panzer214 Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 sorry PLEASE STATE WHICH VERSION PS2,XBOX OR PC IF YOU DO NOT WE WILL TAKE IT AS FOR EVERY SYSTEM i hope that makes it clearer ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Preacher Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 oh hey dont get me wrong. i never said the graphics on Pc were rubbish. all i said was that they "seem" better on a console since the low resolution kind of hides the low poly models and low res textures. kinda like. low res goes with low res. and high res goes with high res. instead of low res trying to go with high res. the high definition makes it clearer that there lower resolution textures. but at the end of the day there not terrible, the graphics just look (to me at least) as though there already a year or 2 old. and yes im an Avid Pc gamer. Been playing PC games and first person shooters online since Half life came out. and yes i would normally, be on your side. i woudl be saying Pc is always greater than consoles, as you have much more accurate movement etc. i am also a big Ps2 gamer aswell, and have my fair share of First person shooters for the Ps2. now, 99% of the time, the Pc is much better for first person shooters, however, certain games are DESIGNED by the game makers to work specifically for joypads. such as Timesplitters, Timesplitters, is a good example as to how the First person works well. However, translate this to PC, and it wouldnt have the same feeling as the console verison, because it was designed specificaly. to use another analogy. take for example, Pro Evolution soccer. All the controls, tricks, slide tackles, thru balls, headers, crosses etc. all mapped in an intuitive way on teh joypad for aplayer. now translate this directly to Pc, so your playing witht he arrow keys, and A, S and D as your shoot, tackle etc buttons. and the game INSTANTLY feels, SOO wrong. it feels terrible and the appeal of the game is lost. Same goes for beat em ups like soul calibre or something, it looses its feel completely. however, the point you guys Might be missing from what im saying is. that leads me back to SWBF the game FEELS as though it was DESIGNED for a console. Meaning, the vehicles flight code and everything were shaped, and the dynamics were created to suit someone on a PS2 or an X-box. they werent created for Pc Ala BF1942. i cant realy think of any other ways to simplify what im trying to say im sorry if what im saying isnt coming accross clearly. preach P.s. Im not attacking the game, or having a go. just trying to have an intelligent convo with you guys, and trying to help advise people from my experiences. oh and btw, its 1:24 Am here, so if i dont reply im asleep lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasa-chosen Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Let people buy the game and see how the graphics our on the pc. And i hate to tell you but I know alot about pc's. So do try the i am so much smarter then u so i am going to try to spoon feed you the info. Did you even look at the picture i posted? That is 1280 x 1024. I played Battlefield and i have a ps2. Well anyway I am done. Your so much smarter then us. You are the only person I seen yet to say the graphics are better on the consoles then the PC. But then again you are a computer genius. Even ign said the graphics looked better on the PC. This is my last post cause you are set in your opinion. I just hope you dont cause people not to buy it on the PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
italegion Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 i have to agree with The_Peacher look here http://img66.exs.cx/img66/9003/screenshot_5.jpg it was taken at 1024x768 at fullest quality and those dark textures on the ground, they look so bad - they were just resampled from the console version with the simplest of the process. hope they will fix all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vader523 Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 I read a big report saying the game was originally supposed to be made for PS2 and XBox and that was it. During the creation process, they decided to make it for the PC also. As the post above me states, many things were ported into the PC version. Yes, graphics will be better for PC, but not by much. I like the PS2 controller anyway (Especially for vehicles... A speeder bike with keyboard ans mouse: Yikes!). Im sticking to the PS2, but everyone has their own opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YourBestFriend Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Originally posted by italegion i have to agree with The_Peacher look here http://img66.exs.cx/img66/9003/screenshot_5.jpg it was taken at 1024x768 at fullest quality and those dark textures on the ground, they look so bad - they were just resampled from the console version with the simplest of the process. hope they will fix all this. Yeah, definately playing in 3rd person looking at that... pretty reflections though, those must be cloud city. Someone should make a rebel blockade runner map from the beginning of A new hope. That would be sweet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Preacher Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 well. jasa, im sorry you feel that i came accross with teh smarter than you thing. granted i assumed your knowledge must be to high by h eway you rplied. so im sorry for that assumption. i myself have a BSC honours degree in interactive entertainment Systems. interactive entertainments systems, encompasses, everything to do with the games and movie industry, animation, claymation, 3D modeling, photoshop, C++, game design, multimedia authoring etc etc.