PDA

View Full Version : omg, the graphic =[


yellowblood
09-19-2005, 06:00 PM
I don't have a payment count for FilePlanet. But a quick look at the System Requirements (http://www.cya.co.il/up02/05/09/20/SWBF2.PNG) shows that even GTA San Andreas had better graphic.

I hope that I'm wrong and the game does look beautiful, but how far can you go with a game that supports GeForce MX 4 ? I mean come on, we don't buy new video-cards to play games with old engines!

So - what do YOU think about the graphic issue of Battlefront 2?

(And if there's any beta-owner here, please give some gameplay screenshots)

McCusto
09-19-2005, 08:16 PM
It is basically the same graphics as Battlefront 1

And it IS really fun

DarthMuffin
09-19-2005, 08:18 PM
Graphics don't make a game; gameplay do.

Although good graphics do help. And BF2's graphics ain't that bad...

TK-8252
09-19-2005, 08:20 PM
Graphics don't make a game; gameplay do.

And SWBF2 is 0 for 2... not good.

And BF2's graphics ain't that bad...

BF2's graphics are sweet.

SWBF2, on the other hand...

ScoutTrooper95
09-19-2005, 08:22 PM
The reason SA has better graphics is because R* focused on graphics(among other things). LA and Pandemic are focusing on Gameplay and featurs, which isnt necessarily bad. Frankly, very few people on the forum care what it looks like as long as its equal to or better than BF1.

TK-8252
09-19-2005, 08:23 PM
LA and Pandemic are focusing on Gameplay and featurs

They are?

Hard to believe.

DarthMuffin
09-19-2005, 08:32 PM
They are?

Hard to believe.

Space battles and... Playable Jedi :D

But yeah, I agree. We should have had space battles since the first game. And whether or not you agree with the Jedi thing, it's not such a big new feature.

zerted
09-19-2005, 10:39 PM
...a quick look at the System Requirements (http://www.cya.co.il/up02/05/09/20/SWBF2.PNG) shows that even GTA San Andreas had better graphic...
You <b>cannot</b> determine how the graphics look by the system requirements. You never know if the min specs to play the game are set with all options on extreme low and the screen resolution at 320x200.

Also, the developers could have come up with a new algorithm to process graphics much more efficiently. Well, we know that this is not the case with SWBF2, but it could be for some other game, some other day.

Kurgan
09-20-2005, 10:41 AM
SWBF2 from the screenshots and videos I've seen so far looks like it is unchanged from SWBF1. Now before some people start ranting, most game sequels use the same engine as their predecessor. It saves time and money and makes logical sense. Designing a new engine these days takes many years or a big initial investment (10,000$ for a liscensed engine? I could be off by a decimal point...).

Using the same engine as another game does not mean they will be close like expansion packs. Do all the games that use the Quake3 engine look and play the same? Do all the Unreal Tech games feel like "expansion packs" of each other? And yes, system reqs mean nothing in terms of game quality or graphics quality. Many games simply require the processing power to calculate everything, that doesn't mean their visuals are anymore aesthetically pleasing than some other game with lower system reqs.

Overall in this case though, it looks like this will be the same game as SWBF but with some expanded features. They're advertising it as "the game we wanted to give you with the first SWBF." They feel like they let people down the first time around and now this will be their definitive vision.

They'll take the Republic faction and replace the models with the ROTS versions. They'll add some more vehicles. They'll add mostly Episode III based maps. They may tweak the Seperatist Faction a bit to match ROTS. Then they'll add the "space" maps and some more space vehicles since that's what you'll need them for.

Then they'll expand on the Jedi by giving them Force powers and the ability to play as them, and integrate them into the campaigns as reward bonuses.

So yes, they are focusing on gameplay and features this time. I haven't heard anything about them improving the graphics or adding new physics or anything of that nature.

Here's hoping they do spend some extra time on refining the online experience though. The 1.3 beta left a bad taste in a lot of player's mouths (currently of the 26 SWBF servers, only 6 are using the 1.3 beta... something about an abandoned beta that isn't well publicized makes people mad I guess).

So for folks who've already played SWBF, here's what you're basically getting:

more Episode III content
Playable Jedi
Space Battles

TK-8252
09-20-2005, 04:23 PM
So yes, they are focusing on gameplay and features this time. I haven't heard anything about them improving the graphics or adding new physics or anything of that nature.

Instead of focusing on playable Jedi and space battles they should have improved what they've already made, because it doesn't cut it. They should have FIXED it... not just added on more stuff in an attempt to cover it up.

DarthMuffin
09-20-2005, 06:59 PM
Instead of focusing on playable Jedi and space battles they should have improved what they've already made, because it doesn't cut it. They should have FIXED it... not just added on more stuff in an attempt to cover it up.

They should have fixed what they have done with patches. That's what they're for.

Improve? That's the job of an expansion.

In a sequel, people want new stuff. LA happens to have skipped the expansion part and jumped right into the new game.

Of course they have also skipped the patches, for the most part.

Kurgan
09-20-2005, 10:14 PM
Instead of focusing on playable Jedi and space battles they should have improved what they've already made, because it doesn't cut it. They should have FIXED it... not just added on more stuff in an attempt to cover it up.

One could argue that that IS improving on what they already had done. The Jedi weren't made playable because they simply hadn't been finished yet. They hadn't found a good way to balance them as playable characters. You can see how "half-a$$ed" they are right now. The ship fighting likewise was heavily restricted and not much fun. So these are two elements that they are expanding upon and improving.

