Your REVIEWS/THOUGHTS! [Big merge]

[Outlaw_VR]

The game has potential, but for a 'modern' FPS PC game it is missing alot of cruical features and has many obsolete ones.

 

1. For starters, going prone and running up and down have almost the same effect on aim. Sure, going prone makes you harder to hit target, but so does strafing back and forth, and both have the same aim. So going prone or crouching just makes you into a easy to hit staionary target.

 

2. I've said it once..l'll say it again..strafing speeds are faster then any other recent FPS games in memory. Added with almost zero aim penalties, strafing back and forth becomes a viable tactic. But when ppl get locked up in a 'Strafe War' the outcome usually depends on who has the better connection and not skill and tactics.

 

3. Blaster damage is way too low ATM. It takes 6 shots to kill someone (9 for Wookie). This makes the standard infantry class not the ideal class to kill infantry. This promotes meat shielding as you run around shooting missles, gernade spaming and emp poprarting. Not very engaging gameplay.

 

With the 3 issues I listed above, all have relatively easy fixes. Its just a matter of changing some variables in the current code.

 

With the first, the code to add aim penalties is in the game already. Im sure you have noticed your aim goes berserk after shooting for prolonged period of time. Simply change it so while running your aim will stay steady for a couple shots before faultering. While standing 3-4 shots. Crouched 10 shots. Prone will never faulter. With the sniper gun add a simlar system. While prone it will hit the center of your reticle everytime. Crouched less so...and so on. These are just examples.

 

The secong one is a simple varible change reduction to the speed of starfing and backpeddling (though leave the forward speed alone.)

 

The 3rd is simpliest change of all, but will have a profound change to the gameplay.

 

I still have hope the patches and new maps will rectify many of the current issues PC gamers have with the game.

[JediCrow]

This game is no dud. I've had alot of fun with it on and offline and I'm a tad older than 5. I have it for Xbox but I have played BF1942 and found it kinda dull. SWBF is MUCH MORE fun. I guess I'm a bit of a SW fanboy but I'm sure I'm not the only one here, as this is LUCASFORUMS after all.

[[RNGD]Tyrant]

this issue is one of the frustrations with Lucas Forums. ONe of the reasons you get different reactions is because there are different games.

 

for some issues its the same, but for the issues noted in this thread we are talking about 3 different games....and it is fairly clear from this forum and other forums that those who have the PC game are the most frustrated.

 

The question is...will LEC just 'write off' the PC gamers and say to themselves "well 2 out of 3 aint bad"

[JediCrow]

Originally posted by [RNGD]Tyrant

this issue is one of the frustrations with Lucas Forums. ONe of the reasons you get different reactions is because there are different games.

 

for some issues its the same, but for the issues noted in this thread we are talking about 3 different games....and it is fairly clear from this forum and other forums that those who have the PC game are the most frustrated.

 

The question is...will LEC just 'write off' the PC gamers and say to themselves "well 2 out of 3 aint bad"

 

They would be foolish too, since they can fix most problems with a patch and not nearly everyone is as uptight about the "faults" of this game as the person who started this (very overdone by now) topic.

[[RNGD]Tyrant]

I dont understand why people who dont have the PC game feel the need to criticize those who have problems with it.

 

this is proving my point that each version of the game is creating different reactions.

 

for myself I dont bother reading or commenting on PS2 and XBox threads since I dont have those version and have no opinion about them. (except to say that even a casual view of all the forums on SWBF seem to show that the consolers have far far far fewer problems with this game)

[MadCellist]

after thinking about this more I have to ask myself what do I keep hoping for? Xw vs TF my hope was teams of people working together in huge starfighter battles, refighting the movies and more. Total furball failure there.

SWG I was hoping for something that did have a 'twitch factor'. I honestly believed that there was going to be warfare in SWG (oh yeah, because they said there would be war zones, silly me for reading thebox). Who didn't hope that some element resembling SWBF would not be found in SWG? I guess I just don't like mp shooters that all rely on bandwith to function. I'm more of a CS junkie than MP JK2 were it is all fragfest without thought, strategy or higher brain function.

