Kurgan Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 There's a free demo out for download - even has multiplayer - try it out! Yup. Sounds good, I just need to upgrade my ram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutTrooper95 Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Does anyone here actually like Battlefront? Everyone seems to have something bad to say about it. I dont see why everyone has to point every fault of the game instead of the good things. I dont care what it looks like as long as its a good game in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 I dont see why everyone has to point every fault of the game instead of the good things. I dont care what it looks like as long as its a good game in the long run. Well... then expect to be disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoidAndroid Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Yes the general attitude towards SWBF2 can seem quite negative on these forums at times, but I don't think it's because people don't like the game itself. Lot's of people were dissapointed by the last battlefront and they don't want the new battlefront to be a dissapointement as well. Most peoples complaints are understandable and I think that this kind of critical view of the game is better then just rabidly buying the game as soon as it comes out no matter how cruddy it may be. However some people do truly seem to hate the game, they always find somthing complain and whine about, instead of just realizing that no matter how much they complain this game is probably never going to be what they want. But I think most people are the critical kind, it might seem like they really hate the game but, they just don't want to be ripped off and dissapointed again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 I dont see why everyone has to point every fault of the game instead of the good things. I dont care what it looks like as long as its a good game in the long run. What's wrong with pointing out the shortcomings or discussing problems with the previous game? It's legit. I don't think most people are here just to bash the game to try to get you not to buy it! And if you like, please do put more stock into the opinion of beta testers, since they're closer to the game than the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kramerika Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 BF2's graphics are sweet. SWBF2, on the other hand... I don't see what the fuss is about. The specifications for Battlefield 2. Preferred: 1.7 GHz Intel Celeron D/Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon XP/Sempron or greater 512 MB or more 8x or faster CD/DVD drive 2.3 GB or more free space DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card Supported 128 MB DirectX 9.0c compatible video card with the newest manufacturer drivers Windows XP (32-bit) with Admin rights The specifications for Half-life 2. Min: 1.2 GHz Processor 256MB RAM DirectX 7 level graphics card Windows 2000/XP/ME/98 Mouse Keyboard Internet Connection Preferred: 2.4 GHz Processor 512MB RAM DirectX 9 level graphics card Windows 2000/XP Mouse Keyboard Internet Connection Half-life 2 looks almost as nice, if not as nice, as Battlefield 2 when set to the maximum settings. The difference between Valve games and EA/DICE games is scalability. Valve doesn't force you to buy a new computer or spend $100's on upgrades just to play their new games. I'm more interested in the preferred/recommended specifications (in yellow in the link from the first post), and in the case of Star Wars Battlefront II, they look to be on par with or better than Half-life 2 and Battlefield 2. It's a good thing for the minimum specifications for a new game to be reasonable and accessible to a larger group of people rather than over the top and accessible to only those who have the money to invest in the state of the art. The true test for me is what the game actually looks like and what kind of framerate it gets at the highest settings on the best hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachineCult Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Whoa, slightly off topic. Battlefronts graphics weren't great but they were alright, and Battlefront II's graphics are gonna be even better. some people do truly seem to hate the game Does anyone here hate this game already? (SWBF2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 I don't see what the fuss is about. The specifications for Battlefield 2. The specifications for Half-life 2. Half-life 2 looks almost as nice, if not as nice, as Battlefield 2 when set to the maximum settings. The difference between Valve games and EA/DICE games is scalability. Valve doesn't force you to buy a new computer or spend $100's on upgrades just to play their new games. I'm more interested in the preferred/recommended specifications (in yellow in the link from the first post), and in the case of Star Wars Battlefront II, they look to be on par with or better than Half-life 2 and Battlefield 2. It's a good thing for the minimum specifications for a new game to be reasonable and accessible to a larger group of people rather than over the top and accessible to only those who have the money to invest in the state of the art. The true test for me is what the game actually looks like and what kind of framerate it gets at the highest settings on the best hardware. I wouldn't expect a game like SWBF to have as good grahpics as something like HL2. SWBF has to render huge "armies" and lots of fighting and chaos all at once at a decent speed. HL2 and other more traditional FPS games only have to deal with a fraction of the animated models at a time. Now it's true that some games handle lots of player type models at once better than others, but that's a factor of the engine and the skill of the developers. But the fact is that in general the fewer objects you have to render, the more detailed you can make them and the faster and more fluid they can be. Take for example a game like Soul Calibur