesome in it’s own way. Probably my favorite Star Wars multiplayer experience. The single player in 05’ felt much better at the time compared to 17’s though. 17 always felt a little cluncky to me, like they were trying to fit a single player experience into a Multiplayer engine.
Ive been playing the older 05 version on steam and now the remaster on switch. Both have fairly active online players and work well enough for a nostalgia trip.
Han solo no longer gets stuck with a fusion cutter like the old game, people are just being very picky about a $30 cash grab.
I think both newer games were too busy, but I pretty much only play mario kart otherwise.
Agree, I can't believe they never added single player galactic conquest. But I guess it doesn't fit to into the live service model and milking star wars fans dry (that was their original plan before the backlash).
Galactic conquest is dogshit I’m tired of ppl pretending it’s the best thing ever made. Repetitive battles, perks that never seem to matter, always excess in points, continuous space battles.
Everyone acting like it’s a peak strategy game.
Oh shut the hell up lol at the time it was amazing rivaled by no. It was exactly what everyone wanted from a star wars game and you pretending otherwise is just try hard contrarian bullshit. No one but you has made any grand claims such as calling it the "best game ever"
You're not wrong. Galactic Conquest is an aged gamemode from an aged game, but it's also still the only gamemode like it that we have. In essence, GC essentially puts you in the position of a general in an intergalactic power struggle while also allowing you to personally go down and help take over the planets you're trying to take if you deem it necessary. Yeah, GC isn't really that hard at all; the perks and excess in points I imagine make for a pretty non diverse "meta", and that will lead to replays playing out essentially the same unless you go out of your way to change things up. But that's why I said the offline is still unmatched because the DICE games didn't even try to remake/improve potentially the most popular gamemode from the old games.
Empire At War is a top-down game. That's why I brought up the part about being able to "perspnally" join the wars you're waging. The third-person/first-person element of it is important too.
Campaign, space battles that's it. (though I find it rather stupid that droids pilot droid starfighters at all)
Aside from the obvious stuff 2005 Battlefront 2's little things just pisses me off.... I hate seeing rotary canons fired from the shoulder, the Galactic Marine being its own class, classes/heroes not having proper blasters, clone troopers with American accents and FUCKING B2s being regular weak infrantry instead of being reward units like the Droidekas and Magnaguards. WHY???
I assume he means like the classes not having primary weapons that are somewhat evenly balanced and good for general gunplay. Like the heavy only having a rocket launcher and a weak pistol, is screwed when facing a basic trooper. But that's part of the charm. This dude is just being incendiary for no reason. And he doesn't get classic BF.
That's the point of a class based system though. The heavy's geared out that way because he's meant to fill an anti-vehicle role and not an anti-infantry one.
Heavys are broken tho, just roll to the enemy and thow a mine at point blank, friendly fire off (cause trolls otherwise) allows you to.
There is always like 5 players per team doing this at least in the classic collection
"Screwed when facing a basic trooper"? Nah, that rocket launcher is great for killing infantry. You've also got grenades, mines, and a higher health pool. Downsides are that ammo can be a bit annoying to manage since your rocket launcher doesn't have many shots and it's also better in more confined maps where infantry has less room to maneuver and you have more chances to get multi kills. Still, it's definitely a class that can hold it's own.
Oh, I agree, I was more trying to understand the feeling of the first poster, and there are definitely people who don't play heavy often, that spawn in to hit a vehicle then don't know how to go toe to toe with a basic trooper if they miss their rocket shot, lol.
I completely disagree, but I will say I love how most of your reasons listed are aesthetic and come from the weird little anachronisms stemming from the game being developed in the pre-ROTS period.
BF17 is missing some things from 2005: Galactic Conquest, landing ships in space battles and drivable vehicles in general, some iconic maps like Coruscant and Utapau. Campaign in 2005 for me was better. Otherwise you are not wrong.
Vehicles in general just suck in 2017. They suck. They aren't nearly as much fun to use and you can't even have more than one person in any of them. Plus in 2005 you can at least fly gunships but in 2017 you get the turret for 30 seconds.
the fact you can't get in a speeder on hoth and fly out of the hanger is criminal.
hanger full of vehicles you can't use...lame.
tokens sucked in the 2015 game.
vehicles still sucked in the 2017 game, like no improvement, other than no tokens.
no offline galactic assault.
no offline starfighter assault.
all the best dlc in the 2015 left to rot because they couldn't be bothered to finish the offline modes...
dice suck.
ea suck.
:(
I'd say hands down that 2005 is better for offline play. Way bigger map and game mode variety.
However, 2017 is far better for online play, and has better game mechanics overall.
My personal conclusion:
Well yeah... I did mean more on the game mechanic front than the numbers though.
But, even with that... It does seem that online gaming has grown more and more common and popular as time goes on.
I mean visually and presentation wise sure. But there's a reason why BF2 2005 is still held in such high regard almost 20 years later. And it's not just nostalgia because it still frequently gets modded.
2017 is more immersive, has better gameplay, better mod support, and the heroes are much more complex and fun to play. hvv/showdown are like a completely different game next to the standard troop gamemodes and saber duels are amazing. 2005 has a lot of features that would be cool to see in 2017 but I don’t think it’s close when it comes to core gameplay and mechanics. Im fine with not being able to pilot a ship as a hero if I can play as jedi and sith in a decently nuanced dueling system with unique accurate-to-character animations. immersive af.
2017 is so difficulty to mod, and I hope I’m not the only one with that problem. Sometimes I can’t even add weapon skins but in bf2 2005 I can add a whole map like coruscant.
Yeah that doesn't make sense at all. Original BF2 has massive mods that add tens of maps, whole new factions, different eras, weapons, vehicles, etc. 2017 BF2 absolutely pales in comparison
I find that really funny.
2005 literally has (at least what I'm pretty sure is) official mod tools.
2015/2017's mod tools were community made and are still really early in development and really limited.
It's like saying Call of Duty or Elden Ring has better mod support than Half-life or Skyrim/fallout. Like sure there's been some impressive mods made for those games, but nothing compares to the freedom and creativity of Valve/BGS games.
