Jump to content

Home

1 Month Later: Where's our Patch?


Kurgan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, here we are, a month and a day after the official release date of SWBF2.

 

Wonder if they're going to give us a patch? Fridays are usually the days that they post something on LucasArts.com, but I don't see anything yet.

 

And not to get any rumors started, I'm just wondering/wishing here...

 

I hope they haven't decided to already abandon this game. Things seem to have really quieted down.

 

The number of servers far outnumbers the original SWBF though (but still nowhere near popular FPS games). What would really get this game going is a linux dedicated server distribution and some decent mod tools, not to mention a patch... what happened to all those suggestions we beta testers made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number of players playing at any time are also much lower than the most popular FPS games. In fact, it's listed at #22 right below Viet Cong and the Battlefield 2 demo. Quake 3 Arena has 6 times the number of players that this game does. The original Counter-Strike (arguably still the most popular FPS game at any time of the day even after 5 or 6 years of existence) has over 90 times the number of players. This is all eerily similar to the original game, and that's not good.

 

http://archive.gamespy.com/stats/

 

You'd think that they might want to capitalize on the Christmas season coming up by patching the game up to where it should be for clients and servers, by fixing the remote admin tools, and by releasing a Linux server. Doing all of those things will greatly increase the support for the game and the longevity of it which will inevitably sell more games (make them even more money) as it catches on, particularly around the time of the year when sales go up.

 

As an fledgling and inexperienced game company (based on what I have seen of their approach), they would do wise to learn from highly successful companies like Valve or DICE. I realize that it has been only one month, but I can't say that I'm shocked by the way this game is being handled or received so far based on what happened with the original. Eventually though the Star Wars name alone is only going to carry you so far if you keep putting out products of lesser quality than comparable ones on the market. If this game crashes and burns like the last one did, I can't see too many people giving them a chance at another sequel. In fact, I would avoid Pandemic products altogether. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Or would that be thrice since I've been duped into two substandard games now because of my Star Wars addiction...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is this game is like a B-movie compared to other A-list games like Battlefield and Quake. The gameplay reflects that with the more arcadey feel as opposed to a more sim-like style which, to me, is its detriment. I think the gameplay needs to feel more sophisticated and it needs more support, from devs as well as fans, but then again, I haven't played this in a month already because there's nothing bringing me back to it, like tools or a patch. Then again, like was posted above, Pandemic is more of a fledgeling company, I read they just merged with Bioware to become more self-sufficent. To me, they are more console developers than anything. Now that I think about it, that's why this game doesn't appeal to PC gamers a lot more. The game feels too console like when our standards for gameplay are much more sophisticated with games like HL2 and Battlefield. That's just an observation, however and not a judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that I think definitely hurt the overall design was it's simultaneous development with consoles(and no, I'm not denigrating console gamers, because I'm one as well as a PC gamer). If you look at some the top games, they all were PC exclusives first, then came out on console later(in some cases, much later).

 

This is why SWBF II is missing the same panoramic "feel" of say, Battlefield 2, or BF 1942. The maps are big, the battles are big, but they just don't seem the same. Perhaps what Pandemic should have done was concentrate on one platform at a time. Perhaps when the 3rd Battlefront is developed(crosses fingers), they will take the hint.

 

Blizzard, hopefully, should be able to assist. Personally, I wouldn't mind EA having their hand in the development of the next SWBF game, as their BATTLEFIELD series is some of the best online warfare out there.

 

That being siad, the game does rock.

 

As far as Half-Life. Good luck ever breaking into that fortress. That game is popular not so much for it's superiority(because Battelfried 2, and Battlefront 2 are superior in terms of sound, visuals, and variation of gameplay)as for it's community of stalwarts who just cannot, and will not, play anything else. I got burned out on Half-Life/Counterstrike years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as Half-Life. Good luck ever breaking into that fortress. That game is popular not so much for it's superiority(because Battelfried 2, and Battlefront 2 are superior in terms of sound, visuals, and variation of gameplay)as for it's community of stalwarts who just cannot, and will not, play anything else. I got burned out on Half-Life/Counterstrike years ago.

Half-life, yes (I would hope so since it's a 7-year old game), but Half-life 2, no. The audio and video of Half-life 2 far surpass that of Star Wars Battlefront 2. In fact, I honestly don't see a huge difference between the first Battlefront and the second one. Both are barely better than Battlefield 1942 or Battlefield Vietnam at the most. There is a reason why people continue to play the old Half-life mods, and that is the polishedness of the games thanks to the continuing active support of the company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number of players playing at any time are also much lower than the most popular FPS games. In fact, it's listed at #22 right below [...] the Battlefield 2 demo.

 

I guess that's a really bad sign if it's beaten by a demo :p

 

Personally, I will never buy an EA game. They treat their programmers like crap.