II. Awesome graphics, because you just have two figures and a background, nothing else! I think SWBF has great graphics, though I will admit that the player models look a little bit "blocky" compared to some other modern action games (you can see more edges, fewer polygons, etc). Again I figured they did this to let them render more models at once and maintain decent speed. And they threw in AA, fog and lots of tree cover to try to mask some of the "blockiness." My take on SWBF is that while the graphics are good I often feel like I'm playing with some plastic action figures rather than controlling some "real" people. Like playing with GI Joe's except the hands manipulating them are invisible and they actually fire colored lasers out of their guns and have little explosions. The "plastic look" is hard to describe, but to me it's there. I see it just as a stylistic choice. Compare it to say Republic Commando or Jedi Academy and see what I mean for contrast. Everything is hazy, shiny or plastic looking in SWBF just about. So I guess you either like that style or you don't. I don't hate this game, I haven't even played it. From the look of things not much has changed from the first game, which is good in some ways and bad in others. I worry that they won't improve things I wished they had improved or annoyed me about the first game, or that they'll change things that were good about the first game into something less good, but I'm willing to give it a fair chance when it comes out. Now if they don't provide a free PC demo that will certainly make it harder for people to make a fair decision about the game before buying, but there you go. The beta test is a mixed bag. You have to pay for it and it may not give an accurate impression of the final product, but you can see some aspects of the game not likely to change a whole lot before it gets pressed, like the general graphics and overall feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 BF2 runs better on my computer than SWBF did, both at recommended settings. And BF2 has WAY better graphics, and everything else. Never played HL2 on my computer so I can't compare it to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Well then the developers of BF2 are superior to the developers of SWBF. End of story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Since we're discussing things we don't like about the game, here are a set of things about the user interface that just drove me crazy in Star Wars Battlefront 1 - I hope these things get fixed in SWBF2: 1. When a map has finished, there is NO WAY to chat with the players of the last match to say "good game", or "we rocked you" or whatever, which is ridiculous. 2. There is no timer for the start of the next match. So, it almost becomes detrimental to read the awards and details of your bait and nemesis, because doing so puts you at a disadvantage to the next map since people are already in there and playing while you look at the stats. 3. If I want to quit the game after the end of a map, I have to wait until the next map loads for some crazy reason. And then when I finally do get a menu that lets me quit, then I have to wait for a whole different screen to load up - what it's loading I'm not sure. And then I have to quit gamespy, and THEN I have to back out of multiplayer, and THEN I get to say that I want to quit the game, and THEN I have to confirm that I want to quit. My god, quitting the game almost becomes a game in and of itself. This is by far one of my greatest frustrations with the menu. What they need to do in BF2 is just have a quick and simple menu that you can bring up AT ANY TIME, and just select "Exit game", and boom - you're back in Windows - no billions of layers of menus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redtech Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Well, the biggest prob with SWBF is that it is multi-platform (besides the Cube, which is a criminal shortcoming IMHO). That means you need an engine that works as well on a (to be honest) crappy spec PS2 all the way up to a 3.0GHz super-PC and everything in-between. In light of this, they didn't do a bad job. Now if they'd specialised on one platform, then they could have optimised it more easily into something suited for that platform ALONE, but it would have killed off a lot of potential product sales. Unfair life being a Star Wars Developer huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowblood Posted September 23, 2005 Author Share Posted September 23, 2005 You know, I just brought that topic up becouse I wanted to hear what you guys have to say about it. But to tell you the true, I have a very poor machine (P4 1.7GHz 256SDRAM GeForce 5200 FX PCI) and I'm totally glad that the requirements are so low. STARWARS Battlefront is the best game I ever played (and I played lots of games) even though I never tried the multiplayer! (I didn't actually buy it... you know what I mean). But I'm definitly going to buy SWBF2, no metter what. A StarWars geek like me wouldn't miss the chance to get into the movies in such a fun way. The only thing I need to pray for now is an Israeli server, but it's not related to here is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 STARWARS Battlefront is the best game I ever played (and I played lots of games) even though I never tried the multiplayer! (I didn't actually buy it... you know what I mean). Isn't that pretty hypocritical? Pirating the game that you consider the best one you've ever played... surely you believe that the people who made this game for you deserve the money that you've cheated them out of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derriere1 Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I absolutely, 100% agree. I thought I was the only one who believed that the rifles were FAR too accurate! Good to see another serious gamer. This isn't just a minor issue, it actually drags down the fun of the game. It really gets old with perfect accuracy. The SWBF game has an Auto-Aim option that alot