LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=613)
-   -   omg, the graphic =[ (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=152616)

yellowblood 09-19-2005 06:00 PM

omg, the graphic =[
 
I don't have a payment count for FilePlanet. But a quick look at the System Requirements 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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth54
Graphics don't make a game; gameplay do.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth54
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScoutTrooper95
LA and Pandemic are focusing on Gameplay and featurs

They are?

Hard to believe.

DarthMuffin 09-19-2005 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK-8252
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellowblood
...a quick look at the System Requirements 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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurgan
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK-8252
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK-8252
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurgan
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! :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurgan
(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

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK-8252
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by zerted
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AotC Visual Dictionary, Page 39
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebel_Trooper
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellowblood
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK-8252
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by MachineCult
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScoutTrooper95
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScoutTrooper95
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK-8252
BF2's graphics are sweet.

SWBF2, on the other hand...

I don't see what the fuss is about. The specifications for Battlefield 2.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ParanoidAndroid
some people do truly seem to hate the game

Does anyone here hate this game already? (SWBF2)

Kurgan 09-22-2005 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kramerika
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellowblood
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebel_Trooper
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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.