I love the Single player JK games (although the play length of them seems shorter all the time). Loved Rogue squadron. Why do the vehicle physics have to be so simple when they already have a 3-5 year old series of games that do more? (console-itis).

I guess I want something that is immersive, intuitive but also takes skill. Who doesn't want to step into SW galaxy and take part? blast a storm trooper and save an ewok. But there should be a learning curve that extends farther than how to install game and configure joystick. Yawn. back to work to earn more money to buy a more challenging game.

Someday we'll all meet up in Dreampark and play a real game. I hope ;/

[Darth Chuckles]

Originally posted by Outlaw_VR

 

1. For starters, going prone and running up and down have almost the same effect on aim. Sure, going prone makes you harder to hit target, but so does strafing back and forth, and both have the same aim. So going prone or crouching just makes you into a easy to hit staionary target.

 

yes, but when you're prone in the right places you can't even be seen to be shot at. try going prone under a bush or near a rock ridge. crouch-run past low ledges. it has its advantages.

 

2. I've said it once..l'll say it again..strafing speeds are faster then any other recent FPS games in memory. Added with almost zero aim penalties, strafing back and forth becomes a viable tactic. But when ppl get locked up in a 'Strafe War' the outcome usually depends on who has the better connection and not skill and tactics.

 

this is not Quake. the battles are not won at short range in circle-strafing rocket-fests (unless you're a Dark Trooper or Rebel pilot, that is. my enemies are generally dead before they get close enough to go into strafe mode. I suggest everyone stop deathmatching and play the game properly...

 

3. Blaster damage is way too low ATM. It takes 6 shots to kill someone (9 for Wookie). This makes the standard infantry class not the ideal class to kill infantry. This promotes meat shielding as you run around shooting missles, gernade spaming and emp poprarting. Not very engaging gameplay.

 

because after all, everyone should die in one shot like they do in Counterstrike. Infantry has a nice rapid-fire weapon that will mow down the opposition pretty quickly. Six shots? Sure... in two seconds.

 

Besides, I'd like the chance to respond when someone shoots me. Not die the moment he pulls the trigger. The game's full of instant death as it is, you want more?

[Iceman_IX]

But the game ISN'T full of instant death as it is. When someone is STANDING STILL I can pelt them with infantry blaster shots to the torso/head and they don't die till, you said it, two or more seconds later. Do you know how long that is in a game? Think about it. That's half an eternity. And if someone is moving (as they should be) it takes even longer. Just a minor tweak, nothing major. 3 shots. 4 shots. That would be much better, would make the normal class balance better against the missile troops or snipers.

 

I suggest everyone stop deathmatching and play the game properly...

Properly? Heh, and I suppose your opinion of what is proper is somehow more valid than my estimation of "proper"? Strafing is a must.

[Zmidponk]

Originally posted by Darth Chuckles

yes, but when you're prone in the right places you can't even be seen to be shot at. try going prone under a bush or near a rock ridge. crouch-run past low ledges. it has its advantages.

 

And you would still have those advantages if it was made like, to pick a game completely at random, Battlefield 1942. You would also have extra ones. Realistic ones.

 

this is not Quake. the battles are not won at short range in circle-strafing rocket-fests (unless you're a Dark Trooper or Rebel pilot, that is.

 

So why make it like Quake?

 

my enemies are generally dead before they get close enough to go into strafe mode. I suggest everyone stop deathmatching and play the game properly...

 

As long as 'deathmatching' is a viable tactic (which it is), they won't. I agree, people should play the game properly, but because it gives them an advantage, not because you, me, or anyone else, tells them they should.

 

because after all, everyone should die in one shot like they do in Counterstrike.

 

One shot? No (unless it's a rocket or sommat like that). Three or four shots? Yes. Six or seven shots? Should have been dead three or four shots ago.

 

Infantry has a nice rapid-fire weapon that will mow down the opposition pretty quickly. Six shots? Sure... in two seconds.

 

Besides, I'd like the chance to respond when someone shoots me. Not die the moment he pulls the trigger. The game's full of instant death as it is, you want more?

