lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar
View Poll Results: RATE IT!BOOYAH!
90-100% 82 46.33%
70-80% 56 31.64%
50-60% 18 10.17%
30-40% 8 4.52%
10-20% 3 1.69%
0-9% 10 5.65%
Voters: 177. You may not vote on this poll


Thread: Your REVIEWS/THOUGHTS! [Big merge]
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 09-20-2004, 11:33 AM   #1
Tyler_Durden
 
Tyler_Durden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 593
my review of the SP game

Just got this game and wanted to write a review.........

Well first of all the action is intense, i've only played a few modes such as instant action and Galactic Conquest. Great modes to be sure as there is always something going on, nver a dull moment. There are enough bots around so you'll never feel like you're completely alone. You can order them to follow you, spread out, hold position and jump into vehicles you're piloting. The most awesome vehicle i've come across is the speeder bike as you can have an ally jump on with you and you can zip around the enitre map, basically running over enemies and creating havok. The the thing about vehicles is that the bigger ones tend to be almost impossible to take down by yoourself. It can get frustrating because you think you're almost gonna take it down then you get shot and you have to start all over again. One thing i especially like about vehicles is that they are, in fact powerful, as they should be. A good shot can send troops flying hilariously through the air and tumbling as the hit ground. The AT-TE is slow but it created a lot of hell with the opposing team.

One big gripe i had is that the spaceships such as the x-wing and tie fighter simply don't have enough room in some of the maps for good dog fights (tatooine in particular). The control for vehicles is quite easy with directional movement from the mouse. You can also turn using the A or the D keys which makes control quite intuitive. Another gripe is I thought the maps would have been bigger but it seems a lot of them don't measure up to the size and detail found in EA's battlefield games. It seems as though a lot of control points are packed too closely with no room for maneuvers. So if they do another game i think it would be nice if they expanded on the size of the levels and the number of combatants as well as spreading out control points. Bots don't make the game any easier as they dont try to capture points on their own but they do capture points, it seems, by accident which is the case with the bespin map. In otherwords the AI ain't too smart but they are deadly accurate when it comes to shooting and they follow orders reasonably well.

There's a good selection of classes to choose from. My favorites are the grunts and the clone jet troopers. I played all the classes and they all have some good advantages and disadvantages. The only real problem with the weapons is that they are in fact too accurate, especially for the PC game. It's easy to take out guys from the other team as there is absolutely no recoil with your weapon. Yeah but this is star wars and the blasters dont have recoil as they are not hard ammo. But really just for this type of game the blasters need a recoil. The sniper gun has a recoil after firing, though. I think this should be visited in a patch.

The graphics were very nice, better than i expected. I have a mid range system and was able to run the game at 1024x768 with medium texture resolution and bump mapping on. The game ran at a crisp framerate and never slowed down in any instance. Sound was great as well. I think it's mandatory that you play this game with 5.1 sound as the explosions and the laser fire are absolutely astounding. Even on a low sound system it does sound great with the volume all the way up. Some of the blasts, particularly your own seemed muted down a bit but it's not a big problem. LA always does great sound though, and you'll be amazed with the explosions and such so no worries there.

I know a lot of people who were concerned with the heroes in the game such as darth vader, luke skywalker, mace windu, and count dooku. I think people believe that they make for an unfair advantage but really, the heroes don't do much, they aren't really invincible. they do go after opposing forces units but they don't force jump, push, or anything like that. All they do is basically kill you with a swing of the saber but you can easily outrun them if they come after you they can also block every shot. I was playing as a rebel grunt on naboo in galactic conquest when vader showed up and eliminated a few teammates. I threw a grenade at him, which sent him flying and rolling, he "died" then disappeared a moment later. He did, however come back and caused trouble for my team but overall the hero characters aren't much to worry about. You can eliminate them with a well placed grenade or a close proximity ground shot from a vehicle. But they do come back so be careful.

