PDA

View Full Version : Opinions on Star Wars: Battlefront II


Commander Obi-Wan
12-17-2005, 01:25 PM
Did you like the game? Did you hate it? What things did you you thing were well done? What things need improvements? Discuss.

EDIT: (how about turning the first post into a poll with those options?)

I should have...I'll ask a mod later, if they can edit that.

zerted
12-17-2005, 02:14 PM
Problems:
The units need rebalanced.
The engineer is too powerful.
Snipers seem a little too weak at close range.
Mines shouldn't glow and should be destroyable by pistol fire, not just explosions or fusion cutters.
The learderboard could use a search box, but it doesn't work anyway...
It would be nice if the server could choose how many of what unit type could be playable for each level and what the unlockable values are.
Headshots do not seem to work with the beam rifle.
I was playing a Bothan Spy on a slightly laggy server (120-180 pings). Everyone seemed to be able to see me even when I looked completely invisible (they kept shooting rockets directly at me when I was invisible...)
When zoomed in, you can't see your health bar and can't tell of someone is shooting at you from behind.
When I'm under attack, my health just zips down. It would be nice to have a red flash or something to know I've been hit.
Chatting after the round ends would be nice.
Prone is greatly missed.
There are a lot of wall hacks (I know of about 9). At least I haven't see someone exploiting them online yet.
The wait time between spawns should be changable by the server.
I liked the slower game speed of SWBF better.
No *nix server support.
Can't play on *nix computers
Why is the hunt section of Hoth on the Hoth conquest map? There is no reason to use that section, so it just takes up memory.
Why is the conquest section of Hoth on the Hoth hunt map? It is out of the battlefield, so there isn't a reason to have all that space. It just takes up memory. Put an ice cliff there instead.

Some good things:
CP capture is faster.
Space maps (though they get really laggy and graphics such as missiles begin to dispear)
The faster repair times are nice.
Lock-on is nice, but it can also be abused to find hiding units, which is bad.


(how about turning the first post into a poll with those options?)

PoiuyWired
12-17-2005, 02:28 PM
I think the Engineer is ok as is. Shotgun is not THAT powerful, and lacking a secondary weapon is a big negative (you can't knife people with the cutter, too bad)

ParanoidAndroid
12-17-2005, 03:05 PM
I really liked the game, but there are so many things that in my opinion could have been better it's kind of dissapointing. This is probably just me, but whenever I play a game I always just start coming up with random stuff I think could improve the game.

One of the things that could use improvement is space battles, overall I think they're well done in terms of ship controls and the basic set up of the game, but they just seem kind of lame or uninspired compared to what I was expecting.

For one thing they could be bigger, not in terms of size but in terms of number of capital ships and starfighters. Some just seem way too empty compared to the chaotic battles we see on screen. Also destroyable capital ships would really improve the feel of the battle, just seeing one of those huge things exploding, with laserfire everywhere, or even better trying to escape a doomed one when you know the end is near...

One more thing the battles could use are better interior's for the ships. I was picturing a Tantive IV sized level for each capital ship, maze like with corridors and vital systems rooms placed througout the entire structure, to make boarding actually fun, not just a suicide run where you try dropping as many time bombs as possible before your wasted.

Ground maps could also be improved, some seem a bit to small, and others just a bit to simple, I'd like to see more complexity in some maps, maybe they could try to mix ground combat and space combat again? Put Gunships back in Geonosis!

I also think that their should be a more definate goal to gameplay, I mean the whole "conquer the map" has it's merits but can get kind of old after a while, I'm thinking of levels with more definate goals, somthing where you have to assault a specific point, sort of like a loose objective based gameplay for single player levels. Right now i'm thinking of felucia.

Currently it's kind of bland, just another medium sized map with weird foilage. I think it would be cooler if it was set up somthing like this: the fungal growth is on one side of the map, on top of which is the CIS's command center, splitting the map in two is the river, on either side the CIS control several other CP's within the jungle each spawning several vehicles, the Rebublic however starts out with only an AT-TE (or an AT-OT, maybe even some AT-AP's) or two at one end of the river, maybe with some gunships to support from the skies.

Game setup is simple, the Rebublic tries to assault the CIS command center on the growth, penetrating the jungle and defending the AT-TE from assaults by droids and Acklays from their deep jungle CP's. Once they capture the main CP, they must hold it for five minutes. The CIS are the defenders, slowly bleeding away at the rebublic forces from either side of the river (the AT-TE is far to big to go to deep into the jungle.

