Star Wars: Battlefront II Review

By Jim Rossignol Published 10 November, 2005

NOOOOOOOO!

Version tested: Xbox

I'd like there to be something intelligent, perhaps analytical, in my head when I see the trappings of Episodes One through Three on my television. But all I can do is listen to the Vader-scream looping in my brain: "NOOOOOO!"

Incredibly, some of my friends and peers have informed me that the third Star Wars film in the most recent trilogy was the best of the three. Is the 'best' of three kicks in the stomach the one that actually bursts your kidneys?

I was surprised at the sheer audacity of Episode III's awfulness. Entertaining, yes, but in some tortured, ironic sense of the word I'd not been expecting. In fact having recently watched the original Star Wars for the first time in many years, it seems as if the two trilogies are barely related at all. The originals were a pleasing fluke of entertaining cinema that somehow captured greatness, while the latest were little more than a CGI debauch, a cynical cash-venting exercise of the kind that the original films were probably supposed to have been back before Lucas stumbled into the Light and Magic of the big franchise.

Anyway, that pre-ramble goes to say that no matter how much of a slack-jawed geek I can be, no matter how superb I believe TIE Fighter to be, and no matter how many times I watched The Empire Strikes Back on that crummy VHS tape when I was a kid, there remains no residual fondness for the world of Star Wars in my mind. The land of sci-fi goodness has been despoiled and poisoned. Nothing remains.

Battlefront 2, then, is without the aura of 'fantasy fulfilment' that I've heard so many folk refer to with reference to these games. Apparently we were supposed to forgive the rubbishness of the original Battlefront because it allowed us to take our place in the Star Wars battles around which our tiny imaginations were clustered. I can't see it like that. Instead there is simple the skeleton of a sci-fi combat game, something sat between the Unreal games and Battlefield on the PC. (And the original was rubbish, a zillion-xillion units sold or otherwise.)

So let's do the basics: Battlefront is a multiplayer-focused third-person shooter which pitches multiple players and AI bots on a Star Wars battlefield, complete with FPS standards such as soldier-classes (sniper/shooter/medic/bazooka) and respawn points. While most of the action involves running around, shooting, getting killed and respawning, some of it involves running to a vehicle, zooming around and then exploding. And respawning. Occasionally you'll capture a strategic point on the map, and that helps you win the battle, if you're lucky. Battlefront 2 is the same, but more so. The clones are here, and they have new toys.

'Star Wars: Battlefront II' Screenshot 1

Protect Princess Peach from Darth Bowser's stormtroopers.

This sequel raises the slow meandering of the original to a determined run, as almost everything gets a tweak and a fiddle from Pandemic Studios. The focus of the fiddling is on extra stuff for the single-player modes, which are now heavily ornamented with objective-based minor-cast-member-narrated fighting. The classic Rebel Alliance galaxy-conquering mode is the most entertaining, with various fleets moving about the galaxy, assaulting entrenched planets and occasionally engaging the opposing fleet in space.

There are a selection of battles to oversee, each one based on events from various Star Wars laser-squalls; from those of the original films, bless their lost souls, to those of the clone-based sequels. Some of these are quite spectacular, others rather patchy. This is the oddest thing about Battlefront 2: while it's significantly more interesting than the original, some sections are excruciatingly bland. The battle for Yavin 4 provides plenty of foliage fun amongst the jungles and ruins, because Battlefront does vegetation and pools and rebel troopers quite well. A space battle at the same location, however, will be rather more disappointing. The clash of X-Wing and TIE lacks intensity, with just a few ships whizzing between near-featureless capitol ships. The barrage of laser fire which characterises Star Wars space battles is conspicuous by its lumpy absence. See that advert on TV? Yeah, well they used editing to make it look exciting. Shame the same can't be true of life. If the bloke who directed the adverts was in charge of your brain (as I'm sure he'd be pleased to be) then a perpetual barrage of just the exciting bits might keep you entertained. (And when playing the game.)

'Star Wars: Battlefront II' Screenshot 2

This year's TIE Fighter comes with 0% finance and interest free photon torpedos.