(im gonna get flamed for saying that lol i know, sounds arrogant) but i only state that, because i DO, have some form of semi profesional and educated knowledge on the subject of Games. but that aside, there realy is no reason to turn this into a personal matter, if it continued on a personal route im sure the thread would be closed, and that does no one any good. of course the main reaction will always be, omg is this guy on crack, PS2 better than Pc, Never. i didnt say the Ps2 gave a clearer image, i merely stated that the Clarity of a Pc monitor is actually its downfall, as it shows up the lower resolution textures, and lower poly models more prominent. For example. Anti Aliasing. Anti aliasing, Takes ajagged edge, and kind of smothes it out to make it appear a nice clear cut edge. Now if i refer this analogy to what im talking about with teh Monitor scenario of SWBF. Take SWBF, the RAW perfectly clarity picture of a PC monitor, shows it up as a jagged line, however put it on a TV with lower resolution, and that line now becomes blurred (compared to a high resolution, mega pixel per inch monitor) making it apear smother than the Pc counterpart. (please realise im not talking about actual anti ailiasing, as it obviously is beter one Pc with a good GFX card) this is merely an example analogy to help better explain my point between the monitor and TV, whears th eclarity of the monitor, is the downfall, as it shows up the lower texture resolutions and Polygons. i hope that analogy helps clear it up a bit more preach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Preacher Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 i think that screenshot is actually from inside a kamino building Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azurik12x Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Originally posted by The_Preacher just offering some thoughts on teh Pc version. the controls for vehicles (Especialy flying vehicles) are terrible. there are no flight physics like BF1942. its more like rogue squadron 1, realy arcady twitchy. you cant simply land your vehicle like in BF1942. you have to press a Take off/ Land button that automatically lands or takes off the craft (computer does it for you ) wtf? in BF1942 it was hard as HELL to fly planes! I only used them for getting into the enemy base. It was harder to shoot anything while piloting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolasurfr Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Been playing for 30 mins now and I am already wanting to play BF 1942 Desert Combat mod again....I thought this game would be alot like it but....not... Maybe the ps2 version is better then pc.... There maps are to small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singard Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 In defense of the Preacher, console games ported to PC do look inferior to games designed specifically for PC. Although the graphics undoubtedly look a lot cleaner due to better textures and higher screen resolutions, it's a technical fact that a crossplatform game is only as strong as its weakest platform. A game designed to play well on the PS2 will not hold up quite as well on the XBOX and will seem even more inferior on the PC. Remember, the maps are designed to run well on PS2, not PC. So they're going to be small. Polycount will be lower for PC, because you're using the same assets as the PS2. They've sweetened up the graphics for PC, but the game will NEVER be as good as a PC original. Now you can bash him and tell him how unconvincing he is because you desperately want the game to be great, or you can wise up to the fact that he's played the game, and he's not bashing it -- just talking about its shortcomings. Quite frankly, attacking him is not at all helpful. We're all Star Wars fans here! No need to fight with one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vezner Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 I think that the dude who started this thread gave a very fair and realistic review. He's right. 'nuf said. That's why I'm getting this on the x-box and I will continue to play BF1942 on the PC. I get the best of both worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grep Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Too funny... the guy offers a very clear and understandable review of his opinion of the game and people get their feathers ruffled. Personally, I took a look at these screenshots and they really don't look anything that great.... I've seen better models in BF42 mods. I've been on the fence in regards to buying this game and at $50, it better be dam good. This one person's review of the game won't make or break my decision, but this is like the 4th review that I've read (including IGNs) that really did not get me too excited about buying it. And I do agree... if this was geared towards consoles and then just "ported" over to the PC, then you know Lucas Arts are just looking for the cash. What makes games successful these days is its shelf-life. That includes mods, mini-mods, add-ons, maps, etc.. Vanilla BF42 is still very, very popular and was right out of the box. I also don't like the notion of buying a game "waiting for mods" to come out. That's just ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revlt Coranier Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Is small maps the only reason you don't like it? If not, could you please expand on why you do not like it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediCrow Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Originally posted by nolasurfr Been playing for 30 mins now and I am already wanting to play BF 1942 Desert Combat mod again....I thought this game would be alot like it but....not... Maybe the ps2 version is better then pc.... There maps are to small. Thanks for the.....in depth........review.