Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games) PlayStation (Games) XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

Star Wars Battlefront - Striving For Galactic Conquest? 87

Posted by simoniker from the must-rule-the-spooniverse dept.
Thanks to LucasArts for their press release officially announcing more information on Star Wars Battlefront, the PS2/Xbox/PC multiplayer action title featuring "the most memorable Star Wars battles set in over 15 environments across 10 diverse planets, including Hoth, Geonosis, Yavin, Tatooine and Naboo." However, a GameSpy preview adds further detail to the previously revealed information regarding this Battlefield 1942-like online-orientated title, including "the 'metagame' driving Star Wars Battlefront. Tentatively called 'Galactic Conquest,' this mode will throw players into a full-scale war. Once you capture every checkpoint on a planet and defeat the enemy's forces utterly, you'll control that planet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Star Wars Battlefront - Striving For Galactic Conquest? More

Star Wars Battlefront - Striving For Galactic Conquest?

Comments Filter:

  • But sir! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:14PM (#7965390) Homepage Journal
    The odds of this game coming out on time are 234,832... to 1....

    *R2 bleep-moan*

  • A highlight (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Kethinov ( 636034 )
    Notice that this has been released for the PS2, XBox, AND PC? Not that this game particularly interests me in the slightest, but I wish game companies would do this more often. I have the PC computing power to handle games like Smash Brothers Melee or Metroid Prime but due the lack of a PC port, I have to either buy a GC, which IMO is a waste of money seeing as how I already have a good enough computer, or wait for GC emulation to get mature enough to be useful. If Nintendo ported their games to the PC or e
    • Also, nobody would buy a Gamecube.
      • People who don't feel like dicking around with software installation and buying uber graphics cards would buy the console. Plug it in and it runs. There's nothing wrong with consoles in general, I just like everything being on the PC because I'm like that. Many people are not. Choice is good.
      • And who makes money on hardware in the games industry? It is not Nintendo or MSFT, not sure about Sony but I'm going to guess they aren't either.
        • No, my understanding is that Nintendo makes some kind of profit on every Gamecube they sell (although maybe that profits has been reduced with the $99 price). Regardless, they don't necessarily want to sell hardware for profit, they want to sell hardware in order to have a large user base so that developers will make games for the Gamecube. Every Gamecube sold is another potential purchaser for a Gamecube game. The more potential purchaser, the more likely your Square-Enix, or EA, or whoever, is going to
        • Nintendo always sells their machines for profit. They do everything they can to lower part costs and optimize production before their consoles are released. GameCube, really, is the perfect example. It came out a little late (compared to the PS2, I mean) and it's got a few parts inside that don't seem to be as good as the opposition. But really they just built the console like I build my own computers--for the expensive parts, keep to just under top-of-the-line quality, save lots of cash, and then make up t
          • Sony doesn't sell at a loss. The only console companies that have ever sold at a loss [and were not just clearing inventory at the end of a product's lifetime] are Sega and Microsoft.
    • For that matter, why won't Nintendo make Metroid Prime for the PS2? Or perhaps the XBox?

      I mean, come on. Nintendo is in the hardware business to make money off of licenses that companies pay to release games for their hardware. The more attractive they can make their hardware, [i.e. exclusive games that you can't get anywhere else] the more money they make.

      Wait, did you understand all this and just expect Nintendo to ignore their business model so that you'd be happy?

      • Companies which are both in the hardware AND software business are inherently frustrating to the consumer. A person who runs x86 hardware and wants to buy MacOSX cannot unless he buys an entirely new computer. A person running a PS2 who wants to buy Metroid Prime cannot unless he buys a Gamecube.

        By being the sole manufacturer of your game AND your platform to which no ports exist, you are essentially eliminating all competition, and that sounds very similar to a monopoly. Platform freedom should be mandato
        • First off, who ever told you that you had a right not to be frustrated as a consumer?

          Your idea of what a monopoly is also needs some work. You want the government step in and tell Nintendo that they have to port Metroid Prime to the PC? And you're not eliminating any competition by doing both hardware and software. Companies are still entitled to develop their own hardware and software combination and beat you in the free market. I don't understand how you believe competition is being driven out.

