Coolest game website ever.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-08-05 03:57am

SW: Battlefront

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2004-08-05 08:22am

game looks interesting too...

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-05 11:03am

Alright, now I MUST get XBox Live.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-08-05 11:17am

It is available for the PC, without costy multiplayer...

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-05 11:24am

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:It is available for the PC, without costy multiplayer...

It will run smoother on X-Box, guarenteed. And there are other games I need it for as well. I prefer my Box for FPS's and racing and just about everything, except strategy.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-08-05 11:33am

I've had it reserved for a month already

WOW, what happened to that web site? Yesterday it looked nothing like that...NOTHING like that!!

I'm getting the PC version, so I can blast all you dirty XBox users...

Though I don't mind slaughtering PS2ers too...

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-08-05 11:36am

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:
It will run smoother on X-Box, guarenteed. And there are other games I need it for as well. I prefer my Box for FPS's and racing and just about everything, except strategy.

It will also look much worse. Seriously, your PC would have to be pretty crap to run Battlefront badly- it's Battlefield 1942 ish, after all.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-05 11:44am

X-Box is capable of running near PC graphics. And I much prefer the controller to the mouse/keyboard.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-08-05 11:44am

Not a lot of new stuff...they added vehicles, but never finished the Units section. I want the download section so I can play a demo- I need to make sure my graphics card can handle it before I actually pay

Anyway, check out the PS2 shots! The second to the right I believe. Under Gallery. One of them shows a Star Destroyer in low orbit over tatooine!

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-08-05 12:02pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:X-Box is capable of running near PC graphics. And I much prefer the controller to the mouse/keyboard.

Define "near PC."

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-08-05 12:05pm

phongn wrote:
StormTrooperTR889 wrote:X-Box is capable of running near PC graphics. And I much prefer the controller to the mouse/keyboard.
Define "near PC."

Low end PC.

I use the X-box when I don't want super upgrade the puter...but really between the two. The Monitor resolution is better...let alone the graphics card capablities

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-05 12:15pm

I have a 36" tv in my bedroom with my 460 watt stereo hooked up. And if I really want the experience, I plug in the S-Video downstairs to the 72" and 5.1 Bose. I never get that with a PC.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-08-05 01:53pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:I have a 36" tv in my bedroom with my 460 watt stereo hooked up. And if I really want the experience, I plug in the S-Video downstairs to the 72" and 5.1 Bose. I never get that with a PC.

There's nothing stopping you from doing that with a computer.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2004-08-05 02:54pm

Only to do so you'd have to pay for a 5.1 capable soundcard, a decent controller so you weren't trying to use the mouse and keyboard on the sofa, and you'd lose the only real advantage the PC has, high resolutions.

Which basically means you turned your PC into what it, in truth, is. A massively overpriced Xbox (that can't play Ninja Gaiden).

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2004-08-05 02:58pm

Is this an RTS game? I prefer to use a PC for those.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-05 03:05pm

No, it's like PlanetSide for SW. Massive FPS battles online.

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2004-08-05 03:07pm

Is there any single player element to it at all? so you cna play with out xbox live?

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2004-08-05 03:17pm

Death from the Sea wrote:Is there any single player element to it at all? so you cna play with out xbox live?

At least the PC version has single element in it (hint:read the FAQ from the site).

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-08-05 03:39pm

Glory be for this game its made by the wonderful folks at Panademic Studios

(Who's Panademic you ask? The same folks behind the first and second Battlezone games)

They still have the demons online of those old games
(http://www.planetbattlezone.com for those) and let me tell you that was some of the best FPRTS action I've ever played.

Back in the day they first released Battlezone II one of the things they stuck in the game were some moddled ATST and speeders that they had created because Lucas contacted them about a possible Star Wars version of Battlezone but a few months in changed their mind about it and told them to stop working on the Project

That was the last time I heard anything out of their studio(A shame as I hoped to go work for them someday because I had a friend or two in their office)

Glad to see they(Lucasarts) pitched work back their way)

Post by **RogueIce** » 2004-08-05 04:17pm

Very nice. THe background music is awesome. Too bad only the Imperial March seems to be in it's entirety, and everything else is really cut off short.

