Khmara Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 Originally posted by ET Warrior People still play it? O_o Yes people still play it. I play it still all the time and I agree with all the things you guys say are wrong with it. And I must not be alone because I have never logged on and been the only guy playing it. Most nights it is easier to creat a server than try to join one, and I am sure that despite the many, many problems that come with the second one it will be the same. True fnas are suckers for punishment with Star Wars. There have'nt really been that many games that you could'nt sit there and make a huge list of Everything They Could Have Done Different. It's just the way it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Of course we could make a huge list of games in which we think if some element was done differently, it would've been better. The size of the list of a single game is what matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syzerian Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Its just that many people expected it to be something its not. Alot of people thought "I like battlefield so Ill like this game" but what they got was an unrealistic arcady game. I expected it to be just like siege in JA but without jedi and thats pretty much what I got so I was delighted. There are still things that I think need to be fixed like starfighters being overpowered aswell as pilots. I just really like arcady games and would squeel with delight if a new rollcage game was made. So far the only thing I can see wrong with swbf2 is the jedi but Im sure that can be modded out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow_Nest Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad The first game felt like BF1942 for dummies. Strange, i didnt felt like i was playing BF1942 the first time playing Battlefront 1. Didnt like BF1942 though, found it too boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormHammer Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by Syzerian I expected it to be just like siege in JA but without jedi and thats pretty much what I got so I was delighted. Sorry, but I have to disagree with you there. In my view, Siege mode in JA is far, far better realised than what Battlefront offers. For one thing, there is proper objective based level design, which is similar in a way to Wolfenstein Enemy Territory. You have to complete an objective to progress through the map, and the spawn points move with you automatically. It is more structured, and therefore more tactical. I would also have to say the level design in Siege is far superior to the level design in Battlefront, which is too open and leaves you without enough cover. This is one of the reasons why it becomes simply a button mashing contest - who fires quickest and dodges best wins, because there is no real cover to set up a defensive position. Battlefront is set up more like 'domination' in that you simply go after control points on the map. It's sad that Siege for JA wasn't more popular, because in terms of gameplay it beats Battlefront hands down. If Battlefront II was more like JA Siege, then it could actually be a good game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightNinja Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by Khmara And sure the second will be a glorified expansion an expansion of 60 bucks? no thanks, i won't buy it, i mean, just compare it with Battlefield 2, the grafics and effects...even Battlefield 2 will have a huge list of mods included Galatic conquest (Star Wars mod), and that combined with the possibilities of modding Battlefield 2 (more and better than bf1) you'll buy a game but you will have acces to more than one, so for me, thats what i want from a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Originally posted by Syzerian unrealistic arcady That is one of the better descriptions of Star Wars that I have seen. I think that is why I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 That is one of the better descriptions of Star Wars that I have seen. I think that is why I love it. "Arcady" as in "simple" instead of "advanced". Battlefront is so ridiculously simple that even a four year-old girl in a coma can learn to play it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt-Man Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 its not how simple or how hard it is, its how much bragging you can do to your friends after you've killed them 50 times over and your still on your first storm trooper plus, it was good wholesome multiplayer fun, you guys take things too deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 No, we merely like games that are deep and not just a surface shot of what it could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 Exactly. I personally prefer deep, very realistic and very complex games with a rewarding learning curve over a shallow game that's really easy to learn and has very few complicated features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.