 

If you manage to sneak up behind someone, point your gun at their back and start firing before they even realise you're there, they should not have the time to register they are being shot, turn around, and start blasting you. By the time they finish turning around, they should be dead. In SW:BF, I've been on both sides of that scenario, and I still say it shouldn't happen.

[Brodieman]

I'm a huge Starwars fan saw all the original movies at the drive in blah blah blah.

 

The game isn't that great.

 

It feels rushed and there are quite a few balance issues and networking issues that need to be addressed asap.

 

The presentation is among the worst I have ever seen in a game, particularly for todays day and age - Wireframe? Low to no options (for anything)? Throwing a few movie clips in to make the maps seem more Star Warsie doesn't work, particularly when the link between the footage and the map itself is tenuous at best.

 

But it is damn easy to pick up and play straight away. Fire her up and get into it it's a no brainer and setting up a server is simplicity itself (mostly due to the lack of options). That's great in one way bad in another.

 

The bloom option gives that nice diffuse game that adds to realisim allegedly but does it's fair share of hiding low res textures instead, it was used to far better effet in Full Spectrum Warrior which from my guess uses the exact same engine.

 

The maps are often too small giving you limited options and the same old chokepoints time, and time again when it comes to trying to take objectives. Hoth in particularly should of been bigger and more open so that the teams can really mix it up, though the current design does limit the power of the AT-AT which is so excessively powerful it's horrible to witness.

 

Out of the box the game is, unfortunately, decidedly average developer support - ie patches and maps will maek or break this game the online gaming community are quite fickle and will move to something better.

 

I think the best way i can sum up the game is like this: It feels like a cheaper version of the Ut2k3/4 mod Galactic Conquest. What gets me though is that Sam N Max: Freelance Police is canned so stuff like this can get out.

[Zmidponk]

Originally posted by Brodieman

I think the best way i can sum up the game is like this: It feels like a cheaper version of the Ut2k3/4 mod Galactic Conquest.

 

You're not thinking of the Troopers: Dawn of Destiny mod, are you? The reason I ask is that the only 'Galactic Conquest' mod I know of is the (rather good, IMO) one for Battlefield 1942.

[Brodieman]

Originally posted by Zmidponk2

You're not thinking of the Troopers: Dawn of Destiny mod, are you? The reason I ask is that the only 'Galactic Conquest' mod I know of is the (rather good, IMO) one for Battlefield 1942.

 

That might be it, i think you're right! galactic conquest for BF1942, troopers for Ut, incidentally both of which are superior to this game at the moment.

 

Thanks for the correction

[Darth Chuckles]

Originally posted by Iceman_IX

 

Properly? Heh, and I suppose your opinion of what is proper is somehow more valid than my estimation of "proper"? Strafing is a must. [/b]

 

you misunderstand. if people on *your* team would work as a unit and properly defend the points on the map these deathmatchers would never get close enough to strafe you. I've seen it happen on a few rare occasions. Teamwork? Imagine that. Most of the time I play everyone just spawns and starts running around shewtin' an' killin'. Nobody defends command points, nobody uses pilots properly, and nobody knows how to defend against vehicles.

 

If you reduced accuracy when moving two things would happen. 1) snipers would pwn even more than they already do because their targets would have to stop to actually do anything and 2) fights would take *longer* (which you hate) because nobody could hit each other while running.

 

So why make it like Quake?

 

I don't think it's like Quake, unless you think all first-person shootin' games are Quake. BF1942, your baby, can be called Quake with that definition. Trying to zip up to someone so you can go all strafy with your rocket launcher will get you killed against anyone with half a brain. Now, if you mean zig-zagging while running to just make yourself a harder target... duh? But it still doesn't work all that well against someone who leads their shots properly. Troopers don't run all that fast.

 

As long as 'deathmatching' is a viable tactic (which it is), they won't. I agree, people should play the game properly, but because it gives them an advantage, not because you, me, or anyone else, tells them they should.