Overall i think this is a great game and one of the best i played this year. I think Pandemic deserves praise for a job well done. I do wish that some of the maps were bigger but maybe they can do a touch up with patches or go back and revisit some of the levels. More combatants would be great as well but the game does pretty well with what it has. The battles are intense and it really immerses you into the game. That whole star wars feeling is abundant throughout (at least to me). Hopefully the devs will see the potential for editing as this game is something i really want to create new maps for so if any devs are reading this, please, PLEASE release editing tools!!


On a scale out of 10 this one gets a 9.
Tyler_Durden is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 11:48 AM   #2
Darth_ToMeR
Veteran
 
Darth_ToMeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Israel
Posts: 807
Good post thanks .


My KOTOR Mods Site:
http://darthtomer.tripod.com
Darth_ToMeR is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 01:49 PM   #3
SITH_ShadowCat
 
SITH_ShadowCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 263
Finally, a good and indepth fan review. Things don't sound disappionting with the PC as IGN had made it seem. There is some recoild tough but it kicks in after firing the whole clip non stop near the end. But we'll see if any patches come up. Can you also state your system stats and maybe alot of the graphical things you had turned on/off like AA for example.


"These blast marks, too accurate for a controller. Only a mouse and keyboard are so precise"
SITH_ShadowCat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 02:15 PM   #4
Jaden Malip
Junior Member
 
Jaden Malip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 280
Cheers for that.
Jaden Malip is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 02:24 PM   #5
Tyler_Durden
 
Tyler_Durden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 593
yeah i don't think IGN really gave the game a fair chance. I have a feeling the reviewer wasn't into these types of games, but to each his own. I think this game is awesome, and it does take a lot to impress me after playing bf vietnam, they really impressed me with the walkers such as the AT-AT and AT-TE.

As for my specs:

AMD Athlon 2700 (2.16 Ghz) Processor
512 MB RAM
G-Force 4 Ti 4200 (64 MB) video card
Integrated 5.1 sound - MSI Motherboard (The sound is great for a $60 motherboard as well)

I think this is pretty mid range as my video card is getting old plus a lot more games require 1 Gig of RAM nowadays but like i stated, i was able to run the game smoothly at 1024x768 resolution with medium texure settings and bump mapping turned on.

all i need is an LCD monitor or a plasma display and i'll be set.
Tyler_Durden is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 02:42 PM   #6
JDKnite188
 
JDKnite188's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Nar Shaddaa
Posts: 425
Decent review.

What about . . . SCREENSHOTS?!?!?!


Cheers,
JDKnite188

Hopin' LEC is going to get on track and bring us a decent JK for the JKers of 1997.
JDKnite188 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 03:03 PM   #7
The_Preacher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: newcastle
Posts: 92
Thoughts from me on the PC version :)

just offering some thoughts on teh Pc version.

well i myself have played it. and i would have to agree with IGN review to some extent. (dont believe the thing about the Bots though, there no where near as stupid as IGN makes them out to be)

its an ok at best PC game, but good for consoles. its so obvious this game was designed for consoles and ported to PC.

the controls for vehicles (Especialy flying vehicles) are terrible. there are no flight physics like BF1942. its more like rogue squadron 1, realy arcady twitchy. you cant simply land your vehicle like in BF1942. you have to press a Take off/ Land button that automatically lands or takes off the craft (computer does it for you )

the graphics imo look worse on PC than the PS2 or Xbox because the PC uses a monitor, therefore you have a higher resolution wich shows up the low poly models and textures much more than a TV does.

The game however is very fun as an infantry game, and imo they should have left it at that. OR come up with better code for the vehicles. maps like Mos eisly and rhen var, yavin temple etc, realy show how good an infantry game it is.

sound effects are great, and the maps are pretty good, if a little small. (hoth suffers greatly from this)

my advice would be if you have a console ANd a PC, go for the console version, as the Pc version just doesnt feel right in comparison.

it sounds strange i know, but as the game was made for consoles, if i were to score it, id give the console version a higher score than the PC version simply because it Feels right on a console, and feels like a cheap port on PC.

there both identicle, except that maps like endor have more vegitation on the PC version.

the major gripes not concerning controls or feel i have being a bit of a star wars nerd, are the fact that everything feels miniature. like little lego things or something. the scales of the At-AT's ships, and people seem to small and midget like. proportions just seem very odd, has anyone else felt that?

anyway thats my thoughts on the PC, if you have a console, go for the console version, the benefits of going for the Pc are not enough to justify the worse gameplay and feel.

however no one has to listen to my opinon, just thought id help those wondering where their money should go

cheers.
Preach
The_Preacher is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 03:12 PM   #8
Wardog1368
Rookie
 
Wardog1368's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 131
Own the game? post your review here plz.