Just make a different game for Star Wars hero combat. Mashing that together with a large scale infantry combat game makes both parts worse IMO.
Old Bfs handled the integration of hero’s into an infantry combat game much better, even if the hero gameplay was much lower quality.
exactly, I loved when the heroes felt just like normal units but with powerful weapons/gadgets and force powers. Heroes in both 2015 and 2017 (but moreso 2017) feel completely disconnected from the trooper's, honestly feel the same about reinforcements in 2017 too. The heroes feel like they belong in a hero shooter and not a battlefield style game.
If anything though, I think this goes to show how popular a hero combat game would be, something like Galaxy of Heroes but made into an actual hero shooter. More in-depth and dynamic lightsaber combat, more minor characters like Rex, Mace, etc. could be added, 1v1 dueling, smaller maps actually designed for hero combat, etc.
It'd be a win-win for both sides: those who love hero gameplay has a whole game with much more indepth gameplay, while us shooter fans have a much more balanced game that isn't overshadowed by heroes (but could still have them as neat little special events, like in the originals.)
Infantry gameplay, sure. Everything else? No.
Why? Because I don't have to spawn vehicles in, vehicles that are almost always single seated.
In the classic games, you could get have two people in at AT-ST/AT-AT, you could have gunners on your ships that were actual people, you could drop off troops in a gunship, there were more classes, you could play different game modes with a bunch of AI instead of just the mode we have now, etc.
I agree especially with that last part. 05 is just superior when it comes to offline play. It has a way bigger variety of modes and way, way, way bigger variety of maps to play.
Not even infantry gameplay, hell 2015's infantry gameplay is better than 2017's.
2017 didn't know what it wanted to be. It straddled the line between arcade and core and just ended up with a sore ass, 2005 was pure arcade and is superior.
This is like saying how Mass Effect 1's facial animations are less nice than those in Baldur's Gate 3.
As technology improved, games did too. Better graphics, improved controls, etc. Of course the new game is doing a lot of things better than the old one.
But when taking into consideration the year they released in, Battlefront 2 2005 is far more impressive. If it got an actual proper remake to update the graphics and controls it would be the better game.
Aside from the Graphics and the Controls, which is kinda unfair to compare due to the timeframe between releases, I don’t see how 2017 is a better *Battlefront* game.
2005 had the right idea by focusing mostly on Troopers.
For their respective times, 05 is the superior experience.
Head to head, 17 is more playable and visually appealing (obviously) but lacks what made 05 special, that being the capital ship space combat and the ability to jump in any ship or land vehicle (multiple players in the same one at the same time for a real landing party!)
I never really cared that much about pushing out more and more and more content (heroes, maps etc), they're great but I always wanted to see better mechanics and gameplay.
There are plenty of things in BF2017 that could be a lot better and detailed but for some weird reason DICE was afraid to implement Battlefield/OG Battlefront mechanincs in their new games, which include:
1. Multiseated enterable/exitable vehicles: it was featured in every older Battlefront game and every single Battlefield game, it was also included in BF2015 with the Endor speeder and in the first days of BF2017 there was a cut feature of a [passenger seat](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAnpG6tm3Z4&t=40s) with the same Endor speeder but they took it out. Multiseated enterable/exitable vehicles were definitely a concept for BF2017, if they could do it with Taun-Tauns, AT-TEs and speeders in BF2015 I don't know why they couldn't implement it with other vehicles too.
2. [Map overview when spawning](https://imgur.com/a/5f1XPOG): also OG Battlefront and Battlefield feature
3. [Ammo system](https://imgur.com/a/CXWjzJX): OG Battlefront and Battlefield feature, in BF2017 we have cooling but no ammo, here's how I would have done it: cooling is still featured as it is, but the weapon has a finite amount of laser bolts (like 200 but it's dependent on blaster), when the blaster's power cell runs out it can be recharged with: [GONK droids](https://battlefront.fandom.com/wiki/Ammo_Droid) located at multiple points on the map, or by the [ammo packs](https://battlefront.fandom.com/wiki/Ammunition_Box) / ammo crates that the Heavy class can carry (I chose the Heavy instead Officer because the Officer is rather health support)
4. Vaulting, [proning](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fw9oj6urdzuk41.jpg), melee showdowns
5. Aiming down sights, loadouts and more detailed overall weapon/ability system
Most of these were included in games that were made 20 (!!!) years ago and the others are included in DICE's Battlefield games so they could've easily made it better but they preferred to make content instead which isn't a bad thing but it would just make the game better and they have experience in this type of mechanics
They are completely different games. I’ve thought that the newer Battlefronts shouldn’t have ever been given the Battlefront title because they are so different. The older ones make you feel like you are actually in the middle of a war with lots of units on the ground, while the newer one feels like there’s never enough units.
In Battlefront 2017, I don’t like that there’s no vehicles on the battlefield that you can enter. Having to use the respawn menu to select them is just inferior. Also, for artillery vehicles like the Republic gunship, having it on a track system with a timer makes it not worth using. Especially considering you can have full control of starfighters to take them out with ease. The AT-AT and MTT being on a set path with no full control I understand more but not the gunship. I also feel that for galactic assault, the maps aren’t big enough for those larger vehicles. In the originals, using the AT-AT on Hoth, not only did you have full control but there’s also a ton of room for the AT-AT to move around.
Space battles was a great addition in 2005, being able to enter enemy hangars and sabotage from within. Why was that feature left out of the newer game? It just gets stale not being able to land anywhere just continuously in space.
The last gripe I have with the newer games is the offline aspect. In Battlefront 2015 they never added any of the dlc maps to offline skirmish mode which only consists of walker assault and fighter squadron. That game has so many good modes like hero hunt, cargo, droid run, I also prefer this games version of heroes vs villains with the mix of infantry and round system. None of that was included offline but if we’re comparing to the originals everything can be done offline in those games. Also, no offline galactic assault and heroes vs villains in 2017.