 

ha. see the problem is, deathmatching is *not* a viable tactic unless everyone's doing it... which everyone currently is. In the games I've played, the team that actually works together, supports their vehicles, etc. locks down the other team and blows them off the map. But no one does that; they all just run around and shewt shewt shewt and eventually one team wins. Screwing with accuracy won't stop that. It won't make people stop leaving their teammates behind even though the tank seats two or more because they wanna get back to shewtin'. It won't stop people from just rocketpacking around the map taking (and losing just as fast) all the command points, or any number of a hundred other stupid things.

 

One shot? No (unless it's a rocket or sommat like that). Three or four shots? Yes. Six or seven shots? Should have been dead three or four shots ago.

 

a trooper's weapon can take those shots in a very short amount of time. it's negligible. I want to survive longer than 1.2 seconds against the first enemy I see.

 

If you manage to sneak up behind someone, point your gun at their back and start firing before they even realise you're there, they should not have the time to register they are being shot, turn around, and start blasting you. By the time they finish turning around, they should be dead. In SW:BF, I've been on both sides of that scenario, and I still say it shouldn't happen.

 

yes, but if you change it so it happens from the back, it'll happen from the front... and then every battle will go to the guy, as you said, with the better connection who saw/shot first.

 

Look, you obviously like BF1942. I've never played it. I think Battlefront's a nice, fast-paced little wargame and I don't want to see it turned into Counterstrike With Stormtroopers. I already spawn, see a guy standing there, and die. Reducing the amount of shots require to kill someone considering how fast the game moves is not a good idea. Two seconds is an "eternity?" I'm sorry, that borders on ADD to me.

 

just my opinion, nothing more.

[Skellington]

Just thought I'd chime in with everyone else. Have the PC version, and have been playing the Xbox demo as well. Has anyone else noticed that there are multiple weapon settings in the Xbox demo but not the PC? That the Endor Bunker battle NEVER comes down to a fight for the bunker?!!! It always seems to end up as a skirmish around the village or camp? That heroes, well, SUCK (what about a Jedi class, or many NPCs, but are killable - just look at AotC, they got OWNED by the droids, that the AI generally has no friggin' CLUE when you're standing right next to them (heroes included, I kept waiting for Vader to attack me on Hoth, but he just stood there like a chump).

All in all, the PC version seems to look better than the Xbox version, the AI is weak at best, there aren't nearly enough maps or variety in objective and winning conditions (I mean, the evacuation of Hoth...you BEAT THE IMPERIALS OFF THE PLANET?!!!!! You WIPE OUT THE ENTIRE IMPERIAL PRESENCE ON ENDOR?!!!! Some variety in win conditions would have been tremendously appreciated, maybe you HAVE to take certain points, you HAVE to withstand the assault for a certain time...something.

If anything is to save this game, it'll be community editing and map creation. I assume no one has made much progress there yet, but, I mean, I've had the game a week, and already feel like I've played it to death. Anyone else feeling like it's just NOT finished yet?

[rut-wa jodar]

Originally posted by Skellington

Just thought I'd chime in with everyone else. Have the PC version, and have been playing the Xbox demo as well. Has anyone else noticed that there are multiple weapon settings in the Xbox demo but not the PC? That the Endor Bunker battle NEVER comes down to a fight for the bunker?!!! It always seems to end up as a skirmish around the village or camp? That heroes, well, SUCK (what about a Jedi class, or many NPCs, but are killable - just look at AotC, they got OWNED by the droids, that the AI generally has no friggin' CLUE when you're standing right next to them (heroes included, I kept waiting for Vader to attack me on Hoth, but he just stood there like a chump).

All in all, the PC version seems to look better than the Xbox version, the AI is weak at best, there aren't nearly enough maps or variety in objective and winning conditions (I mean, the evacuation of Hoth...you BEAT THE IMPERIALS OFF THE PLANET?!!!!! You WIPE OUT THE ENTIRE IMPERIAL PRESENCE ON ENDOR?!!!! Some variety in win conditions would have been tremendously appreciated, maybe you HAVE to take certain points, you HAVE to withstand the assault for a certain time...something.

If anything is to save this game, it'll be community editing and map creation. I assume no one has made much progress there yet, but, I mean, I've had the game a week, and already feel like I've played it to death. Anyone else feeling like it's just NOT finished yet?

 

 

I sometimes wonder if some people are playing the same game .