          If you don'

          • I'm not calling Nintendo a monopoly, I used that example to explain that by making their own hardware and not porting their games to anything else, they are restricting and frustrating their customers. Nintendo should port their games to AT LEAST the PC. The XBOX and PS2 wouldn't hurt as well.

            Instead they remain a niche. If they ported their games they'd have a much more huge fanbase. I myself, a rabid nintendo fan, boycott their products on the sole basis that there are no pc ports and there are no succes
            • So who are you calling a monopoly?

              Nintendo's business model relies on not porting their games to anything other than their platforms. Why can't you understand this? The amount of sales that they would get from the PS2, XBox, and PC would be weighed against the value-loss the Gamecube would feel and the fewer licensing dollars that would be coming in when everyone decided there was no need to own a Gamecube anymore.

              • Nintendo's business model relies on not porting their games to anything other than their platforms. Why can't you understand this?
                Why can't you read my post? Of course I understand their business model. My whole argument is that it's inferior to a business model in which they focus more on making games for all platforms and less on controlling their hardware. You may disagree, but I believe the number of customers they'd gain would outweigh the loss in hardware sales.
                • Wrong, your whole argument seems to focus on the way you are upset by not being able to play Nintendo games on your PC. Can't you read your post? You have posted about how this affects you personally and not how Nintendo's bottom line would be affected.

                  And you were calling what company a monopoly with your little comment? You never cleared that up.

                  • By porting their games to other platforms, they gain more business. Nintendo's bottom line is very much at issue. You're reaching for stars trying to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about here and you're not succeeding. You may disagree with me all you want, but that's as far as it goes. A difference of opinion.
                    • Look at what you originally posted. It was all about how you were upset. You've only as of late latched onto this economic stance. Why can't you just admit that you were talking out of your ass?

                      I mean, you brought up the term monopoly. Why did you even say monopoly? Who is a monopoly again? You still haven't answered that one tough guy.

                    • Perhaps you're not taking the time to actually read what I write, which I suppose makes this reply I'm composing entirely pointless if you're not reading it, but here goes.

                      First off, in my very first post I talked about how porting games to all platforms generates a larger fanbase which is easily inferred as more profit. An economic point. Further explained in subsequent replies.

                      Secondly, I brought up the monopoly comparison to show that developing for only one platform is just as limiting ot the consumer
                    • How petty. When you can't support your point you get frustrated and resort to insults.
                  • WHITE TRASH

                    nice subliminal message. LOL
                • Of course I understand their business model. My whole argument is that it's inferior to a business model in which they focus more on making games for all platforms and less on controlling their hardware.

                  Well, it's not.

                  Rob (Can't make it any simpler than that)
                • . My whole argument is that it's inferior to a business model in which they focus more on making games for all platforms and less on controlling their hardware

                  It's not though, historically, software "sells" hardware. No consumer (outside of fanboys) really cares about what hardware they are using (PSX, PC, Gamecube, Xbox) they care about what games they can play with that hardware, and will be able to play in the future with that hardware. This is why consoles or handhelds without good launch titles bo
            • They are a hardware manufacturer, first and foremost, in the busininess of selling hardware. They make obscene amounts of money doing this, and if you to adjust the profits of Sony and Microsoft by the number of consoles sole, making it as if they had all sold exactly the same number of systems, Nintendo's profit would be higher than either of them. And you're telling me that their way is bad?
            • They have lost significant business with this decision.

              I doubt it.

              Rabid fans usually don't boycott things they are fans of. I'm a rabid Tool fan, and I bought all their albums. See?

              I would be a paying gamecube customer if I could play it on my pc

              Why, God, Why? This hurts so bad...If you were a paying GAMECUBE customer, you would play it on your GAMECUBE. It's $100, it's a small console, even the liddle, itty-bitty discs are soooo cute...Cough up the c-note and get over it.

              And face it: Nintendo has,

              • They have lost significant business with this decision.

                I doubt it.

                They've lost my business and the business of everyone who, like me, refuses to buy consoles. That is significant business. Fact, not opinion.

                Why, God, Why? This hurts so bad...If you were a paying GAMECUBE customer, you would play it on your GAMECUBE.

                Yes, this is painful, it's painful that you completely misread my statement and I'll try to refrain from the petty flaming you resort to by saying that these games are currently ported to

                • Flaming? nah...

