f13.net

I rarely go on XBox Live because strangers there are retards. But the retards here are at least a more familiar breed of impaired thinkers, so I was calling out XBL folks here who plan to get the game, to see if we can get together and sing some songs from our clubhouse songbook and play online like a bunch of queer sissies.

my tag is Arcadian DelSol

Can you connect to XBL with a pc client? :P

Rumor has it that the dedicated Windows server will allow connections from any client (PC, XBOX, PS2) but I didn't see any confirmation of that on the Website and there's no fricking search feature in the official forums.

And BTW it's Battlefront not Battlefield. EA really should sue for trademark infringement -- so many people make this mistake. And then in retaliation, LucasArts should "Fox" the BF1942 Galactic Conquest (http://www.galactic-conquest.net/) mod.

I can't imagine getting this for Xbox when I can get it on a PC.  Shooty games on xbox only if I have no choice and the game is just THAT awesome.  Which is a grand total of 0 games so far.

Well, I do have panzer dragoon and like that.  Funky pretty railshooter.

I won't have it until later as I refused to pay more than $2 for shipping.

Ill be getting the PC version. I cant stand FPS on a console. On the bright side, Riddick is going to be comming out on PC soon, so my wait paid off.

Ok, so do I get the Xbox version of the game which is overall a better game because it's on the Xbox and the competition with other FPSes is less or do I get the PC because FPSes should only be played on the PC? From the few reviews I've seen it seems the PC version isn't a great game but the Xbox version is better mainly because FPSes suck on the Xbox to begin with whereas the measuring stick is so much higher for a PC.

There is one crucial difference...amount of people per server.  32 on PC as opposed to something like 16 on the XBox (could be wrong, just going on my best guess).  Even if its 24 or something, you just don't get the same level of frenzied fighting and action with 8 or 12 per side as 16.  32-40 seems to be the magic number in these type of games for a good balance between not being able to find the fight (and when you do find it, its not very large) and having a WW1 style immovable front fragfest.

I may have to get this game for the pc if you can play an ewok and WTFPWN a stormtrooper with a stick.


kaid

I'm going to wait for reviews and/or word from here that it's worth buying before I pick it up.  Star Wars games have left a rather bad taste in my mouth for a long, long time.

In a galaxy far, far away?

Saw a commercial for it last night. I'm very tempted. But I am worried about it being a massive suck.

Seems most of the player reviews have it at less than steller. Quite a bit less.

Kind of bummed, I was hoping for some good Team FPS action.

My friend and I both just bought this game.  I will give you my two cents once we get back from class.

the good news: you can warez the PC version and play online with just a small patch availlable on certain Bit Torrent servers to remain nameless

the bad news: Don't bother. It's ass.  

for example, here are the comments from a server admin:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
1. ZERO admin ability. You can't kick, ban, or post a MOTD. Most an admin can do is START a kick vote.... sorry but that just gives smacktards more reason to be smacktards. And even if you do kick them they can come right back.

2. No linux dedicated files. 80% of the hosting services use Linux, and it has been shown to be a FAR more stable platform than windoze for most game hosting.

3. No admin abilities outside of the game. If you host a server and have multiple admins at some point the server will become full with no admins on and there is no means for them to get on. Not to mention with problem number 1 it makes it impossible even is an admin is on to make a spot for a replacement.

4. No direct IP connectivity with standard "internet". Sorry but I want to be able to enter an IP rather than sift through hundreds of servers looking for my server.

5. No solid ping times. It would be nice to know exactly what the ping is.

6. No ASE support. I like the ability to have a buddy list and a favorite server list (especially important given that there is no way to assure an opening on your own dedicated server).

7. No console or console commands. Again this relates back to problem 1.

8. It crashes quit frequently, even on high end dedicated servers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you think about it: The DVD release is THE EXACT SAME DAY. in other words READY OR NOT IT'S OUT THE DOOR  on SEP 21!!!

George Lucas can lick my balls

You don't have to go any further than that right fucking there. What kind of a moron releases an online server product without any sort of admin ability over who plays on your goddamn machine? You might as well make it open up every port and send out a message saying "Ac' a foo!" on it.



Indeed.

Sure, but then 20 years later he will lick them again only this time bite down hard and when you complain that you want it like it was 20 years ago he'll tell you that the licking you remember no longer exists and biting your balls is what he intended all long.

I had a feeling this game was going to be ass.  I'm sad to hear that I was right.

I got the X-Box version after work and spent about 30 minutes in it for a little preview before I go off to do errands (I'm out of beer).  I only played single player, and I like it so far.  The battlefields look great.  You can't be ewoks, but you can frag em pretty good, even when you are on the same side.  Even on single player, it's a giant frag-fest, kind of like playing against a bunch of bots on Jedi Knight, except there are well over a hundred on each side.