Anyway, there's also now a flourish of buzzing laser swords as Jedi take to the field. The dashing space-knights look very pretty, even if they don't add the profundity deserved of a galaxy's ultimate warrior to the proceedings. Their wild flailing seems rather at odds with the 'precision' idea of force/sabre powers. Furthermore they lack the utilitarian satisfaction of any of the standard footsoldier classes. I found it far more worthy to be a standard rebel trooper than I did to play Mace Windu, which just doesn't seem right.

This problem is particularly acute in multiplayer, with hero battles being something of a skill-free farce. That's troubling because despite all Pandemic's efforts to inject steroid-derived bulk into the flab of the original single-player, most folk want multiplayer combat against real people with Jedi. The Force combat is just a mess of melee, bound to end in hurled joypads and some unwarranted cussing in TV parlours across the continent. It's a shame.

(Also, and I think this might be true of all Star Wars games, there's occasions in which a nearby soldier will say "it's just like shooting Womp Rats, eh kid?" If that's true then would 'Star Wars: Rat Shooter' actually be an ideal concept for a future title? Or is it the case that Battlefront's combat is actually much better than simply shooting some rats, and which case shouldn't the soldier try to avoid dissing his own game by continually making the easy rat-cull comparisons? Hmm.)

'Star Wars: Battlefront II' Screenshot 3

NOOOOO!

So then there's the Padawan-free possibilities of vehicular entertainments. Like pneumatic slaves forced to give us piggyback rides for our slight amusement, the vehicles of the Star Was universe have been forced to serve Battlefront's nefarious ends, and make up the most amusing portion of the game. Walkers and stompy metal gun-hippos dominate the shooting, although perhaps without the all-powerful finality of the vehicles of the original game. It's fun to watch the simple AI drive the vehicles around aimlessly, driving up to each other shooting like the mindless figments of algebra that they are. Yes, the bots remain numbingly stupid and regularly wander into walls and fail to do anything tactically worthy. Of course you'll have plenty of human players to provide their own brand of mindlessness too, thanks to Xbox Live (or PS2 and PC online stuff for you Sony and Miscellaneous brand consumers), which is a mostly good thing, because the single-player game plays out with a sense that you barely effect the course of the battle, even if you try really hard. At least in a multiplayer game the loss (or victory) isn't solely your responsibility, and that's a comforting feeling.

I'm probably going to be seen as the grumbling bastard of the Battlefront 2 reviews, I know. But while it was never truly horrible, it's hard to exult it above dozens of other possible game experiences this year. With my PC bias I can see that the real sense of battle-fun war-intensity was delivered best by Battlefield 2, while the throbbing heart of Xbox action still remains in the armoured torsos of Halo and Halo 2. Living up to the achievements of other games is one of Battlefront 2's biggest problems: The acute sense of excitement and precision in combat of the Halo games is absent, likewise the intensity of being in a firefight delivered by Battlefield 2. All the explosions and laser-fire feel a lot like window-dressing, even if the game does have some attractive scenery. If the original Battlefront was an X-Wing crashed in the swamps of Dagobah, then Battlefront 2 is that same X-Wing raised by The Force powers of Pandemic's Yoda onto dry land. It's in a better position, but it's still stuck on the mud-planet of a green-skinned hermit dwarf. And we all know how that feels.

There's potential here, like a thermal detonator tucked deep in the bunker of the whole Battlefront concept.

But none of that matters, because all I can think is: "NOOOOO!"

6 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Jim.

About Jim Rossignol

Read more articles from Jim by visiting the Jim Rossignol archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (105) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • DDevil #1 6 years ago

    LOOK!

    THERE is your review of Battlefront II.

    Now for the love of God, stop complaining there's no SW:BFII review.

    /watches people complain about the number at the end of the review.

  • jlaakso #2 6 years ago

    While I wholeheartedly agree with the reviewer's opinions of the movies, I do think they have no place in a game review.

  • kezef #3 6 years ago

    And I thought I was alone in hating episode 3

    Noooooooo! just about sums it up :-)

    With no apologies to George Lucas I won't be buying this game or the film. I still remember fondly the old Lucasarts before they decided we all want crap Star Wars based games.

    Is Sith an anagram?

  • Wobble #4 6 years ago

    The movies are practically the only selling point of the game, I couldn't believe how bad this game was when i played the beta. Not having played battlefront I foolishly (it seems) expected battlefront 2 to be like battlefield 2 but with stormtroopers and ewoks and shit. Boy was I wrong.

    1995 called, it wants its multiplayer back.