 

They don't treat their customers very well either. For many, BFME was a huge disappointment. Instead of trying to fix the game and release an expansion to give players what they were supposed to get, they choose to make a BFME 2.

 

That's quite similar to the Bfront situation. Bfront 2 should have been an expansion.

 

And about a Bfront 2 patch : who ever said that LA cared about players? Their games get one patch, two at most, and barely fix anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about some of the 'improvments' to BF2 over BF1. It seems to me, from my limited experience at playing multiplayer over thanksgiving, that they should have left some things the same.

 

1) the cp capture system

its way to fast and when you step out side the area with out capturing the cp, it doesnt revert back to its original white or enemy color

 

2) the infantry speeds have increased, ignoring the sprint function, the units run pretty fast

 

these two changes, it seemed to me, created a game where all you have to do is mob command posts and games are ended by having all the maps cps captured by one side.

if one side has a buch of inexperienced players who just stand an try to shoot, they will lose to a more mobile team

 

3) no mine jumping

although this might seem to be a minor change, it affects gameplay quite dramatically

FF turned off, without the splash, it makes it easy for roket troops to drop mines in close proximity to their target. they are no longer at a disadvantage, having to pick themselves up off the ground while being shot at. they can now just unload all three of their mines at a quick pace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half-life, yes (I would hope so since it's a 7-year old game), but Half-life 2, no. The audio and video of Half-life 2 far surpass that of Star Wars Battlefront 2. In fact, I honestly don't see a huge difference between the first Battlefront and the second one. Both are barely better than Battlefield 1942 or Battlefield Vietnam at the most. There is a reason why people continue to play the old Half-life mods, and that is the polishedness of the games thanks to the continuing active support of the company.

 

 

I specifically left Half-Life 2 out. No, there are no huge differences, but the few tweaks they did makes the game much better, IMO.

 

But, it's like a theory I have always had. Star Wars games have so much to emulate, because of the mythos, that perhaps it is an uphill battle for LA to make a game that truly fits the imagination of the fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's because not everyone likes Star Wars. Most people I know don't like Star Wars, and most of them reject games like Battlefront.

 

Personally I thought Battlefront 2 was a huge improvement over the first, and I actually love it. The first one was rushed and pretty poor, but they've really polished the game this game. It could be better, but not that much.

 

Anyway, I think that most people play offline, because the last Battlefront game sold a lot, yet the servers were not that many.

 

Might I also mention that the online support for this game is barely standing...? It doesn't seem to be so advanced, and the first one was horrible. This one is ok, to be honest.

 

And LucasArts have a way of rushing games and then quickly making an improved "sequel" that could be an expansion pack.

 

While the first game seemed "quick and greasy", this one has basically filled the holes of the last one and made it feel a little more personalized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the first game seemed "quick and greasy", this one has basically filled the holes of the last one and made it feel a little more personalized.
Sure SWBF2 has more modes in it, but they also left some of the buggs from SWBF. For example, I can no longer play SWBF becasue after every level, I have to wait 2-5 minutes for the done button to appear so I can get out of the player scores. I have the same problem with SWBF2 but at least the average wait time is lower (about 1 minute).

 

I'm not making up these numbers. My wireless headset goes to sleep (means outputs static) after 1 minute of no sound and that normaly happens just before the done button apears in SWBF2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's because not everyone likes Star Wars. Most people I know don't like Star Wars, and most of them reject games like Battlefront.

 

There is some truth in this, and I am 85% sure that this is due to the prequel movies. Let's face it : people didn't like the prequels. Especially TPM (though I did like them myself). People around my age (18) did not necessarily see the OT, and they base their opinion on the bad reviews the prequels got.

 

Anyway, I think that most people play offline, because the last Battlefront game sold a lot, yet the servers were not that many.

 

This is my case. I'm not the best reference for this, but SWBF2 is more like a time killer for me. RPGs and RTSs are my bag.

 

Might I also mention that the online support for this game is barely standing...? It doesn't seem to be so advanced, and the first one was horrible. This one is ok, to be honest.

 

And LucasArts have a way of rushing games and then quickly making an improved "sequel" that could be an expansion pack.

 

Nowadays, I only have some respect for two companies : BioWare and Blizzard. They support their games with patches, and actively post in their forums. Other companies have the "EA syndrome", i.e. milking the cow for cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some truth in this, and I am 85% sure that this is due to the prequel movies. Let's face it : people didn't like the prequels. Especially TPM (though I did like them myself). People around my age (18) did not necessarily see the OT, and they base their opinion on the bad reviews the prequels got.

 

I don't know, most casual people like the new movies, and even a lot of hardcore fans, like me. It's mostly just the hardcore fans that don't like the prequels, I think.

 

 

This is my case. I'm not the best reference for this, but SWBF2 is more like a time killer for me. RPGs and RTSs are my bag.