I played the Quick Action game a few times.  Basically, each side has 150 on each side, and they duke it out until one side is dead.  If you die, you respawn.  To my understanding, in the other games there is no limit on number -- it is more like the reinforcement gates in Dynasty Warriors.

Haven't had a chance to use vehicles yet.  I've shot a couple of storm troopers off of their swoop bikes, got ran over and instantly killed twice, saw a couple crash into trees, and got blasted by an AT-AT more times than I can count.

The end of the battles have some interesting statistics, pointing out both feats and fuck-ups.

I picked up the Xbox version at Blockbuster and it's ok so far. First person shooters on the Xbox are kinda lame, but it's an ok way to pass some time.

I'm enjoying it more than I did BF1942, but then I've never been a fan of WWII games.  I haven't gotten to play it online, since I wanted to try some of the campaigns first, and my only attempt to connect online ( a few minutes ago) crashed me.

I can agree with most of the laments of the professional server admin set out above.  (Well, except the crying about linux servers. The world is "windoze", get over it.)  Lack of a /kick or a /ban feature will kill it for folks who like playing online.  Running game matchups through gamespy also sucks, but I'm more a fan of LAN or private games anyway.

I tried out a few of the vehicles in the "Galactic Civil War" and "Clone War" campaigns. Flying with a mouse sucks as much as I ever remembered from Planetside, so I'll be avoiding airborne vehicles in the future.  The AT-TEs are slow as hell, but boy do they blow shit up good.  The little hovertanks were pretty fun, too, but the map you got them on was too small to make them really effective.

Really, I don't know what the bitching is about.  But then I'm also not an FPS connoisseur.  It's a fun little shooter that'll keep me about as entertained as Dark Forces, Dark Forces2 & Jedi Knight 2 did.  That's all I was looking for.

Hrmm.. nothing you listed I care much about except maybe the crashing. I sort by the number of players and pick the top server. End of story. Seems to be a fine strategy for Tribes and Savage so far.

The client world is windoze.  The server world, on the other hand, is linux.  Data for webservers is here (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html).  The internet runs on a lot of free, open source software.  Microsoft tried to change that, and failed, which is why Apache outnumbers IIS webservers 3 to 1.  I think it basically boils down to the idea that IIS development is done by a dozen, maybe two dozen coders/designers.  Those 50 eyballs are really the only ones who see the code.  With Apache, many more than 50 eyeballs see the code, and thus potentially see problems, whether they be related to stability, performance, or security.

Whether information wants to be free or not, 'security thru obscurity' is well known to be a bad security policy.

--
Alkiera

This is quite possibly the most ignorant comment EVER.

Why? Microsoft didn't "get over" that "the world was WordPerfect", they still made Word. Have you used DBase II anytime recently? At some point, it was the king of desktop databases. When PC-DOS was put on IBM's PCs, 90% of desktop machines ran CP/M, which had a GUI (GEM) long before Windows existed. Windows has just had an artificially long life because of the bundling deals with manufacturers.

There is no rational reason to run an unstable and slow operating system on a server when there are more stable and efficient operating systems to choose from. Rather, that is a stupid thing to do.

1) I know the professional server world is *nix.  This is a game, with a server mode not a server OS or app. The get over it was because if you really expected a *nix version out of Lucasarts, you were dreaming. They're directed by large piles of money, like all GL's current endeavours. They decided there's not enough cash in taking the extra time to develop the server client for *nix. Not really a surprise is that?

2) Yes, windows is a horribly buggy interface and a completly fucked-up OS. Some of the shit it does for no reason drives me nuts, since I'm also the most computer literate person in my office, and therefore the default support guy.  I still deal with it because it makes no sense for me to learn another OS when I'm going to have to use it daily in my professional life since, what 85-90% of PCs use Win, and the professional apps we use are only available on Win.

If that changes, great, and I'll learn whatever new OS replaces Win. However the great purge of MS hasn't changed in the 10 years I've seen *nix zealots bash MS for marketing well. Hell, I was hoping they'd be split-up after the monopoly verdict came down.  Didn't happen, and if anything it strengthened their position, because their 'punishment' was really almost nil. Sucks for the other guys.

3) I'm all for guys developing other OSs and eventually replacing windows.  That competition is what capitalism is all about.  Obviously the current incarnation of *nix isn't it.   The arrogance of CS professionals doesn't help in this case.  Once you understand that 90% of your users are computer idiots, and you'll NEVER change that you can move on.  Instead the *nix advocates I've seen have instead said, "Well they'll just have to learn, won't they."  No, they don't.  They've got an OS that's working to idiot-proof itself and has marketed well.  (The bundling deals) They won at capitalism, good for them.