What would you have them focus on instead? I mean other than making the classes even more generic and splitting the pilot into different classes (medic and technician, etc). They're already doing the sort of thing everyone would ask for anyway, like more maps and vehicles to play with.

My main concerns with the game were some of the recycling they did (like the Biker Scout pistol being used as a generic pistol, or the ST Rifle being used as the Dark Trooper gun) and the missing elements (like the female rebel and the Droideka not getting any voice samples), the lack of more specific team commands and voice chat support, and the general clumsiness of the admin & server interfaces. That and the lack of other game modes, and the inability to have one army of humans vs. an army entirely consisting of bots... and the lack of the Galactic Conquest mode in Multiplayer (here in all cases I'm referring to the PC version). That and it bugged me that you couldn't bind the secondary grenade function to a key but had to switch them on the fly (an obvious leftover from the console format). The ability to display an icon or give a command to techs like "I need health" or designate people who need health/ammo on the team map would have been nice, but not necessary for the game to be playable of course.

I'm sure everyone has their own ideas of what should have been done, but those were the main sticking points for me. The patches fixed up most of the other issues (though putting 1.3 out of beta would perhaps get more people to use it).

TK-8252
09-20-2005, 11:24 PM
When I mean gameplay I mean the actual combat. Because it just feels like an arcade game... just run-n-gun. Look at BF2... run-n-gun is like suicide in combat, because weapons actually require *gasp* accuracy to be the most effective! And you can only be accurate if you're not running around and jumping everywhere... in BF2 it's most effective to face off against enemies from the prone position, for example. Yet in SWBF, going prone is like suicide because the gun-runners just mow you right down with their guns that are perfectly accurate like magic.

And the animations are so lousy. I mean, what, there's like maybe three death animations? Come on... let's get some ragdoll like all the new games. And it seems that grenades just magically blast you a thousand feet in the air... physics in SWBF are just horrible. Period.

And there's plenty of other problems like the lack of a bar to show support players who needs meds, ammo, etc.

There's just too much stuff that needed to be fixed and hasn't been even addressed for SWBF2. In response they just say "oh well we got playable Jedi and space battles now!" Sorry but... that doesn't cut it. At least not with a serious gamer like me.

Kurgan
09-21-2005, 01:07 AM
And there you make some valid criticisms. However, who's to say that SWBF needs to be more like a game like BF2? (a game which I confess I have not played)

Such radical changes in the game would have required I'm sure far more development time than this game has had (a year since its previous installment?). And would its similarity to BF2 not generate more accusations of copycating of the BF series? (then again, I'm betting you're saying copycating of good features is not a bad thing, and I wouldn't argue against that either).

What you're really saying is that as long as they're copying a popular series, they should go all out and go in the same direction as that series, rather than deciding on their own what their game is about or what direction to go in. I'm not saying I disagree with the merit of your ideas, but I wonder if it's really a realistic expectation. That would require an overhaul of the weapons code, perhaps the movement code, and the physics code as well as making new animations, and they'd still be expected to do the usual maps and things.

Perhaps the biggest problem with this series has been mismanagement. They've tried to crank them out too fast, and focused too much on the console market (hence the "arcadeness" which to me isn't necessarily a bad thing, I like arcade games as much as the next guy, but I know what you mean). Rushed sequels or ones with only marginal improvements are a staple of the console gaming world, after all.

I'm also a serious gamer, but the types of games I play are more along the lines of traditional FPS games like the JK and UT serieses, Q3A, etc.

Pho3nix
09-21-2005, 05:38 AM
ARGH. I was afraid of this...
Damn :| This totally ruins my hopes of better graphics than BF I

TK-8252
09-21-2005, 07:57 AM
And there you make some valid criticisms. However, who's to say that SWBF needs to be more like a game like BF2? (a game which I confess I have not played)

There's a free demo out for download - even has multiplayer - try it out! :)

(then again, I'm betting you're saying copycating of good features is not a bad thing, and I wouldn't argue against that either).

Yup. ;)

Rebel_Trooper
09-21-2005, 11:28 AM
When I mean gameplay I mean the actual combat. Because it just feels like an arcade game... just run-n-gun. Look at BF2... run-n-gun is like suicide in combat, because weapons actually require *gasp* accuracy to be the most effective!
...
Yet in SWBF, going prone is like suicide because the gun-runners just mow you right down with their guns that are perfectly accurate like magic.

And the animations are so lousy. I mean, what, there's like maybe three death animations? Come on... let's get some ragdoll like all the new games.
...
There's just too much stuff that needed to be fixed and hasn't been even addressed for SWBF2. In response they just say "oh well we got playable Jedi and space battles now!" Sorry but... that doesn't cut it. At least not with a serious gamer like me.

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.

Then the deaths. It wouldn't be a problem if there were Rod-Doll physics, but no, the devs are too lazy for that !(or too cheap! Which one are they!?) There are literally about 2 deaths. ONLY TWO! (excluding explosions)

Rebel_Trooper
09-21-2005, 11:28 AM
Damn, double post, sorry, this place seems slow today.

zerted
09-21-2005, 03:34 PM
Play on hard. If you just run around, you get killed. The guns are not magicly accurate on the PC version. They go where you point with a slight random deveation. The weapon physics have to be different, afterall SWBF has laser bolts not bullets. Another thing, you don't want SWBF to be more like BF2. That just turns it into a BF2 clone. Just play BF2 if you like it so much. Every game needs to be different, or there would be no point in playing any.