Now this level has a bit more of a point then the current one, I mean instead of just wandering around aimlessly killing droids, this one could give you a definate objective to work at, sure you could still go around capturing the droids CP's but that will only help you achieve your main goal.

Of course their are many maps that could be changed like this, for example can see droid landers attempting to land on the platforms of Kamino, while clones try to keep them from entering the cloning facility or destroy the clone life support systems, or on Endor, defending/destroying the shield bunker is the key to victory. Capturing command posts would still be a vital part of gameplay, but are secondary in importance to these primary goals.



Thats just some, but this post is already probably to long, so I'll just stop now, if I think of any others I'll definetly post them.

zerted
12-17-2005, 04:19 PM
...Shotgun is not THAT powerful...
The engineer has a shotgun, health packs, det packs, and immunity to mines. I think one of those has to go.

ParanoidAndroid
12-17-2005, 05:08 PM
Well I don't know, I think the engineer is fine, but I suppose he could lose immunity to mines, after all it's kind of unrealistic. I mean it doesn't matter how good you are at disarming them, if you step on one you still get it blown up in your face.

Or maybe the health/ammo packs should be removed, it is a bit out of character for the engineer.

Actually maybe they could work the health ammo thing into the commander, who I think needs to be changed a bit, how about giving the commander the ability to designate one unit as a "medic" and one as a "support" unit, the units who he designates have the same weapons as usual but gain the ability to heal units or pass out ammo packs. Just an idea, it think it would work but maybe it would be better just to give the commander health/ammo packs, alot less confusing.

Another thing I just remembered, Galactic Conquest, one of the best things about SWBF2, however if theirs one thing I miss about it, it's the ability to blow up a planet with the Death Star, I think it would be cool if they inserted some faction specific bonus's available for purchace, or maybe they could be triggered once enough battles were won. Some obvious ideas are

Empire: Death Star: Imperial Superweapon, you must have won a certain amount of battles, and even then it takes around five turns to build, but once built can destroy any planet it is in orbit around, if destroyed you can build another one but it takes twice as long chances are you will only be able to build one. While being built it appears as a half built Death Star orbiting Endor, this can be attacked and destroyed by the enemies fleet.

Rebels: Spark Rebellion, once they win four battles in a row the rebels may immediatly choose start a battle on one planet, bypassing space and enemy fleets.

CIS: Blockade: the CIS can choose to blockade a planet under their control, basicly these are cheap fleets that always have the same cost, but are immobile, they must stay and defend the planet they're built around, making defending worlds very easy for the CIS.

Rebublic: no idea, maybe somthing that allows them to build a free fleet, or automaticly win a space battle...

Aside from this another cool improvement would be the ability to combine fleets. Basicly allowing you to combine capital ships into one large fleet, to make it easier to win space battles, etc. And online play would be cool to...

The Eyes
12-17-2005, 05:08 PM
1.I thought there was actually going to be animals like wampas on levels, but it was only hunt

2. they shouldve had some way to blend in camoflauge

3. it wouldve been nice where in GC if you beat a fleet over a planet, the opponent cant use a bonus.

but overall it was great.

Darth Andrew
12-17-2005, 06:08 PM
For one thing they could be bigger, not in terms of size but in terms of number of capital ships and starfighters. Some just seem way too empty compared to the chaotic battles we see on screen. Also destroyable capital ships would really improve the feel of the battle, just seeing one of those huge things exploding, with laserfire everywhere, or even better trying to escape a doomed one when you know the end is near...

One more thing the battles could use are better interior's for the ships. I was picturing a Tantive IV sized level for each capital ship, maze like with corridors and vital systems rooms placed througout the entire structure, to make boarding actually fun, not just a suicide run where you try dropping as many time bombs as possible before your wasted.Agreed. Also, each capital ship needs a distinctively different interior, not just carbon copies with a different paint job slapped on.

I also hate the fact that there are bullets in the game (i.e., the Republc's officer, some capital ship turrents). Couldn't they simply use fast lasers? To me, it ruins some of the feeling of actually playing the Star Wars saga.

Commander Obi-Wan
12-17-2005, 06:57 PM
Another thing I just remembered, Galactic Conquest, one of the best things about SWBF2, however if theirs one thing I miss about it, it's the ability to blow up a planet with the Death Star, I think it would be cool if they inserted some faction specific bonus's available for purchace, or maybe they could be triggered once enough battles were won. Some obvious ideas are

Empire: Death Star: Imperial Superweapon, you must have won a certain amount of battles, and even then it takes around five turns to build, but once built can destroy any planet it is in orbit around, if destroyed you can build another one but it takes twice as long chances are you will only be able to build one. While being built it appears as a half built Death Star orbiting Endor, this can be attacked and destroyed by the enemies fleet.