Perhaps things will change with kids growing up from birth with computers. They'll be far more literate than those of us who grew up with them from their early teens, like those people are more literate than we who grew up with them in their early 20s. (As a whole, not individually)  After 10 years of "down with M$!!1!1!! Windoze sux!1!!" I'm not holding my breath anymore.

I played solo XBox missions for about 4 hours and split-screen co-op with a friend for about 3.

one word review: dissapointing. To compensate for the XBox's broken-leg style response times from the controllers, you 'lock on' while aiming far too easily. Weapons fire 9 times and you're dry. vehicles move like they do in the movies, at a speed we'll call "less than immobile."

But the worst for me is the "surprise! game end!!" way that the maps end. In BF1942, if you're losing, you hear the thumpa thumpa of your heart beat. In this game - the map just blinks to a splash screen that looks like this:

VICTORY[/color].

I'm going online tonight, but I dont think my findings will be better. If I was forced to buy a version of this game, I'd still get the XBox because my computer doesn't have a 61" display - but outside of that ,I'd probably just go with the BF1942 mod.

This is my biggest dissapointment, as well.  I'm also annoyed that most maps don't last longer than 10 minutes, and the weapon selection is poor.

Most fps games run the server on linux, to provide more horsepower for running the game server and not just sitting there idle :) If you play a lot of fps at the clan level, that's a very bad statement to make, everyone knows you need a linux dedicated server module to be taken seriously, and solid remote admin tools to be taken seriously for long.

The mistake people are making with this  game is thinking that Lucasarts gives a rat fuck about "the clan level."  This game is Clearly aimed at

1) Idiot star wars fanbois who buy anything with the star wars name on it
2) People who buy the DVD released the same day and pick up the game for their kids
3) Console gamers who are used to inferior quality FPS games.

The PC FPS market has far higher technological standards than Consoles.  Look at UT2k4, BF1942, Half Life, Quake 3, and so on.  All these games have extremely advanced online tools that are hard to make and don't translate well to consoles.

Stuff like remote admin interface tools  and punkbuster support, is stuff you only need for PC games for advanced online play.  Lucasarts just said "fuckit, lets just make the PC version a console port."  They don't care about longevity of their game, or server rentals, or anything else beyond initial sales at Best Buy.

I bet they only issue one patch for the PC version to fix a couple of crash bugs.

Actually, the corporations behind various *nix flavors actually encourage that attitude.  It's called "snob appeal" (the opposite of "mob appeal") and it is a well-known marketing concept.  You market your niche product to your segment by making them think only they are cool enough or smart enough to use this product over the competition.  Apple's "Think Different" campaign was based on the same principle.

Anyway, just because a product is technically superior doesn't mean it's the right product for all consumers.

Bruce


Perhaps things will change with kids growing up from birth with computers. They'll be far more literate than those of us who grew up with them from their early teens, like those people are more literate than we who grew up with them in their early 20s. (As a whole, not individually)  After 10 years of "down with M$!!1!1!! Windoze sux!1!!" I'm not holding my breath anymore.[/quote]

Is that what it's supposed to be?  I thought it was more like Dynasty Warriors with laser guns.

Actually, I think you've all missed the real reason behind the development of this game.

Lucas sees every FPS that comes out with mod tools has some group of zealous fanbois slaving away on a Star Wars mod. By releasing a new FPS with the SW license, he proves, legally speaking, that he is attempting to protect his copyrighted Intellectual Property (TM) by trying to profit from said IP. Thus, when he sees another mod pop up, he can drop the legal hammer down on them on the basis they are attempting to compete with his IP.

BRILLIANT!

Fucker.

And idiotic. You let them build the mod then buy em out and sell it to stupid ppl who dont know you can dl it for free.


BTW Rome Total War comes out tmw, a game actually worth purchasing.

I quite enjoy the game, which apparently makes me the only person on the Internet who does. I've never played Battlefield 1942 because I could give a rat's ass about WW2, especially on the PC where there seems to be a new WW2 game every other week.  And outside of Silent Storm which is basically WW2 X Com, WW2 PC games can blow me.

The server I played on last night was smooth as silk.  Ive taken out AT ATs solo with missile launchers.  (Its called lock on kids.  Takes a couple full reloads to waste one, but it IS possible.)  I saw the AI use tow cables on Snowspeeders to waste AT ATs as well.  Multiple times the AI did it in fact.  

I bought 4 new games yesterday and didn't play any of them except for SW Battlefront.  