If you own the game post your review here then ppl who are still waiting for it ( yes they still exist, including me but tommarow...) can ask you about what they want to know.
As for me what is the Kashyyk foilage like does it hide the units well?
Wardog1368 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 03:12 PM   #9
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Mouse and keyboard + modding and downloading + more players on a server = me gets it for PC.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 03:14 PM   #10
DF_Mike
Rookie
 
DF_Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 19
Amen to that !


"Play Battlefront and own everybody i will"

Join the Defense Force, the greatest clan in the galaxy.
DF_Mike is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 03:16 PM   #11
The_Preacher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: newcastle
Posts: 92
the mouse and keyboard are the downfall tbh. the way the game has been set up is for Console style play. the mouse and keyboard hinders the gameplay.

thats why i said it doesnt FEEL right on the PC.

its just not designed right for it.
The_Preacher is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 03:23 PM   #12
jasa-chosen
Rookie
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42
Dude how can you say the graphics are better on the console then the pc. I dont care what anyone says the PC version has better graphics. That was the stupidest comment i ever heard. You are probably playing the game on lowest specs you can. And almost all fps with planes on take time to get use too. It took me awhile to get use to BattleFields planes. And the game is the same on all versions. The only thing that differs is the graphics. How can someone tell me that there xbox (800mhz PIII) is going to look better then my 3400+ 64 bit Athlon with a radeon X800? And we all know the real good servers are going to be on the pc. Who wants to play off of someones cable modem server? Most of the servers on consoles are off peoples connections. Yea that is fine for racing games and 4 player type games but not a fps that is ment to be played with alot of people. Nothing will beat 32 man and 32 bot PC server the action will be so intense. I am not trying to flame you but u really flamed the pc and i have to defend that.
jasa-chosen is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 03:26 PM   #13
jasa-chosen
Rookie
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42
And i believe IGN said the pc accuracy was better. And I know someone that had the game 3 days ago sent he screenies and told me all about it. The game is amazing and the screenies were amazing realtime pics.
jasa-chosen is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 03:29 PM   #14
The_Preacher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: newcastle
Posts: 92
well for starters i have a GForce FX 5900 ultra with 256mb DDr ram.

i have 1 gigabyte of DDR memory, soundblaster audigy player. and an AMD 1900 XP.

implaying the Game at full GFX.

and it is quite easy if you understood what i wrote, to understand my meaning. the polygon count and texture size on the models, is a fraction of what available on games like Doom 3.

therefore it is indeed quite possible for the game to look worse on a PC monitor screen when u have a clear 1024 x 768 or higher resolution, since a Tv resolution is much lower, giving the impresion teh textures and models are of hgher quality.

yes i know it sounds strange, but those that are technicaly savvey, may undersand what im trying to say.

you come off as very fanboyish and defensive. i didnt Berrate the game. i just stated the Facts of my findings from playing tha game.

i could go into more detail and point out bugs, such as the AT-ST feet sometimes go through the terrain on tatooine, and at the tusken camp there is a small Stone fire that isnt on the ground it is slightly raised above it floating.

as i said. i have payed attention to the details of the game, and stated what i have found, yes alot of it is indeed my opinoin. but her is no need to come out shouting back at me. as if i was some computer illiterate person.