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolasurfr Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 IT seems really slow, graphics are not all that good. This game would be awesome if it was 1992. Even quake had a better feel to it.....errr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone7 Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Originally posted by The_Preacher well for starters i have a GForce FX 5900 ultra with 256mb DDr ram. i have 1 gigabyte of DDR memory, soundblaster audigy player. and an AMD 1900 XP. implaying the Game at full GFX. Here is your post from the lucasarts.com forums where you posted almost exactly the same thing: http://forums.lucasarts.com/thread.jspa?threadID=4692&tstart=0 So what is it you actually have??? I personally think you are full of crap, and can't really take anything of what you say about this game for real. Originally posted by The_Preacher the mouse and keyboard are the downfall tbh. the way the game has been set up is for Console style play. the mouse and keyboard hinders the gameplay. That doesn't even make sense. Go play you little kiddie console games..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediCrow Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Originally posted by nolasurfr IT seems really slow, graphics are not all that good. This game would be awesome if it was 1992. Even quake had a better feel to it.....errr Well at least we now know they're just trolling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[RNGD]Tyrant Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 i must admit, if you take the 'star wars' out of the game...it is not on par with other modern multiplayer PC games in terms of graphics, physics, options, etc. My review is: as a console game: great as a star wars game: great as a PC multiplayer game: fair ...i only hope that the PC version will get better via mods, and patches, but I imagine by the time Battlefield 2 comes out in 6 months I will pobably have deleted this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Originally posted by JediCrow Thanks for the.....in depth........review.... Seriously. To be honest, I don't think anyone is going to consider a "review" such as this. You have a right to your opinion, but please, back it up with some more content, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolasurfr Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Also, the graphics on the Menus look like crap compared to my cell phone!!! There really missed the mark on this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I<3Stormies Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 This obviously isn't your type of game. You say its too slow, and that Quake has a better feel. W.T.F.? They aren't even CLOSE to comparable, they're about most polar opposite you can get comparing video games. I, personally, love how the game is on the slow side. Honestly, it's so friggin' frustrating to play something like Quake or Unreal and watch as people run 1500mph while rocket jumping through the map. The maps being too small I can't argue with you about, as I haven't played the full game yet. But on the demo, Endor felt perfect. And I can't imagine that Endor would be the biggest of all the maps. Maps were part of the reason I hated BF1942. Sure, you could fly a plane to the enemy base in 30-45 seconds, but good luck finding an empty aircraft. On the other hand, going on foot or in a tank was nearly impossible on most maps. By time you traversed the mountains/barricades/water the game was almost over... yay. On the graphics issue, I fully agree they're not Doom 3. But in no regards do I consider them "bad". For everything that's going on, while still keeping an excellent framerate, the graphics are amazing. Of course with the PC games out today, a simple port isn't going to look to great, but be thankful you get the game at all. They could have stuck to the plan and left this as a console project. Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whoopknacker Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Heres my reply, I dont regard what you say til I play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I<3Stormies Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Originally posted by nolasurfr I am already wanting to play BF 1942 Desert Combat mod again....I thought this game would be alot like it but....not... I have an idea... no wait, lost it... NO WAIT... lost it again... IT'S BACK! Why don't you.... PLAY DESERT COMBAT? I know, I know, it sounds crazy, but I have this weird feeling it might just work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 I know we're all excited and getting antsy in our pantsy this close to release, but let's cut back on the worthless posts and spam. Post something relevant and contributing to the topic at hand, or don't post at all. Spam will be deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.