SITH_ShadowCat Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 I just got the players guide and it basically throws all the crap that the IGNorant review said. The game has so much depth its unbelievable. Some of the tactics provided were right in front of me yet I didn't realize them. This game is much more complex then what meets the eye. One strategy that caught my eye was a clever use of mines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reltes Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 i read the review and for some reason i like it better. a.i. bots stealing your ship and crashing it right in front of you is awesome. it's like real stupid people are there fighting with you. if a.i. bots did everything great we wouldn't have to do anything in the game. and from what i've heard, if you have it on hard, enemy bots will whoop-up on you in a hurry. first the guy says it's too easy to win and then complains about how easy it is to get killed and how hard it is to defeat heavy armored vehicles. which is it? too easy or too hard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindsey Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 heh, there is a medium mode too, plus, this guy didnt play it much online, or isnt a star wars fan. Editing will be supported, lets all just wait and see in 3 days time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone7 Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 I think it was a real crappy review. They guy contradicted himself I felt. He also bitched about the single player mode, when we all know it's a multi-player game. All the bad points were basically from single player. He almost glorifies the multi play at some points. It does also sound like they played single player on easy, but I found it annoying how much he concentrated on the single player aspect when, once again, we know this is a multi-player game!!! I give this review a 3.5, because it focused on the wrong aspect of the game, and it's almost like he was reviewing it like a console game rather then PC game. Also he just seem to make contradictions throughout the review. Another thing, you can't say that there are very few strategies. There is no way they played each map long enough to figure everything you can possibly do. Very nieve approach to review the game. Plus, didn't hear them bitch about the game when they were making their three battle reports. Sounded like they had a blast actually. I'm STILL extremely excited about the game!!!! And I'm very disappointed that IGN just approached the game like it was a BF1942 game instead of it's own unique game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I like seafood Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 Originally posted by SITH_ShadowCat I just got the players guide and it basically throws all the crap that the IGNorant review said. The game has so much depth its unbelievable. Some of the tactics provided were right in front of me yet I didn't realize them. This game is much more complex then what meets the eye. One strategy that caught my eye was a clever use of mines. Well that put things back on track. I was confused when the reviewer said there was no use of strategy. I mean they have a section devoted to strategy on the main web site that hasn't been opened. The other thing that caught my attention was that he mentioned some maps were too small.......Dont know if this will be good or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExplodingMonkey Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 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. PC Gamer's review should be more balanced and realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountainforest Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 I don't think we should throw aside all negative info to easely. I can imagine that the number of ways to play a map is limited. That is my biggest concern. I don't care if the AI is bad. I wanted to play it online in the first place, so that doesn't bother me. Gungans and Ewoks are stupid anyway, so it's only realistic if their AI is bad. That it takes a lot of teamplay to win isn't bad too in my eyes. Especially for clans this might be more fun than otherwise. And what was the conclusion? PS2 and XBox versions where good, but because the genre has already been exploited on PC the quality of the game isn't so obvious there. What does that mean? That we got ourselfs a game with more or less the quality of battlefield. That might not be ideal, but is good enough for me. A question: they said that playing allong with AI members was real nice. That a player commands a group of bots, and that he is like the big boss. Did they mean ewoks with that, or imperial/clone/etc bots? In that case, how many of those bots can be added to the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scavenger Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 i really dont know, i mean, AI and ''real'' players fighting alongside eachother in MP, it just doesnt fit, really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
italegion Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 what we can do with IGN is to rate it ourself in ign "reader score" and show how far is the players rating from theirs. Under BF1942 review they scored 9.3 and users 9.1; with SWBF the difference will be more clear.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nortenyo Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Originally posted by Vortmax y'all notice how both reviewers moaned about how hard it is to bring down AT-AT's? duh.... luke" that armor is too strong for blasters" "switch to harpoons" the game stays true to the movies (except for darktroopers) fine for me I love the AT-AT, but with teamwork and a bunch of rocket launcher guys, they are no problem. It's not hard to bring down an AT-AT. You just have to know how to do it without getting killed too fast. Tow cables, sure, but that isn't the only way. Turrets also can take them down if used in teams. You will have to see for yourself of course. I got my copy already, not that it mattered... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vezner Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 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 disagree. BF1942 version 1.6 is about as finished of a game as I have ever played. I never have a problem and I've been playing BF1942 since the first SP Demo was released, so I know what BF1942 felt like when it wasn't finished. BF1942 v 1.6 is a very finished product. Having said that, I do think that IGN was very harsh on their score for the PC version of Battlefront. But quite frankly I don't put much stock in reviews anyway. There are many games that are reviewed very poorly and yet they are still very fun IMO. Reviews are nothing more than the opinion of another gamer who happens to get his opinions published. His opinion doesn't mean any more than yours does. If you love Star Wars, have loved watching the Battlefront videos, and think that the game looks cool. Buy it. If you still have doubts, try the demo. If you love the demo, buy it. It's really very easy logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
italegion Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 where is gone the ign "readers score"? last time i visited it was setted to 8,5- they've removed because too far from their 7,5? http://pc.ign.com/articles/549/549157p4.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.