Rebels: Spark Rebellion, once they win four battles in a row the rebels may immediatly choose start a battle on one planet, bypassing space and enemy fleets.

CIS: Blockade: the CIS can choose to blockade a planet under their control, basicly these are cheap fleets that always have the same cost, but are immobile, they must stay and defend the planet they're built around, making defending worlds very easy for the CIS.

Rebublic: no idea, maybe somthing that allows them to build a free fleet, or automaticly win a space battle...

I have to agree with about the Galactic Conquest there. It would be nice to have the special features in the game to add more excitement into the game. I especially like the 2 with the CIS and the Rebels. The blockade makes complete sense. Since that nearly happened in TPM. I like the "Spark Rebellion" idea, the most out of the ones you listed because it gets tiring after you repeatedly get attacked before you actually battle on the planet.

An idea for the Republic could possibly mean you get a second hero in the battle. Like Mace Windu and Yoda on Dagobah, or any 2 Jedi on Coruscant at the Jedi Temple.

mogga
12-17-2005, 07:03 PM
1. Bring back flying vehicles on land. especially gunships.
2. increase the power of turrets on capital ships. in the movies, it was always entertaining to see two capital ships blast each other out of the sky. the turrets on capital ships seem to serve no purpose, are rarely used, and do allmost nothing to enemy ships.

Commander Obi-Wan
12-17-2005, 07:19 PM
1. Bring back flying vehicles on land. especially gunships.

I totally agree with you about brings flying vehicles back to land. Like having the Droid Gunship on Kashyyk or the Clone Gunship back on Geonosis.

ParanoidAndroid
12-18-2005, 06:27 PM
An idea for the Republic could possibly mean you get a second hero in the battle. Like Mace Windu and Yoda on Dagobah, or any 2 Jedi on Coruscant at the Jedi Temple.

Thats a cool idea, some sort of Jedi General bonus that could give you a hero automaticly in every level, in addition to the one granted with the leader bonus. He could be assigned to a certain fleet perhaps, so he has to be transported with an army in order to attack, just for balance.

1. Bring back flying vehicles on land. especially gunships.

Hell yes!, gunships should definetly be present in ground based maps, Geonosis just isn't Geonosis without them, and it would be cool to fly them around Mygeeto or Felucia to, maybe even on Utapau, raining death from above, and landing to spawn clones behind enemy lines. Watching your fellow gunships getting shot out of the sky while you swerve to avoid CIS anti air...

SirLancelot
12-18-2005, 06:40 PM
Hopefully, a patch will address some issues. Overall, I love this game. Many more improvements over the original.

Reclaimer
12-19-2005, 09:30 AM
Did you like the game?: I enjoyed thegame very much. It had some downsides, but very much enjoyable.

Did you hate it?: I don't hate it, I just hate the things they took OUT. I miss going prone with the sniper well above everyone.

What things did you you thing were well done?: The graphics of the Closes I thought were very well done, but the graphics for the CIS, Imperials, and Rebels all looked as they justed transfered the files over from the original Battlefront.

What things need improvements?: Larger land maps, Hoth seemed like the only large one on land. Space maps were okay, but I thought you should have more fighters in the air instead of 16, and one full-out battle like the Battle of Endor.

Overall, I give it an 8.5/10.

Micahc
12-24-2005, 11:51 AM
I really come close to hating this game.
We still don't have different reloading animations (as a stated before in a different topic), the vehicles are worth nil and you need infantry support for them (why it takes threee shots with an AT-At to kill a wookiee is beyond me), we have a commander class which is fine but we have the magna guard as a commander! Explanation please? We still don't have a medic, the battles are extremely spaztic, clones skins are all screwed up, and for somereason they added in Jedi, completely getting away from the point of the original game. They took out our favorite levels and we have to pay to get them back (sorry PS2 players, you can't get them back at all!), I still have yet to seen a graphics improvement, and thermal-dets are useless, and they also took out the gunships on Geonosis, and the one thing we wanted on Hothe were more AT-At's, but nope we got denied those to.

MachineCult
12-24-2005, 01:51 PM
There have been graphics improvements, Jedi add greatly to the game and AT-ATs kill all units in one hit.
If you don't like the game why play it? I don't know about anyone else but i'd had enough of rants before the game was out.

Darth_Death
12-24-2005, 03:12 PM
I love how we finally get to be jedi and playable wookies on clone wars is awesome











:blast5:

Xtermanator
12-24-2005, 08:36 PM
Having GC for online mode would not work out, period. Who would choose where to go, what to buy, and who get's to use a Jedi in the beginning if chosen for a bonus (Before your first spawn, move your cursor left, and the Jedi will be waiting for you to use him/her before actually opening it).