                  I would say that this is one of the most lucrative times for consoles ever. I have no stats to back it up, but it's pretty fair, right? Besides, PC gaming is dying, didn't you know?

                  Now, I don't know if you just typed it quickly (in which case skip to the next paragraph), but you said these games are currently ported to the Gamecube only (emp. mine). They are developed for the Gamecube. I'm not a game coder, but developing for the Gamecube, by all accounts, seems to be drastically differ

                  • My "possibly irrational" aversion to consoles is based on my not wanting to buy a new console every time a good game comes out. Plenty of people are ok with that, I'm not. I'm not saying everyone should stop buying consoles, I'm saying game makers should give me the freedom to choose my own platform.
            • Question : how the hell would you even port the Metroid Prime controls over to the PC? Try setting up a nice simple 16 button config and then explain it to an average gamer.

              (4 visors (scan, combat, infrared, x-ray), 4 beam weapons (energy, ice, plasma, heat. Not counting charge beam.), jump, morph, missle/bomb, shoot. Not counting targetting/strafing, looking, and walking.)

              You switch a LOT in the game, as anyone whos played through it will tell you. The game would NOT translate onto the PC well at all, MAY

              • Can you not see the forest through the trees? There's no reason they couldn't start manufacturing USB Gamecube controllers along with ports of their games to the PC.

                Just because something is not done does not mean it is impossible.
                • Somehow I get the impression (after reading through the rest of your posts) that you'd start complaining about how you can't play Nintendo games well without buying their controller. In any case, the GC is only $100, a fraction of the price of your computer; so why should Nintendo waste time trying to cater to people who will buy an expensive PC but not a cheap Gamecube?
                  • Uh, because I already have a computer? Computers can do more than consoles, so I opt to use the better item of hardware. As much as I bitch and moan that I can't play GC games on my comp, I've still got NES, SNES, N64, Playstation1, and computer games. That's a whole lot better than GC in my personal opinion. But as I said, that's my personal choice. That doesn't mean my choice is better than your's or your choice better than mine. My choice is not to buy GC because it's proprietary hardware and IMO proprie
                • So they need to buy the controller to play the game and play it right? There's no controller alternative? ...

                  Sounds like a monopoly to me.
                  • Use whatever controller you want, if you could play Metroid Prime on the PC one would assume you could map your own controls any way you wanted. But for those who like the real GC controller, give it to them in USB form.
              • Try setting up a nice simple 16 button config and then explain it to an average gamer.

                (4 visors (scan, combat, infrared, x-ray), 4 beam weapons (energy, ice, plasma, heat. Not counting charge beam.), jump, morph, missle/bomb, shoot. Not counting targetting/strafing, looking, and walking.)

                That would actually be easy. A standard FPS control system seems like it would fit Metroid Prime fairly well (I haven't played it, so forgive me and explain if there's any weird reason why not).

                Rob
            • So exactly how is Nintendo not porting their gamecube games restriciting and frustrating to gamecube customers? me: i am frustrated at nintendo for not porting smash brother's melee to the playstation 2 or x-box. a game which i am happy playing on the gamecube which i purchased to play said game. where is the sense in that?
        • A monopoly? Uh, no. Not even close. It only sounds similar when you twist it like that. By that logic, I think...(looks around room)...that Heinz is a monopoly! Because they're the only ones that sell Heinz brand foods!

          It really is the same thing. It's the GAME market that they's need to cover to be a monopoly. Covering the METROID market...not so much.

    • Uhhh... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JMZero ( 449047 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @06:20PM (#7966919) Homepage
      Companies like EA do PC ports of a lot of popular sports titles. They're usually sold cheap, and still don't sell nearly what the console versions do.

      Why?

      Picture you and 3 friends crowded around your PC to play Smash Brothers. Do you have 4 seats at your computer? Do you have 4 gamepads with sufficient buttons? Do you even have 4 USB ports?

      Metroid's a little better, and might sell a few copies on the PC, but why would Nintendo dilute the appeal of its flagship unit (the GameCube) in order to sell a few more copies of anything? If it was going to do ports of Smash Brothers, wouldn't it start with a PS2 copy? It would sell lots more...