i also have a number of screenshots if your interested. id be happy to send them.
The_Preacher is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 03:30 PM   #15
jasa-chosen
Rookie
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42
Here is proof on the graphics. This pic is taking from the pc game. Does that look like crappy models?
http://www.xsorbit3.com/users/jasacl..._and_vader.jpg
jasa-chosen is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 03:39 PM   #16
The_Preacher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: newcastle
Posts: 92
oh just a quick note. i believe IGN said the PC version was the Cleaner of the 3. This is because as i stated, it is played on a monitor, whereas the other 2 are played on a TV.

i am also willing to bet the Textures were upped from a possible 256 x 256, to 512 x 512. to give u a small comparison.

bf1942 is about 2 years older game, and alot of its texture sizes are 1024 x 1024.
The_Preacher is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 03:43 PM   #17
YourBestFriend
Rookie
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally posted by jasa-chosen
Here is proof on the graphics. This pic is taking from the pc game. Does that look like crappy models?
http://www.xsorbit3.com/users/jasacl..._and_vader.jpg
Wow, sweet pic of vader!
YourBestFriend is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 03:45 PM   #18
Tyler_Durden
 
Tyler_Durden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 593
even if people agree the models have crappy textures on them, the mod community implement higher res textures, that's a GUARANTEE!!!
Tyler_Durden is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 03:54 PM   #19
The_Preacher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: newcastle
Posts: 92
agreed tyler. but at the end of the day, would you not also agree thats sad?

that we as Pc gamers must rely on amature Modders to freely improve the game for us, even though we have just paid e.g. £39.99 to the profesional game makersat pandemic, who get paid £xxx a year anyway?


imo, i think thats pretty sad.
The_Preacher is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 04:04 PM   #20
jasa-chosen
Rookie
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42
I am only going to say this one more time. The models look fine. You cant expect Doom3 type models. I mean comeon. The pic i linked to was real time. The models look dang good. And the glitches you talked about tell me one game that does not have them? I am sure if you looked at the xbox game you would fine alot of glitches too. Monitor would only improve the visuals. When you enable Anti-aliasing and Anisotropic filtering the texture will really look smooth. I keep hearing these console people trying to bash the pc at every chance they can. The game looks great on both. But the graphics will look better on the PC. I think they envy the 32 man internet support and the faster servers.
jasa-chosen is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 04:05 PM   #21
panzer214
Rookie
 
panzer214's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: jabbas butt
Posts: 69
how do you rate this game?

can't say tell ya tomorow
panzer214 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 04:10 PM   #22
The_Preacher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: newcastle
Posts: 92
perhaps you missed my post refering to the fact i am not a fan boy of either.

and the reasons as to WHY it looks worse. If you had some Technical Knowledge (im assuming you have very little judging by your replies) then you may understand where i am coming from.

no i dont expect doom3 visuals. that is also why i provided you with an example of BF1942 which is a game 2 years older than SWBF.

perhaps a more thorough read of the posts in the thread, woudl allow you to create a better argument against what i have to say.

i also sent you a private message refering to sending you Screenshots to prove what graphics im actually playing it in. so you know where my source reference is coming from.
The_Preacher is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 04:14 PM   #23
The_Preacher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: newcastle
Posts: 92
well unfortunatly you didnt state which version. PC or console.

i would rate the Pc version within your 50-60% range, as it feels like a cheap console port. and doesnt translate well.

however i would rate the Console version much higher. perhaps 80-90%

however i can only vote once

also. you are in an SW:BF forum. lol so you can't exactly expect a completely unbiased opinon from all. i expect to see the 90-100% vote take the lead at all times. as most people will defy and deny any shortcummings the game may have.
The_Preacher is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 04:15 PM   #24
age_master
Rookie
 
age_master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 26
neither can i


though on what ive seen i can hardly wait to play
age_master is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 04:18 PM   #25
JawaJoey
Forumite
 
JawaJoey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: My home...duh
Posts: 500
Not that anything anyone says or does would or could change my mind about getting the PC version, I still think that you don't seem to be too convincing. Your biggest complaint is that is doesn't feel right on PC. Let me ask you, do you play shooters a lot? Do you play them on consoles or PC usually? That can seriously affect how you feel the game feels.
Plus, no matter what, for me, I know that the PC version will feel better. I'm not good with shooters on consoles, period. Trying to play a shooter on a console is about as funs as wading waist deep through crap. For me at least. I always use PC, and it will always, and no matter how you may personally judge the game to "feel," I'll enjoy it more on PC.