And for more point to the game, Hunt, Jedi Assault, Space Assault, and Capture the Flag have been added. You are not forced to play conquest. And a special planetary bonus? Sounds good, but wouldn't work for the opposing team. If the Death Star's beam destroyed a planet, and their fleet was where Hoth is, and Mygeeto was destroyed, the Rebels are much farther away from a planet, and have a less chance of getting to a planet in time. And say their fleet was destroyed, and they owned only 2 other planets, but they were too far away from other planet's, due to the Death Star. That almost guarantee's the Empire a victory. Nice try though.

I liked the game. Heroes and villains fit in nicely because this time, you can kill them without a breath, but you still must be weary. People who complain about Jedi either are not good with them, or do not know how to kill them. Get used to it, either learn, or quit playing. Complaining to US won't do a thing. Contact LucasArts, or Pandemic. Even then, a major chance is you'll lose. Jedi even have their own game. Too bad it's only 1 level, otherwise, the game might have something interesting to tinker with. Imagine, Luke, Vader, Solo, Leia, Chewie, all on Hoth, Fighting each other on the vast snow fields.

Hunt was a let down. I expected something a little better. Obviosly there are 100% winners and 100% losers. Wampas vs Rebels WAMPA's win. Ewoks vs Scouts EWOKs win. Gungans vs SBD CIS win. Geonosians vs Sharpshooter Sharpshooters win. Jawas vs Tuskens JAWAs generally win. I've played it over and over, and those chosen team's usually have a clear advantage. Either overpowered, or camaflouge.

Fate's Decision
12-24-2005, 10:15 PM
Having GC for online mode would not work out, period. Who would choose where to go, what to buy, and who get's to use a Jedi in the beginning if chosen for a bonus (Before your first spawn, move your cursor left, and the Jedi will be waiting for you to use him/her before actually opening it).

I have thought this out and came up with a system to play Galactic Conquest online.

The player that scores the highest in ranking controls all of the decisions made by their faction, and after every decision he/she makes, the option "veto" will appear (much like the option "vote to boot") for 5 seconds. If over (however many the host choses)% vote Yes, the decision will be cancelled. If the player in control makes (however many the host choses) vetoed decisions in a row or does not make a decision for (however many the host choses) seconds, that player will be booted but can join again (your stats are wiped if you leave).
The Jedi work like the Jedi that are chosen online in any other Conquest game.
It may not be possible, but I don't see any flaws with it.

ParanoidAndroid
12-24-2005, 10:36 PM
Sounds good to me, a bit complicated, but it could work. I was thinking of a system where one player is the permenent general, always controls the decisions and stuff, the others can just advise him, and join leave games at their leisure, but yours is more fair.

And for more point to the game, Hunt, Jedi Assault, Space Assault, and Capture the Flag have been added. You are not forced to play conquest. And a special planetary bonus? Sounds good, but wouldn't work for the opposing team. If the Death Star's beam destroyed a planet, and their fleet was where Hoth is, and Mygeeto was destroyed, the Rebels are much farther away from a planet, and have a less chance of getting to a planet in time. And say their fleet was destroyed, and they owned only 2 other planets, but they were too far away from other planet's, due to the Death Star. That almost guarantee's the Empire a victory. Nice try though.

Maybe more point was a bad choice of words... I suppose my main issue is sort of with level design, I guess I just think maps could be designed to be more epic, challenging, unique, whatever. Even with all the cool extra modes most levels still seem a bit too... repetative? I don't know, It's probably just me, the levels are fine, but I keep thinking of ways they could be better.

In any case I'm not quite sure I follow you... Yes building a Death Star almost spells victory for the Empire but it is very expensive and takes considerable time to build, also destroying a planet denies you valuable victory resources, so it would only be used when absolutly necessary. Also it would have to be moved like a fleet, so rebels have plenty of time to position their fleets, so long as they haven't left their planets unguarded, a serious tactical error on their part they will probably soon regret.

I'll agree with you on hunt though, some sides AI seems to be much smarter, Tuskans can't hit squat while Jawas have super aim for example. It all seems rather one sided, but then again, it's kind of supposed to be. In either case it's not as fun a mode as I imagined, but still kind of fun to mess around with. Maybe if they gave the locals more unique weaponry, instead of just one sub par or awkward main weapon. Or more classes, allow the locals to develop their own style, so the enemy AI doesn't have to be dumbed down to give 'em a chance.