TK-8252
09-21-2005, 04:17 PM
That just turns it into a BF2 clone.

...I don't see a problem with that.

And what do you mean "play on hard"? In multiplayer you can choose the skill level of the enemy players? Seriously... I thought this was SUPPOSED to be a multiplayer game... not just fighting bots by yourself. And the way people say "oh well the blasters don't create kick because they're not using bullets" is totally wrong.

Blaster weapons free clone troopers from the need to carry projectile ammunition but are notoriously hard to aim due to the inherent instability of plasma bolts

And you can even see in the movies that weapons DO create kick (like the Battle Droid blasters for example) just like real guns.

yellowblood
09-21-2005, 05:18 PM
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.

well, it is the rifles of the future. You can't expect them to act like M16 can you?

thedarklord84
09-21-2005, 05:41 PM
What is a "serious gamer"? I play games alot, but I don't think I am one, I am good at games, have been playing for 18 years (I am 21) so am I serious about them? They are just games. On topic about graphics, I have played BF2, the graphics are great, but you know what I like the first one way more.

TK-8252
09-21-2005, 06:02 PM
well, it is the rifles of the future. You can't expect them to act like M16 can you?

Great job not reading my post.

MachineCult
09-21-2005, 07:11 PM
Does anyone here actually like Battlefront? Everyone seems to have something bad to say about it.

Kurgan
09-21-2005, 10:34 PM
I own it, yes (for pc only). It's installed right now and I was actually played through the last few GC campaigns I hadn't before, to refresh my memory about the game and see if I could give it a second chance. ;)

Kurgan
09-21-2005, 10:39 PM
There's a free demo out for download - even has multiplayer - try it out! :)



Yup. ;)


Sounds good, I just need to upgrade my ram. ;P

ScoutTrooper95
09-21-2005, 11:15 PM
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.

TK-8252
09-21-2005, 11:24 PM
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.

ParanoidAndroid
09-22-2005, 06:20 AM
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.

Kurgan
09-22-2005, 10:18 AM
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. ;)

Kramerika
09-22-2005, 11:31 AM
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.

MachineCult
09-22-2005, 01:58 PM
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)

Kurgan
09-22-2005, 03:54 PM
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.

TK-8252
09-22-2005, 04:04 PM
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.

Kurgan
09-22-2005, 04:34 PM
Well then the developers of BF2 are superior to the developers of SWBF. End of story!

Vagabond
09-22-2005, 06:05 PM
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.

Redtech
09-23-2005, 04:05 AM
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?

yellowblood
09-23-2005, 05:19 AM
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? :)

TK-8252
09-23-2005, 12:09 PM
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?

derriere1
09-23-2005, 01:39 PM
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. :yoda4

-derriere1

Vagabond
09-23-2005, 01:49 PM
Well said.

TK-8252
09-23-2005, 02:05 PM
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. :yoda4

Oh well... $50 down the toilet.

yellowblood
09-23-2005, 04:30 PM
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.

MachineCult
09-23-2005, 06:15 PM
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?

TK-8252
09-23-2005, 06:16 PM
Whats so bad about it?

Everything?

MachineCult
09-23-2005, 06:22 PM
Come on, i'm asking seriously.
Do you even like SWBF1? Because that seems to be just a simpler version of SWBF2...

Alegis
09-23-2005, 06:30 PM
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

TK-8252
09-23-2005, 06:31 PM
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.

MachineCult
09-23-2005, 06:34 PM
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?

TK-8252
09-23-2005, 06:36 PM
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.

Micahc
09-23-2005, 09:57 PM
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.

Yes but unfortunately for you people actually liked the first one anyway and they are also going to get the second one any way. And chances are someone from internet isn't going to change their mind at all

TK-8252
09-23-2005, 10:08 PM
Yes but unfortunately for you people actually liked the first one anyway and they are also going to get the second one any way. And chances are someone from internet isn't going to change their mind at all

What would this forum look like if there wasn't someone to oppose the "fanboy" attitude that seems to thrive around here? Someone has to have an opposing viewpoint, and who better than me? I was ripped off. I was cheated out of $50. I think I have the obligation to share my experience so that at least I can give a much-needed "I told you so" if the time comes.

Darth Arrow
09-23-2005, 11:51 PM
"Oh well... $50 down the toilet."

Well not if you don't by it TK..

Darth Andrew
09-24-2005, 12:08 AM
What would this forum look like if there wasn't someone to oppose the "fanboy" attitude that seems to thrive around here?I would think the exact opposite (at least among the more prominent members).
Someone has to have an opposing viewpoint, and who better than me? I was ripped off. I was cheated out of $50.No, you weren't. Perhaps you were gullible enough to buy the game without investigating it thoroughly, or maybe you were just greatly let down, but LucasArts didn't cheat you out of 50 bucks. You made the choice to buy the game, not LucasArts. Life sucks, deal with it.

TK-8252
09-24-2005, 01:38 AM
Well not if you don't by it TK..

I was talking about the guy who said he was getting it the first day. I'm not buying it, unless I get a PSP (yeah, like that'll ever happen).

No, you weren't. Perhaps you were gullible enough to buy the game without investigating it thoroughly, or maybe you were just greatly let down, but LucasArts didn't cheat you out of 50 bucks. You made the choice to buy the game, not LucasArts. Life sucks, deal with it.