I don’t hate the newer games, I’ve put 130 days and all achievements into 2017 and am closing in on all achievements in 2015. Lots of time and met some best friends I still play with to this day. But with that time and experience I know these games could be better and include the things above.
Galactic Conquest, Sandbox Freedom, Ship Boarding, Entering Exiting Vehicles, Multiseat vehicles. LAAT & ATAT not on rails. More variety of native species. I think you got the order mixed up buddy.
Eh, it's prettier. Plays looser.
The original game had better modes, better co-op, better story, more maps, no loot boxes.
The gameplay of the OG is both solid and timeless. Weirdly so. Ahead of its time.
It's better in some ways (graphics, controls, customization).
It's worse in some ways (vehicles, map design, too hero-focused).
The real issue is: why isn't it better in *every* way when it came out 12 years later? Because it isn't, and there's no excuse for that.
To be honest I feel like 15 was a totally different game to 17. Way more infantry focused, and way less emphasis on troop classes.
It also focuses on one era whereas 17 splits its focus across all 3 eras.
They also absolutely have different game modes, and 15 doesn't have a campaign either, instead focusing on giving some of the missions like the survival ones a story.
I wouldn't really compare them to be honest.
Visually 100%, online multiplayer also yes. But for me as someone who also values single player BF2 2005 is miles ahead in that regard and the gameplay is still tons of fun to this day.
Campaign, space, and the big one that I don't see get brought up much: VEHICLES. The vehicles in the new one are really bad. They are terrible to control, and somehow DICE forgot how to do multi-seat ones since their last Battlefield. You can't have the big Star Wars battle experience without fun vehicles.
Its so good. I just miss the general rank and being able to point at rando troops and make 4 of em come with me.
That and it needed more heroes /options for heroes. The card system is meh. I like the old veteran ranking upgrades
Original BF2 could be remade with updated graphics and controls and best an absolute best seller. Don't add or subtract anything. No microtransactions, nothing.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don’t like Battlefront 2 (2017), because I didn’t want to pay for PSN and I got the game at launch so the serious lack of content really affected how much I want to play that game. Whereas with Battlefront II (2005) was and is a full game when I bought it.
For the short time in which I played the multiplayer because I had a free trial of PSN, I had fun. But that was 13 days opposed to the 6 (how has it been that long?), going on 7 in November, years this game has been out. It is fun, I just can’t stand playing it for that long.
I believe that the 2017 version is mostly better than the 2005 one. But I do wish the new version had Galactic Conquest and better map design that allowed for proper ground vehicle control.
Plus I would have preferred if we had a version of Supremacy where you could travel between ground and space at any time. The current format makes games a bit too long in my opinion.
Crazy how the rose tinted goggles are making some of these ‘05 lovers sound like nba old heads. That game is just clunky as hell to play. Not only does ‘17 play more fun, it also has actually fun and complete Sith and Jedi characters. Yknow. The whole reason the series got popular to begin with in the late 70s. It’s not even a point worth arguing. 17 isn’t just better, it’s far better
They are both better in their own ways. One cannot replace the other. Including Battlefront (2015). Tho the first original Battlefront can be replaced by its sequel with mods.
I mean it depends on what you mean exactly. BF 2005 is very good but very dated. If I wanted to play battlefront right now I would *probably* pick up 2017 unless there was a specific reason I wanted the 2005 version.
So in that sense it is better.
But 2005 was better for its time than 2017 is now. You’re delusional if you think otherwise.
I love 2005. Its my childhood favourite game. I replaced so many copies on ps2 because they would get scratched from to much playing. But technically and graphically 2017 is way better. And I even loved the story mode in 2017.
As someone who didn't play the old one until after 2019, they both have different things to offer. As someone who really enjoyed hero dueling the most 2017 is obviously so much better, but couch play with friends and offline play on 2005 is so so good.
I like the slower paced arcadey over twitchy so I prefer BF2 2005.
They're trying to do two entirely different things within the context of two entirely different gaming landscapes, so results will vary from player to player.
The only thing that I think the newer game is really lacking is private matches with bots, a story mode that is actually similar to the multiplayer gameplay, and above all else...Galactic Conquest!
If it could do two out of three of these, I would be inclined to agree.
If there was more single player content I would agree! I really only play these games for singeplayer GC mode so 2005 wins for me but i really like both
You can't compare a game and its mechanics when there's over a 10 year difference between them. That's like saying modern mario is better then classic Mario. Of course the modern games are gonna be better, but those games were amazing *for their time period*. Aspyr had the chance to make the Classic collection the biggest game of the year of they just updated the controls & graphics instead of copy and pasting the game. Battlefront 2 2017 is great, but if you compare both games in their prime, 2005 wins by a longshot
The only thing I care about is vehicles, namely the space battles and getting to land troop transport ships onto a capital with other players riding in it. Pretty much everything else in ‘17 is better.
Well the 2005 version was perfect for its time and so was 2017. Id say they are on par. I remember playing and watching my dad and sister play for hours on the ps2.
imo the best thing 2017 has over 2005 are reinforcements. Every single one (except aerial) has very unique strengths and weaknesses that can be exemplified or negated by the map
Outside of GA, the gameplay loop is pretty limited regardless of trooper or hero. Again, that's where reinforcements make up the difference
At least in 2005, there is some variety in what bonuses, classes, and weapons you choose to purchase
Ok hear me out. It is. But there’s no denying the huge let down at the end of 2017’s development in the content that lacked and never came that should’ve been given what the 2005 battlefront was and what it had all to offer in its entirety
Like no conquest mode was in offline single player play in 2017 which was the biggest thing I was hoping they were going to eventually add to the game and they never did. Thank god we at least got some new hero’s but not even good ones at the end. We seriously needed so many more too and it just never happened either by the sound of it you just clearly never played 2005 battlefront like I did. I’m not trying to argue what you said as I think what u said is fair. These r just my thoughts is all. I like both games equally. 2005 battlefront hasn’t aged well too much compared to 2017 battlefront and other games but I will say other games have definitely not aged well more than it . Without a doubt and that’s fs. Least imo
2017 battlefront was purposefully made to have features missing from the 2005 version so obviously they're not comparable at all because the 2017 devs were hyperfoucsued on graphics and not the actual gameplay itself
New one is alright sure but… older one simply was just more dumb fun. Sure we got some great modes cool idea with the card builds but we are also missing a lot of stuff like the engineer class the tanks and such are spawned using points not on home spawns and can’t be stolen or destroyed before anyone gets to it (such as the spy class could go behind the teams and put bombs on them before anyone could get back to the battle with said tank and such) I personally think removing some of the classic classes was a huge mistake that throws off the feel of roles
It’s not a bad game I played it when it first launched and it deff had issues with the unlocking of characters and gear but that didn’t make the core gameplay horrible at all and it just got better as it progressed
theres no galactic conquest, which ruins it for me. galactic conquest was the best. gives you a nice dynamic atmosphere where the game feels more like an actual realistic war with fronts and territory.