      Until Nintendo doesn't make hardware, it isn't going to be doing a lot of ports.

      Until pigs fly, you're not going to see heavy "one machine, many players" on computers. And, yes, I remember Star Control II multiplayer. It's not that multiplayer is unworkable on one computer, just that it isn't nearly as workable as the same thing on a console (or multiplayer over a network).
      • Ok
        First off, it's called a USB splitter. You only need one USB port and one USB splitter and whammo, you've got plenty of ports for game controllers.

        Second, I happen to have 4 controllers and I happen to play smash brothers (the original) on a nintendo 64 emulator w/4 friends regularly. If that's not enough to blow your point right out of the water, then take this with it: If Nintendo started porting their games to other platforms, it stands to reason that they would start porting their controllers as well
        • My point I wanted to make was not so much that YOU didn't have the equipment (individual people have all sorts of things, I have arcade sticks hooked up to my PC to play MAME) - the point I was getting at was that that configuration (as well as mine) is rare.

          And, despite you being a contrary example, I don't think I'm wrong about this rareness. I'd venture to guess that less than 1% of computer gamers have 4 joypads, and I'd be surprised if even 20% have 2.
          • I have arcade sticks hooked up to my PC to play MAME
            LOL, nice :)

            Hardware rarity wouldn't really be a problem if the game makers officially supported the porting of their games to other platforms along with their controllers.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • I think this is better point than people realize. I'm by no means an expert on this, so I'm not going to get technical, but the GameCube has significantly different capabilities than other platforms. I don't mean lower or higher, I mean different. Look at some GameCube-only games. Metroid Prime is a great example. Rogue Squadron III is, as well. These are amazing looking games, some of the prettiest visuals I've ever seen. Now, look at pretty much any multiplatform game, or be lazy and just check out some r

  • can you be a Jedi? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    if you can, expect armies of lightsaber-wielding Jedi vs armies of lightsaber-wielding Jedi...

    if that happens, I'll be a sniper, since those lightsaber make obvious beacons for potential targets.

    • Re:can you be a Jedi? (Score:3, Informative)

      by JavaLord ( 680960 )
      if you can, expect armies of lightsaber-wielding Jedi vs armies of lightsaber-wielding Jedi...

      doubtful, since you see plenty of people online in Jedi Acadamy who shun using lightsabers even though it's encouraged. In the "seige" battle mode where you can pick character classes, most of the players aren't Jedi.

  • Orientated? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Seriously....orientated?

    How about retardated?

    No such word as "orientated" exists. The proper word to use is oriented. Unless, of course, you actually desire to give the impression of sub-standard intelligence.

  • Hmm (Score:4, Funny)

    by JavaLord ( 680960 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:37PM (#7965650) Journal
    It sounds pretty good, but so did the original specs for Star Wars Galaxies. I'll bet 2 years from now, we will be talking about how some cantina dancer took over the universe.

  • XvT (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nasarius ( 593729 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:47PM (#7965765)
    I remember thinking of a game like this back when X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter was first released, except it would be based on space combat rather than ground combat. My idea is still technologically infeasible because of latency issues, I guess. We'll see if this one becomes vaporware, or turns out to be shallow, buggy crap once it's released.
    • I don't understand what's technologically infeasible about your idea. In fact, I don't think you've really explained your idea too well. Please expand.

      Latency issues are becoming less and less important in game development these days with more processing power and more in-home broadband.

    • This project is not only "technologicallty feasible" it has been done before, did no one played tribes and tribes 2? I mean seriously, halo, battlefield 1942 and call of duty are based on concepts they invented. Yet everyone thinks they are revolutionary.

      Actually in Halo you can only handle terrain vehicles, while in Tribes2 you are able to drive flying ships and have passengers, pilots and bombers on them. Also you were able to switch armors AND have a trird person view.

      Heck , ANYONE with enough cod
      • Actually, Halo on the PC let's you play in Banshees (flying plane thingers), and the single player-campaign on the XBOX let's you play as them as well (See: Assault on the Control Room).

        However, I like how Shrikes handle better. But Banshees have a much lower learning curve. =)

    • Actually, sir, that game already came out [gamespot.com]. Albeit without the Star Wars license.