When you hype a game to the max, promising the greatest Star Wars game ever, and then not even release the promised PC demo, you better be damn sure that you're not letting down your would-be fans. If you do, then sorry, you've just cheated me out of my money. Sadly for me, there's nothing I could have done about it. That's why I'm here to warn people about what they're REALLY getting for their $50.

Kurgan
09-24-2005, 02:07 AM
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.

You made some excellent points there, bravo! Console gamers probably don't know what the fuss is about, but to us PC gamers, those things are incredibly annoying...

Syzerian
09-24-2005, 03:48 AM
TK, you are really starting to get on my nerves with all your whining. Your sounding like a typical BF2 fanboy.
Perhaps it is time someone like me came to this thread, I am a person who finds BF2 to be one of the worst FPS I have ever played.

You are right that Star Wars weapons do create kick but it is MINIMAL. Your referance of blasters being notoriously hard to aim is from a Star Wars facts book meaning that they are hard to aim compared to other Star Wars weapons.
Have you even seen SWBF2? I have seen full resolution, uncompressed images and I can say that the graphics are definantly better than the first. SWBF2 is not going to have your precious processor eating, completely fake looking rag dolls (boohoo) because it is designed to run on CONSOLES and they lack the power for such things.
The fact is that SWBF2 is being designed to run on consoles so it will not compare graphically to the sorry excuse of next gen game that is BF2.

Gameplay wise this is a sci-fi game not a realistic one and some people seem to have a hard time getting their heads around that. Watch the movies, did you ever see a Clone Trooper go prone and spent 20 seconds lining up his target? The only time I have ever seen people crouching or going prone in the movies was to use cover or reduce visibility.
Complaining that the guns are too accurate is just comparing it to BF2 where you cant hit anything unless you are closer than 50m and lying down. Get a Paintball gun, put a cardboard box or something 50 or so meters away, jog around while shooting at the box, its not that hard to hit it.
Also saying that the game is too arcady is not a valid point at all. Some people actaully *gasp* like arcady games. I dont like sports games but I dont say that they suck just because I dont like them.

If you dont like a game, forget about it, dont complain.

ET Warrior
09-24-2005, 04:25 AM
I love it when people who really love a game have to deal with someone who really doesn't like it. TK has his reasons to not like the game, he has his completely valid points, and for him to voice them that makes him a "whiner"

I personally think a differing viewpoint is a positive thing in most instances. If everyone just walked around talking about how much they looooved Battlefront, things would be boring.


For the record, I hated Battlefront more than almost any game I ever played...maybe not more than Rogue Agent, that was pretty awful.

McCusto
09-24-2005, 08:47 AM
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.

I am sorry, I think no one is listening

TK-8252
09-24-2005, 01:25 PM
TK, you are really starting to get on my nerves with all your whining.

Then don't read my posts, simple.

Your sounding like a typical BF2 fanboy.

*Shrugs* I probably do. But it's better to be a fanboy of something totally awesome than something totally sucky...

You are right that Star Wars weapons do create kick but it is MINIMAL.

In the movies it looks like the kick you'd expect from any real-life weapon. And most blasters in the films are used semi-automatically!

Your referance of blasters being notoriously hard to aim is from a Star Wars facts book meaning that they are hard to aim compared to other Star Wars weapons.

Most all Star Wars weapons are hard to aim. I mean, who actually had good aim? Not Rebels, not Stormtroopers, not Battle Droids... Clone Troopers actually had good aim, but like I quoted from the visual dictionary, their weapons are incredibly inaccurate.

Have you even seen SWBF2? I have seen full resolution, uncompressed images and I can say that the graphics are definantly better than the first.

Link?

SWBF2 is not going to have your precious processor eating, completely fake looking rag dolls (boohoo) because it is designed to run on CONSOLES and they lack the power for such things.
The fact is that SWBF2 is being designed to run on consoles so it will not compare graphically to the sorry excuse of next gen game that is BF2.


Then it shouldn't be for PC, period. Console ports suck.


Watch the movies, did you ever see a Clone Trooper go prone and spent 20 seconds lining up his target? The only time I have ever seen people crouching or going prone in the movies was to use cover or reduce visibility.

Some Clone Troopers fought like that on Utapau.

Complaining that the guns are too accurate is just comparing it to BF2 where you cant hit anything unless you are closer than 50m and lying down.

Sounds to me like the reason you hate BF2 is because you can't hit a thing. I can turn the most inaccurate weapon in the game - the light machine gun - and turn it into a sniper weapon.

If you dont like a game, forget about it, dont complain.

Okay, so this board will now be a fanboy-fest of people talking about how much they love Battlefront. Sounds fun, eh? :rolleyes:

I am sorry, I think no one is listening

I think they are, considering that there's several people (including you) who are quoting me...

McCusto
09-24-2005, 04:11 PM
I mean no one is listening to your whining and ranting about Battlefront 2, you are trying to ''educate'' us with about how bad you think it is, when it isn't even out yet. But no one is listening to your "educating"

TK-8252
09-24-2005, 04:12 PM
I mean no one is listening to your whining and ranting about Battlefront 2, you are trying to ''educate'' us with about how bad you think it is, when it isn't even out yet. But no one is listening to your "educating"

Read ET's post.

McCusto
09-24-2005, 04:31 PM
Ok, that is 1 person. Anymore?

TK-8252
09-24-2005, 04:32 PM
Ok, that is 1 person. Anymore?