[Diabloviper10]

Hey its a video game ok u think that if the rebels lost everytime in the hoth level that anyone would want to play the game?? Or how about if all the droids could go down with one shot no one would play them. They have to make the game fun so think of the cool stuff thet you can do in the game and use your imaganation. If it was exactly like the movies i know i wouldn't play.

[Zmidponk]

Originally posted by Darth Chuckles

you misunderstand. if people on *your* team would work as a unit and properly defend the points on the map these deathmatchers would never get close enough to strafe you. I've seen it happen on a few rare occasions. Teamwork? Imagine that. Most of the time I play everyone just spawns and starts running around shewtin' an' killin'.

 

The reason for that? This is almost as good a tactic as anything else. I've played on teams a couple of times that actually *HAVE* used teamwork and tactics (or tried to) whilst the opposing team 'deathmatched'. The result? Instead of us handing them their collective ass on a plate, we always won on those occassions, but more often than not by a close margin. We found we simply could not use many tactics due to lack of space, and were reduced to using incredibly complex tactics (note: sarcasm ) like 'attacking in groups'.

 

If you reduced accuracy when moving two things would happen. 1) snipers would pwn even more than they already do because their targets would have to stop to actually do anything

 

In my experience, snipers don't 'pwn', even on the occassions they should. More often than not, if I see an enemy sniper, if he's lucky or skillful, he might kill me once. When I respawn, he's dead, because I can shoot him rapid-fire as a trooper at the kind of distance he should only be able to shoot me.

 

and 2) fights would take *longer* (which you hate) because nobody could hit each other while running.

 

How long does it take to stop running? Half a second? If that? How long does it take to crouch or even go prone to improve your accuracy? Another half second? If that? How long does it take to get up again once you've fired a burst? Another half second? If that? That's 1.5 seconds - at most. What's the risk of using that 1.5 seconds? Assuming everyone has their accuracy altered in this way, and you do sensible things like use cover, not much. What do you gain by altering the game in this way? It plays and looks more realistic, and becomes that smidgeon less of an arcade game.

 

I don't think it's like Quake, unless you think all first-person shootin' games are Quake.

 

No, I just thinks all FPSs with the principle 'if it moves, shoot it, if it doesn't, shoot it anyway' are like Quake. At the moment, that's how SW:BF plays, and that seems to be what it is designed to encourage.

 

BF1942, your baby, can be called Quake with that definition. Trying to zip up to someone so you can go all strafy with your rocket launcher will get you killed against anyone with half a brain. Now, if you mean zig-zagging while running to just make yourself a harder target... duh? But it still doesn't work all that well against someone who leads their shots properly. Troopers don't run all that fast.

 

Erm, you do realise that is true of Quake as well?

 

ha. see the problem is, deathmatching is *not* a viable tactic unless everyone's doing it... which everyone currently is. In the games I've played, the team that actually works together, supports their vehicles, etc. locks down the other team and blows them off the map.

 

My experience is just the opposite. Using teamwork and tactics in this way gives a slight edge, but nothing more.

 

But no one does that; they all just run around and shewt shewt shewt and eventually one team wins. Screwing with accuracy won't stop that. It won't make people stop leaving their teammates behind even though the tank seats two or more because they wanna get back to shewtin'. It won't stop people from just rocketpacking around the map taking (and losing just as fast) all the command points, or any number of a hundred other stupid things.

 

You're correct - screwing with accuracy won't do that. What it will do is make the game more realistic. It will make the sniper useful. NOTHING can stop people doing these things. What will encourage people to stop doing them is if the game is balanced so that a team maximising their potential using tactics and teamwork and not doing the stupid acts above will systematically and completely destroy a team 'deathmatching' and doing the above every time.

 

a trooper's weapon can take those shots in a very short amount of time. it's negligible. I want to survive longer than 1.2 seconds against the first enemy I see.

 

As it stands, it takes a ridiculous amount of firepower to bring someone down, unless you're talking about explosives of some decription or extremely heavy weapons (ie the AT-ATs guns). This should not be.

 

yes, but if you change it so it happens from the back, it'll happen from the front... and then every battle will go to the guy, as you said, with the better connection who saw/shot first.

