First Strike Forums — Shadows of battlefront

Re: Shadows of battlefront

null@example.com (mechag2) — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:55:12 +0000

For all the rantings, frustrations, and disappointments I have with SW:BF 1 & 2, I still have a blast playing them. lol Go figure. FS is vastly superior in every respect, and it's disgusting that LucasArts (a freak'n LucasFilm company) made such horrid, unnecessary sacrifices to Star Wars lore in the name of "great gameplay". *shudders* Both games are still lots of fun, but I'd rather play FS anyday.

I still can't believe the amount of content they took out of the final release for BOTH games. Not only that, but they took out some of the best features and content from the first game when the sequel was released. lol

There have been rumors going around (for about a year now, actually), that the partnership that was announced between LucasArts and Free Radical (the makers of the sublime Time Splitters series; for those who don't know) was created for the next installment to the Battle Front series. Free Radical? Developing Battle Front 3?! You just know that's not going to be anything but epic. lol Unless it's not true. Or LucasArts ties their hands.

Re: Shadows of battlefront

null@example.com (Mitthrawnundo) — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:56:28 +0000

I agree with TY, SWBF was fun at the beginning, but then it just got really boring after that. And if you went online, people would always be glitching and there was a severe amount of lag.

Re: Shadows of battlefront

null@example.com (TY2D2) — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 07:49:00 +0000

SWBF, is fun, while it lasts, it got old FAST.

FS is an arcade game like Bandu said, very arcade, but accurate to lore in most aspects. The guns in FS are less accurate than hte ones in SWBF just FYI... They just play differently and it appears as though the guns suck maybe since the bots can't aim for sh!t.

SWBF is definitely MORE arcade, but FS is on par with 2142 in it's arcadiness from what I have observed by expience in all 3 games.

Re: Shadows of battlefront

null@example.com (Zenith) — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:10:11 +0000

I don't have a problem with SWBF, I really enjoyed both original and sequel alike, perhaps they have their problems, but then most games do. If the rumours about a third instalment prove to be true, I'll be buying that one as well.

Re: Shadows of battlefront

null@example.com (JKRevanBR) — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:15:26 +0000

Meh, i dont knwo why ppl bash SWBF, its inferior to BF series, true, but its still an excellent game

and imo, it captures the feeling of SW rather well (lore liberties aside)

Re: Shadows of battlefront

null@example.com (Stardestroyersarecool) — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 12:30:34 +0000

About what part?

Re: Shadows of battlefront

null@example.com (Canadiens1160) — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:59:31 +0000

Stardestroyersarecool wrote:

Recently I saw Rhen Var harbour on the testing server. If memory serves this was a map in battlefront 1, and I would call it the best in that game. Is this map going to be similar to or very different from the battlefront version? I would like it to be fairly similar as that was a good map, it had a real defend the fort feel for the rebels. Also did the idea come from battlefront or is this just a coincedence?

You sir are mistaken.

Re: Shadows of battlefront

null@example.com (Mitthrawnundo) — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:32:18 +0000

This might be a little off topic, but is there going to be a SWBF3 released? I've heard rumors of it being released on Crysis game engine, though I'm not sure.

Re: Shadows of battlefront

null@example.com (Bandu) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:33:20 +0000

I'd class both FS and SWBF as arcade games. They play very similarly , just FS has a touch of bf2142 to it and less SW Lore mistakes.

I think FS is closer to SWBF2 than it is to SWBF1. Merely for the ultra fast paced gameplay involved in both. The 1st SWBF was a little bit slower.

Personally, I quite enjoyed the 1st battlefront. It was nothin special , but it was a lot better than the sequel.

Re: Shadows of battlefront

null@example.com (Zenith) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:25:42 +0000

I wouldn't class it as an arcade game, it certainly doesn't have the level of immersion that FS provides, but then again FS didn't exist when SWBF was released. Actually the only game similar to SWBF was the GC mod for BF1942.

Re: Shadows of battlefront

null@example.com (Safe-Keeper) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:16:25 +0000

SWBF is good if you're an arcade fans and you don't mind the rather huge liberties they've taken with SW lore. I admit I've had some fun with both the games, though I got tired of them in the end, especially with the Jedi and heroes. Certain features of the game were just plain silly, too.

Re: Shadows of battlefront

null@example.com (Zenith) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:07:57 +0000

Battlefront 1 and 2 are enjoyable, at least as far as I'm concerned. The SP Co-op is actually quite good, and Galactic Conquest mode is entertaining, not to mention the space combat. It has it's faults, certainly, and FS is definitely better in many respects, but SWBF2 isn't a terrible game.

Re: Shadows of battlefront

null@example.com (Mitthrawnundo) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:47:35 +0000

Yeah Battlefront 2 was crap. It was very unbalanced, no teamwork whatsoever, just horrible. First Strike, in my opinion is 20 times as good as SWBF2 will ever be. You FS Devs really outdid yourselves with space. I've always wanted to command a star wars starship and fight other capital ships.

Re: Shadows of battlefront

null@example.com (Omabroodje) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:06:11 +0000

you can play droideka's in 1 also
i didn't like battlefront for the shooting
the guns didn't look good and it didn't shoot very well
fs has an excellent shooting physics thingie

Re: Shadows of battlefront

null@example.com (Stardestroyersarecool) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:06:33 +0000

You could in battlefront 2 yes, but not in 1, I think.