jawathehutt Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I'd say that gamespeed needs to be lower i liked bf1s pace in this every thing is so close together adn cps change ownerships like a bazion times each game also i think the ai got stupider fianly, the game makers are lazy look into the sky of corasant when its emps vs rebs i didnt no the droids were still attacking and the space battle was still going on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redtech Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Solo414 gains my support at least, Jawa, got a point as well. I think I said somewhere that posts should eb more pivitol to the action, so that when one is lost it actually is a loss in that it is harder to deploy close to the action and maybe they are "well" defended so take effort to take and keep. Not like old Geonosis where they're just scattered here and there and you spawn in the open where an AT-TE is waiting to eat you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solo4114 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Either the speed should be lowered or the size of the maps increased. But as it is, you can really haul ass on most maps. I think you could slow the pace and leave the sprint speed what it is now, to keep things interesting. I don't mind that CPs take less time to change, but I think you could make the game more team-oriented and then let the points take longer to change. Honestly, I think a lot of the problem here is that the game was simultaneously designed for consoles and PCs. And frankly, the two markets are pretty different in terms of what they like from a good shooter. Consoles tend to be more arcadey, and PC shooters tend to be a bit more involved. You probably couldn't have the intricate command aspects of Battlefield 2 in a game developed for a console, or at least not to the degree of complexity they appear in a PC game, simply because of the lesser number of input options. Of course, we can trust LucasArts to continue the trend of simultaneous development at the expense of really outstanding PC versions of games simply because it's more economical for them to do so. While I don't intend this as a dig at console games (since there's a lot of cool stuff about them), they're necessarily a "dumbed down" version of a PC game. You'll never see a real flight sim on a console, nor will you see a game like Civilization, or an number of other types of games. It just won't happen because of the nature of input. Until consoles start coming with a mouse and keyboard combo, that's just how it's gonna be. The unfortunate part is that due to business concerns, this ends up royally screwing PC gamers when developers design for both -- by necessity, they'll take the lowest common demoninator approach to design, rather than making the PC version more complex or intricate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redtech Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Damn, didn't know so many intellectuals visit this board. Fair point and pretty realistic, but you have to consider that they are trying to make money and so they're following a minimal effort=maximum gain plan. The license is a certain way to virtually print money. I don't think giving a console a mouse and keyboard is the answer, it's the whole gaming culture that's at hand. PC users, by the fact that PCs are so complicated in the first place, are more willing to play cerebral games, while consoles with an efficient control system for action games tend towards quicker button-bashers. I don't mean either point in a bad way, they're just different. The only "problem" with Battlefront is that on PC we've already seen games that have done any single formula of Battlefront better. Battlefield owns the genre, UT2k4 has a command post system exactly as you describe. The powers that be don't really want to try to push the genre in any new direction, although Petroglyph seem to have their RTS side done, but what about Battlefront's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solo4114 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Oh, I recognize that this is a pure economic consideration. That's kind of the problem in the industry, though. People are interested in making popular console games and porting them to PC rather than making good PC games. At least that's how LucasArts seems to approach this stuff with first person shooters. Obviously, RTS games wouldn't work as well on a console, though. I haven't tried Empire at War, mostly because, well, I'm just not into RTS games. I prefer turn-based games like Civ (although I did like Rebellion and that was RTS). I've heard disappointing things about SW:EaW, though. LucasArts used to be a company that you could count on to deliver quality product. Now they're a company you can count on to deliver mediocre product, or product that has huge potential but falls short each time. That's the real shame of it all. The license is so great as far as setting and opportunities for cool games, but they just don't care about that as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachineCult Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 LucasArts used to be a company that you could count on to deliver quality product. Now they're a company you can count on to deliver mediocre product, or product that has huge potential but falls short each time. One definite exception to that is KOTOR, and i'd go as far as saying Battlefront. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daventry Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 When i finished the SWBF2 Game, i decided to wait for a Patch. After waiting 6 Months for the Patch, i decided to sell the Game anyway when Patch 1 and 2 did not work. LucasArts really dissapointed me. I never really had a PC problem with the Game itself, it was just the Graphics that looked really poor to me. I do hope they make a Star Wars Battlefront 3 Game and then they must just sit and play other Games like Half Life 2/Far Cry/TR7 and see how smooth the Game is and how Awsome the Graphics look. SWBF1 was way cooler and better then SWBF2. You guy's wont believe the threats people give LucasAarts at the Official Forum Board, they even want to sue the Company and demand there Money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawathehutt Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 there are 4 different types of players for this game 1. star wars freaks- bought the game because it had star and wars in it 2. shooter fans- you shoot therefore they like 3stratagy fans- thought game would be team orianted like battlefield 2 4. combonations of thoose groups it seems like la decided there were the most shooter fans and absolutely no stratagy people therefore we have an arcade shooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainStorm Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 LOL @ "the moist shooter fans". Yeah, with all the squad based stuff out there thats doing so well, I had hoped the game would be a bit less arcadey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redtech Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Emphasis on the "moist". Yep, you've summed it up best Jawa. Thing is, the arcadeness is the unique selling point of Battlefront. I disagree with the idea it should only be for Star Wars fans, because as you mentioned, they'll buy anything with Star Wars on it...heck, that's the whole problem. But the arcade ness is the only way they could have given a game like this mass appeal. I mean, Battlefield is a niche of it's own..okay, not as niche as counterstrike, but it'd be hard for a Star Wars game to nab into their "hardcore gamer" territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.