Jump to content

Home

PC Review at ign.com

DemonKing

By DemonKing
in General Discussion

Recommended Posts

DemonKing Newbie

DemonKing

Posted
Posted

First review on a mainstream gaming website is in...

 

http://pc.ign.com/articles/549/549157p1.html

 

7.5 - not bad, but not great.

 

Strange thing is the same website scored the X-Box and PS2 versions higher (in the 8+ range). The main argument seems to be that Battlefront is limited in comparison with the oposition in the PC field (BF1942, Joint Operations etc).

 

Also says the mouse and keyboard combo makes people *too* accurate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dragnarr Newbie

Dragnarr

Posted
Posted

Yeah Savage, my clans #1 game ..... before Battlefront has arrived got 7.8 or something like that. Still the game was so awesome and I play it daily. What Im saying is don't let the reviews affect your way of thinking. If you like the concept then buy the game. Besides the AI problems will probably get solved in a patch. The few things Im worried about are the "too accurate" thing in the review. They should have balanced the console versions and PC version differently since everyone knows its easier to shoot with mouse than with a controller. So basically all PC weapons should do less damage or shoot slower or be nerfed a bit. Driving AAT or some other tank isn't fun if you can just cruise around and kill everyone at the other team. I like the way the lasers make people flying around, I just think that only big laser cannos like in AT-AT should kill with one shot. We'll see after the game is released and I can only hope we get enough support to fix the balance issues as we all know this game has been rushed to max and that's why it got such bad score at IGN

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prime Newbie

Prime

Posted
Posted

Here are some points I found interesting:

  • Players who opt to stick to singleplayer will have something to do, but won't be thrilled enough to desire extended play. This is primarily due to three major solo play problems.
    1) It's too easy.
    2) It's not cohesive.
    3) The AI exhibits a type of intelligence roughly on par with the average rock's.
     
  • They're engagements are so poorly tied together that toward the middle of either historical campaign, you'll actually be forced to switch sides in the war, making any lasting drive to conquer the galaxy pointless.
     
  • As it stands, acquiring bonuses is of little importance, since the base singleplayer game is so terribly easy. Thus, playing Galactic Conquest is also of no point.
     
  • Battlefront is easy because of point number three: everyone is an idiot. The game appears to use a sort of context sensitive AI, meaning bots in the right positions will do stuff (like use turrets and vehicles and lay down cover fire), but those not immediately engaged in combat will idly stand around helping themselves to an endless breather.
     
  • It's not uncommon to see the fools commandeer star fighters, tanks, and walkers, and then just circle the map without direction, or fly straight into the nearest canyon a building, or repeatedly take off and land, neglecting to actually fire their weapons at anything that needs a good shooting.
     
  • The AI frustrations wouldn't have been so severe if they were more inclined to follow some of the basic commands that are offered (follow, hold, move out, pile in craft, exit craft). Had there been more commands such as, "Don't steal my damn Snowspeeder and fly it into the ground you stupid, stupid idiot," it wouldn't be bad at all.
     
  • In multiplayer, there are also bots. The choice to have them is up to whoever hosts the match, but in general, you'll want 'em. Yes, they are stupid.
     
  • In addition to looking cool while occasionally stealing craft and running amok, the bots add a level of hero vs. hero action that's pretty fantastic...when you run into an actual human who happens to be commanding a small quad of bots to follow him, it's almost like running into a heroic general in charge of a larger force.
     
  • So, despite their obvious singleplayer weaknesses that do carry over to multiplayer, the bots manage to add significantly more to multiplayer than they take away, because they help the game feel like two armies are actually clashing against one another -- two armies led by real people.
     
  • This is what Battlefront does extraordinarily well. More so than Battlefield or any other large scale online title -- of which we've seen practically none on the consoles -- Battlefront feels like a war.
     
  • The massive walkers and tanks of Battlefront are devastating. Most are so powerful, in fact, that it's literally impossible to take them down alone.
     
  • Without a great deal of cooperation and coordination in taking these stronger vehicles down (the Imperial and Republican walkers, especially), it's practically impossible to win maps...The only way to take down a walker is to tow it into the ground, and the only way to do that is with teamwork.
     
  • The primary focus of the game are these larger vehicular battles.
     
  • Now it gets tricky. Battlefield and Unreal Tournament 2004 on PC provide a wealth of options to players as far as how they choose to go about winning missions. But, because Battlefront is so heavily influenced by the films and so scripted -- that kind of power vs. finesse balancing -- far fewer approaches are available.
     
  • e.g. On Rhen Var, there's only one way to win for the Empire and that's to walk the walker just outside of the main Rebel base and begin ranged bombardment. Conversely, the Rebels can sneak through the ice caves and take the primary Imperial base. That's it. Trying something else is futile.
     
  • You'll find in many of the maps success is more realistically determined by the team that more closely follows a very exact plan.
     