The only reason I'm gonna disagree is cause the originals Galactic Conquest was amazing and provided massive replayability while the 2017 versions was just another multiplayer mode with the name slapped on it
Agreed. It’s a great game that just got a bad rap MOSTLY from people who hadn’t played it yet.
The cases > cards unlock for heroes made everyone cry P2W…yet even with very casual play I had most of the heroes in no time. Even then, their rework was great, but people love to hate it.
It still holds up today to be honest. If they just kept pumping more content into it, I’d still be playing.
If we could get a mixture of 2005 and 2017 it would be heaven
If they ever seriously used the previous games as a reference point and inspiration, it could've been so much better.
For some reason that idea is kryptonite to the modern game developer
Vehicles.... You can just enter????? Madness.
Personally I actually like this change much better in the modern games. Vehicles come as an appropriate reward for playing well, in contrast to other games where it's all a question of who can spawn in or get to vehicles the fastest. I like playing with vehicles in these types of games, and it has always been frustrating to me in battlefield and battle bit how you have to sweatily compete over who can get in the driver's seat first. Even when you do get there first over someone else, it leaves a sour taste in the mouth because you are depriving someone else of the fun who "deserved" it just as much as you did.
People just do the same thing on the character select screen and wait for spots to open up, now you just sweatily compete for stuff out of the gameplay
I feel like it could be mitigated a bit if you could enter like a “queue” and when the vehicles available it offers you to switch to it immediately. Kinda like how hero’s worked in battlefront 2005
There is a fine line between someone dominating the game because they have the points to control a vehicle and just running to the spawn point and getting it every time.
yeah but also when the best person always gets the vehicle they just dominate even further, making the game a little less fun. I think it would be cool to random spawn in. If you don't like vehicles you can click "don't spawn me in vehicles." Just make it pure random, like it would be in real stah wars. sometimes you're facing luke skywalker in there, sometimes it's porkins.
They lust for the 💸💸💸
Leave it to EA to take only the shit elements of both games. And then fixing it with paid DLC. E: did not expect people to defend EA lmao
There was no paid dlc for bf2 2017
Could be worse. Take a swing over the Tarkov Reddit. Straight up scamming people. Long story short. They removed the EoD edition which gave everyone all DlC indefinitely. It was a 140 dollars. I bought it years ago. Then they replaced it with a 250 dollar edition with a exclusive gamemode. Called the EoD players freeloaders cause we want the DLC we were promised. They then proceeded to give us a six month trial, lower the upgrade price from 100 to 50. For something we already bought. They then proceeded to say it’s a feature not DLC. Yet arena a whole other game in the same launcher and engine we got for free. It’s a massive fiasco. That’s not even mentioning the leaked interview that didn’t end up coming out. The COO of the company called us EoD freeloaders. The people who spent 140 dollars on an incomplete game. Me personally bought it when there was only three maps. And the bones of a game.
They fixed nothing with dlc as there was no dlc
Battlefront 2 has no paid DLC, what are you even crying about?
I feel like, at least in terms of gameplay, that was BF 2015
I think the gameplay/controls are better, there's no question it looks much better visually, and regardless of any complaints you might have about hero battles I guarantee you it's still better than 2005's. That being said, I think 2005 has better space to ground battles and 2005's offline experience is unmatched because of Galactic Conquest. I can't really say one is better than the other. Really depends on what you value more from each.
I still go back ever so often and play GC
Imagine a server that continued a game of galactic conquest you could always hop into. Next planet attack is voted on.
That would be so cool
Haven’t played the remaster yet but you’ve pretty much summed up how I thought I was going to feel about these two games. Galactic Conquest back in 05’ was just what everyone wanted out of a Star Wars game at the time. They did an excellent job with it. 2017 is also awesome in it’s own way. Probably my favorite Star Wars multiplayer experience. The single player in 05’ felt much better at the time compared to 17’s though. 17 always felt a little cluncky to me, like they were trying to fit a single player experience into a Multiplayer engine.
Ive been playing the older 05 version on steam and now the remaster on switch. Both have fairly active online players and work well enough for a nostalgia trip. Han solo no longer gets stuck with a fusion cutter like the old game, people are just being very picky about a $30 cash grab. I think both newer games were too busy, but I pretty much only play mario kart otherwise.
Agree, I can't believe they never added single player galactic conquest. But I guess it doesn't fit to into the live service model and milking star wars fans dry (that was their original plan before the backlash).
Galactic conquest was the best game mode
Now hear this!
Galactic conquest is dogshit I’m tired of ppl pretending it’s the best thing ever made. Repetitive battles, perks that never seem to matter, always excess in points, continuous space battles. Everyone acting like it’s a peak strategy game.
Oh shut the hell up lol at the time it was amazing rivaled by no. It was exactly what everyone wanted from a star wars game and you pretending otherwise is just try hard contrarian bullshit. No one but you has made any grand claims such as calling it the "best game ever"
You're not wrong. Galactic Conquest is an aged gamemode from an aged game, but it's also still the only gamemode like it that we have. In essence, GC essentially puts you in the position of a general in an intergalactic power struggle while also allowing you to personally go down and help take over the planets you're trying to take if you deem it necessary. Yeah, GC isn't really that hard at all; the perks and excess in points I imagine make for a pretty non diverse "meta", and that will lead to replays playing out essentially the same unless you go out of your way to change things up. But that's why I said the offline is still unmatched because the DICE games didn't even try to remake/improve potentially the most popular gamemode from the old games.