 

Same here, I mostly consider it an offline game more so than an online one. I haven't even played online yet, and I don't plan to.

 

Nowadays, I only have some respect for two companies : BioWare and Blizzard. They support their games with patches, and actively post in their forums. Other companies have the "EA syndrome", i.e. milking the cow for cash.

 

I admit this "EA syndrome" is spreading, but there are still many great companies out there. Don't know if you've ever thought about consoles, because those great machines bring some real good quality games like Zelda or Metroid Prime to us. Halo is a matter of opinion, because it lacks many basic features of a FPS game that even last-generation FPS games possessed, yet look at Halo and the flattery it receives. Not even the second one improved much.

 

My point is just that there are many decent quality games out there, but it's just that these cheap EA-style games are starting to take over, as they appeal to the casual person that likes games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that this game is really lacking in MP. Although I never play online anymore, I played for a while. I play mostly SP on every game I have, and to the guy that talked about Zelda and Metroid Prime, those games are heavy sellers for Nintendo. And therefor they leve nothing to consequenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I admit this "EA syndrome" is spreading, but there are still many great companies out there. Don't know if you've ever thought about consoles, because those great machines bring some real good quality games like Zelda or Metroid Prime to us. Halo is a matter of opinion, because it lacks many basic features of a FPS game that even last-generation FPS games possessed, yet look at Halo and the flattery it receives. Not even the second one improved much.

 

My point is just that there are many decent quality games out there, but it's just that these cheap EA-style games are starting to take over, as they appeal to the casual person that likes games.

 

I have been out of the console loop for a while (my "most recent" console being a Nintendo 64), but yeah, it's true that games like Zelda and metroid are great games. Speaking for the N64, Zelda OoT and Goldeneye are some of the best games I've ever played. Zelda LttP for snes is a keeper also.

 

However, console games can't be supported like PC games. Unless the newer consoles change this (and I'd be surprise if they do), the game you buy is the game you get. On the PC, there are some very nice games made that are overshadowed by various bugs. This is where the company comes in. Technically, they don't have to patch their games. But if they do, it's just a proof that they actually care about their customers, or at least that they understand that they'll sell more if the said customers are happy.

 

Some games require more patching than others. But the ammount of patching is not directly linked to the quality of the game. Example : StarCraft is still one of the most popular online RTS, even after all these years. There has been a significant number of patches for the game, since balancing three unique sides is a hard job. Same can be said about WarCraft III. However, both SC and WC3 were relatively "bug free" when they came out. Therefore, patches were made to make the game more *balanced*.

 

Battlefront 2 is not a game that you could call "bug free". I did see games with more bugs though. A patch is still needed to make the game as bug free as possible. And we might get it. However, LA will probably leave us in the cold after that. For that reason, I think it's crucial for them to release modding tools (unless I am mistaking, we do not have a confirmation yet). When a company is not able to fix their game themselves, they should at least let the players do it for them.

 

Now, since I'm feeling particularly well right now, I'd like to drop a thought concerning the "SWBF2 should have been an expansion" debate. Having a debate on this subject is pointless. It is *obvious* that SWBF2 should have been an expansion. I have for my saying that when the game engine is not changed, it should be an expansion. As such, I am able to live with the fact that Battle for Middle Earth 2 is a complete new game (the engine is at least being heavily modified, from what I can tell). What I don't like is that as soon as EA got the rights for the books, they basically said : "the hell with BfME 1". For me, the ammount of content in Bfront2 doesn't justify a new game (in fact, I think we deserved space battles since the first game; but that's another story...).

 

I might think too much. But anyway, that's what I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PS2 and Xbox versions of SWBF1 had minor patches for them, didn't they? It's possible for consoles that have hard drives, or at least memory cards that can fit whatever changes they made... but yeah, it's extremely rare compared to PC games, where patches are EXPECTED for games of any worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cynical, but probably true. The question is, will people fall for it a third time?

 

I won't fall, unless they change the engine.

 

And if they don't change it, then we can question LA's producers/designers' sanity.

 

Anyway, I think a new Jedi Knight game would be more appropriate for next year. Yeah, I'm being optimist. but since the end of the SW movies, LA will have to revert back to EU in a matter of time.

 

Here's hoping to have a new JK game next year, with Katarn as the player character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Anyway, I think a new Jedi Knight game would be more appropriate for next year. Yeah, I'm being optimist...

Releasing a game each year is optimistic. If people want good to great games, they are going to need to wait much longer than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Releasing a game each year is optimistic. If people want good to great games, they are going to need to wait much longer than that.

 

LA is already releasing more than one game a year. They're not about to start producing high-quality games.

 

Anyway, they usually rip engines from other companies. That makes game-making much faster.

 

What I was saying is that I would much rather have a new Jedi Knight (even if it's flawed) than a Battlefront 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...