  • thegamesthething #5 6 years ago

    I was surprised at the sheer audacity of the reviews awfulness. Entertaining, yes, but in some tortured, ironic sense of the word I'd not been expecting. In fact having recently read some of Jim's old reviews for the first time in many years, it seems as if the older and more recent reviews are barely related at all.

    poor game, much worse review - 2/10

  • krudster #6 6 years ago

    Or, maybe you just disagreed with Jim.

  • thegamesthething #7 6 years ago

    only using his words

    like i say, poor game, agree entirely, but giving a SW game to one so bitter with the whole experience might be a mistake? interestingly though, given the conclusions of the review, you may expect a 4 or 5 for this game, so he may still have fallen into the '+2 for SW veneer' trap of so many reviews over the years
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/05 @ 08:15

  • sleepless #8 6 years ago

    I'm surprised that I mostly agree with review. If only some exec in Lucas Arts takes responsibility and decided that Lucas Arts could make real entertaining games once again. But its impossible now when SWB is still selling shitloads of copies and SWB II surely will be selling shitloads of copies.

    /starts DosBox with X-Wing

  • DDevil #9 6 years ago

    Reviews of reviews eh? Do you have nothing better to do?

    IMO - This review tells you the following:

    What the game is.
    What the game does.
    What is good about the game and why.
    What is bad about the game and why.

    Add to that a bit of harmless banter at the beginning, a few humourous picture captions and a number at the end and you've got a review that does NOT warrant a "poor game, much worse review - 2/10"

    I give your comments a 4/10. Nice try but you ruined it by being an ass-hat.

    By the by, my missus LOVES the first Battlefront. I might have to pick this one up just for that reason.

  • thegamesthething #10 6 years ago

    @ ddevil

    reviews of reviews of reviews eh - do you have nothing better to zzzzzzzzzzzz

    nice insult too, keeping it adult

  • matrim83 #11 6 years ago

    I will probably still buy it TBH. I loved the prequel and I didn't much care for Battlefield 2 or Unreal tournaments online play (I'm probbly the only one though).

  • AceMaCool #12 6 years ago

    Well, I really liked it.

    Not played Battlefield 2 though so perhaps I'm just I'll informed.

  • Glitch #13 6 years ago

    6/10

    wrong, so wrong

  • Amajiro #14 6 years ago

    I liked the review, and the preamble was relevant, because you do have to take the 'fantasy fulfilment' into account. Strip out the "but it's Star Wars" argument, and it's a mediocre game.

    PS it's exalt.

    /edit: I'm an idiot
    Edited by 3 at 10/11/05 @ 08:58

  • DDevil #15 6 years ago

    Alright, yeah I'll admit, the insult was ill placed, but it was pre-coffee (plus I love that insult!). I apologise.

    The review of a review of a review thing was purposeful though, "the ironing is delicious" and all that.

    Oh and I'll always admit to not having anything better to do :-)

  • w00t #16 6 years ago

    Having only played split-screen round a mates house, I'd say 6 seems fair. That does mean better than average.

  • boo #17 6 years ago

    It's a review. It's Jim's opinion on what he thought of the game.
    If you like it - good for you. If you don't - that's fine too
    For those of us with an interest in the Star Wars oeuvre, who don't have access to the game it allows us an insight to how it plays.
    It's reasonable to assume that if we're looking at a review of a Star Wars game, we probably have some interest in the Star Wars films (not movies please, this is England).

    Combining a knowledge of Jim's previous reviews (Have I agreed with him, have I disagreed with him?), it allows the reader to form a basic opinion on whether the game is worthy of further investigation.

    Critcising a review because it doesn't match your own opinion is tantamount to disliking someone because they don't have the same birthday as you.
    Everybody's different.

    I we can go some way to injecting some manners and politeness back into EG, which has been sadly lacking of late it would be, I feel, a good thing.
    Thank you.

  • Dr_Actually #18 6 years ago

    Bad review. Who is this clown?

  • Celeborn #19 6 years ago

    The comments about the movies ARE worthwhile because a LOT of the general public buy these games purely based on
    "OMG, ITS STAR WARS; BATTLES LIKE IN THE MOVIES"
    His comment that he had no care for the star wars universe anymore imho meant that the rest of the review was therefore based on his opinion on how the game played; NOT based on how "cool" it was that the maps, models, weapons and skins had a Star Wars theme.