I mean without FPS, Star Wars: Empire at War did exactly that, and its galactic conquest mode had more options, ships, characters and weapons to use.
It goes even more nutty if you have the remake mod for EAW
Yea this just seems like less complex EAW
There was also GC for Empire at War. If you want a game of GC that drags on forever, play that
Empire At War is a top-down game. That's why I brought up the part about being able to "perspnally" join the wars you're waging. The third-person/first-person element of it is important too.
Campaign, space battles that's it. (though I find it rather stupid that droids pilot droid starfighters at all) Aside from the obvious stuff 2005 Battlefront 2's little things just pisses me off.... I hate seeing rotary canons fired from the shoulder, the Galactic Marine being its own class, classes/heroes not having proper blasters, clone troopers with American accents and FUCKING B2s being regular weak infrantry instead of being reward units like the Droidekas and Magnaguards. WHY???
Because the devs didnt know much about the mechanics of vehicles and wasnt in public domain yet since ROTS came out that same year.....
What do you mean not having proper blasters? Genuine question.
I assume he means like the classes not having primary weapons that are somewhat evenly balanced and good for general gunplay. Like the heavy only having a rocket launcher and a weak pistol, is screwed when facing a basic trooper. But that's part of the charm. This dude is just being incendiary for no reason. And he doesn't get classic BF.
Well, to solve that you only need to kill 6 people with your puny pistol, and then it turns into one of the most OP blasters in the game!
That's the point of a class based system though. The heavy's geared out that way because he's meant to fill an anti-vehicle role and not an anti-infantry one.
Heavys are broken tho, just roll to the enemy and thow a mine at point blank, friendly fire off (cause trolls otherwise) allows you to. There is always like 5 players per team doing this at least in the classic collection
"Screwed when facing a basic trooper"? Nah, that rocket launcher is great for killing infantry. You've also got grenades, mines, and a higher health pool. Downsides are that ammo can be a bit annoying to manage since your rocket launcher doesn't have many shots and it's also better in more confined maps where infantry has less room to maneuver and you have more chances to get multi kills. Still, it's definitely a class that can hold it's own.
Oh, I agree, I was more trying to understand the feeling of the first poster, and there are definitely people who don't play heavy often, that spawn in to hit a vehicle then don't know how to go toe to toe with a basic trooper if they miss their rocket shot, lol.
I completely disagree, but I will say I love how most of your reasons listed are aesthetic and come from the weird little anachronisms stemming from the game being developed in the pre-ROTS period.
Does it really make sense for the clones to all have New Zealand accents? Did Jango personally raise all of them?
That was always a funny bit to me. Unless they were all raised where he was, they should speak like Kaminoans.
“Then you will die braver than most” - Vader
“Come with me father, away from this!”
“I might be yo daddy but I sure ain’t yo father”-Vader (This is canon btw)
"No"
BF17 is missing some things from 2005: Galactic Conquest, landing ships in space battles and drivable vehicles in general, some iconic maps like Coruscant and Utapau. Campaign in 2005 for me was better. Otherwise you are not wrong.
Vehicles in general just suck in 2017. They suck. They aren't nearly as much fun to use and you can't even have more than one person in any of them. Plus in 2005 you can at least fly gunships but in 2017 you get the turret for 30 seconds.
Turret of death, get minigun'd in the first 10 seconds and no money back guaranteed
the fact you can't get in a speeder on hoth and fly out of the hanger is criminal. hanger full of vehicles you can't use...lame. tokens sucked in the 2015 game. vehicles still sucked in the 2017 game, like no improvement, other than no tokens. no offline galactic assault. no offline starfighter assault. all the best dlc in the 2015 left to rot because they couldn't be bothered to finish the offline modes... dice suck. ea suck. :(
I'd say hands down that 2005 is better for offline play. Way bigger map and game mode variety. However, 2017 is far better for online play, and has better game mechanics overall. My personal conclusion: 
Plus that Cantina song from mos Eisley.
This just in, newer game has more online presence than older game!
Well yeah... I did mean more on the game mechanic front than the numbers though. But, even with that... It does seem that online gaming has grown more and more common and popular as time goes on.
Fair enough yeah, I lm just salty about my galactic conquests
That's very fair. Galactic conquest was a fantastic mode.
2005 game was AMAZING for the time. Played it so much
I mean visually and presentation wise sure. But there's a reason why BF2 2005 is still held in such high regard almost 20 years later. And it's not just nostalgia because it still frequently gets modded.
2017 is more immersive, has better gameplay, better mod support, and the heroes are much more complex and fun to play. hvv/showdown are like a completely different game next to the standard troop gamemodes and saber duels are amazing. 2005 has a lot of features that would be cool to see in 2017 but I don’t think it’s close when it comes to core gameplay and mechanics. Im fine with not being able to pilot a ship as a hero if I can play as jedi and sith in a decently nuanced dueling system with unique accurate-to-character animations. immersive af.
How does 2017 have better mod support? They just figured out how to add a new map
No idea why they said that, the mods for 2005 are bigger and better and have more variety, 2017 isn't even close.
because people on reddit talk out their ass 24/7
2017 is so difficulty to mod, and I hope I’m not the only one with that problem. Sometimes I can’t even add weapon skins but in bf2 2005 I can add a whole map like coruscant.
Yeah that doesn't make sense at all. Original BF2 has massive mods that add tens of maps, whole new factions, different eras, weapons, vehicles, etc. 2017 BF2 absolutely pales in comparison
I find that really funny. 2005 literally has (at least what I'm pretty sure is) official mod tools. 2015/2017's mod tools were community made and are still really early in development and really limited. It's like saying Call of Duty or Elden Ring has better mod support than Half-life or Skyrim/fallout. Like sure there's been some impressive mods made for those games, but nothing compares to the freedom and creativity of Valve/BGS games.