Most people who dislike SWBF don't post around here. If you asked say, in the Swamp, you'd likely find more people with negative feelings about SWBF than positive ones.

McCusto
09-24-2005, 04:36 PM
We are not talking about SWBF. We are talking about SWBFII

I could care less who dislikes it, I just don't like how you are giving SWBFII tons of negative feedback before it is even out.

TK-8252
09-24-2005, 04:38 PM
We are not talking about SWBF. We are talking about SWBFII

Same thing, basically.

I could care less who dislikes it, I just don't like how you are giving SWBFII tons of negative feedback before it is even out.

Because... just look at it. It looks like it plays exactly the same. Same crap animations, gameplay, physics, weapons, everything. It's just a few new characters, maps, vehicles, that's it.

McCusto
09-24-2005, 04:41 PM
Nope, you are TOTALLY wrong. Maybe if you played it, it might change your mind. The new system is totally different. You have to unlock the last 2 classes in each faction, there are totally different weapons, like a Shotgun and a Desinigration blaster, the animations were never crappy, so I don't know WHAT you are talking about. Gameplay is changed, too.

TK-8252
09-24-2005, 04:48 PM
You have to unlock the last 2 classes in each faction

Wow. /sarcasm

there are totally different weapons, like a Shotgun and a Desinigration blaster

There were already shotguns. I don't know what a "desinigration blaster" is, but it sounds entirely inaccurate to a Star Wars game. So that's a minus.

the animations were never crappy

Are you kidding me? There's only like three death animations! You die the same ways over and over. The weapons all seem to reload the exact same way. The way you run looks like you're in a cartoon. Actually, the whole game seems like a cartoon.

Gameplay is changed, too.

I'd like to know how. Because it appears it functions exactly the same. Same perfect accurate weapons, same lousy physics... I've heard lots of people who got to play the game say that it is exactly the same as the original. So no, gameplay has not changed.

McCusto
09-24-2005, 04:54 PM
"There were already shotguns. I don't know what a "desinigration blaster" is, but it sounds entirely inaccurate to a Star Wars game. So that's a minus."


No, there weren't any Shotguns in SWBF. And you never heard of Darth Vader saying to Boba Fett "No desinigrations"? Yes, a Desinigration gun is Star Warsy, let me pull out Fraps and make a video of it

TK-8252
09-24-2005, 04:57 PM
No, there weren't any Shotguns in SWBF.

The Rebel Pilot has a shotgun. The Dark Trooper has a shotgun.

And you never heard of Darth Vader saying to Boba Fett "No desinigrations"? Yes, a Desinigration gun is Star Warsy, let me pull out Fraps and make a video of it

I'll be waiting...

MachineCult
09-24-2005, 06:31 PM
TK, there are obviously more SWBF fans here than people like you who hate it. So i don't see how you see fit to post nothing but negative comments on a message board full of people who don't want to hear it.
OK, you don't like SWBF(2) and you're AMAZING at BF2, get over yourself and register on some BF2 forum.
We don't want to be "educated", we like this game, and you of all people aren't going to change our minds.

Kurgan
09-24-2005, 06:58 PM
Well the thing is MachineCult there is some merit to what he's saying. This is going to be a very similar game to SWBF1, it's more building off of the original game, and giving us "the game they meant to give us in the first place" not a complete re-working.

So ultimately, people wishing for a complete reworking and "different game" will be disappointed. People asking if certain flaws or deficiencies in the first game will be present in the next is perfectly valid.

For example, lets compare this to Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy. I think we can agree that both games were very similar to one another. JA built on the foundation that JK2 started, but changed certain subtle things that made a big difference to many people. Some people who loved JK2 hate JA for those reasons. Others liked JA better for what it changed/added.

Now the same may be true with SWBF2. I hazard to say that "everyone who liked SWBF will love SWBF2" some people may not. Likewise some people who didn't like SWBF may be won over by part 2 (though I imagine those who had serious problems with the first game should not hold out hope for a completely revamped game this time around). Likewise with JA, many people referred to it disparagingly as "an expansion pack" or "a glorified patch."

People nowadays are spoiled and often forget that when a sequel to a popular game recieves a brand new engine and is improved, it's usually MANY YEARS after the first game. The vast majority of game sequels use the same engine and other than a new single player campaign, only marginal changes occur. The whole "expansion pack" movement is more a matter of marketing. What is the difference between a sequel and an expansion? Not every expansion requires the original game to be used. So it's somewhat subjective.

In any case, there exist people who DO NOT CARE and they will buy any game with the Star Wars label or in a certain series and they GET MAD when people criticize it in any way shape or form.

We tolerate all opinions here, but we need not agree with any of them. So you guys can argue all you want, but ultimately people who are ambivalent about this new game have just as much right to express that as people who will "buy it the moment it comes out."

There are people who can get a fairly good idea of what to expect right now, with the closed beta (open to subscribers to file planet). While not the final version of the game, I'd say 90% or so is going to be there, until a public demo comes out (if it ever does). There is going to be an Xbox demo with the ROTS DVD in November (around the time of release) but that's fairly useless for many of us.

MachineCult
09-24-2005, 07:02 PM
I agree with everything you just said and none of it is contradictory to what I said.
All i'm saying is, this kid hates SWBF (extremely vocally), and posts every day on a SWBF message board.
It just seems like he's here to annoy everyone.