Even if the graphics really are as "sad" as you say they are, I know for a fact that they will look plenty good. The game will look very good, regardless, and I'm still convinced it will look better on PC than on consoles.


God is a placebo with nasty side effects.
JawaJoey is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 04:26 PM   #26
panzer214
Rookie
 
panzer214's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: jabbas butt
Posts: 69
sorry PLEASE STATE WHICH VERSION PS2,XBOX OR PC IF YOU DO NOT WE WILL TAKE IT AS FOR EVERY SYSTEM



i hope that makes it clearer ok
panzer214 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 04:29 PM   #27
The_Preacher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: newcastle
Posts: 92
oh hey dont get me wrong.

i never said the graphics on Pc were rubbish.

all i said was that they "seem" better on a console since the low resolution kind of hides the low poly models and low res textures.

kinda like. low res goes with low res. and high res goes with high res.

instead of low res trying to go with high res. the high definition makes it clearer that there lower resolution textures.

but at the end of the day there not terrible, the graphics just look (to me at least) as though there already a year or 2 old.

and yes im an Avid Pc gamer. Been playing PC games and first person shooters online since Half life came out.

and yes i would normally, be on your side. i woudl be saying Pc is always greater than consoles, as you have much more accurate movement etc.

i am also a big Ps2 gamer aswell, and have my fair share of First person shooters for the Ps2.

now, 99% of the time, the Pc is much better for first person shooters, however, certain games are DESIGNED by the game makers to work specifically for joypads. such as Timesplitters, Timesplitters, is a good example as to how the First person works well. However, translate this to PC, and it wouldnt have the same feeling as the console verison, because it was designed specificaly.

to use another analogy. take for example, Pro Evolution soccer. All the controls, tricks, slide tackles, thru balls, headers, crosses etc. all mapped in an intuitive way on teh joypad for aplayer.

now translate this directly to Pc, so your playing witht he arrow keys, and A, S and D as your shoot, tackle etc buttons.

and the game INSTANTLY feels, SOO wrong. it feels terrible and the appeal of the game is lost.

Same goes for beat em ups like soul calibre or something, it looses its feel completely.

however, the point you guys Might be missing from what im saying is. that leads me back to SWBF

the game FEELS as though it was DESIGNED for a console.

Meaning, the vehicles flight code and everything were shaped, and the dynamics were created to suit someone on a PS2 or an X-box. they werent created for Pc Ala BF1942.

i cant realy think of any other ways to simplify what im trying to say

im sorry if what im saying isnt coming accross clearly.

preach

P.s. Im not attacking the game, or having a go. just trying to have an intelligent convo with you guys, and trying to help advise people from my experiences.

oh and btw, its 1:24 Am here, so if i dont reply im asleep lol.
The_Preacher is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 04:49 PM   #28
jasa-chosen
Rookie
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42
Let people buy the game and see how the graphics our on the pc. And i hate to tell you but I know alot about pc's. So do try the i am so much smarter then u so i am going to try to spoon feed you the info. Did you even look at the picture i posted? That is 1280 x 1024. I played Battlefield and i have a ps2. Well anyway I am done. Your so much smarter then us. You are the only person I seen yet to say the graphics are better on the consoles then the PC. But then again you are a computer genius. Even ign said the graphics looked better on the PC. This is my last post cause you are set in your opinion. I just hope you dont cause people not to buy it on the PC.
jasa-chosen is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 04:50 PM   #29
italegion
Rookie
 
italegion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rome, Italy
Posts: 206
i have to agree with The_Peacher
look here
http://img66.exs.cx/img66/9003/screenshot_5.jpg
it was taken at 1024x768 at fullest quality and those dark textures on the ground, they look so bad - they were just resampled from the console version with the simplest of the process. hope they will fix all this.


