some more reviews

[italegion]

i am not sure if someone was already posted, anyway here they are:

 

http://www.computergames.ro/site/p/articles/o/review/lng/en/artid/571/star_wars_battlefront.html

Gameplay 82

Graphics 92

Sound 92

Impression 86

Final Score 88

"Pandemic have managed to overcome the "good movie licenses mean poor games" curse and create a title which, if properly supported by the community, will become a worthy alternative to the titles which are currently been played in iCafe's all over the world."

"On the technical side however, there's nothing else to say but WOW. The game is both a visual and audio feast for every Star Wars fan and then some. The engine that Pandemic have created for Battlefront is impressive, to say the least: motion blur, distortion/bump mapping and pixelshading effects, all come together to create one of the most beautiful graphics seen in a first person shooter this year, managing to recreate all those magical places seen in the movies: the endless dune sea of Tatooine, the vast icy stretches of Hoth, the green plains of Naboo or the lush vegetation on Yavin 4. Not even the screenshots do the game justice; you have to see it for yourself. Even the small details, like the heavy rain on Kamino, the light rays from the forests of Endor or the shadows cast down by the over passing clouds are excellently done and greatly contribute to the player's immersion (Tipoca City and Endor are perhaps the most beautiful maps from the game)."

 

 

http://www.gamebiz.com.au/reviews.php?action=display&id=449

75%

Star Wars BattleFront is a fantastic game, the more I play, and the more I like it. Sure there is no real single player, but the online game makes up for it. I’d also like to see a few more game types. To make the maps more challenging.

 

Thumbs Up

Addictive game play

Battlefront has absolutely everything Star Wars fans could want

32 player online support

 

Thumbs Down

AI doesn’t provide any challenge

Battlefront doesn't deliver anything PC players haven't seen before

 

 

http://www.actiontrip.com/reviews/starwarsbattlefront.phtml

Good 73

highs

Decent renderings of the major battles of the Star Wars universe, fun SP campaigns (if not a bit short);

 

lows

Awful AI, no real differences between infantry on any side, Jedi are completely useless in battle, map design is non-descript at best. stability

A few odd bugs

learning curve

Moderate

 

"this is a decent game that captures the epic feel of the massive Star Wars universe in one box, but the delivery certainly leaves a lot to be improved upon. I wanted to love this game (what Star Wars fanatic wouldn't?), but the fact is that this game is good but not great. The game needed about another 3 to 6 months of development time to get some of the bugs worked out (specifically the AI and the weapons loadouts), but I have a feeling the pressure was on since they timed the game's release with the release of the original trilogy's DVD iteration. I guess we'll have to wait for at least one to two patches for this game to truly be done, which is monumentally disappointing."

 

 

http://www.gamers-depot.com/games/action/sw_bf/001.htm

 

http://www.xpd8.net/reviews.asp?id=217

 

http://www.deadalfs.co.uk/reviews/1738/

There is already a BF1942 Star Wars mod (the ever improving Galactic Conquest), and I don't think I was the only one thinking that mod would quietly fade away after the release of Battlefront.

 

How wrong I was.

Gameplay is... compressed. It feels like they've taken a huge BF1942 map, cut off the outside bits and left us with the main combat area. While this certainly increases the amount of time you spend fighting, one of the big things about BF1942 is the size of the maps. Battlefront maps feel like you're playing in the conservatory when you want to be playing in the garden. The maps are also dubiously designed. The Bespin platform map especially - bottleneck in the center of the map, so the only way forward is to press through this (which quickly becomes dull) or leap in a starfighter and fly round the back (which is not easy as the enemy turrets are 3 feet from where you take off). I appreciate the need to cater for the console crowd with this game, which may explain the ickle levels, but why why WHY do the PC users have to put up with the same thing? If I want to play a console game, let me decide that for myself and go and buy a console. When I buy a PC game I expect, nay DEMAND, that what I'm getting is going to use the strengths of the PC platform, instead of just being a copy and paste of the console version. Grrr.

 

Multiplayer is rather special. In that I've not seen such shocking implementation of something so very obviously not tested since erm... Windows 2000. The in-game server browser worked for a couple of minutes and now sits empty. Playing via Gamespy itself (the in-game system uses Gamespy as well) displays servers in my country (including the always excellent Jolt fellas), yet clicking to join loads the game up (with all the sodding intro credits - grrrr), then connects me to my Gamespy account again (WHY???), then gives me a nice Joining Session display for 60 seconds before it gives up. It's not like other people haven't had similiar problems before (H&D2 had some issues like this), so WHY IN THE NAME OF THE SWEET BABY JESUS DID NOBODY IN THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM NOTICE???? It's almost criminal. It's like releasing a motor car without securing the wheels.

Apart from the graphics engine, the whole game feels rushed and incomplete, like somebody somewhere said "Yes, it will be ready to coincide with the original trilogy DVD release" without actually speaking to the people making the game. The manual is 3 pages long and as informative as a pile of Bantha poodoo. The joining a multiplayer game code is unforgiveable, like someone said "Look, the console MP works, sod the PC users, the money's in consoles!", and when you actually do get in a game the lag is criminal and renders the air vehicles useless and the rolly droid thing uncontrollable when it's rolling. How did nobody look at this? Is this why there was no demo? CAN I GET MY MONEY BACK NOW?

 

But, it has potential. A few tweaks to the netcode, a massive overhaul of the MP connection system (and allowing use of PAGE UP and PAGE DOWN to go through the server browser... aaargh, more console legacy stuff) and allowing the mod community to create some balanced maps would make the game work. Unfortunately I can't help but feel that the game is supposed to keep you involved for a few months until the next Star Wars game comes out.

 

Shameful.

 

Presentation 9

Only the character textures let it down. The closest thing to being in a Star Wars battle you're liable to get. Until version .5 of Galactic Conquest, probably.

Gameplay 5

Claustrophobic, cramped, but intense.

Value 3

Get BF1942. Download Galactic Conquest. Or wait until they patch the game so multiplayer works.

Benchmark 1

Yes, ONE. If we set aside how lovely it looks, what do we have? A console version of BF1942? No, a console version of BF1942 before someone made it a good game.

Score 4

It's 4.5, but I'm going to round it down because, hey, if games developers can release games that don't work, games reviewers can round down, can't they?