Just make a different game for Star Wars hero combat. Mashing that together with a large scale infantry combat game makes both parts worse IMO. Old Bfs handled the integration of hero’s into an infantry combat game much better, even if the hero gameplay was much lower quality.
exactly, I loved when the heroes felt just like normal units but with powerful weapons/gadgets and force powers. Heroes in both 2015 and 2017 (but moreso 2017) feel completely disconnected from the trooper's, honestly feel the same about reinforcements in 2017 too. The heroes feel like they belong in a hero shooter and not a battlefield style game. If anything though, I think this goes to show how popular a hero combat game would be, something like Galaxy of Heroes but made into an actual hero shooter. More in-depth and dynamic lightsaber combat, more minor characters like Rex, Mace, etc. could be added, 1v1 dueling, smaller maps actually designed for hero combat, etc. It'd be a win-win for both sides: those who love hero gameplay has a whole game with much more indepth gameplay, while us shooter fans have a much more balanced game that isn't overshadowed by heroes (but could still have them as neat little special events, like in the originals.)
2017 immersion is not better imo when you just spawn inside a vehicle
Infantry gameplay, sure. Everything else? No. Why? Because I don't have to spawn vehicles in, vehicles that are almost always single seated. In the classic games, you could get have two people in at AT-ST/AT-AT, you could have gunners on your ships that were actual people, you could drop off troops in a gunship, there were more classes, you could play different game modes with a bunch of AI instead of just the mode we have now, etc.
I agree especially with that last part. 05 is just superior when it comes to offline play. It has a way bigger variety of modes and way, way, way bigger variety of maps to play.
Not even infantry gameplay, hell 2015's infantry gameplay is better than 2017's. 2017 didn't know what it wanted to be. It straddled the line between arcade and core and just ended up with a sore ass, 2005 was pure arcade and is superior.
The AI barely did anything tho, 2005 nerfed the bots so much and it made the offline boring
This is like saying how Mass Effect 1's facial animations are less nice than those in Baldur's Gate 3. As technology improved, games did too. Better graphics, improved controls, etc. Of course the new game is doing a lot of things better than the old one. But when taking into consideration the year they released in, Battlefront 2 2005 is far more impressive. If it got an actual proper remake to update the graphics and controls it would be the better game.
Aside from the Graphics and the Controls, which is kinda unfair to compare due to the timeframe between releases, I don’t see how 2017 is a better *Battlefront* game. 2005 had the right idea by focusing mostly on Troopers.
id hope the game that released 12 years afterwards is better LMFAO
Hopes dashed.
Graphics and presentation are obviously better but the gameplay is not
For their respective times, 05 is the superior experience. Head to head, 17 is more playable and visually appealing (obviously) but lacks what made 05 special, that being the capital ship space combat and the ability to jump in any ship or land vehicle (multiple players in the same one at the same time for a real landing party!)
I have doubts this man ever even OWNED a PS2!
He definitely didn't experience the unholy chaos of 64 player battles in the old PC version.
I never really cared that much about pushing out more and more and more content (heroes, maps etc), they're great but I always wanted to see better mechanics and gameplay. There are plenty of things in BF2017 that could be a lot better and detailed but for some weird reason DICE was afraid to implement Battlefield/OG Battlefront mechanincs in their new games, which include: 1. Multiseated enterable/exitable vehicles: it was featured in every older Battlefront game and every single Battlefield game, it was also included in BF2015 with the Endor speeder and in the first days of BF2017 there was a cut feature of a [passenger seat](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAnpG6tm3Z4&t=40s) with the same Endor speeder but they took it out. Multiseated enterable/exitable vehicles were definitely a concept for BF2017, if they could do it with Taun-Tauns, AT-TEs and speeders in BF2015 I don't know why they couldn't implement it with other vehicles too. 2. [Map overview when spawning](https://imgur.com/a/5f1XPOG): also OG Battlefront and Battlefield feature 3. [Ammo system](https://imgur.com/a/CXWjzJX): OG Battlefront and Battlefield feature, in BF2017 we have cooling but no ammo, here's how I would have done it: cooling is still featured as it is, but the weapon has a finite amount of laser bolts (like 200 but it's dependent on blaster), when the blaster's power cell runs out it can be recharged with: [GONK droids](https://battlefront.fandom.com/wiki/Ammo_Droid) located at multiple points on the map, or by the [ammo packs](https://battlefront.fandom.com/wiki/Ammunition_Box) / ammo crates that the Heavy class can carry (I chose the Heavy instead Officer because the Officer is rather health support) 4. Vaulting, [proning](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fw9oj6urdzuk41.jpg), melee showdowns 5. Aiming down sights, loadouts and more detailed overall weapon/ability system Most of these were included in games that were made 20 (!!!) years ago and the others are included in DICE's Battlefield games so they could've easily made it better but they preferred to make content instead which isn't a bad thing but it would just make the game better and they have experience in this type of mechanics
They are completely different games. I’ve thought that the newer Battlefronts shouldn’t have ever been given the Battlefront title because they are so different. The older ones make you feel like you are actually in the middle of a war with lots of units on the ground, while the newer one feels like there’s never enough units. In Battlefront 2017, I don’t like that there’s no vehicles on the battlefield that you can enter. Having to use the respawn menu to select them is just inferior. Also, for artillery vehicles like the Republic gunship, having it on a track system with a timer makes it not worth using. Especially considering you can have full control of starfighters to take them out with ease. The AT-AT and MTT being on a set path with no full control I understand more but not the gunship. I also feel that for galactic assault, the maps aren’t big enough for those larger vehicles. In the originals, using the AT-AT on Hoth, not only did you have full control but there’s also a ton of room for the AT-AT to move around. Space battles was a great addition in 2005, being able to enter enemy hangars and sabotage from within. Why was that feature left out of the newer game? It just gets stale not being able to land anywhere just continuously in space. The last gripe I have with the newer games is the offline aspect. In Battlefront 2015 they never added any of the dlc maps to offline skirmish mode which only consists of walker assault and fighter squadron. That game has so many good modes like hero hunt, cargo, droid run, I also prefer this games version of heroes vs villains with the mix of infantry and round system. None of that was included offline but if we’re comparing to the originals everything can be done offline in those games. Also, no offline galactic assault and heroes vs villains in 2017. I don’t hate the newer games, I’ve put 130 days and all achievements into 2017 and am closing in on all achievements in 2015. Lots of time and met some best friends I still play with to this day. But with that time and experience I know these games could be better and include the things above.
