I know you may have discussed this before, but the state of the graphics is shocking. Compared to Vietnam, looks like a kid came along and drew it all out. I really hope the grahics improve. Far Cry anyone?

Viet Nam's screenies only looked slightly better.

I don't really care a lot about the graphics, I prefer a game that runs smoothly.

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

I don't really care a lot about the graphics, I prefer a game that runs smoothly.
So do I.

i'll wait until closer to the release date to judge the graphics. also the graphics so far look playable enough to me. and besides for a graphic star wars treat i'll wait for republic commando.

unless you've already played the game, you can't really judge what the graphics will be like. Maybe the screenshots are messed up. I wouldn't worry too much about graphics right now.

Well, on my ageing rig, Far Cry MP is pretty much unplayable. On low settings, I can usually get a decent 30 fps in outside areas in SP - and sometimes more than that. In other words, SP is quite playable. When it comes to MP, though, it grinds to a halt - anything from 15fps to 2fps, which is basically a slide show. I know it's not lag, because I had the best ping (30-60) on a couple of servers, but I still had this problem. So the engine must be pretty demanding for MP matches.

The other game that kills my framerate is Unreal Tournament 2004 - which noticeably performs worse than UT2K3.

Yes, I know I need to upgrade my PC (CPU and RAM mostly), but most of the other games I have run quite well in MP. I have a great blast with Enemy Territory, even on servers with 60 people playing, and I get a decent framerate with that game even with all the options turned to highest settings. The graphics in ET are quite acceptable to me. The gameplay is so fast you don't really have time to think about whether certain textures could have been better.

So as far as I'm concerned, if lower quality graphics means the gameplay is smoother, and older PC friendly, I'm all for it. What's the point in having a totally up-to-date engine that eats resources, when a lot fewer people will be able to play the game?

The graphics look bad because the game is still in its early development


:bdroid2:

Then they shouldn't have put up any shots, because the game looks nasty.

I don't think the graphics will suddenly mutate into something like 'nam, but I like the way it is now. Looking at the rebel models in the rebel facion on lucasarts' swbf site and I just like it. It said somewhere in the dev. diary for models that they turned it az bit down for smooth gameplay, and that is whats most important for me..of course you cant see smooth gameplay on screenshots and only graphics so thats why so many mind already

Keep in mind that they likely used the highest setting for the graphics in the films. The trick is making a game that looks great and will be accessible to a variety of computers. This is why Counter Strike still leads the pack when it comes to online games. They have low requirements, and that allows someone with a Pentium II and a dial up to play. This is also why settings are in the game. I had lag for Vietnam, I turned down my settings and did not have the problem as bad.

:o WAKE UP IT WASNT THAT LONG

I don't really care a lot about the graphics, I prefer a game that runs smoothly.

me neither i dont care about the graphics just that the game runs smoothly. the graphics are fine how they are to me. could be better but are fine

Graphics look better in the videos than in the screenshots for some reason

Graphics are important but if the game doesnt run smoothly then its really not worth it

I agree with Jabba... though I don't want really crappy graphs.

For LA's games, I'm always more worried about the engine... but they said they actually crated a new one this time, so it might be good.

Originally posted by Darth54
I agree with Jabba... though I don't want really crappy graphs.

For LA's games, I'm always more worried about the engine... but they said they actually crated a new one this time, so it might be good. It's not like Lucas Arts made it, it's a profesional company that done good games like Battlezone2 (I like it) and Star Wars: Clone Wars

I have full faith in them

Originally posted by tFighterPilot
Graphics look better in the videos than in the screenshots for some reason
because on a single screenshot you focus more on the different parts of the player models, which lack good graphics, but in a movie it's just like ingame; you pay more attention to the environment and it looks 'ok' then

i reallly like the swbf grapics, call me crazy but i just love the water!



http://www.lucasarts.com/games/swbattlefront/images/screenshots/5.jpg)

The water effect has become a standard in modern games

This game is already called "the best star wars game ever".
I don't think lucasarts would like "the best starwars game ever" to have horrible graphics.