    With such a big franchise as this, I think making that clarification was important.

  • magicpanda #20 6 years ago

    Im firmly in the Bad review camp as well, it came across quite strongly to me as if the reviewer had already decided that games fate in the first few lines purely because of his view of the films.

    Ive no doubt the score is about right though. :)

  • Furbs #21 6 years ago

    I hate to criticise reviews, but I would be interested to know what say, Ellie's take on it was. Lets be honest, you're only going to buy a Star Wars licenced game if you are big (for that read apologist!) Star Wars fan. Oh and the fact its written by someone who admits to a clear PC bias (ok, its out on PC, but its not really fair to consider it a PC FPS - its aimed firmly at consoles) makes it hard. When I was playing it on my Xbox, I wasnt comparing it to say, BF1942 or BF2 on the PC.

    Personally I enjoyed it. Its not classic, but its better than alot of licensed stuff thats out there, and I totally disagree about the space battles. They felt really intense to me, and would make a good game in their own right. Opinions and assholes and all that.

  • Fozzie_bear #22 6 years ago

    Quite right Celeborn. If a game wants to tap into feelings of goodwill created by anothe franchise (and if they didn't they wouldn't make licenced games, would they?) then it's near on essential that the reviewer makes his feelings clear about that franchise.

    If you feel like Jim you'll view the game the same way. If you love everythign star wars you know you can probably add a point or two.

    Another excellent review, i reckon. Getting a bid fed up of all the endless carping about every review that gets posted. It's an opinion! An individual's opinion. If they disagree with yours they're not saying that you're wrong! Don't worry! If you want to read OMG! It Rocks!!!! reviews all the time then there are plenty of websites and magazines which cater for you already.

  • tengu #23 6 years ago

    "Getting a bid fed up of all the endless carping about every review that gets posted"

    That's not so much to do with the reviews as it is people pursuing grudges against the site though.

    Good review. I didn't think much of the Battlefront games tbh, not really much fun imo. But then the only decent SW games I've played are either on PC or Gamecube.

  • krudster #24 6 years ago

    You'd think Jim had called every Star Wars fan's mum a ho. Honestly.

  • Burnt-Kona Verified Senior Artist, Full Fat Productions #25 6 years ago

    Get Totally Games back to do a next gen X-Wing vs Tie-Fighter and I will be happy

  • tubeoftoothpaste #26 6 years ago

    who throws a cupcake? honestly!

  • Perry #27 6 years ago

    Very harsh on Jim, and I really can't believe some people have cracks at reviews.

    From dictionary.com

    Opinion:
    A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

    Muppets, all of ya

  • octo #28 6 years ago

    It's perfectly fine not to like episodes I-III. These are films made for children packed full of things adults can enjoy. If they want to. Certainly there were many people who didn't like the original trillogy also. That's bound to impact on your experience of battlefront; If you have no connection to the material then this is simpy a poor mans battlefield in star wars clothing.

    Personally, I found the biggest failing of the original game to be in utterly breaking the online multiplayer experience it was designed to be. Through a combination of bad interface design, terrible netcode and a traditional server selection system that further compounded things, battles became frustratingly broken affairs. It brought out all of the shortcomings in xbox Live. It was also "patched" several times, something I thought Live would not succumb to. That alone precludes me from buying this game because every review I have seen for it mentions that nothing has really changed.

  • Shrui #29 6 years ago

    I was pleased with the review. I've been waiting for a decent Star Wars game for ages (last I think was Jedi Knight 2 or Xwing series) but I won't buy a sub-standard game just because it's Star Wars! The same applies to any other movie franchise.

    So the comments at the start of the review let me know that the reviewer is judging the game on it's merits as a game and not just a "ride along" like those shitty theme park rides based on blockbuster movies. This is vital information to have since Lucasarts latest efforts have hardly been stellar (Oh I know someone will say KOTOR but remember that wasn't strictly Lucasarts efforts, was it?).

    You want a second opinion? Go to GameRankings.

  • PearOfAnguish #30 6 years ago

    Crap game, crap films. People whining about someone's opinion are also crap.
    In any case, it's not necessary to like the films in order to enjoy Star Wars games, provided they're good. I think Star Wars (both trilogies) is shite, but TIE Fighter is one of my favourite games ever.

