toms Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I pretty much agree with you kurgan. Admittedly I've never really been much of a multiplayer, and haven't played any of these Battlefield games that are the big trend now (as my pc wasn't really up to it) but i thought i would see what the fuss was all about with this one as i thought it would be pretty newbie friendly (which it seems to be). I like the graphics (xbox version), and think they have done well with the atmosphere and "feel" of the movies. Running around shooting stuff can feel "just like the movies" for a short time. But there seems to be no depth to it. The AI dominated battles create a good feel if being a small soldier in a big war, but half the time you have no control over what the outcome will be. And at other times it seems like you have to win the whole war yourself... and then just as you are about to pull off your manouvre you have been carefully planning. "YOU HAVE WON" (or lost) pops up on screen and the game ends. grrr. Maybe i'm doing it wrong, but it seems almost impossible to use group tactics with the AI... they immediately run off or jump in the vehicles, so you can't get a group of them together and do anything clever.... so it just ends up like a massive UT domination game. Running around strafing and shooting everything within range... no coordinated attacks, or use of repair or medic capabilities. I've yet to find any use for crouching or going prone or sniping. Maybe if people spawned in rounds it would work better. The controls are ok on the xbox version (except for the flying vehicles) but the viewpoints aren't. In the 3rd person you seem too far from the targets to make them out... making it hard to tell who is who except by the crosshair... and reducing you to shooting at red crosshairs. The 1st person is way too low to be useful, especially when on the flimsy speeder bikes. I had great fun for about an hour, then said "is this it?". And i think it was... Play the demo... and realise there isn't any more to the retail game than the demo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Originally posted by Kurgan Another way this game is consoley is that it seems based on the model of repetative play... keep playing it over and over and over again until you memorize everything (ie: the "one right way to do it") and do it perfectly. Which is cool I guess, but just not something we PC gamers are used to. I remember reading a review that said this. Basically, the winner was decided by who followed the predesigned success path the quickest/best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I played it. I shot an ewok. I shot a gungan. I shot a wookie. I got all I wanted from it. I'll stick to my LoK and BloodRayne if you don't mind;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obi_Kwiet Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I had BF 1942. Having played it, I didn't like it much because of the graphics, and because I was used to playing game like spearhead that were more gun oriented than race for the vehicles oriented. I bet that that game wouldn't even be alive to day if it weren’t for mods. (which EA was smart enough to allow) Any way I could see that Battle Front was going to be like that, just with worse graphics and smaller maps, and worse AI to accommodate the consoles. I also knew it would have that awful "consoley" feel that some from bad console ports. This of course is the result of Game makers trying to accommodate for the console’s crappy controllers. After JA I was wary of buying another game from Lucas Arts. And, as it turns out, I was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted October 6, 2004 Author Share Posted October 6, 2004 Originally posted by Prime I remember reading a review that said this. Basically, the winner was decided by who followed the predesigned success path the quickest/best. I'm noticing a pattern as I play the maps. Basically each team has one command point where they spawn vehicles. If you skip over the other checkpoints and just immediately capture this command point, and hold it, you are virtually guarenteed to win. The only trick is finding it, and you basically need a vehicle to get there (or it takes forever on foot and by the time you arrive you are losing). I can imagine this game being really fun with lots of humans who are well coordinated, but the numbers thing confuses me. I theorized that perhaps the "32 players" (If it's truly possible on the PC) would be with the dedicated server program, rather than launching the server in-game. The DS program is HUGE, and requires a faster machine than I have (2.4 Ghz.. I have only 2.0 Ghz). The graphics in this game are great, but they are offset by the "blocky" models. Again, I realize they did this to save on performance for large numbers, but still. It's just a bit odd. Some models look better than others. Battlefront tries hard to be two different games, a team based FPS and a strategic war game. It kind does an okay job, but I think they could have made it a lot better had they taken the time and not tried to rush it out with the OT DVD set (which itself seemed a bit rushed). Oh well, I'm sure it will sell tons of copies (and it probably already has), but ultimately it seems to be an average game, more suited to the console market. I would say as far as console games go, this is probably THE best console game in a long time, and probably the best Star Wars game on a home console. From what I've read the other versions are very similar to each other, with the PS2 having the worst graphics, and the PC the best. I agree with the reviewers that said the fun in this game lies with the vehicles. And especially with humans (who can actually THINK and aim at the same time, well some of them) rather than the bots we get here. The maps where you don't have vehicles are just tedious, because the gunplay isn't as deep or as exciting with precise control you'd expect in dedicated FPS. For console gamers, it's probably enough but us PC gamers are spoiled. ; p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted October 6, 2004 Author Share Posted October 6, 2004 Beat the game tonight (Galactic Civil War & Clone Wars, but only a few missions into "Galactic Conquest" which is just repeats of the missions plus "bonus items" for not losing a planet and prequel factions in OT maps, and vice versa.. but no mixing of prequel & OT factions unfortunately!). Basically I'd say that in the SP campaigns, the Clone War factions were MUCH more fun to play. I think this was primarily because the developers had more material to work with (ie: more vehicles) since the prequel movies could do so much with CGI on the ground battles. The OT maps are more infantry focused with the Empire basically getting the decent vehicles. Also since the Prequel films mostly teased us with the battles, you finally get to see what they would have "really been like," etc. though you don't get the "hordes of Jedi" thing. Still realistically there would be one or zero Jedi in most of the battles of the Clone War, if they raged across the galaxy (only 10,000 Jedi). I wonder what this game would have been like if you could have played the Clone Wars like they were "really fought" with the Jedi actually being in command. Ie: YOU are the Jedi like Mace Windu or Yoda and you give the troops orders, while doing some butt kicking, but not all the fighting yourself. Sure, it's neat to be a grunt, but here basically the Jedi just wander around picking off the occasional guy. They seem mostly for show... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 mmm...kotor is the best star wars game on a console. ^_^ this is the best star wars mp game i've played (well, aside from mysteries of the sith) I like the galactic conquest mode, it's pretty fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Originally posted by Kurgan I would say as far as console games go, this is probably THE best console game in a long time, Oh HELLS NO, SON!!! That would be reserved for the Metal Gear Solid series. Or tons others. I prefer pc games, but I dabble around on consoles enough to know that Burnout 3 blows this game away. So do countless others. Mostly MGS games though. I like those alot if you can't tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Originally posted by Kurgan ... I would say as far as console games go, this is probably THE best console game in a long time ; p well, that's crazy talk ! I like BF for a bit of a lark, but I dont like it *that* much mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Originally posted by Rogue15 mmm...kotor is the best star wars game on a console. ^_^ this is the best star wars mp game i've played (well, aside from mysteries of the sith) I like the galactic conquest mode, it's pretty fun. And now for a moment of silence for our dear departed, Mysteries of the Sith. I know wherever you are it's become a better place. You were the most fun game a man could ever have. Goodbye, my dearest game. And thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted October 7, 2004 Author Share Posted October 7, 2004 Perhaps saying it was the "best console game" was a poor choice of words. What is the best type of game? If you like Role Playing you'll hate this game, KOTOR would be better. If you like action this would be a better game. Still though, JA has deeper combat, and that's on consoles, but the console versions lack modding and rely on dumbed down controls, so I can't say. To me this is still a Star Wars game for casual gamers and console gamers, not PC gamers who were expecting more. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad game, but with all the hype, etc. it really should have gotten more polish. Still, as far as the (mostly horrible or mediocre at best) Star Wars console games I've played, this would be pretty darn good. Vagabond: Well, MotS did start us on the path a bit. Remember how they simulated that battle with the Imperial Remnant attacking the New Republic Base in Level 1? Coolness! Now we have the logical extension of that (based on Battlefield 1942). Is this a console game, an arcade game, a multiplayer game. It's not deep, it has flaws,etc. If it's still fun for you, then great. My advice though, unless you're a BF1942 fan or a hardcore console gamer, wait until its cheap or play the demo and make up your own mind. But if you're just in it for the SP, you may be greatly disappointed. You'll beat the game fast or be too frustrated to keep playing it. The game simulates battles well. It is "open ended" unlike a game like say, MOHAA which is heavily scripted. You can go anywhere in the battle and do almost anything. However, there is still really only one "right way" to win in nearly all cases, and the AI pretty much force you to do the work, so some of it is still an illusion. It's not a bad game, just not very deep as it appears on the surface, and we pc gamers are really spoiled! The thing is though, in Multiplayer we'll still have the AI problems, just that we'll have a few humans who are doing all the work. So out of the hordes of stupid soldiers we'll have a couple of smart ones trying to follow the "one right path" through each map. PS: I read through the liscense agreement and correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like NO MODS. Ouch. So what you see is what you get unless LucasArts decides to get them going on an expansion pack or some massive patches... PPS: I read the review of this PC game on IGN.com last night and agreed with it. It's spot on.. have a look. See, I'm not crazy... ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 i just found that all you need to do to win is get ahead at the start, run off at high speed and capture a control point, so you have more reserves than the other side, and then you can pretty much go and make coffee while the AI battles it out at an even attrition rate until you win cos you had more reserves. This does mean you can't hang around at the start coming up with a good group or good strategy though. I agree about them trying to mix the UT-fps and Tactitical genres and it not completely working. I'd think that with actual human players in control of both sides you might get a very good game... but even with 16 players on each side you'd still seem to have too many bots running around doing tactless things. Maybe if they had made players spawn as "officers" and bots group with them tehn the game would have had more depth. Eg: Instead of spawning on your own, you spawn in a group of 5 (you make your own group positions) that will follow you and support you (based on your orders). Other troops would spawn in groups with AI leaders. Either that or they need some sort of "commander mode" where you can designate offensive or defensive attitudes, priority targets etc... Its mindlessly enjoyable, but it isn't worth buying unless you know you will be able to play online with enough people to make it tactical. (i have xbox version, but not xbox live, so it has no real value). NB/ I've been playing Red Dead Revolver, which is an unploished game that gor average scores, but i'd still dsay it was much more satisfying than SWBF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted October 7, 2004 Author Share