I'm not to worried about it yet, they've got another year (ok, maybe a little less) so time enough to emprove some.

I thought the best star wars game ever is supposed to be KoTOR :confused:

The reviews at Gamespot and recently at IGN are quite positives about the engine graphic and especially towards the ps2 version.

For now, my worries are more concentrated on the balance element of the game and all the other unique features they want to add because it could work great or not.

I was under the impression that the PS2 version had graphical issues... :confused:

I really should learn english...

I don't care if the graphics back up five years, what I want to see is a decent net code, and smooth animations. I think giving those few extra frames at the cost of less detailed models may actually help the game seem more graphically advanced. If anyone's played Prince of Persia (the new one), then you know that there textures aren't anything new, yet reviews have told of the great graphics. This is do to how good the animation was that made the character move. This game seems to have the best walker animation I've seen so far hands down. Just go watch one of the movies and you'll agree that the way those walkers walk is quite satisfying to watch for what ever reason that is, be it frame rate or ingenious animation. Plus, the blaster and explosions effects seem to rate high on my visual scale.

Sorry if that was hard to read, I'm in abit of a rush to get my thoughts through.

The explosions looks kinda bad.

Of course we're not thinking about going 5 years back in terms of graphics just for the sake of gameplay. We want something that can run smoothly for most people at medium setting.

Smooth gameplay>graphics

Again, I trust pandemic to balance the framerate and graphics in the best way possible

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
The explosions looks kinda bad.

Of course we're not thinking about going 5 years back in terms of graphics just for the sake of gameplay. We want something that can run smoothly for most people at medium setting.

Smooth gameplay>graphics You've only seen the explosions in screenshots, it would look better live and moving

Agree with tFighterPilot on the explosions thing. There's lots of games that look better in motion than in screenshots.

Graphics look fine to me, it also leaves room for lots of huge vehicles and explosions on a screen at once with minimal lag.

at least half of the KOTOR screenshots didn't look nowhere as good as when you sat down and played it. i think battlefront will turn out nicely when shipped in 6 months.

Yes, adding all the spit and polish in the final months of development can really make a difference. I tend to agree that the game will look much better in action, and if other MP gaming experiences are anything to go by, in the end the scenery will simply fade into the background and you'll be concentrating on fragging opposing players, or completing objectives.

I'm not saying that the graphics should take a huge step back - no one really wants that. But performance is key, so I don't mind a few sacrifices being made in the name of performance.

I've recently been playing Return To Castle Wolfenstein MP again, and the graphics in that game are perfectly acceptable to me online. I would actually place far more importance on the actual level design, which dictates game flow, so I hope they are paying a lot of attention to how the levels are set up, and give consideration to how each of the different classes will play the maps.

Snipers, for example, will be vulnerable to air attacks - so in maps like Endor/Hoth with open terrain it would be good to see some overhanging rocks, etc., where you can crawl to try and keep under cover.

RTCW uses the Quake3 engine, which is a great engine that both looks good and doesn't demand much. It's a perfect example of a professional engine.

I'm actually not too worried about the graphics. If they look halfway decent, then they'll run very smooth on my pc. The only thing i would be concerned with is the maximum number of players you could have at any given time. I hope you can have up to 64 like in vietnam, at least on the PC anyway.........

Only on a LAN with 32 on the internet.

A shame isn't it?

Originally posted by tFighterPilot
RTCW uses the Quake3 engine, which is a great engine that both looks good and doesn't demand much. It's a perfect example of a professional engine.
I thought you just said that good water effects are a standard in modern games.

in the Q3 engine it's just a moving flat texture..

Let's close this thread and reopen it in a few months.

The screenshots looks bad because they don't want that we'll need to wait more until the internet load them...

I checked the screenies again and... they don't look bad at all to me. I especially like the way the did the trees in the forest world (Endor, I suppose). And the explosions look nice also.

Originally posted by Alegis Gensan
I thought you just said that good water effects are a standard in modern games.

in the Q3 engine it's just a moving flat texture.. Q3 isn't very modern...