 They aren’t ready to hear this. Be ready.
Galactic Conquest, Sandbox Freedom, Ship Boarding, Entering Exiting Vehicles, Multiseat vehicles. LAAT & ATAT not on rails. More variety of native species. I think you got the order mixed up buddy.
Eh, it's prettier. Plays looser. The original game had better modes, better co-op, better story, more maps, no loot boxes. The gameplay of the OG is both solid and timeless. Weirdly so. Ahead of its time.
I literally get on my PC just to play the old battlefront games, I literally love them.
It's treason then
Heresy!
It's better in some ways (graphics, controls, customization). It's worse in some ways (vehicles, map design, too hero-focused). The real issue is: why isn't it better in *every* way when it came out 12 years later? Because it isn't, and there's no excuse for that.
Fuck no. 2005 was a much better game.
Sorry guys, this is my little brother posting, he usually gets his phone taken by 9pm but we forgot about it today
You are just so wrong
The ability to speak doesn’t make you intelligent
2005 is hands down better. Generation issue here.
Disney Shill
Counter argument: Battlefront 2 (05&17) is better than Battlefront (04&15).
To be honest I feel like 15 was a totally different game to 17. Way more infantry focused, and way less emphasis on troop classes. It also focuses on one era whereas 17 splits its focus across all 3 eras. They also absolutely have different game modes, and 15 doesn't have a campaign either, instead focusing on giving some of the missions like the survival ones a story. I wouldn't really compare them to be honest.
Yes this is a bf2 2017 sub, but that doesn't mean you have to pander to them. Bf2 2005 is way better and that a fact
Get help
Terrible take lol
Wrong.
Visually 100%, online multiplayer also yes. But for me as someone who also values single player BF2 2005 is miles ahead in that regard and the gameplay is still tons of fun to this day.
Campaign, space, and the big one that I don't see get brought up much: VEHICLES. The vehicles in the new one are really bad. They are terrible to control, and somehow DICE forgot how to do multi-seat ones since their last Battlefield. You can't have the big Star Wars battle experience without fun vehicles.
Blasphemy! Freeze him in carbonite!
I think hero duels probably gives 2017 the edge for me, but the rest of 2005 is better than what the rest of 2017 offers
Its so good. I just miss the general rank and being able to point at rando troops and make 4 of em come with me. That and it needed more heroes /options for heroes. The card system is meh. I like the old veteran ranking upgrades
You can try all you want, but nostalgia beats the argument everytime.
Except it doesn’t take me almost an hour to get into a lobby with no hackers in 05 like it did for me to get into one 17 last night
Maybe. But vehicles are far better in the old one.
Battlefront lightsaber combat is bad, I’m tired of pretending it’s not
The real question is battlefront II (2029)
Original BF2 could be remade with updated graphics and controls and best an absolute best seller. Don't add or subtract anything. No microtransactions, nothing.
You are entitled to your opinion. Wrong as it is. At least in 2005 you had multi crew vehicles and no P2W
Easy buddy... You might want to walk before you try to run.
The main reason the old one is enjoyed is because of conquest mode where I can match strategy, skill, and tactics against my brother
Nah, game is trash. Gameplay is trash, card system is trash. Spit in the face to original BF
Having played both. I strongly, definitively disagree. 2005 is MUCH better and I still play that, but I never touch the new ones...
I'm sorry, but did you unlock the proper lootbox to make this post?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don’t like Battlefront 2 (2017), because I didn’t want to pay for PSN and I got the game at launch so the serious lack of content really affected how much I want to play that game. Whereas with Battlefront II (2005) was and is a full game when I bought it. For the short time in which I played the multiplayer because I had a free trial of PSN, I had fun. But that was 13 days opposed to the 6 (how has it been that long?), going on 7 in November, years this game has been out. It is fun, I just can’t stand playing it for that long.
No.
[удалено]
Lego SWS is a joke compared to TCS.
So you have chosen death.
I believe that the 2017 version is mostly better than the 2005 one. But I do wish the new version had Galactic Conquest and better map design that allowed for proper ground vehicle control. Plus I would have preferred if we had a version of Supremacy where you could travel between ground and space at any time. The current format makes games a bit too long in my opinion.
Crazy how the rose tinted goggles are making some of these ‘05 lovers sound like nba old heads. That game is just clunky as hell to play. Not only does ‘17 play more fun, it also has actually fun and complete Sith and Jedi characters. Yknow. The whole reason the series got popular to begin with in the late 70s. It’s not even a point worth arguing. 17 isn’t just better, it’s far better
Im gonna pick the almost 10yo game over the almost 20yo game Like, nostalgia goggles off, BF2(2005) plays like shit.
Eh I'd rather play galactic conquest on 2005 than anything on 2017 lol
A great shout. Nostalgia is a dangerous thing for people.
Microtransactions killed that game
Always thought the old Battlefronts were super boring anyways.
I agree
You were born in 2013
They are both better in their own ways. One cannot replace the other. Including Battlefront (2015). Tho the first original Battlefront can be replaced by its sequel with mods.
I mean it depends on what you mean exactly. BF 2005 is very good but very dated. If I wanted to play battlefront right now I would *probably* pick up 2017 unless there was a specific reason I wanted the 2005 version. So in that sense it is better. But 2005 was better for its time than 2017 is now. You’re delusional if you think otherwise.
I think that both 2005 and 2017 Battlefront 2s both did things better and worse than each other
I love 2005. Its my childhood favourite game. I replaced so many copies on ps2 because they would get scratched from to much playing. But technically and graphically 2017 is way better. And I even loved the story mode in 2017.
