StarDestroyer.Net BBS

In Battlefront II, the Empire's naval forces include Victory-class fregates. Since their appereance doesn't actually involve any game mechanics I assume they are canon (as is the 501st's Journal). Has there been any further information concerning these starships? Their length, firepower, etc.?

nightmare wrote:Yes.

Ah, thank you very much.

Personally I don't know how anyone can take anything in SWBF2 as canon (other than perhaps the backstory for the single player campaign) without outside confirmation. So much of the units are fudged in appearance, name, scale, abilities and function that many have simply given it up as a hopeless source of misinformation. That doesn't mean it's a bad game (though the pc version sorely needs a patch, especially considering how much of the beta feedback was simply ignored in the final version), however, just not the most accurate Star Wars simulation ever...

I don't think the mere appearance of an object constitutes non-canonical game mechanics, it's primarily the rules and abilities that are iffy.

Most of your complaints come down to game mechanics which are always apocrypha in any game. As I'm sure you already know, game plot lines are canon, so long as they don't contradict other sources. There's nothing in the EU discounting a Victory II-class Frigate, so it is indeed a new class of ship.

On a side note, I don't have any troubles with my PC BFII. Patches are always welcome, but it isn't sorely in need of one IMHO.

Well, if I had the time I'd list all the others inconsistencies and problems in the game itself (that others have put together), not dealing with mechanics or single player plot-line that make it a questionable source that ought to be taken with a grain of salt. The mere presence of a ship isn't really objectionable, unless it's a misrepresentation of something else that's being interpreted as a "new [canonical] ship."

And on the side note:

Nex, by any chance, did you participate in the beta test? To my thinking, the game was heavily rushed, and feels very incomplete and unpolished, not just compared to other FPS games or something like Battlefield 2, but even compared to the first Battlefront. That doesn't mean it's unplayable mind you. The first SWBF had serious problems of its own, and is seemingly still in patch beta limbo. I can understand they needed to make some sacrifices to fit the game reasonably on the console format, but the PC version seems to suffer needlessly as a result. I know plenty of people who felt the game was perfect as is, but then there's no accounting for taste.

Fair enough. I didn't participate in the Beta so I can't comment on the final game's improvement or lack thereof. For myself, I don't notice many glaring faults, not one's that drastically disrupt gameplay at any rate. But then, to quote an annoying old saying "different strokes for different folks."

Some people are just more anal than others

Okay I will admit a certain bias then in my expectations for the game. Basically a bunch of us played the beta and made suggestions through the proper channels and for the most part they were ignored. Other issues seemed fixed in hatchet-job manner, such as the common exploit in SWBF1 that allowed you to crawl through and hide inside walls was "fixed" by removing the ability to go prone and most of the maps that featured such "holes."

And considering there is still no PC patch, I'm not too hopeful about ever really seeing them. The first game was similarly abandoned mid-beta patch in favor of a rushed sequel, so that also colored my enthusiasm for the game.

On my forum a lot of people pointed out to me and others the many "inaccuracies" regarding Star Wars stuff in the game, most of which I personally didn't care too much about, but I figured it was worth mentioning, before people took too much from it, uncritically.

My final admitted bit of bias with regards to SWBF2 as a game is that I've played other FPS multiplayer games, which means I set my standards a bit high.

My final admitted bit of bias with regards to SWBF2 as a game is that I've played other FPS multiplayer games, which means I set my standards a bit high. Sad

Exactly the same here Kurgan. I've admittedly never been a control point style fan ever since BF 1942, but BF2 just didn't 'do it' for me the way games like Halo have. It was fun, but there wasn't enough to keep me playing multiplayer, and as far as single player goes in a game like this which is designed for multi player its obviously going to be tacked on, I could see they made much more effort than with the first one. However the annoying 'no matter how many of us you burn down we will always keep reappearing 2 feet from you' approach gets annoying after a while. The space bit is fun for a while, although a bit easy (bomb bomb bomb yay i win), i think if the cap ships moved round more, didnt have daft beam weapons, and actually tried to kill each other it would have been better.
As far as Victory 2 class goes, I reckon some genius in Lucasarts thought 'Hey how about we put VSD's in the game? that'd be neat' and then created their own idea of what one looked like.