 

Look, you obviously like BF1942. I've never played it. I think Battlefront's a nice, fast-paced little wargame and I don't want to see it turned into Counterstrike With Stormtroopers. I already spawn, see a guy standing there, and die.

 

That has happened to me as well. That's usually down to one of three things:

 

1) It's someone spawn-camping, and it's actually a vehicle I see.

2) Because of lag, I've actually had several seconds worth of fire-power poured into me, it's just the lag causes it to catch up with me all at once. (Hell, I've actually done that to other people as well.)

3) A lucky shot by a rocket or other explosive - it explodes beside me as I spawn.

 

Reducing the amount of shots require to kill someone considering how fast the game moves is not a good idea. Two seconds is an "eternity?" I'm sorry, that borders on ADD to me.

 

No, it's a mixture of realism, fast reflexes and an insane amount of gaming.

[Outlaw_VR]

If you reduced accuracy when moving two things would happen. 1) snipers would pwn even more than they already do because their targets would have to stop to actually do anything and 2) fights would take *longer* (which you hate) because nobody could hit each other while running.

 

No, it would bring the game back to the 21st century and bring it in line with recent games like BF42 and the like. Snipers don't pwn in BF42 because ppl realised you actually have to capture spawn points. Sitting somewhere sniping accomplishes nothing. In those games ppl can kill running just fine, but they can kill more effiecently prone or crouching.

 

I don't think it's like Quake, unless you think all first-person shootin' games are Quake. BF1942, your baby, can be called Quake with that definition. Trying to zip up to someone so you can go all strafy with your rocket launcher will get you killed against anyone with half a brain. Now, if you mean zig-zagging while running to just make yourself a harder target... duh? But it still doesn't work all that well against someone who leads their shots properly. Troopers don't run all that fast.

 

Are you serious? Strafing with rocket launcher is a very vialbe tactic, more so then trying to kill ppl with the pea-shooter blaster rifles.

 

Abusing lag by Zig zagging back and forth to avoid fire is an old "feature" better left in antiquated games such as (you guessed it) Quake. In modern games this is not as useful as it once was, but in SWBF (with is fast strafing speeds) it is very viable.

 

ha. see the problem is, deathmatching is *not* a viable tactic unless everyone's doing it... which everyone currently is.

 

Come on dude. Give us a break. Of course deathmatching is a viable tactic...their is a good reason why everyone is doing it.

 

In the games I've played, the team that actually works together, supports their vehicles, etc. locks down the other team and blows them off the map. But no one does that; they all just run around and shewt shewt shewt and eventually one team wins. Screwing with accuracy won't stop that. It won't make people stop leaving their teammates behind even though the tank seats two or more because they wanna get back to shewtin'.

 

I guarante you that "screwing" with how accuracy works, slowing down strafing and backpeddling speeds, and upping the damage on blaster rifles WILL force ppl to play smarter.

 

It won't stop people from just rocketpacking around the map taking (and losing just as fast) all the command points, or any number of a hundred other stupid things.

 

One of you better arguements. But thats an issue with the jetpacks. One step at a time.

 

a trooper's weapon can take those shots in a very short amount of time. it's negligible. I want to survive longer than 1.2 seconds against the first enemy I see.

 

Then you must really dislike rocket luanchers? I survive less then 1.2 seconds against them.

 

yes, but if you change it so it happens from the back, it'll happen from the front... and then every battle will go to the guy, as you said, with the better connection who saw/shot first.

 

What decides who sees who first relies more on positioning and tactics then conection. We want to reward good positioning rather then who can smash "a" and "d" the fastest.

 

Look, you obviously like BF1942. I've never played it.

 

Thats the biggest detriment to your whole arguement (since this game is largely influenced on it). Go play BF42, then come back and tell us your opinion.

 

I think Battlefront's a nice, fast-paced little wargame and I don't want to see it turned into Counterstrike With Stormtroopers. I already spawn, see a guy standing there, and die. Reducing the amount of shots require to kill someone considering how fast the game moves is not a good idea. Two seconds is an "eternity?" I'm sorry, that borders on ADD to me.