I HAD FUN.  Is it perfect?  No.  Is it really fun?  Yes.  Do I care that  Battlefield whatever is better?  No.

It looks great on my PC, runs real smooth on my underpowered Radeon 9600 card with an Athlon 64 3200 (Yes I am aware I need a good videocard.  Gimme 400 bucks and Ill get one!) and a gig of RAM.  It seems every messageboard and blog post hates the game, yet people I talked to actually PLAYING the game seem to really enjoy it.  Cuz its fun.

Many people in the game itself agreed its the PvP Star Wars Galaxies only wished it could have.

Id tentively bet that if Planetside was made as Star Wars Battles online (albiet with better gameplay mechanics) it would have been wildly succesful. But I've been known to be hideously wrong before.


edit:  Full Spectrum Warrior for PC tmw as well...darnit Im not that rich!

Shannow, Darniaq and I have had that secret and glorifying dream...If SWG and PS became one game, each has the strengths to offset the other's weaknesses.

Instead of bland, homogenized 'continents' like Hossun, imagine fighting over Hoth instead. With snowspeeders instead of reapers, 'continent' specific vehicles and armors.

Instead of the rather simplistic and bland character models and 'empires', it'd be the Empire! And the Rebs! And the Hutts! "Oh shit, Jedi incoming, man the turrets and get some air cover!"

Bah.

Wrong,

Star Wars doesnt NOT lend itself to balanced PvP.  David Vs Golaith does not make for a fun FPS

You have to take some creative license with the IP to get the balanced large scale military battles a PS type game requires, but obviously nothing worse than Battlefront do.

Someone at SOE must have thought about it, but the LucasArt fees are probably prohibitive for a relative niche game.

It's impossible.  Lucas is not going to let you break Star Wars Canon any time soon, so you will never be able to (for example) nerf jedi to the point were a Stormtrooper can take them one v one.  

While the vehicles look really peechy keen in the movies, crap like Imperial Walkers just doesn't translate well into an online FPS.

I've decided that I like this game.  I'm very dissapointed that reinforcement polls don't regenerate, though.

The following is for the PC version.


Good:

Single player is fun.

Hoth, Endor, and Bespin are portrayed well.

The models are pretty. Explosions are nice.

The vehicles like the AT-ST and speeder bikes are fun.


Bad:

Multiplayer sucks ass (I guess I have to eat crow on that, slog).

Requiring 3 CDs just so they can stick clips from the movies in was retarded.

The interface completely sucks (consolization). I've seen better interfaces in monochrome DOS 5.

The textures suck unless you crank them to high.

I hate the Ep. I, II, III crap (especially playing as the droid armies).

The campaign stuff is half ass thrown into the game.

Switching between maps is not fluid.

The full screen screen blur they put over it all takes getting use to. It feels like playing on a blurry TV.


Ugly:

The multiplayer completely sucks ass.

Most servers lag like ass on a 2.5Mbit SDSL.

Joining a game is a chore. Switching maps is slow and sometimes you don't make it to the new map.

The server navigator has a nice bug where it shows 31/32 and you try and join only to find it full. On every server. Then you have to redownload the server list.

The first 30 minutes of multiplayer made me want my money back.

You are assaulted at every turn with multiple labels+DRM all over the CDs and box and manual that says OMG DON'T STEAL THIS SHIT.

---

Final notes: This shit can't hold a candle to Planetside or Savage and I'm not sure the Battle for Hoth was worth $42.

Eh you think its not going to work because of play balance? Um so devs wouldnt balance out the GAME because of canon. Sorry thats a ridicolous statement.

The reason why possibly its successful is that its Stars Wars instead of bland planetside stuff..(Well it helps anyway, you still need good gameplay)

The prosocution wishes to present to the court Exhibit A, 'Star Wars: Galaxies'.

In this Star Wars online game, PvP combat between Rebels and the Empire was vastly unbalanced, because the Empire could pull out giant freekin 'I win' robots, in the form of AT-STs, and slaughter Rebel faction members wholesale.

They claim that this is the case because this is the way things were portrayed in the movies.

The prosecution believes this indicates that yes, LucasArts is perfectly willing to sacrifice game balance to the Grail of Star Wars Canon.

--
Alkiera

Ok howabout the caveat of a StarWars persisntant FPS designed by anyone but braindead bareass monkeys?

:)

At least in Battlefront, a couple locked on shots from a missile launcher send an ATST to its doom.

Its not a perfect game, but its loads more fun than SWG managed to be.

The defense counters with Exhibit B, 'Star Wars: Rebellion'.

In this game, it was entirely possible for the Rebel player to build up vast fleets and territory sufficient to defeat the Empire.  The Empire players could also win, in violation of canon.

Bruce