I don't have a payment count for FilePlanet. But a quick look at the System Requirements (
http://www.cya.co.il/up02/05/09/20/SWBF2.PNG) 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)
It is basically the same graphics as Battlefront 1
And it IS really fun
Graphics don't make a game; gameplay do.
Although good graphics do help. And BF2's graphics ain't that bad...
Graphics don't make a game; gameplay do.
And SWBF2 is 0 for 2... not good.
And BF2's graphics ain't that bad...
BF2's graphics are sweet.
SWBF2, on the other hand...
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.
LA and Pandemic are focusing on Gameplay and featurs
They are?
Hard to believe.
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.
...a quick look at the System Requirements (
http://www.cya.co.il/up02/05/09/20/SWBF2.PNG) 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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
ARGH. I was afraid of this...
Damn :| This totally ruins my hopes of better graphics than BF I
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! :)
(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. ;)
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)
Damn, double post, sorry, this place seems slow today.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Does anyone here actually like Battlefront? Everyone seems to have something bad to say about it.
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. ;)
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
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.
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.
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.
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. ;)
BF2's graphics are sweet.
SWBF2, on the other hand...
I don't see what the fuss is about. The specifications for Battlefield 2.
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.
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.
Whoa, slightly off topic.
Battlefronts graphics weren't great but they were alright,
and Battlefront II's graphics are gonna be even better.
some people do truly seem to hate the game
Does anyone here hate this game already? (SWBF2)
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.
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.
Well then the developers of BF2 are superior to the developers of SWBF. End of story!
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.
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?
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? :)
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?
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
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...
Except that your aim is PERFECT. Running around like crazy and you've still got perfect aim. That is laughable, because to have such accuracy you'd need to be in a prone, still position. In combat, you should only have about 20% accuracy, meaning that the vast majority of your shots should be missing your target. Yet in SWBF, it's about the other way around.
but the concept was sound.
Sound concept; poorly executed.
I've eenjoyed playing ever since I opened the package, and I am not a Star Wars fan so I usually avoid the games.
If you're not a Star Wars fan then I HIGHLY recommend Battlefield 2. The only thing that SWBF has going for it is that it's Star Wars. Everything else fails in comparison.
I think that there will be enough positives in SWBF2 that outweigh everyones disappointment with the original.
I don't see any positives for SWBF2, at all.
I for one, will be picking it up on the same day it hits shelves. :yoda4
Oh well... $50 down the toilet.
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?
After I've tried the game I realy thought about buying it to be able to play online, but when I heard about Star Wars Battlefront 2 I decided to save the money for it.
TK, you seem to hate SWBF2 already and seeing as you have so many negative comments about it, maybe you hate SWBF as well?
Whats so bad about it?
Whats so bad about it?
Everything?
Come on, i'm asking seriously.
Do you even like SWBF1? Because that seems to be just a simpler version of SWBF2...
I think he enjoyed it, but for a short time only. The way we were informed about the game we got dissapointed. Both in retail and support
I used to like it... when I first got it, and had never played BF2. I stopped playing it because I got pissed off when the so-called "modding tools" were released and turned out all they're really good for is making maps. So I moved onto better games, eventually Battlefield 2. And now that I'm playing BF2 and look back at SWBF, I see what a lousy game it was and I sure got cheated out of $50. I can't believe I once thought it was such a great game. You know, when I sold it back to EB Games, you know how much I got for it? $5. $5 for a game that sold for $50. That's what SWBF is worth now. About what you would pay for a burger and fries.
SWBF's concept was so sound, that it had the potential to become one of the greatest games ever, yet the devs wasted such a great opporunity by dumbing it down to what feels like an arcade game. They wanted to appeal to the console gamers, not the more serious gamers, which is why SWBF is such a joke and SWBF2 is twice the shame.
The devs have came out and admited that SWBF was rushed, and they didn't have time to do what they wanted with it. But now that they have a second chance, they STILL haven't done anything better and are actually making it even WORSE. It's such a sad waste of such a great concept - Star Wars meets Battlefield.
I have played BF2 and i agree that it's a hell of a lot better than SWBF.
But if you hate Battlefront so much why do you post in Battlefront forums all the time?
But if you hate Battlefront so much why do you post in Battlefront forums all the time?
I want to educate people on what this game REALLY is - not what LA has hyped it up to be. Maybe if I'm here I can make sure no one is getting cheated out of their $50 with SWBF2 like I was with SWBF.