Fate's Decision
12-25-2005, 11:18 AM
Sounds good to me, a bit complicated, but it could work. I was thinking of a system where one player is the permenent general, always controls the decisions and stuff, the others can just advise him, and join leave games at their leisure, but yours is more fair.

Well, if the host chooses 0 seconds as the veto time, you basically get that. Unless another player gets more points in ranking, but then what would happen if that guy had to leave?

ParanoidAndroid
12-25-2005, 11:43 AM
I was thinking somthing along the lines of this being decided before the games begin, For example the guy who sets up the server controls one team, and somebody of his choice controls the other, if either one must leave they could give control to somebody else, that or the game just ends.

This is exactly why your system is more fair, you don't have to rely on one guy too keep the game going all the time.

zerted
12-25-2005, 07:38 PM
Having GC for online mode would not work out, period...It can and does: www.battleforthegalaxy.com

Micahc
12-27-2005, 03:44 PM
I liked the game. Heroes and villains fit in nicely because this time, you can kill them without a breath, but you still must be weary. People who complain about Jedi either are not good with them, or do not know how to kill them. Get used to it, either learn, or quit playing.

No, we're not complaining about Jedi being over powered (I think they balenced them great), it's because they shouldn't be in the game at all. The goal of the first game was to play as a grunt.

Complaining to US won't do a thing. Contact LucasArts, or Pandemic.

Well it is a opinions topic so what did you expect?

Even then, a major chance is you'll lose.

That may be why we don't contact them...

Jedi even have their own game.

Your right! It's actually a series though, it's called Darkforces/Jedi Knight!

Too bad it's only 1 level, otherwise, the game might have something interesting to tinker with. Imagine, Luke, Vader, Solo, Leia, Chewie, all on Hoth, Fighting each other on the vast snow fields.

That may be a good mod for the game I just talked about

Hunt was a let down. I expected something a little better. Obviosly there are 100% winners and 100% losers. Wampas vs Rebels WAMPA's win. Ewoks vs Scouts EWOKs win. Gungans vs SBD CIS win. Geonosians vs Sharpshooter Sharpshooters win. Jawas vs Tuskens JAWAs generally win. I've played it over and over, and those chosen team's usually have a clear advantage. Either overpowered, or camaflouge

Can't dissagree there.

PoiuyWired
12-28-2005, 03:17 PM
Jawas vs Tuskens JAWAs generally win?

I think Tuskens are slightly better, but thats just me.

ParanoidAndroid
12-28-2005, 03:21 PM
Yes, unbelievibly jawas tend to win, of course thats just the bots, when actual humans are playing tuskans almost always win, but it seems that the jawa AI is alot more intelligent then the tuskan one.

zerted
12-28-2005, 06:27 PM
I've won and lost on both side of the hunt matches. Playing aganist the AI all ways turns out the same way, but if its all people, the end result is unknown.

jawathehutt
12-29-2005, 01:26 PM
1. cap. ships need to be better
2. a massive space battle
it would have at least 3 cap ships that you can drive like in bf 1942
the frigits would be deastroyable spawn points that hold 3 of the basic ships and would have 2 life boats if they were about to blow up
3. more ships in cap. ships
4.make it so that humans can use heavy turrets to have cap. ships fight each other
5. make dukoo look better he looks the same as he did on the 1st game right now
6. bring back the old maps espicialy harbor and cloud city plats
7.give pc heavy troopers 4 mines
8. make the atst like it was in bf 1
9. make the aat like it was in bf1
10. bring back the rebel land speeder
11.mix up the classes
in bf1, the teams didnt have the same guys with different models
now every1 is the same except the special units


also maybe if possible, make hero ships in space battles
like the rebels could have the millinium falcon and i dont no what the imps would have

teeth_03
12-29-2005, 07:08 PM
imps wold have slave One,lol

I have the PSP version,and if they could make a patch for the game for the memory stick,that would be awesome.

The PSP version needs at least a room or 2 in the intererior of starships in space,some Heros switched around on some maps and this Jedi Temple map thats on the full version(instead theres that damned Polis Massa map that I think sucks).

altho the PSP version is watered down,its still fun,just a couple things they coulda done,ya know...

Naso
12-29-2005, 09:15 PM
The number one thing needed is just to slow down the game a little. At the moment, running in little circles beats aiming, and there's not enough time in a lot of firefights for skill to come into play to great extent, except maybe for snipers who are really good at anticipating lag-warping. Adding to this is the over-use of thermal detonators. I mean, yes things were chaotic in the movies, but the people on Tantive IV weren't running backwards and forwards lobbing grenades, they were taking cover and defending.