They even have those forward observation posts on the command tower!

And McEwok wanted to put something in the article about the possibility that it was a Victory-class destroyer, stripped down to the bone. It was quickly removed (not by me for once!)

Lazarus wrote:As far as Victory 2 class goes, I reckon some genius in Lucasarts thought 'Hey how about we put VSD's in the game? that'd be neat' and then created their own idea of what one looked like.

There's also a new rebel ship in the game, and it doesn't look like anything we've seen before, except maybe some far-distant unidentified ship in ROTJ which may have a vague resemblance with it at best. It seems far more likely that the Vic frigate is meant to be a new ship than being a screwup. The ISD on the other hand could be called a miss.

Nightmare wrote:here's also a new rebel ship in the game, and it doesn't look like anything we've seen before, except maybe some far-distant unidentified ship in ROTJ which may have a vague resemblance with it at best.

Hrm, which ship is that?


It's a real shame about the "Victory-II" frigate. If they wanted to put a Victory-class Star Destroyer in the game, why didn't they give it at least a passing resemblance to the images of the ship that appear in other sources? And if they wanted to make their own dagger ship design, why not come up with a name of their own?
Puzzling, to be sure.


I agree wholehearedly with Lazarus that there is a lot of wasted potential. Numerous additional nuances could have been added with minimal effort. The mysteriously missing heavy turbolaser batteries should be present, and they should fire at the opposing ship periodically; the constant fire from enemy turbolasers could prevent your ship's shields from regenerating. Pure game mechanics, mind you, but more interesting than the (lack) of stuff the game ended up with.

I also don't see why the hangar bay was moved to the side of the ISD. If someone can't fly in and out of the bays in their proper locations, they shouldn't be flying anyway. I don't mean to sound elitist; the fighters are very maneuverable; it simply wouldn't be hard.

The bloody maps should have map-specific objective scenarios as well, rather than bloody CTF and CP-capture.

Bah, went on a bit of a rant there.

The bloody maps should have map-specific objective scenarios as well, rather than bloody CTF and CP-capture.

Well, they do in campaign mode, bu you can only go through that once in any given profile.

Cykeisme wrote:Hrm, which ship is that?

There are four background ships (aside from the "Y-Head"), which have never been properly identified. I don't recall exactly where they used to be, possibly Robert Brown's removed site.

nightmare wrote:
There are four background ships (aside from the "Y-Head"), which have never been properly identified. I don't recall exactly where they used to be, possibly Robert Brown's removed site.

Actually Hyperspace identified one ship as one of their first features when it went up on Starwars.com. The Y-Head "corvette" was actually termed the "BG Ship". A CGI of the thing was released.

The Original Nex wrote:

The bloody maps should have map-specific objective scenarios as well, rather than bloody CTF and CP-capture.

Well, they do in campaign mode, bu you can only go through that once in any given profile.

Uh, what? You can do the campaign as many times as you want.

Correct. I misspoke. I meant that you can't go back and play Campaign missions again once the mission is completed without starting the whole thing over. I don't understand that omission, in BF1 you could navigate back and forth freely inside campaign mode.

Well, I saved after every mission with a descriptive name ("Space Kashyyyk Done", "Kashyyyk Done", "Utapau Done" etc), for the very purpose of replaying specific missions that took my fancy.


It did irk me that the single player campaign missions couldn't be played in multiplayer, either cooperatively or with human players playing both sides. For one thing, it'd be fun to remove the temple guard troops, then have a Jedi Temple mission with a handful of players playing as Jedi against a large number of clone trooper players.