Kurgan
09-24-2005, 07:08 PM
Well he was a long time poster on SWBF, this is SWBF2. If he hates the new game, why post? Are you accusing him of trolling? Because there's a big difference between disagreeing with the mainstream thought and being a troll (out to "piss everyone off").

Not everyone is saying "wow this game will be amazing" but most of us are curious how it will turn out, asking questions, speculating, following news, etc.

A person need not decide RIGHT NOW whether this game will "SUCK" or "ROCK" rather we can have impressions, opinions, etc.

Not all of us can try a game before we buy, so we have to make a decision. More information will be available before long. Some of us are cynical though about reviews. A game like this is the kind of game that will get awesome reviews, and will be heavily hyped, even if it's only mediocre. That's the feeling anyway. So how many folks will feel justified spending $50 on the PC version based on the general hype level, only to be disappointed? That's why it's important to get all the views out on the table to help people make better decisions.

If you hear the stuff TK complains about and go "well that stuff isn't important to me" (like me for example, I honestly don't think having Jedi around "ruins" the experience, nor do I think that "arcadeness" is necessarily a bad thing, I'm a big arcade fan) then you can just ignore it and move on or whatever. But really, do we just say "I don't find his information useful, so therefore he shouldn't be able to talk, period"? Maybe somebody will find his info useful, and that's reason enough to let it be heard.

I think it's fair to say that the SWBF1 community is small and opinionated. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing were true of SWBF2. ;)

TK-8252
09-24-2005, 08:01 PM
TK, there are obviously more SWBF fans here than people like you who hate it. So i don't see how you see fit to post nothing but negative comments on a message board full of people who don't want to hear it.
OK, you don't like SWBF(2) and you're AMAZING at BF2, get over yourself and register on some BF2 forum.
We don't want to be "educated", we like this game, and you of all people aren't going to change our minds.

You just don't get it do you. I'm not here to change YOUR mind. I couldn't care less if you want to blow $50 on something, hey, you'll probably like a game like SWBF2. But if you notice, LucasForums gets LOTS of traffic. Most of this traffic is made up of lurkers, who come here just to get the latest news and different opinions on the game. If someone isn't here to oppose the fanboy attitude, what is someone who comes here to get some views on this game going to see? Nothing but "zOGM tis is awsome!!1" and they may just go out and blow $50 on something they find out is crap.

So if you don't want to read my negative opinions, by all means, put me on your ignore list. But I'm not going to keep my opinions to myself just because the majority here are drooling over this game. Because you don't know who's reading this and who's not.

Fight the power.

Mike Windu
09-24-2005, 09:09 PM
Fight the power.

Public Enemy for the win.

zerted
09-24-2005, 09:32 PM
The only way to know if you are going to like a game is to get the demo. Get the demo (as long as its free) and play it. If you don't like it, then don't buy the game. Never buy a game off of hype, ads, or what people say unless you know the person.

TK-8252
09-24-2005, 09:36 PM
Just curious, what system will the demo be for?

Darth Andrew
09-24-2005, 09:44 PM
The only demo confirmed thus far is in the Episode III DVD. It's for the Xbox.

TK-8252
09-24-2005, 09:47 PM
The only demo confirmed thus far is in the Episode III DVD. It's for the Xbox.

So... the PC doesn't get a demo! Yay! And neither does the PS2. Horrah!

Commander Obi-Wan
09-24-2005, 09:51 PM
So... the PC doesn't get a demo! Yay! And neither does the PS2. Horrah!

The PS2 does get a demo...look...http://www.us.playstation.com/opm.aspx?id=98

TK-8252
09-24-2005, 09:52 PM
The PS2 does get a demo...look...http://www.us.playstation.com/opm.aspx?id=98

Alright, but how does that help me... it doesn't... or any other PC users.

Why do they even bother porting it to PC?

Commander Obi-Wan
09-24-2005, 09:56 PM
Why do they even bother porting it to PC?

True.....

Micahc
09-24-2005, 09:58 PM
So that they can leach as much money as they can off of the game

ET Warrior
09-24-2005, 10:14 PM
So that they can leach as much money as they can off of the game
For the win! Put in minimal effort and money to port it, sell it to all the people who see star wars and then everything in their brain turns off except the part that forces them to BUY BUY BUY!

zerted
09-25-2005, 04:07 AM
So... the PC doesn't get a demo! Yay!...
Oh, I didn't know.

Redtech
09-25-2005, 10:25 AM
Weird when one thinks about it. A dedicated PC Battlefront 2 would most likely be "teh win" (or at least the first person models would look better than Jedi Knight 2).

Anyway, I don't own Battlefront, I play it with a friend. Everyone wins! So there's a compromise of sorts, get someone else to pay for it.

Kurgan
09-25-2005, 11:56 AM
Do I also get to say "teh win" at least once? Oh well. Good to get that out of the way!

So to get the PS2 demo you'll have to buy a magazine. To get the Xbox demo you'll have to buy a DVD. No news about a PC demo. And the only way to play the PC game in advance is to sign up for the closed beta (pay subscription to File Planet)!

I still think they should give those who paid for the beta a coupon for a discount on the full game...

Bummer, so PC users get shafted again? There was no PC demo for SWBF1, so we all have to go by word of mouth? This is akin to filmmakers not showing their film to critics before release... it makes people wonder "what are they afraid of"? Not a good sign... :(

Pandemic/LucasArts has one more chance to make up for it, release a PC Demo by the week of November 1st! Give us a space map and a ground battle map, online/offline doesn't matter (though online would be good!).