 

just my opinion, nothing more. [/b]

 

Thats your opinion. But most PC gamers I've talked to WERE hoping for as you say 'CS or BF with Stormtroopers'. They make up the majority of the PC FPS audience, sorry. Besides one shot kills already happen in the game. Upping the blaster damage won't change that.

[BurnsU]

Preacher, why would you rate the console and PC versions so differently as if PC version was a completely different game.

 

No offense but most of your gripes are controls and graphics. Both of which can be fixed one way or another.(AA, custom controls). Theres no way you can differ them by 30% and more when the gameplay is the same.

[JustSoICanView]

I've started playing the game yesterday and already finished both of the historical campaigns, and 3 galactic conquests. I expected real single player which would be a bit different from the multiplayer. I must say I'm rather disappointed

[LoQ]

As with the Battlefield games (which this game is very much based off of), multiplay is the main focus. The singleplay portion is really just there for you to practice up for multi. Basicly the game is big on multiplay and small on single.

[JustSoICanView]

It's just that they promissed to have real singleplayer in the very beginning...

[insanellama]

well so far they shouldn't really be bragging about the online play too much...its kinda bad but obviously the lag and servers and such will get better

 

and i agree the single player is too short and not deep or anything at all

[Skellington]

Okay, maybe what I was saying there got lost on everybody. My point is that there are simply not enough win conditions in this game. It ALWAYS comes down to the same thing, deathmatch until all reenforcements are dead. There is something sorely dull and tired about that. It would not be a major technical issue to simply have added a couple of alternate conditions IE - hold Echo Base until 15 minutes elapse, detroy the shield bunker at all costs. There simply is NOT enough options in this game to make it compelling as it is. What about a simple thing like restricting certain classes on a game? What about heroes only for one side? What about changing the number of reenforcments available to lengthen or shorten a game, or handicap one side? There all seem pretty obvious, easy to implement, and exist in other games. What about a large space map with capital ship gun stations? What about a decent AI that doesn't stand around picking its' nose while you blast the bejeezus out of it? Where are the plethora of maps to play on? There is a great game ALMOST in this thing, which is what makes it so maddening. It LOOKS good, the action is furious, the classes are nicely balanced, but it feels like half a game.

[MrGrinch88]

Originally posted by The_Preacher

just offering some thoughts on teh Pc version.

 

well i myself have played it. and i would have to agree with IGN review to some extent. (dont believe the thing about the Bots though, there no where near as stupid as IGN makes them out to be)

 

its an ok at best PC game, but good for consoles. its so obvious this game was designed for consoles and ported to PC.

 

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 )

 

the graphics imo look worse on PC than the PS2 or Xbox because the PC uses a monitor, therefore you have a higher resolution wich shows up the low poly models and textures much more than a TV does.

 

The game however is very fun as an infantry game, and imo they should have left it at that. OR come up with better code for the vehicles. maps like Mos eisly and rhen var, yavin temple etc, realy show how good an infantry game it is.

 

sound effects are great, and the maps are pretty good, if a little small. (hoth suffers greatly from this)

 

my advice would be if you have a console ANd a PC, go for the console version, as the Pc version just doesnt feel right in comparison.

 

it sounds strange i know, but as the game was made for consoles, if i were to score it, id give the console version a higher score than the PC version simply because it Feels right on a console, and feels like a cheap port on PC.

 

there both identicle, except that maps like endor have more vegitation on the PC version.

 

the major gripes not concerning controls or feel i have being a bit of a star wars nerd, are the fact that everything feels miniature. like little lego things or something. the scales of the At-AT's ships, and people seem to small and midget like. proportions just seem very odd, has anyone else felt that?

 

anyway thats my thoughts on the PC, if you have a console, go for the console version, the benefits of going for the Pc are not enough to justify the worse gameplay and feel.

 

however no one has to listen to my opinon, just thought id help those wondering where their money should go

 

cheers.

Preach

 

 

PREACHER

 

may i remind you that DOOM 3 (the last time i checked) is the most graphically advanced game and you need a REALLY beefy graphics card for it.... Plus they needed it to be compatible with the consoles too...,