To improve the space in a simple way, they could just make the point cap adjustable so the matches can go on a little longer at least. If somebody's determined, he can end the match very quickly with a bomber, even with pursuit fighters. Being able to blow up the cap ships would be much appreciated too. What I don't understand is why they had to make the tie fighter the equivalent of the xwing, with torpedoes and everything. They could have made it faster and more maneuverable and still had a good balance, and likewise the interceptor feels a little spastic to me, but maybe I just haven't put ennough time into it. Yeah, I'm an old x-wing buff.

teeth_03
12-29-2005, 11:12 PM
they shoulda switched the Interceptor and Fighter at least

they have the Republic Gun ship as the Gunship for the Rebels...they shoulda used the Falcon,lol

MasterChiefRulZ
12-30-2005, 01:37 PM
Fun game, but the omitted features, and changes to gameplay, should be re-added/tweaked.

.Bring back proning.

Can't believe they took this out, I loved it. It adds depth, more player options, and is essentially for snipers and people playing support (Commander laying down heavy fire).

.Vehicle balance/tweak

They are too weak. Ground vehicles seem to soft, even AT-ATs take two shots to even kill a single foot soldier! Theres no splash damage anymore for explosive shots from vehicles.

I say bring the attack strength/splash damage back to vehicles, and to balance it out make AT infantry stronger against vehicles. Mines, rockets could do more damage to vehicles per hit/shot, vehicles would be more effective in their own role attacking. I think this would play out better than the weaker vehicles of SWBFII.

.Bring back air vehicles in ground based maps

This was a great feature of original SWBF. Especially the gunships like others have said. More combat choices make for a varied gameplay experience, more depth, more realplay value, and just more fun.

.Gameplay speed (tone it down to SWBFI levels)

I think the original SWBF was better, felt less like Quake and more like the BattleField series of games (which appears to have inspired the StarWars BattleFront series). We already have sprinting in SWBFII (which is good), I say a return to the SWBFI roots would be much appreciated in gameplay speed.

.Suggesting more jedi/sith per conquest game (server option)

I think it would be great if you could set more jedi/sith per conquest game (like 3 jedi/sith per side). This would be especially fun in Co-Op games against the AI.

.AI tweak (making Jedi/Sith available to AI, server option)

Be nice if when playing in singleplayer, or Co-Op, that the AI would occasionally play as either Jedi or Sith. This would be a great server option again.

SWBFII is great, but could be better. Again, re-implementing many SWBFI options, and tweaking existing ones, would really elevate this game to a new status of fun/marketability.

Redtech
12-31-2005, 10:39 AM
Gotta agree. The only prob with aircraft is that unless the maps get way bigger, than aircraft will buzz around and spend all their time in circles, like Bespin.

I really want to add that maps need to be larger. Now you might argue that is counter-intuiative with slower infantry movement, but then it'd actually make transports useful. Where are the transports/APCs? I want BFront to actually have some teamwork involved where vehicles are concerned. They need the space to lay some smack-down and aircraft can do bombing runs in a straight line! I want Hoth to be seen as "average" sized. Most of the new maps make Battlefront look smaller than Rainbow Six levels (Star Wars Swat Team Alpha, anyone?)

I don't mean to rid them all, they're fine in some instances, but in that case, make space for infantry to move!

ParanoidAndroid
12-31-2005, 11:09 AM
Yeah, I agree as well, I think many maps could be alot better if they were bigger, also I like the idea of transports, and vehicles in general playing a bigger role. If not just speed how about protection? You don't want to get sniped or gunned down running running from location to location, so you stay in the safty of a vehicle until you reach your destination, then unload all the troops at once.

alex533
01-01-2006, 07:36 AM
This game could have been so much better if they took their time with it.

pcd927
01-03-2006, 07:34 PM
Improvements
- aircraft on land
- the ability to choose different uniforms
- random order for instant action battles
- more assault levels!

Liked
- space battles
- more units
- more game modes
- cool campaign
- better GC
- cooler looking clones

pcd927
01-03-2006, 07:35 PM
Who else thinks there should really be more assault battles? Mos Eisley is the only one!

jawathehutt
01-03-2006, 10:35 PM
i agree
also they should bring back concussion nades, different uniforms, some u can earn that are beter camo

MachineCult
01-04-2006, 09:05 AM
Who else thinks there should really be more assault battles? Mos Eisley is the only one!

I think they should make a special map for hero assault maybe like coruscant streets with loads of high and low platforms and bridges to jump between and stuff.
I don't know why they chose Mos Eisley loads of other maps would be as good if not better, like Kamino or Utapau or the Jedi Temple.

