I'm probably beating a dead horse here but I just purchased this game yesterday and I am really upset about it. First i'll start with the things I like about it:

1) Its star wars
2) its luke, and chewbacca!
3) Wow twirly lightsaber thingies cutting things to pieces
4) Omg I killed a rancor!!!

Things I dislike:

1) The graphics suck, horrible use of the quake3 engine.
2) the cinematics are horrid, but thats to be expected from LA
3) Why does Lucas Arts hate ATI so much? Whenever I'm inside a structure my graphics flicker like crazy. Hell, it took me almost a month just to get SWG to work with my Radeon 9800 PRo, so I'm not touching my settings to get it to work for this game too.
4) boring, repetetive, POINTLESS missions, lack of storyline (ooh a big scary cult of sith, how redundant).

K my rant is over, feel free to flame me and/or delete this post, thx!

Originally posted by Introject

Things I dislike:

1) The graphics suck, horrible use of the quake3 engine.
2) the cinematics are horrid, but thats to be expected from LA
3) Why does Lucas Arts hate ATI so much? Whenever I'm inside a structure my graphics flicker like crazy. Hell, it took me almost a month just to get SWG to work with my Radeon 9800 PRo, so I'm not touching my settings to get it to work for this game too.
4) boring, repetetive, POINTLESS missions, lack of storyline (ooh a big scary cult of sith, how redundant).

K my rant is over, feel free to flame me and/or delete this post, thx!

1.) Compared to what?
2.) LA did not make the cutscenes, Raven did and they are far from horrid.
3.) ATI has ALWAYS been overpriced and had problems with their drivers and game compatability. Get a GF4 or newer and be done with it.
4.) Pointless missions? Okay, be more specific and just what storyline would you have used? Please go into detail...

I'm not flaming, I just simply disagee with what you had to say.

Originally posted by Introject
1) The graphics suck, horrible use of the quake3 engine.
2) the cinematics are horrid, but thats to be expected from LA
3) Why does Lucas Arts hate ATI so much? Whenever I'm inside a structure my graphics flicker like crazy. Hell, it took me almost a month just to get SWG to work with my Radeon 9800 PRo, so I'm not touching my settings to get it to work for this game too.

1. Nice try, except that it's a totally bogus claim.
2. Raven made them.
3. OpenGL extensions aren't standardized, it makes it very difficult to support multiple platforms, and on top of that, ATI makes a major change to their drivers every other release.

Next time, get a clue before you post.

About ATI being overpriced, I seem to recall their top of the line video card being about 200-300 dollars cheaper than Nvidias top of the line card.

And I guess I am the only one having problems with glitchy "flashy" graphics when inside structures because it totally ruins the game.

About ATI being overpriced, I seem to recall their top of the line video card being about 200-300 dollars cheaper than Nvidias top of the line card.NVidia's Geforce FX 5900 is gonna last a long time, it's totally future compatable, it costs more because of this. It will outlast the current ATI's - this is a cold hard reviewers/raters/overclockers/gamers fact, the only time a review says ATI is better is when the writer is biased towards ATI - which is rare.

Besides, I'll happily pay more for future security and stable drivers...I give ATI 2 more revisions to bring another major bug in :p

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1064859264AkBoiQWteN_4_11.gif)

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1064859264AkBoiQWteN_6_3.gif)

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1064859264AkBoiQWteN_8_3.gif)

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1064859264AkBoiQWteN_11_2.gif)

Reviews from [H]ard|OCP. Personally, I prefer Radeon. Better image quality, better performance and cheaper. ;) The Radeon 9800XT is schedualed to ship on October and will be packaged with HL2 :D
I have a friend who runs JA perfectly fine with a Radeon....

Code Creatures

A notoriously powerful benchmark that will bring most systems to their knees. Let's see how these 2 cards fair while running Code Creatures.

http://www.ocaddiction.com/articles/video/fx_5900ultra_vs_radeon_9800pro/codecreatures_bench.gif)

This one is cut and dry. The FX 5900 Ultra puts a slam dunk on the R9800 Pro in both categories. We all know Code Creatures will bring even the most high-end systems to their knees.

Like I said, future reliability. If you want to fully enjoy the current and older games, go with ATI, if you want to enjoy the next gen games, go with NVidia.

The FXs' DirectX 9 support is fundamentally flawed, there are serious performance problems in DX9 applications such as the new Tomb Raider game and HL2. It's dead in the water, this one isn't going anywhere for nVidia.

Dynamic glow is buggy and slow on ATI cards as of now, either turn it off or downgrade to Catalyst 3.0 (3.4 got rid of the flashes for me, but it's still slow) until Raven patches it.

The FXs' DirectX 9 support is fundamentally flawed, there are serious performance problems in DX9 applications such as the new Tomb Raider game and HL2. It's dead in the water, this one isn't going anywhere for nVidia. So the latest DirectX incarnation is fundamentally flawed? Since when is Tomb Raider next gen? And HL2 isn't out yet so how it truly performs with DX9 is yet to be seen, and considering HL2 was in production before the release of DX9, it would have taken too long to implement full DX9 compliance. ATI lubber?

Originally posted by Introject
About ATI being overpriced, I seem to recall their top of the line video card being about 200-300 dollars cheaper than Nvidias top of the line card.

And I guess I am the only one having problems with glitchy "flashy" graphics when inside structures because it totally ruins the game.

Nope, a lot of ATI users are having problems...period.

I don't get it. Why buy some monster graphics card every year?
I have 64 MB Geforce 4 mx 420 and JA runs excellent, I do not need some monster card yet.

No, nVidia's support of it is. TR:DoA may not be "next gen" by your standards, but it uses a lot of DirectX 9 shaders, and they kill the FX. Valve has done benchmarks with HL2 and both cards, and despite them working with ATI, they are not the only people to realize the FX has some serious problems. And no, it wouldn't have taken too long to implement full DX9 compliance, you don't have to start making an engine for DX9 from the bottom up to fully support it.

Here's a link:
http://www.techreport.com/etc/2003q3/valve/index.x?pg=1)

If you don't believe Valve or any of the other new benchmarks floating around, like the ones posted above, you may believe John Carmack, founder of id software, and the undesputed master of 3D graphics programming in the industry:


Hi John,

No doubt you heard about GeForce FX fiasco in Half-Life 2. In your opinion, are these results representative for future DX9 games (including Doom III) or is it just a special case of HL2 code preferring ATI features, as NVIDIA suggests?

Unfortunately, it will probably be representative of most DX9 games. Doom has a custom back end that uses the lower precisions on the GF-FX, but when you run it with standard fragment programs just like ATI, it is a lot slower. The precision doesn't really matter to Doom, but that won't be a reasonable option in future games designed around DX9 level hardware as a minimum spec.

John Carmack

Okay...in an attempt to put this thread back on topic...

The graphics are great, and it's an excellent example of how to use the Quake 3 engine.

In terms of cinematics, the CGI stuff was great, and the in-engine rendered sequences were a considerable improvement over Jedi Outcast. Far more dynamic and engaging. Not perfect...but I don't expect miracles given the base technology.

ATI - see above ;P

As to the missions and storyline - I agree there are some fundamental flaws (which I've raised in other threads, so I won't bother to reiterate them here), but overall it was still an enjoyable game.