[size=1]Apology accepted, Captain Needa...
www.italegion.altervista.org
italegion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 04:54 PM   #30
Vader523
Rookie
 
Vader523's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 136
I read a big report saying the game was originally supposed to be made for PS2 and XBox and that was it. During the creation process, they decided to make it for the PC also. As the post above me states, many things were ported into the PC version. Yes, graphics will be better for PC, but not by much. I like the PS2 controller anyway (Especially for vehicles... A speeder bike with keyboard ans mouse: Yikes!). Im sticking to the PS2, but everyone has their own opinion.
Vader523 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 04:56 PM   #31
YourBestFriend
Rookie
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally posted by italegion
i have to agree with The_Peacher
look here
http://img66.exs.cx/img66/9003/screenshot_5.jpg
it was taken at 1024x768 at fullest quality and those dark textures on the ground, they look so bad - they were just resampled from the console version with the simplest of the process. hope they will fix all this.
Yeah, definately playing in 3rd person looking at that... pretty reflections though, those must be cloud city. Someone should make a rebel blockade runner map from the beginning of A new hope. That would be sweet
YourBestFriend is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 05:02 PM   #32
The_Preacher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: newcastle
Posts: 92
well. jasa, im sorry you feel that i came accross with teh smarter than you thing. granted i assumed your knowledge must be to high by h eway you rplied. so im sorry for that assumption.

i myself have a BSC honours degree in interactive entertainment Systems. interactive entertainments systems, encompasses, everything to do with the games and movie industry, animation, claymation, 3D modeling, photoshop, C++, game design, multimedia authoring etc etc.(im gonna get flamed for saying that lol i know, sounds arrogant)

but i only state that, because i DO, have some form of semi profesional and educated knowledge on the subject of Games.

but that aside, there realy is no reason to turn this into a personal matter, if it continued on a personal route im sure the thread would be closed, and that does no one any good.

of course the main reaction will always be, omg is this guy on crack, PS2 better than Pc, Never.

i didnt say the Ps2 gave a clearer image, i merely stated that the Clarity of a Pc monitor is actually its downfall, as it shows up the lower resolution textures, and lower poly models more prominent.

For example. Anti Aliasing. Anti aliasing, Takes ajagged edge, and kind of smothes it out to make it appear a nice clear cut edge.

Now if i refer this analogy to what im talking about with teh Monitor scenario of SWBF. Take SWBF, the RAW perfectly clarity picture of a PC monitor, shows it up as a jagged line,

however put it on a TV with lower resolution, and that line now becomes blurred (compared to a high resolution, mega pixel per inch monitor) making it apear smother than the Pc counterpart.

(please realise im not talking about actual anti ailiasing, as it obviously is beter one Pc with a good GFX card)

this is merely an example analogy to help better explain my point between the monitor and TV, whears th eclarity of the monitor, is the downfall, as it shows up the lower texture resolutions and Polygons.

i hope that analogy helps clear it up a bit more

preach
The_Preacher is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 05:03 PM   #33
The_Preacher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: newcastle
Posts: 92
i think that screenshot is actually from inside a kamino building
The_Preacher is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 05:25 PM   #34
Azurik12x
Rookie
 
Azurik12x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: US of A
Posts: 77
Re: Thoughts from me on the PC version :)

Quote:
Originally posted by The_Preacher
just offering some thoughts on teh Pc version.


the controls for vehicles (Especialy flying vehicles) are terrible. there are no flight physics like BF1942. its more like rogue squadron 1, realy arcady twitchy. you cant simply land your vehicle like in BF1942. you have to press a Take off/ Land button that automatically lands or takes off the craft (computer does it for you )

wtf? in BF1942 it was hard as HELL to fly planes! I only used them for getting into the enemy base. It was harder to shoot anything while piloting them.


Proud Member of the Imperial Army
Azurik12x is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 05:28 PM   #35
nolasurfr
Rookie
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14
Not Happy -This game kinda sucks

Been playing for 30 mins now and I am already wanting to play BF 1942 Desert Combat mod again....I thought this game would be alot like it but....not...

Maybe the ps2 version is better then pc....