PoiuyWired
01-04-2006, 02:52 PM
Well, transport aircrafts generally can over, and is good for ground maps...

Its a pity they are taken away.

Commander Obi-Wan
02-13-2006, 01:58 PM
lol....I forgot to list my opinion..i think. Well, anyway, I am not as into the game as I was before, but I still like the game. But, I did sell the game, but my friend has it and I can borrow it. :xp: Well, I think the game needs some improvements, as all games do. And that's what the expansion is for.

Things I like are the untis and the new levels. I also like the new vehicles. I like the ideas of the GC and the Campaign is much better. Also there is more of a variety of levels and modes to play. Which is good.

Things I don't like are some levels that are missing from BF1, like Bespin and Rhen Var. Also I thing some of the units could be better, like the Imperial Officer.

So I'd give SWBFII a: 7.5/10

-Commander Obi-Wan

Coraan Talme
02-14-2006, 09:11 PM
I agree with most of you - especially Paranoid Android. While this game is really really good - it still could be so much better!
Actually, what I miss most is the option to play Galactic Conquest in LAN mode. I read that there is some way to play it online - which would be great, yet where is the problem of making this possible for every type of multiplayer such as cozy little LAN match with friends? I think this mode is almost a necessity ... the usual gameplay is fine and nice -but sometimes one yearns for a little more sense to all those battles .. and that's what Galactic Conquest means.
By the way: Bigger & more varied space battles (Oh YES! PLEASE!) Indeed,there is this great gaping hole in the void that begs to be filled with new content! More playable classes, bigger interior etc ...
Another nice addition - as a mere game mode or perhaps an additional option for Galactic Conquest - might be a sabotage mode. I have this small idea floating in my head of a quick little game type that plays very differently from a normal match. Something vaguely Counterstrike-like. Not that I am a Counterstrike fan, but I think it might fit in very well. A mode where all the forces are already deployed at the start of the match - guarding various positions - and don't respawn (aside from players, possibly). Perhaps with a time limit. One team takes the side of infiltrators -a good opportunity for some new classes like shadowtroopers or whatever, but Dark Troopers, Bothan Spies and Wookies might also do the job - generally speaking: sneaky, mobile and specialised classes, maybe made significantly better than the normal troopers of the other side ... because the infiltrators would be clearly the minority. They'd have to destroy certain key points (like generators), maybe within a time limit. Such a sneak attack would a) be well suited to the Star Wars theme b) a nice option to weaken a fortified position in Galactic Conquest. c)offer many opportunities for further ideas (attacking an enemy fleet just with a force of starfighters / boarding a space station ...). Did I mention space stations? Now THAT would be a fine addition to GC ... I'd really love some fleet vs. space base action.
Oh- and one further thing: We Imperials need more skins! The Empire needs officers with caps and marines with big black helmets. This severe shortage in imperial variation is a significant threat to the moral of loyal troops! Sign this application now - and help pacify the galaxy! ;)

jevro
02-17-2006, 09:24 PM
i think they need more levels with jedi and accually having a jedi class, no time limits in hunt, more force powers, oh and to fly ships on land battles, more gun opinions. and no kill limit

MachineCult
02-18-2006, 06:26 AM
No kill limit? The point of the game is to defeat the enemy.

Commander Obi-Wan
02-18-2006, 11:30 AM
i think they need more levels with jedi and accually having a jedi class, no time limits in hunt, more force powers, oh and to fly ships on land battles, more gun opinions. and no kill limit

Gun opinions? I tihnk you mean options. Yes, I agree that they need starfighters on land battles. But, with out a kill limit it just wouldn't work. No victory....it'd get boring.

Coraan Talme
02-18-2006, 02:54 PM
Jevro, do you mean different secondary fire options when you speak of 'more gun options'? Like in the Jedi Knight series? Might indeed be a nice touch, though I think there are more important stuff that the developers could add. Like - as you said - the return of ships in land battles, though this would probably lead to problems in the currents system of ship handling. I guess things like using the 'afterburners' ( sorry, blame it to Wing Commander, but that's what I call everything that speeds up starships for a limited amount of time) would be none too practical in the small and obstacle-ridden ground battles. Maneuvers are perhaps not sensible here, either. Personally, I wouldn't object at all, if they'd just take the old BF1 system for this case - it seemed to work just fine. Ah yes - reintroducing cockpits for land based combat would be very welcome, too. The current 3rd-person-only view feels a little bland to me (for land battles, anyway).
As to 'no kill-limit' I have to agree with ObiWan ... what would you use as a replacement objective? Or do you want unlimited combat?? And Jedi as a regular class ... well, I doubt that this would find a majority here. They are just too strong for that - and Battlefront shouldn't be a playground for filthy Jedi anyway ;). It's a place where loyal imperial troops can shine.