of servers turn on, this makes the crosshairs seek out an enemy instead of you having to line them up. With this option off, the aim is actually very realistic. You have to lead your target, anticipate their movements, etc... On Hard difficulty setting, the bots actually aim for the head and can take you down in just a couple of shots as their accuracy is improved so you have to be on your toes. I game way too much, so I have a huge collection of games that I alternate through. I certainly don't know what the big fuss is about. I thought SWBF was a great game. It was the first game that didn't have all that puzzle crap or objective missions that require you to hunt for 3 hours for the secret panel that is hiding the key that lets you open the door to run upstairs and do it all again.... It got right to the action. Nothing but all-out fighting. I was hooked from the beginning. Now, I'm not saying that it was a perfect game. There were quite a few things that could/should have been fixed prior to release, (glitching anyone?) but the concept was sound. I've eenjoyed playing ever since I opened the package, and I am not a Star Wars fan so I usually avoid the games. SWBF2 looks like fun and even though it has objectives, it hopefully wont interfere with the killing. I think that there will be enough positives in SWBF2 that outweigh everyones disappointment with the original. I for one, will be picking it up on the same day it hits shelves. -derriere1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 The SWBF game has an Auto-Aim option that alot of servers turn on, this makes the crosshairs seek out an enemy instead of you having to line them up. With this option off, the aim is actually very realistic. You have to lead your target, anticipate their movements, etc... Except that your aim is PERFECT. Running around like crazy and you've still got perfect aim. That is laughable, because to have such accuracy you'd need to be in a prone, still position. In combat, you should only have about 20% accuracy, meaning that the vast majority of your shots should be missing your target. Yet in SWBF, it's about the other way around. but the concept was sound. Sound concept; poorly executed. I've eenjoyed playing ever since I opened the package, and I am not a Star Wars fan so I usually avoid the games. If you're not a Star Wars fan then I HIGHLY recommend Battlefield 2. The only thing that SWBF has going for it is that it's Star Wars. Everything else fails in comparison. I think that there will be enough positives in SWBF2 that outweigh everyones disappointment with the original. I don't see any positives for SWBF2, at all. I for one, will be picking it up on the same day it hits shelves. Oh well... $50 down the toilet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowblood Posted September 23, 2005 Author Share Posted September 23, 2005 Isn't that pretty hypocritical? Pirating the game that you consider the best one you've ever played... surely you believe that the people who made this game for you deserve the money that you've cheated them out of? After I've tried the game I realy thought about buying it to be able to play online, but when I heard about Star Wars Battlefront 2 I decided to save the money for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachineCult Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 TK, you seem to hate SWBF2 already and seeing as you have so many negative comments about it, maybe you hate SWBF as well? Whats so bad about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Whats so bad about it? Everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachineCult Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Come on, i'm asking seriously. Do you even like SWBF1? Because that seems to be just a simpler version of SWBF2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alegis Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I think he enjoyed it, but for a short time only. The way we were informed about the game we got dissapointed. Both in retail and support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I used to like it... when I first got it, and had never played BF2. I stopped playing it because I got pissed off when the so-called "modding tools" were released and turned out all they're really good for is making maps. So I moved onto better games, eventually Battlefield 2. And now that I'm playing BF2 and look back at SWBF, I see what a lousy game it was and I sure got cheated out of $50. I can't believe I once thought it was such a great game. You know, when I sold it back to EB Games, you know how much I got for it? $5. $5 for a game that sold for $50. That's what SWBF is worth now. About what you would pay for a burger and fries. SWBF's concept was so sound, that it had the potential to become one of the greatest games ever, yet the devs wasted such a great opporunity by dumbing it down to what feels like an arcade game. They wanted to appeal to the console gamers, not the more serious gamers, which is why SWBF is such a joke and SWBF2 is twice the shame. The devs have came out and admited that SWBF was rushed, and they didn't have time to do what they wanted with it. But now that they have a second chance, they STILL haven't done anything better and are actually making it even WORSE. It's such a sad waste of such a great concept - Star Wars meets Battlefield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachineCult Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I have played BF2 and i agree that it's a hell of a lot better than SWBF. But if you hate Battlefront so much why do you post in Battlefront forums all the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 But if you hate Battlefront so much why do you post in Battlefront forums all the time? I want to educate people on what this game REALLY is - not what LA has hyped it up to be. Maybe if I'm here I can make sure no one is getting cheated out of their $50 with SWBF2 like I was with SWBF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.