    Thanks for an honest review.
    Edited by 2 at 10/11/05 @ 09:53

  • Celeborn #31 6 years ago

    "Oh and the fact its written by someone who admits to a clear PC bias"
    But again, he admitted this openly in his review; its not as if he kept it a secret from everyone.

    So therefore, using a bit of intelligence, If.........
    (1) You prefer / enjoy just as much Console fps' and their differences to PC fps, add 1 point to the final mark
    (2) You think the whole star wars skinning of the game and putting you in "actual" Star Wars battles will enhance your enjoyment of the game above the actual game mechanics in how it plays, add 1 point to the final mark
    (3) If you actively dress up like Star Wars characters and goto conventions, add 1 point to the final mark, and also go see a psychiatrist.

    Job done

  • Tyronne #32 6 years ago

    I know I have the pc version of this but after reading the review it must be completely different to the one I have been playing.This,like all the battlefields(1942/vietnam/2) I have bought not because of its single player side but simply because of its multiplayer side and truth be told I have not even played the single player bit of it as it does not interest me.

    The only thing I would say regarding this review is that you knew the score was going to be low simply by how it started.

  • Teeth #33 6 years ago

    Edit - Thanks Teeth, edits made.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/05 @ 11:08

  • LOLLERS #34 6 years ago

    "...the throbbing heart of Xbox action still remains in the armoured torsos of Halo and Halo 2."

    Far Cry Instincts is pretty good multiplayer, and it looks good too, unlike Halo.

  • Tyronne #35 6 years ago

    Funny thing about knocking those who wish to wear the costumes of whatever telly show/film/anime/whatever they like,should the same thing not apply to those who wear a certain football/rugby players shirt,after all that is nothing but a costume that they wear when they are out infront of a audience performing.

  • Celeborn #36 6 years ago

    Eurogamer really is full of grumpy sods devoid of humour this morning eh? Typical Thursday morning blues!
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/05 @ 10:04

  • Stickman #37 6 years ago

    Why do these comments sections have to degenerate into saying how terrible the reviewer is? If you're going to say the review is rubbish, at least back it up with something. How can the Star Wars franchise not have some bearing on the game? Substitute the stormtroopers for generic soldier #2, and this becomes a pedestrian multiplayer shoot 'em up, done better on all platforms already by the Halos and BF2. Someone who is jaded by the whole SW cashcow is in a better position to see this. It was a fair review, explaining the game's mechanics and what it presents to the player. It's the same people every time moaning and whining about how the reviewer's such a tool, and the game deserves a 7 rather than a 6. FFS, if you find the reviews that terrible, piss off to gamespot. This place'll be all the better without you.

  • mustardkid #38 6 years ago

    Eurogamer - the worlds foremost pram/toy separation solution

  • gaijin #39 6 years ago

    teeth - you missed "capitol" ships. Washington in space.

  • Scurrminator #40 6 years ago

    I thought it was an okay game, good while drunk in four player split screen (nothing like jumping on your mates AT walker and slicing it up with your lightsabre on hoth lol).
    Space battles are crud though - relive the opening battle from episode 3...with TWO motherships and an exciting dogfight between FIVE fighter ships - yeah!

  • Furbs #41 6 years ago

    Stickman, is a person who is jaded by the SW franchise better placed to evaluate a SW game though? The fact its an SW licence means its (like it or not) more than the sum of its parts. The atmosphere, locations etc etc all count towards it. Its awkward, since obviously the license shouldnt make that much of a difference to the game, but it does. King Kong without the licence is a bland FPS with a beatemup bit tagged on, but "playing the film" will elevate it above this. I guess it depends on if you expect true objectivity in a review (ie is it a good game in its own right) or if you take in to account context. Tricky.

  • spelk #42 6 years ago

    The SW Battlefront series may not truly fulfill the expectations of any SW fan, however they certainly have more of a chance of putting you in a SW based action scene than the likes of Star Wars Galaxies has ever done.

  • thegamesthething #43 6 years ago

    Stickman, it says at the top, speak your brain - if posters want to comment on the review re either its method or conclusion, surely thats not a problem provided it doenst get insulting or personal - no-one has called Jim a tool, you are overreacting

  • Carrybagma #44 6 years ago

    Everything you could ask from a reviewer - honesty and a well-chosen drop of cynicism.