EDIT: PC screenshot 6/37: That is one fucking nice shot of a burning LAAT.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-08-05 05:53pm

Let's see. My old PC is a 900 mhz Celeron with a Geforce 2 MX 400 64 MB graphics card.

The XBox is a 700 mhz P3 with a Geforce 2-based graphics card, and probably not 64 MB of RAM.

My old PC wins

Do you think my 2.6 ghz Pentium 4 with a Geforce FX 5200 128 MB can run BattleFront?

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-05 05:57pm

Praxis wrote:Let's see. My old PC is a 900 mhz Celeron with a Geforce 2 MX 400 64 MB graphics card.

The XBox is a 700 mhz P3 with a Geforce 2-based graphics card, and probably not 64 MB of RAM.

My old PC wins

You tard. Consoles are optomized to run only games. They don't have to worry about Windows or any shit like that. All they do is present a game. It's way better than that PC, especially with a Celeron.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-08-05 06:43pm

Vendetta wrote:Only to do so you'd have to pay for a 5.1 capable soundcard, a decent controller so you weren't trying to use the mouse and keyboard on the sofa, and you'd lose the only real advantage the PC has, high resolutions.

Well, a PC's hardware is capable of greater effects than a Xbox can output, and if you've got the gear you can display at 1024x720p or 1920x1080i resolution -- something no console can do natively. You don't actually need a 5.1 soundcard if you're plugging into a receiver (just SPIDF optical out) either.

As for the controller issue, yes, the console wins that out of the box for most console-style games. But, for example, if you want to get your IL-2 action on the projector, you'll probably be running a flightstick and throttle superior to any console's.

Praxis wrote:Let's see. My old PC is a 900 mhz Celeron with a Geforce 2 MX 400 64 MB graphics card.

The XBox is a 700 mhz P3 with a Geforce 2-based graphics card, and probably not 64 MB of RAM.

The Xbox has an NV22 GPU. The original GF2 was an NV15, your GF2MX is an NV11. However, the Xbox does not have to load a complete OS like the PC does, so the RAM issue is a mitigated.

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:You tard. Consoles are optomized to run only games. They don't have to worry about Windows or any shit like that. All they do is present a game. It's way better than that PC, especially with a Celeron.

RAM issues aside, tell me how much of a load Windows presents the computer when the game is playing?

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-08-05 07:03pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:
Praxis wrote:Let's see. My old PC is a 900 mhz Celeron with a Geforce 2 MX 400 64 MB graphics card.

The XBox is a 700 mhz P3 with a Geforce 2-based graphics card, and probably not 64 MB of RAM.

My old PC wins
You tard. Consoles are optomized to run only games. They don't have to worry about Windows or any shit like that. All they do is present a game. It's way better than that PC, especially with a Celeron.

I know. I'm kidding. Notice the smily?

Oh, there it is again!

Advantages of a console:
1) Doesn't have to worry about bloated software like Windows. However, this is only a tiny factor since, erm, the processor is simply sooo much more powerful than the console, that even the little bit of extra lag created from having windows in the background will still let the PC outperform the console...
2) Only has to have a resolution of 640 x 480 for your TV, while the computer needs a minimum resolution of 800x600, often 1024x768 and above. So you get less detail. Ha.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2004-08-05 07:32pm

phongn wrote: Well, a PC's hardware is capable of greater effects than a Xbox can output, and if you've got the gear you can display at 1024x720p or 1920x1080i resolution -- something no console can do natively.

The Xbox can do 480p, 720p, and 1080i if the game supports it. And yes, all you need is a SPDIF to do 5.1 on a PC, but the only way to get that kid of connection is on a high end sound card or motherboard. Either of which will cost you more than an xbox, which has Dolby Digital support out of the box.

So, you could spend over a thousand on a high end PC so you can play something like five worthwhile exclusive games, and three of those will be RTS games, because that's the only mainstream genre the PC can claim to be its 'own' now.