There maps are to small.
nolasurfr is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 05:33 PM   #36
singard
Rookie
 
singard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 68
In defense of the Preacher, console games ported to PC do look inferior to games designed specifically for PC.

Although the graphics undoubtedly look a lot cleaner due to better textures and higher screen resolutions, it's a technical fact that a crossplatform game is only as strong as its weakest platform.

A game designed to play well on the PS2 will not hold up quite as well on the XBOX and will seem even more inferior on the PC. Remember, the maps are designed to run well on PS2, not PC. So they're going to be small. Polycount will be lower for PC, because you're using the same assets as the PS2. They've sweetened up the graphics for PC, but the game will NEVER be as good as a PC original.

Now you can bash him and tell him how unconvincing he is because you desperately want the game to be great, or you can wise up to the fact that he's played the game, and he's not bashing it -- just talking about its shortcomings. Quite frankly, attacking him is not at all helpful.

We're all Star Wars fans here! No need to fight with one another.
singard is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 05:33 PM   #37
Vezner
 
Vezner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Utah
Posts: 57
I think that the dude who started this thread gave a very fair and realistic review. He's right. 'nuf said. That's why I'm getting this on the x-box and I will continue to play BF1942 on the PC. I get the best of both worlds.


-- I support George W. Bush and the USA.
-- I support the troops that are fighting and dying for our Freedom!
-- Free speech refers to political and religious rights...
NOT THE RIGHT TO BE PROFANE IN PUBLIC!
-- Christians have rights of expression too.
-- Star Wars Fan since 1979.



http://dwp.bigplanet.com/vezner1

Do you think EA is crap because they buy your favorite developer and then destroy it (ie Westwood and Origin)? Then click on this link and show your support for those who are against EA:http://gamersagainsteagames.com/
Vezner is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 05:34 PM   #38
grep
Rookie
 
grep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 55
Too funny... the guy offers a very clear and understandable review of his opinion of the game and people get their feathers ruffled. Personally, I took a look at these screenshots and they really don't look anything that great.... I've seen better models in BF42 mods.

I've been on the fence in regards to buying this game and at $50, it better be dam good. This one person's review of the game won't make or break my decision, but this is like the 4th review that I've read (including IGNs) that really did not get me too excited about buying it.

And I do agree... if this was geared towards consoles and then just "ported" over to the PC, then you know Lucas Arts are just looking for the cash. What makes games successful these days is its shelf-life. That includes mods, mini-mods, add-ons, maps, etc.. Vanilla BF42 is still very, very popular and was right out of the box. I also don't like the notion of buying a game "waiting for mods" to come out. That's just ridiculous.


Up the Irons!
grep is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 05:40 PM   #39
Revlt Coranier
Junior Member
 
Revlt Coranier's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Concord, California, U.S.A., North America, Northern Hemisphere, Earth, Milky Way
Posts: 362
Is small maps the only reason you don't like it? If not, could you please expand on why you do not like it?


Fire the liar. Vote Kerry/Edwards 2004
The above phrase was shamelessly stolen from Skinwalker

Join the Emperor's Hammer
Join the Imperial Expiditionary Force

Signing a defense spending bill, President Bush declared America's terrorist enemies "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people" -- then he added, "And neither do we."

Quote:
Originally posted by DieStarWarsGeek

Newsflash to the religious, SEX FEELS GOOD. That's right, it's not just for babies anymore!


I am 65% addicted to Porn. What about you?
Revlt Coranier is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2004, 05:43 PM   #40
JediCrow
Rookie
 
JediCrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 185
Re: Not Happy -This game kinda sucks

Quote:
Originally posted by nolasurfr
Been playing for 30 mins now and I am already wanting to play BF 1942 Desert Combat mod again....I thought this game would be alot like it but....not...

Maybe the ps2 version is better then pc....

There maps are to small.
Thanks for the.....in depth........review....
JediCrow is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > SWBattlefront.net (SWBF I & II) > Star Wars Battlefront > General Discussion > Your REVIEWS/THOUGHTS! [Big merge]

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:55 AM.

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