  • Some of Battlefront's locales are simply too constricting...where air-based vehicles are granted, the actual playing field can feel so small that you'll often find yourself endlessly circling a target just so that you don't inadvertently exit the battle arena.
     
  • Aside from being the cleanest of the three, the PC version also sports a great deal more flora in its environments. On PC, the already wooded Endor changes into an overgrown nightmare replete with a thousand camping spots.
     
  • For the PlayStation, there are some hiccups in performance, but Xbox handles it well.
     
  • It should still be known that the Xbox, with its more friendly infrastructure, edges out the PlayStation 2 version, which has a tendency to lag on the more cluttered maps that require packets be thrown about left and right.
     
  • There simply isn't enough content to keep the game going for months or years after its release.

 

I guess we'll know for sure in a few days...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ZinC°hda Newbie

ZinC°hda

Posted
Posted

Settle down guys, lets look at some key points about the game.

 

1. It is a Battlefield clone so no gaming website or magazine is gonna jump up and award a high value for simply copying another game even though its really popular. Gaming sites are looking for something new. something which is a breath of fresh air.

 

2. Single player has been slated, well anyone who buys any Battlefield clone game shouldn't expect a good single player side from it. These types of game were designed primarily for multiplayer.

 

3. The sound is excellent on all platforms

 

4. Graphics excellent on all platforms

 

The exact same things can be said about DOOM III, looks great sounds great but its the same old game play blah blah blah blah.

 

 

So dont be totally disheartened guys

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DemonKing Newbie

DemonKing

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Originally posted by rut-wa jodar

I`m not putting any faith in what IGN.com say, the same site gave BF1942 a score of 9.3 even though it was(and still is) unfinished.

 

I don't know - after 6 patches BF1942 finally pretty much feels polished and lives up to the hype. Too bad it took about a year after the first release to get there.

 

Somehow I think it unlikely that SW:BF will get 6 patches though. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rut-wa jodar Newbie

rut-wa jodar

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by DemonKing

I don't know - after 6 patches BF1942 finally pretty much feels polished and lives up to the hype. Too bad it took about a year after the first release to get there.

 

Somehow I think it unlikely that SW:BF will get 6 patches though. :confused:

 

I think you`ll find that BF1942 had slightly more than 6 patches. The audio still crackles more than a Rice Krispies factory with a leaky roof. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DemonKing Newbie

DemonKing

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Originally posted by rut-wa jodar

I think you`ll find that BF1942 had slightly more than 6 patches. The audio still crackles more than a Rice Krispies factory with a leaky roof. ;)

 

Well, there were only 6 patches released for the original game - 1.1 - 1.6, although I seem to remember that some of the expansions upgraded you to something funky like 1.25 or so on.

 

As for audio - mine runs 100% fine now - although in earlier versions there were a lot of problems such as tank mg sounds cutting out and so on. Perhaps you need to upgrade your sound drivers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JDKnite188 Newbie

JDKnite188

Posted
Posted

They sure seem to belittle the game.

 

According to them, in the end the game basically just had good graphics (screenshots told that tale a while ago) , sound (what Star Wars games don't have great sound and music?), emphasis on teamwork, and well-done representation of the film. On the other hand, the AI sucked big time, winning strategy was linear, aiming was too easy, and there is little chance of a lasting community for modding and expansion.

 

The only fact that struck me was this on the final scoring on page 4 of the review:

 

Editing is also apparently not supported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tyler_Durden Newbie

Tyler_Durden

Posted
Posted

I like to read more than a few reviews in order to get a clear understanding of what the pros aand cons of a game are. It'll be interesting to see how gamespot rates this game. I really think the reviewer at ign underestimates the popularity of star wars and the people who have been waiting to play this game since it was announced. I mean really, what sounds more fun? A game that takes place in vietnam or a game that's set in the star wars universe?

 

The only thing i'm really woried about is the game's longevity. Will it have a following like bf 1942 and vietnam? I think the key to the game's overall success and popularity in the end will be up to the devs by releasing editing tools and making new downloads such as more maps and patches available soon after the game is released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DarthMuffin Newbie

DarthMuffin

Posted
Posted

I've never played those Battlefield games, so I don't really care if it's just a copy. It's gonna be all new for me.

 

On PC, unfortunately, the problems are all amplified by an overwhelming amount of competition that simply makes Battlefront look a bit simplistic.

 

If they give a rating based on how much competition the game has, then the reviewer suck. They should evaluate a game for what it is, and perhaps add a comment or two about competition at the end, but not lower the score.

 

And IGN gave SWGB a 8.0, even though it's barely more than a mod for a style that has plenty of powerful competitors (WC, SC, AoE, C&C).

 

I wouldn't mind too much about this review.

 

But a bad review is still a bad review, and it can influence those who can't think and judge by themselves and need other people to do it for them. Too bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...