Posted October 7, 2004 The key to winning is capturing your enemy's vehicle spawn point (if there is one). Otherwise there's always a key area that once captured makes victory for the enemy very very difficult (if not impossible). Since the battle is decided by how many AI guys you have, that's how it worked out for me. A couple of times during the Clone campaign it ended up with 1 vs 1 (my entire forces expended themselves and only one droid is left so I kill him myself and win). Call me a n00b (but hey, the intructions didn't say how, so sue me)... but HOW do you get more than 8 players on the Internet? Because when I go through the controls it limits me to 8 human players, and 32 bots. If I choose LAN I can choose up to 50 + 32 bots. How are people hosting 32 or even 16 player PC servers on the internet? PS: I have the latest (and only) patch installed and I'm on a DSL connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 Installed the new 1.01 patch. Not a whole lot different (I can't tell because this was my first time playing real multiplayer) though its nice that the text says the name of the planet you're joining so you don't have to guess if you don't have them memorized. The game I played was without bots (not even Jedi) and I was alone at first. Then one guy joined, then another, then another until there were like 16 people. Was really choppy and felt laggy. My ping started out at 170 ms (with one other person) and went up to 270. The floaty feel went through the roof! Argggh. It was painful. Sadly this was the least laggy server on the list. It had four out of five (IIRC) bars green. The rest were mostly red. People don't talk much either I noticed. I can see why though, typing is laggy... I found myself making lots of spelling mistakes, because apparently even the chat recognition is choppy. I dunno, it could be a the netcode or it could be my system and connection. Still, what kind of system do they expect you to have? Most people don't have T1's and top of the line hardware. So hopefully future patches will address this if possible. I have over the recommended system reqs, except in the area of RAM (I have "only" 256 mb, the minimum, rather than the recommended 512 mb). I noticed that four of the 16 maps don't let you change factions from what was in the movie (Ie: they are either Clone Wars or Galactic Civil War factions only). But otherwise it's good that they let you choose. I solved the mystery of why I couldn't host more players. Here is the breakdown of connections.... You choose these in Options---->Online Options, which affects the number of Max Players in Internet Games Advanced Server Options (LAN games can handle from 2-50 players, no matter what): 128K bandwidth: 2-4 Maxplayers 245K bandwidth: 2-7 Maxplayers 384K bandwidth: 2-10 Maxplayers 512K bandwidth: 2-13 Maxplayers 768K bandwidth: 2-20 Maxplayers IM+ bandwidth: 2-33 Maxplayers (PS: I'm not sure exactly what IM+ is, unless they meant 1 Mbps and above). And with the above, the "network tick rate" (of either 20 or 30) doesn't seem to affect the totals. Likewise you can always select 0-32 AI bots ("per team") in any of the above. Anyway, hopefully the patches will continue to roll in and fix issues and improve game performance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 wow, kurgan, for a game you dont really like, you have put in a lot of time and effort Having played the pc and ps2 versions, I think the console version is more fun, it really reminds me of a sports game type of fun, rather than a super stealth and strategy shooter mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 Astro is right, it IS more fun on the console. Talking on the xbox head mic frees up having to type. There still is that lag issue, but I don't get no "floaty feel" at all. Hey Astro, how many times did YOU crash on the speeder bike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 Originally posted by Darth Groovy Astro is right, it IS more fun on the console. Talking on the xbox head mic frees up having to type. There still is that lag issue, but I don't get no "floaty feel" at all. Hey Astro, how many times did YOU crash on the speeder bike? Yavin IV and Speeder Bikes Dont mix.... Even Endor is quite tricky, but overall still fun, theres even a tree trunk to fly through I have found that the speeder is best used for quick transport than destruction mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Fisher Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 I'm sure you could use something like Ventrilo to talk also Groovey Well, I'm going to give it another try since I got the patch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightNinja Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 ok, i have asked in BF forums but here i think ill get a faster answer, is this game that good for buying it? i was going to buy it but i've seen many post saying that is a piece of ****.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manoman81 Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 OK, I like the game. Does it have flaws? All over the place. The MP sucks because the maps are too small, I think. Also, everyone is out for themselves. I think it would be a lot better with actual voice communitcations on the PC. I haven't played BF1942 in a long time. From what I remeber, that is a better game than this. But, I still have fun. From what I've read, they are working on patches and stuff to improve the game. Could be worse...Could be Galaxies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by LightNinja ok, i have asked in BF forums but here i think ill get a faster answer, is this game that good for buying it? i was going to buy it but i've seen many post saying that is a piece of ****.. I assume you're talking about the pc version, I'd suggest playing it at a friends house/renting it/trying the demo.... on pc there are many similar and better type of games... if you have a console, I would recommend it, its fun with a star wars flavour, definitely not the greatest game ever, but nice to play against others, either by console link up or network play. mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 I honestly don't like it too much. Crashes, it's gun deathmatch, skills are not much of a factor, and everyone just strafe jumps all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightNinja Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 well i think im going to buy it bcuz i have the money, i hope it wont be as bad as you say , anyway if i dont like it ill re-sell it and i'll keep playing BF1942 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.