Star Wars BattleFront2

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: hans030390
I own the first, and I've played a demo of the second.

Pros:
Better look overall (graphics, HUD, etc)
Better sound
Slightly better control
Space fighting is fun and a LOT easier

Cons:
Feels just like battlefront 1 despite additions

It's probably not worth putting down $50 right away.

Got a link to where I can download the demo hans?

 

[niggles]

Originally posted by: pcthuglife

It felt like a console port

Yeah, I only played the xbox version. I thought it had great gameplay on the xbox but I can't imagine what the controls must've been like on the pc.

Just to clarify, it wasn't just the controls, although the flight controls were severly dumbed down and landing consisted of pressing the space bar. Picking a landing spot was pretty much impossible with any degree of accuracy in a fighter. Then there was the level design where the maps were so small it was insane. There was no where to fly to you ended up flying in tight circles trying to attack ground units. Finally there was the small number of maps that just got boring fast. I'm leaving out the useless on line browser because that seems to be an industry standard rather than an issue with Battlefront. If it's nothing more than a patch fix and a few extra maps I'm still sold on not getting this. Gamespot gave the original 7.9. Based on this score Battlefront 2 would have to get at least a 9 from them before I'd play it.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: PseudoKnight
Battlefield gameplay in the StarWars universe that isn't owned by EA == win!
Now, if it can overcome the original's shortcomings, then they'll have a hit.

Waiting for reviews is always a good choice. You might find a deal on the price if you wait a bit, too.

EA = Win, and I don't even care. I haven't been disappointed by a single EA game, so I'll keep buying from them. If Battlefront 1 sucked, I don't expect much from the 2nd, and really I don't much like any Star Wars themed games anyway.

Besides, there's a star wars mod for BF2 in the makes, isn't there? BF2 mod ftw.

 

[pcthuglife]

niggles, I don't think developers meant to put much of an emphasis on flying in Battlefront1. I never looked at it as a shooter, more of a team based "king of the hill" strategy game. I think what really determined whether your team one or lost (and I'm not talking about online play - stupid modded xbox...) was how many or which command posts your team controlled. I've lossed games where my kill/death ratio was 75/1, but my team never controlled the good command posts. On the flip side to that, I've won games where my K/D ration was 25/10 but I managed to take over 5 command posts.

 

[gi0rgi0]

I was hoping for bf2 like gameplay. The first one was ok but yeah i wanted to really fly.

 

[imported_Amuro]

Originally posted by: hans030390
I own the first, and I've played a demo of the second.

Pros:
Better look overall (graphics, HUD, etc)
Better sound
Slightly better control
Space fighting is fun and a LOT easier

Cons:
Feels just like battlefront 1 despite additions

It's probably not worth putting down $50 right away.

I only paid HK$269 which is less than US$34 for my copy. It's worth it.

 

[PseudoKnight]

EA = Win, and I don't even care. I haven't been disappointed by a single EA game, so I'll keep buying from them. If Battlefront 1 sucked, I don't expect much from the 2nd, and really I don't much like any Star Wars themed games anyway.

Don't get me wrong. I respect the developers. It's the business men in EA that I have a problem with. If my only way to protest against their methods is to not buy an EA game, then that's what I'll do... er, not do. I have no problem with playing and enjoying the games that are published by EA, though. Spore looks great. Will Wright deserves the Walk of Game Lifetime Achievement Award.

As for Battlefront II, well, it seems they overcame much of the original's shortcomings. Gamespy likes it. (4.5/5 stars... though I should mention that this is the console version)
http://xbox.gamespy.com/xbox/star-wars-battlefront-2/663532p1.html (of course, reading the review is always better than going by stars or percentages)

 

[CarLBanks]

I definately am going to wait on Battlefront 2.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: pcthuglife
niggles, I don't think developers meant to put much of an emphasis on flying in Battlefront1. I never looked at it as a shooter, more of a team based "king of the hill" strategy game. I think what really determined whether your team one or lost (and I'm not talking about online play - stupid modded xbox...) was how many or which command posts your team controlled. I've lossed games where my kill/death ratio was 75/1, but my team never controlled the good command posts. On the flip side to that, I've won games where my K/D ration was 25/10 but I managed to take over 5 command posts.

Maybe you feel that way because you only played the xbox. The PC version was an abomination at every level. Had the ability, like all LA games, to be great; but like most LA games turned out to be a turd on the PC. PC games can have good ports to consoles like Jedi Outcast. But not visa versa. Console games are limited.

 

[BAMAVOO]

The first one has had my kids playing for hours of mindless fun. The second will surely do the same. The game was great for my 3 and 8 year old to play.

I don't think it was quite as bad as most here say it is, but we all have opinions.


Quake 4 on the other hand has disappointed me to no end. Same maps as Q3 on MP? I was so pissed.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: BAMAVOO
The first one has had my kids playing for hours of mindless fun. The second will surely do the same. The game was great for my 3 and 8 year old to play.

:thumbsup:

My 8 y/o and his friend played the first one out. I even jumped on the LAN occassionally and fragged with them. My son is loving being a hero in this one. His fav so far is Han, oh and the General Grievous because he can get all 4 lightsabers going just like the movie.

From what I watched them play, it looks good. And, unlike BF2, it actually plays on my 3rd machine with the ti4200 in it, so I didn't have to upgrade anything for it.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: BAMAVOO
The first one has had my kids playing for hours of mindless fun. The second will surely do the same. The game was great for my 3 and 8 year old to play.

I don't think it was quite as bad as most here say it is, but we all have opinions.


Quake 4 on the other hand has disappointed me to no end. Same maps as Q3 on MP? I was so pissed.

I am a 27 year old kid who dropped 50$ for the game the day it shipped. I installed it that night and uninstalled it the next day. On the first patch release I re-installed it and uninstalled it that night. Maybe if I needed to give the kids I don't have something to do then it would have been worth the money. Seemingly since the game is not / was not marketed towards children I can say with no regret that the game was horrible for PC owners. If they had said from the start it was a console port, which it was, then that would have been fine and I wouldn't have bought it. Since it was marketed like BF1942 in the SW universe... I feel ripped off and reluctant to give the sequel a chance in hell.

 

[niggles]

Originally posted by: pcthuglife
niggles, I don't think developers meant to put much of an emphasis on flying in Battlefront1. I never looked at it as a shooter, more of a team based "king of the hill" strategy game. I think what really determined whether your team one or lost (and I'm not talking about online play - stupid modded xbox...) was how many or which command posts your team controlled. I've lossed games where my kill/death ratio was 75/1, but my team never controlled the good command posts. On the flip side to that, I've won games where my K/D ration was 25/10 but I managed to take over 5 command posts.

With some maps like cloud city flying was a very impotant aspect of the map. Not to give the fighters any sort of finess in the area of landing was a huge frustration to me and many of my friends. As someone else pointed out Battlefront was marketed as a SW version of BF42 and in BF42 infantry, tanks and plains all support each other. One can't fight well without the strategy of having a 3 dimensional view of all the other aspects. This means controlling airfields to get the planes to bomb the tanks to stop the tanks from getting the infantry that take the control points. Having a poorly designed air support vehicle is just frustrating and takes away from the fun of the game for those of us that like to play the air support role. I think the one MAP they did quite well with was Hoth. Too bad it wasn't any where large enough to fly the snow speeders around. or have enough finess on the controls to slow the speeders down enough to strafe well and then speed up. these was off and then there was flying, nothing in between.