  • Halo "killer"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CokoBWare ( 584686 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:53PM (#7965826)
    The only design choice I have a problem with is the third-person perspective that they are using. FPSs are much more immersive than TPSs, however I think if they plan it right, we're gonna see some awesome things with this game if they playtest the hell out of it. I am foregoing the PS2 version and buying it straight for my PC.

    Let's hope it's not a subscription.

    And what's this about 4 armies to choose from? I thought there were only 2 armies? Who are the 3rd and 4th army?
    • ok I read this along time ago so its probably wrong.

      I thinkt he 4 armies are

      1) clone troopers (republic)
      2) droids (the people who they fight in ep1 and ep2 I guess and cloen wars series)

      3) rebels(from ep4 - 6)
      4) Empire (eps 4 - 6)

      as far as I know you can't mix armies from different periods so no empire vrs clone troopers ect

  • Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lobo ( 10944 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:56PM (#7965864) Homepage
    I liked playing this game the first time it came out, when it was called Planetside.

  • LucasCLONINGarts (Score:3, Interesting)

    by virgo cluster ( 741002 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:08PM (#7966010)
    I just wish Lucasarts would do some more creative work like they did in the 80ies with titles like Maniac Mansion or Zak McKracken. Today they seem just to wait for other companies to come up with new ideas and concepts so they can make a Star Wars clone out of it.

  • Secret LucasArts Internal Game Development Manual (Score:4, Funny)

    by superultra ( 670002 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:23PM (#7966235) Homepage
    1. Identify most popular game genre (FPS, RTS, RPG, etc) and subgenre (FPS: Strategic, say).

    2. Apply Star Wars template (i. e. medics become Bacta Droids, magic becomes "force," etc)

    3. Name game Star Wars: [Random Star Wars noun] + [Name best befitting genre & subgenre].

    Hey if it worked for Force Commander, it's gotta work with...oh; never mind.

  • A couple points (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:44PM (#7966489) Homepage
    Here are my issues with this game. If they can address these, they have a lot of potential to make an awesome game. Potentially even a BF1942 killer.

    1. From everything I've read on this game, it appears its limited to 32 players per server. BF1942 had 64 when it came out. And some of the newer ones are planned to have 128. You can't take a step backward in the number of players with this kind of game and expect it to succeed.

    2. Planetside was a cool concept, but they alienated many gamers by their less than stellar FPS translation. IE. "cone of fire" and no headshots. Aim is relative in Planetside. If they could make this SW game behave like a "true" FPS, AND have the massively multiplayer part of Planetside, it would draw in a HELLUVA lot of gamers.

    3. Mods. Every major FPS has them. Hell, CS drove more sales for Halflife than the original game did, and currently there are more DC servers in BF1942 than BF1942 servers. If you let the fans mod it, more people will buy it. PLEASE release an SDK for it and don't force people to make their own like they did for BF1942.

    4. Don't use anything like Steam. It complicates things, it breaks, its an inconvenience that ultimately will not stop anybody from pirating your game if its good and just causes issues for paying customers.

    If they can address the issues I have listed, I feel they have a good shot at becoming a top game, especially since they have the backing of the Star Wars license. I know I have a blast playing the SW d20 game, sometimes even more than D&D because its the SW universe, and I'm somewhat familiar with it.

    • Regarding your point #1 (and a concern of mine too): From the article (1st link up top there) "PC gamers will be able to battle against 32 players over the Internet or 64 via a LAN."
      • This is still unacceptable. All the other games can currently do 64 players over the net. And new ones are planning more. This would be like Golden Eye for the N64 only offering 2 players after all the other FPS had 4. It isn't enough. Period.

        • Hold on... Halo for PC offers 16 players and because of the map design, does very well with the limited number of players. In fact, it really helps with managing teamwork better. I honestly believe that the 64 player model really takes away from the community of a game. I would suggest that people do not consider deeming a game acceptable or unacceptable because it doesn't support X number of players. The real trick these days is to hope that the gameplay conducive to the features provided to the gamer.
  • Hmmm...

    4 Armies/Races.. take over planets to establish galactic dominance...

    Sounds familiar.

    clicky linky [netrek.org]
  • Let the Jar Jar slaughter begin!

    Would this game feature realistic blood and vital organs? or could be modded that way?

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close