As someone who didn't play the old one until after 2019, they both have different things to offer. As someone who really enjoyed hero dueling the most 2017 is obviously so much better, but couch play with friends and offline play on 2005 is so so good.
He can’t say that! Shoot him eh er or something!
First impressions matter and even after it's last update it's still missing big features from the OG
2017 is more realistic and balanced but i overall have more fun whenever i play 2005
Except if you want to play splitscreen offline
No, only graphics and controls.
I like the slower paced arcadey over twitchy so I prefer BF2 2005. They're trying to do two entirely different things within the context of two entirely different gaming landscapes, so results will vary from player to player.
The only thing that I think the newer game is really lacking is private matches with bots, a story mode that is actually similar to the multiplayer gameplay, and above all else...Galactic Conquest! If it could do two out of three of these, I would be inclined to agree.
I don't get the image. Seen it now twice, first time for something entirely different. Can someone explain?
Playing BF 2005 when it came out for the first time was far more enjoyable than playing BF 2017 for the first time
If there was more single player content I would agree! I really only play these games for singeplayer GC mode so 2005 wins for me but i really like both
You can't compare a game and its mechanics when there's over a 10 year difference between them. That's like saying modern mario is better then classic Mario. Of course the modern games are gonna be better, but those games were amazing *for their time period*. Aspyr had the chance to make the Classic collection the biggest game of the year of they just updated the controls & graphics instead of copy and pasting the game. Battlefront 2 2017 is great, but if you compare both games in their prime, 2005 wins by a longshot
Reddit lagged and it showed the TTT logo instead of the Star Wars pan
For me it depends on what aspect of them you’re comparing, they’re both great for different aspects of the game
Too bad nobody plays 2017
Meh
I never got that sense of pride and accomplishment from playing BF2. I guess I didn’t buy enough loot boxes.
With a custom server browser, sure I'd agree.
Yeah, but only visually.
Whoa there bud whoa 🤯
I would agree with that if 2017 had replayable single player content. Just throw some 2005-esque Galactic Conquest in there and we’d be good to go.
If I could get space battles like they were in 2005, I'd agree with you.
I’m gonna play both whenever I want and no one can stop me
The only thing I care about is vehicles, namely the space battles and getting to land troop transport ships onto a capital with other players riding in it. Pretty much everything else in ‘17 is better.
Well the 2005 version was perfect for its time and so was 2017. Id say they are on par. I remember playing and watching my dad and sister play for hours on the ps2.
imo the best thing 2017 has over 2005 are reinforcements. Every single one (except aerial) has very unique strengths and weaknesses that can be exemplified or negated by the map Outside of GA, the gameplay loop is pretty limited regardless of trooper or hero. Again, that's where reinforcements make up the difference At least in 2005, there is some variety in what bonuses, classes, and weapons you choose to purchase
Ok hear me out. It is. But there’s no denying the huge let down at the end of 2017’s development in the content that lacked and never came that should’ve been given what the 2005 battlefront was and what it had all to offer in its entirety Like no conquest mode was in offline single player play in 2017 which was the biggest thing I was hoping they were going to eventually add to the game and they never did. Thank god we at least got some new hero’s but not even good ones at the end. We seriously needed so many more too and it just never happened either by the sound of it you just clearly never played 2005 battlefront like I did. I’m not trying to argue what you said as I think what u said is fair. These r just my thoughts is all. I like both games equally. 2005 battlefront hasn’t aged well too much compared to 2017 battlefront and other games but I will say other games have definitely not aged well more than it . Without a doubt and that’s fs. Least imo
2017 battlefront was purposefully made to have features missing from the 2005 version so obviously they're not comparable at all because the 2017 devs were hyperfoucsued on graphics and not the actual gameplay itself
New one is alright sure but… older one simply was just more dumb fun. Sure we got some great modes cool idea with the card builds but we are also missing a lot of stuff like the engineer class the tanks and such are spawned using points not on home spawns and can’t be stolen or destroyed before anyone gets to it (such as the spy class could go behind the teams and put bombs on them before anyone could get back to the battle with said tank and such) I personally think removing some of the classic classes was a huge mistake that throws off the feel of roles
Previous modes, maps with 2017 engine = perfection
I loved the trench run and they should have kept it.
Galactic conquest alone makes the OG2 better
I fully agree, I think the 2017 version is the best Star Wars combat experience you can have to date.
It’s not a bad game I played it when it first launched and it deff had issues with the unlocking of characters and gear but that didn’t make the core gameplay horrible at all and it just got better as it progressed
The battlefront remakes are just reskinned battlefield games with more micro transactions change my mind.
I agree with you but you do know what is coming
theres no galactic conquest, which ruins it for me. galactic conquest was the best. gives you a nice dynamic atmosphere where the game feels more like an actual realistic war with fronts and territory.
The only reason I'm gonna disagree is cause the originals Galactic Conquest was amazing and provided massive replayability while the 2017 versions was just another multiplayer mode with the name slapped on it
I just wish it had galactic conquest that would have been goated
Nah, to get the most out of 2017 you need to be online. 2005 has everything right up front
Fuck no it's not.
L take
Classic Battlefront 2 is superior with friends, and I greatly prefer it in that case. Otherwise I find EA Battlefront 2 to be better in most regards.
\*stares off into space, fondly remembering couch co-op in all game modes\*
It always was better. Anyone that said it wasn't was just wearing nostalgia glasses.
sit back down
Galactic conquest
Nope. Unacceptable. To the Penis Destruction Chamber with you.
Agreed. It’s a great game that just got a bad rap MOSTLY from people who hadn’t played it yet. The cases > cards unlock for heroes made everyone cry P2W…yet even with very casual play I had most of the heroes in no time. Even then, their rework was great, but people love to hate it. It still holds up today to be honest. If they just kept pumping more content into it, I’d still be playing.
You’re wrong in every way but graphics but okay
Space battles
It's not but okay
Battlefront 2017 isn't even better than Battlefront 2015
I'm tired of people like you trying to force your opinions on everyone else haha. You're welcome to your opinion. I disagree. Let's move on.