Weird when one thinks about it. A dedicated PC Battlefield 2 would most likely be "teh win" (or at least the first person models would look better than Jedi Knight 2).

Anyway, I don't own Battlefront, I play it with a friend. Everyone wins! So there's a compromise of sorts, get someone else to pay for it.

Only problem there is you each need a unique key to play with a friend on the PC. We found this out at our last LAN party... :P

I'm not sure about part 2, but SWBF1 was basically a multiplayer centered game, which is why many of us wished that it had gone through more testing before release. The SP campaign was cool but VERY short (and much of the special features were cut or scaled back from the MP campaign). You had Galactic Conquest, but it was rather repetative, unfortunately.

TK-8252
09-25-2005, 02:27 PM
So to get the PS2 demo you'll have to buy a magazine. To get the Xbox demo you'll have to buy a DVD. No news about a PC demo. And the only way to play the PC game in advance is to sign up for the closed beta (pay subscription to File Planet)!

I never even thought of all that. They're even making money off the demos...

Jamps
09-25-2005, 05:58 PM
The only thing I'm mad about is that the Geforce 4 MX card don't work. Thats the one I use!! SWBF1 runs great on it, so why not SWBF2?!

If they happen to release a public demo I'll try it (because sometimes the specs aren't always right.), and if it don't work, I'll just buy the Xbox version....but no online. :(

McCusto
09-25-2005, 07:30 PM
Ok, here is how it works:

PS2- OPM
X-Box- OXM , Episode III DVD
PC- No demo, but they have the Beta

Redtech
09-26-2005, 03:46 AM
Well, while I don't mind getting a mag for console demos, for PCs, it's unfair that they can't have a free download from fileplanet, say. A beta means you're obliged to comment on bugs and you're legally bound not to spill beans etc. Also, you pay for that anyway.

Demos are tasters, not full games with massive bugs. (No sarcasm about BF1, I'm reffering to the beta).

Kurgan, see your point about the online part. Although I feel that BF2 will have a lot more SP potential, it'll wait to be seen about online though. If decent enough, I may actually buy it for my laptop!

Bah_Mee
09-27-2005, 12:07 AM
from a standpoint of someone who actually gets paid to make games (yes me)

I can say the look of the new star wars game is bad, the graphics are not up to par. I also love the star wars universe and most games in that universe. One thing that really bums me out is the difference between jedi academy and the star wars battle front games. the detail on jedi academy is awesome crisp textures etc. when I first got SWBF I thought this was gonna rule! but i was also dissapointed extremly, especially because I could make better player models and skin them better than these, some of the floor textures in SWBF look scaled up like 10 times. I am taking a technical standpoint in the fact that technology is available to make it look better, I would be the first to know this :D, I am not here to make anyone angry per say, but, I am in the business of game design and I can say I and my boss would be totally embarasssed if our artwork looked that fuzzy and unfinished. the new star wars battlefront uses the same stuff the old one did, thats bad! at least they could use a more robust engine, if not for the console at least for a pc version. hell I have seen mods of star wars that look way better in artwork design than this abomination. sure gameplay is important, but I am comparing this to all other star wars fps that came out recently, look at republic commando! that looks sweet, even the kotor games look awesome compared to this, I really wanted swbf to look crisper and more gritty like the movie I guess, it was fun for a while but I just don't see any fun in the game really if the animations are bland(shoot, run, die, etc.) it makes it dull after a few minutes, yeah they should have used ragdoll, hell I would have used the unreal engine which has far more power to make something like this than the horrible engine they did use. Just an artists opinion of swbf! cheers and may the force be with you!

Kurgan
09-27-2005, 02:47 AM
from a standpoint of someone who actually gets paid to make games (yes me)

I can say the look of the new star wars game is bad, the graphics are not up to par. I also love the star wars universe and most games in that universe. One thing that really bums me out is the difference between jedi academy and the star wars battle front games. the detail on jedi academy is awesome crisp textures etc. when I first got SWBF I thought this was gonna rule! but i was also dissapointed extremly, especially because I could make better player models and skin them better than these, some of the floor textures in SWBF look scaled up like 10 times. I am taking a technical standpoint in the fact that technology is available to make it look better, I would be the first to know this :D, I am not here to make anyone angry per say, but, I am in the business of game design and I can say I and my boss would be totally embarasssed if our artwork looked that fuzzy and unfinished. the new star wars battlefront uses the same stuff the old one did, thats bad! at least they could use a more robust engine, if not for the console at least for a pc version. hell I have seen mods of star wars that look way better in artwork design than this abomination. sure gameplay is important, but I am comparing this to all other star wars fps that came out recently, look at republic commando! that looks sweet, even the kotor games look awesome compared to this, I really wanted swbf to look crisper and more gritty like the movie I guess, it was fun for a while but I just don't see any fun in the game really if the animations are bland(shoot, run, die, etc.) it makes it dull after a few minutes, yeah they should have used ragdoll, hell I would have used the unreal engine which has far more power to make something like this than the horrible engine they did use. Just an artists opinion of swbf! cheers and may the force be with you!

I agree with you that the models and stuff in JA look far superior to SWBF. However I've always argued (in good faith, I could be wrong of course) that the reason SWBF and games like BF1942's graphics don't seem quite as good as traditional modern FPS games is because they are forced to render so many more models on screen at once in big maps. But then people are saying that BF2 is so amazing, etc. So maybe that's a technical hurdle that's been breached, I dunno. But yeah, the plastic fuzzy look of SWBF is not quite my favorite.