ParanoidAndroid
02-18-2006, 10:30 PM
Gun options? I think that would be cool, I keep reading stuff about a "charged shot" that was planned for the rebel rifle and can think of some other cool modes for weapons (like setting the sensitivity of mines or explode times of grenades delayed or instant).

As for no-kill-limit, Well I'd say this would be kind of necessary unless somthing is introduced as a substitute. Like each team has a destroyable base, and the level doesn't end until one is blown up, or maybe a "king of the hill" type match, where one team must capture a VICP (Very Important Command Post) and hold it for a certain amount of time for victory.

As for playable jedi, well typically no I don't think that would be a good idea but I can think of execptions. Maybe certain scenarios could call for a jedi "elite class" with limited numbers and only high ranking players can use them. I could see this for all sorts of units and not just jedi though.

Redtech
02-19-2006, 07:29 AM
No, you'll have a n00b class that's Jedi, remeber who'd make a BF3. ;) I mean, I dunno why they don't just make it Jedi Academy 2 while they're at it. Especially when Kyle was so good at using weapons anyway.

jevro
02-19-2006, 11:04 AM
What i mean is like a free for all for or at least a bigger kill limit cause it's too short and the same thing for hunt no time limit a kill limit. I also like the destroyable base idea it's good.

Solo4114
02-21-2006, 05:25 PM
The Good:

- The addition of space battles is cool. It's not a space sim like the old X-wing games, but it's still fun. The ships seem reasonably balanced and different enough to allow for alternate tactics.

- Some of the ground maps are cooler. I like Hoth a bit better than before, but I've only played it a few times.

- Sprinting is a nice addition.

- Graphics seem a bit better than before, or at least a bit less blocky.

- GC mode is a LOT more fun than it used to be.

The Bad:

- Gameplay is RIDICULOUSLY spammy and arcadey. Shooting a thousand bullets at someone who circle strafes reminds me of Quake or Unreal Tournament. I personally really dislike arcadey games. Some folks say they want this to be more like the Battlefield series, but I'd go one step further and make the game more like Red Orchestra in terms of its realism. I'd make it so it takes some skill to hit someone else, but if you do, they die in basically one hit. To me, that looks like how the movies operated.

- Ground maps seem quite small, even when they LOOK like they're larger. I think this is due to both the speed of the game and the layout of the maps. Maps seem wider rather than longer, so considering you spend most of your time rushing forward instead of to the sides, a wider map doesn't help much.

- Space combat still feels limited. "Fleets" are more like individual ships with a few escorts. That ain't a fleet. Wish these were larger scale.

- Spaceship turrets do exactly squat. A few work somewhat well as anti-fighter guns, but even those are limited in power. The big beam cannons don't do anything against other ships.

- Spaceship interiors are tiny.

- Too much emphasis on heroes/Jedi. Frankly, I'm bloody well sick of Jedi this and Jedi that. I LIKED just being a grunt. Yes, it's cool to have Boba Fett and Han Solo in the game, but they should've left them as non-controlled heroes or just not bothered to put them in at all. If people want to play as heroes, go load up a Jedi Academy mod and play as whoever you like. Or they could, you know, release a few games in the classic trilogy timeperiod instead of all this focus on crappy prequels...

- No mod support (yet). Makes for gameplay that gets old FAST.

- Not enough new maps and no reason to take out the old ones.



Overall:

It's a polished version of BF1 that still misses the mark. A lot of squandered potential due to the EXACT same problem as last time: LucasArts and kicking the game out the door way too early. The end result is that I don't feel like I bought a new game as much as that I bought an expansion with a patch that polishes the old one. I'd say it's worth about $30, but not the $50 pricetag. Luckily, I got it cheap.

jawathehutt
02-21-2006, 05:47 PM
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

Redtech
02-22-2006, 09:28 AM
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!

Solo4114
02-22-2006, 10:47 AM
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.

Redtech
02-24-2006, 01:10 PM
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?

Solo4114
02-25-2006, 04:38 PM
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.

MachineCult
02-25-2006, 05:56 PM
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.

daventry
02-26-2006, 02:58 AM
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.

jawathehutt
02-26-2006, 03:33 PM
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

Brainpr0n
02-27-2006, 08:04 AM
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.

Redtech
02-27-2006, 08:20 AM
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.