Hey (and not in any way questioning the validity of your job) but what game company do you work for? Or are you an indie developer? Just curious. ;)

Bah_Mee
09-27-2005, 04:57 AM
hehe Yeah plastic is a good word for that look :D

starting a loong time ago I did level design for ultima x (a mmorpg game that unfortuneatly EA shut down since they bought out origin and closed the project, I did about 5 mile wide levels for that game)all the screenshots at the bottom of the page under the date 2003-12-06 are from my levels here

http://www.gamershell.com/pc/ultima_x_odyssey/screenshots.html?page=3

and shots 3-8 on this page are my levels :D

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpagesscreens/918830.asp?screenid=5

it was a great project, I didn't do any characters(they looked a bit to cartoony styled for my taste, but I enjoyed every second of level design!)

moving on I did several body models and rigged them for the sims 2 game, then I did some more work on a stubbs the zombie crazy game for the xbox that was kinda sad :)) I worked for an outsourcing art studio doing art faster than the in house companies for games that needed them, right now I am doing modeling, animation, and level design for an undisclosed title, lets say its gonna kick some serious tail when its done!

I do understand the whole idea of having tons of models on screen at once in a massive online like game, the idea that they used such an outdatede engine for even the first swbf game is kinda dissapointing in my mind. with the LOD models mip maping and other technology the newer engines also have like the battlefront engine, I am still curious why they picked the old engine.

Redtech
09-28-2005, 03:51 AM
Laziness I suppose? I mean, this did have to have a demo by the release of Episode 3 on DVD.

Kurgan
09-28-2005, 07:36 AM
A primarily console game on a tight release schedule... makes sense.

Dilandau-Sama
09-28-2005, 03:52 PM
I thought Battlefront was one of the best games I have ever bought. It had great multiplayer. But, maybe that's because I had never heard of Battlefront before, and just randomly bought it.

ET Warrior
09-28-2005, 05:56 PM
Or perhaps you never played a good multiplayer game before?

Kurgan
09-28-2005, 06:46 PM
Ouch.

See, we pc gamers are spoiled. We play online games that don't have framerate caps, have actual administration abilities and remote control built in from the start, access to decent mod tools and dedicated servers that are somewhat user friendly, the ability to record demos, etc. Having one team of humans vs. one team of bots is a no-brainer. A console wherein you can enter commands to simplify certain well used tasks, etc. These are just basic features we've come to expect out of our first person shooters. Then all of a sudden SWBF comes along and it's like we're on a console that has limited memory and assumes you're using a gamepad on a TV! ;)

Are we spoiled because so many FPS games are based on solid engines like those cranked out by ID software and Epic? (Quake3 and Unreal tech in particular) Perhaps, but there you go.

So it's not just the disappointment of what this game promised but didn't deliver or the bugs in the game itself, it's also the basic standard of quality in a modern FPS game that was somewhat lacking, unfortunately.

I'm sure this was probably one of the most awesome and worthwhile games on the Xbox ever. I certainly would have thought so. But on the PC? Not a chance.

ET Warrior
09-28-2005, 07:05 PM
It was BAD on the Xbox. I played it on the Xbox. Just because it's aconsole doesn't mean it doesn't get decent multiplayer. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory and Halo 2 are some severely fun multiplayer games.

Battlefront was bad from the getgo, I never had any fun playing it.

Kurgan
09-28-2005, 08:01 PM
My bad. I considered console MP standards to be much lower than PC in general. Forgot about the Halo series, silly me!

ET Warrior
09-28-2005, 09:00 PM
I'm not going to argue with you, PC gets a lot better multiplayer games for sure. But even on Xbox Battlefront was bad. Even without good games like Halo I really doubt I would've enjoyed battlefront. Just because it HAD multiplayer, certainly didn't make it entertaining mp ;)

Dilandau-Sama
09-29-2005, 03:42 PM
Or perhaps you never played a good multiplayer game before?


Hey! I've played plenty of good Multiplayer games before. :mad:

TK-8252
09-29-2005, 04:22 PM
Hey! I've played plenty of good Multiplayer games before. :mad:

Just wondering what some of them might be...?

ET Warrior
09-29-2005, 04:26 PM
Just for the sake of curiosity, what games would you consider to have "good" multiplayer?

Redtech
09-30-2005, 04:13 AM
Any beat-em-up. Hands down.

I think you're forgetting that consoles have the advantage that when you have a physical presence that you're "virtually kicking the stuffing out of" there's much more intensity (unless you know your online rival well).


Sorry, answered Dilandau-Sama's question. Carry on, nothing to see here..

italegion
10-02-2005, 03:30 PM
let's say the true - this game has been developed for console. point.
but LA didn't want to miss the opportunity to put their rapace and avid hands also over PC sw-fan money, so they rushed and ported more or less the same game on pc: no graphical improvements from SWBF1, obviously how it could if it was developed for PS2/XBOX: their hardware cant support more graphic than what we see.

LA appears to me closer and closer to the dark side..

Maybe in SWBF3 (if ever) we will see graphic improvements thanks to the next gen. console.

Redtech
10-03-2005, 07:21 AM
I would have thought that's obvious. But c'mon. You'd want more from next gen surely? Like a decent First Person view and 60 a side levels?

OOM-911
10-09-2005, 04:42 PM
actwilly if you have a decent card like the ati x850 the grafix rock i can run everything on max