    How many good Star-Wars games are there anyway? X-Wing/TIE (so I'm told), the recent Lego one and the first Gamecube one? Just 3? Don't EA sports have a better record?

    EDIT: Oh. KOTOR. Four then.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/05 @ 11:18

  • Furbs #45 6 years ago

    The Jedi Knight/Academy series, X-Wing Alliance, Star Wars Battleground (ok its only a mod of AoE2 but its a good game) and the new RTS may be quite good too. So its not all bad :)

  • thegamesthething #46 6 years ago

    rogue squadron on the N64 was great, jedi starfighter on the PS2 had its moments too

  • Stickman #47 6 years ago

    @Furbs - aye, it's a point. Maybe the review should say '+2 if you're a SW fan' or similar.

    @thegamesthething - taken in isolation on this one thread, then I suppose my post is over-reaction, but it's really just a build up over the last few months. More and more people come on and rather than discussing the game and its merits or bad points, it's just easier to become a literary critic and have a go at the style of review, or that the reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about or some other nonsense. I suppose it just finally got me down today. The tone of my post is meant to be more upset than angry.

  • Celeborn #48 6 years ago

    Jedi Knight. Super Star Wars on the SNES

  • thegamesthething #49 6 years ago

    and of course the original star wars arcade game, a classic

    and rebel assualt on the .... er, scratch that

  • Furbs #50 6 years ago

    And the SW:Trilogy arcade game.

    I must admit to enjoying Rebel Assault though, especially the attack on the Star Destroyer. And RAssault 2 convinced me PC gaming was the way forward, it was stunning.

  • thegamesthething #51 6 years ago

    so, in conclusion, there are lots and lots of good star wars games, for a completely subjective value of 'good'

  • kangarootoo #52 6 years ago

    Jesus, what a dire thread. Never before have so many dummies been spat out by so many. I'm hoping that this whole review of review/old news/not news thing is going to get so massive that it implodes. Its really starting to ruin half the article associated threads.

    What is wrong with you people? If you don't like the site, why the hell do you read it? Do you buy food you don't like the taste of and watch TV programs you don't enjoy as well?

  • markypants #53 6 years ago

    I liked the review. I think it's well written and interesting and.... WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG!!

    hehe... I like the game, I liked the first game. I think that in this case I would have given it two scores... 1: For non-star wars fans and 2: For Star Wars fans.

    Because which ever way you slice it, it does make a huge difference in the enjoyment. My mates come round, we all love star wars and we can all dive into this pretty easy-to-understand Star Wars universe, kill Stormtroopers, battle on Hoth, fly X-Wings, be a Jedi... You see to most Star-Wars-fan-gamers that would make this game an 8.

    If you were an alien from another planet that has never seen the movies, then I can see why you'd see the game as a average shooter. And If you hate star wars then the fact that you can have a epic Star wars battle isn't really going to float your boat.

    I think this review is a bit biased against Star Wars and the review reflects that. Had you equally got somebody who loves Star Wars, I think you'd have a different take on the game.

    Edited by 1 at 10/11/05 @ 11:57

  • Bezzy #54 6 years ago

    I said "HELLO JIM".

    And Jim didn't reply. WHAT AN ASS!

    Get a GRIP, JIM!

  • blueseagull #55 6 years ago

    That review is BROKEN.

  • Genji #56 6 years ago

    "I think this review is a bit biased against Star Wars and the review reflects that. Had you equally got somebody who loves Star Wars, I think you'd have a different take on the game."

    So you'd rather have someone who would give it a good score just because it's a Star Wars game? How about somebody who can judge it without being influenced by his love/hatred of the movies? A good game is a good game, Star Wars or no Star Wars.

    The reviewer said it himself - he hated the prequels (as did many), but liked the original trilogy. Hell, he even liked Tie Fighter, another Star Wars game! Shock! Look at that bias!

  • superdelphinus #57 6 years ago

    You lot are all mad.

    Anyway can someone please tell me:
    what 'meh' means
    why some of you spell the as 'teh'
    And what is a 'flame war'

    So... does everyone think it should be 28 or 90 days?

    Mr T. Blair

  • Furbs #58 6 years ago

    So would someone who only liked FIFA98 and hated the others (and admitted as much) be the right person to review FIFA2006?

    A good game isnt a good game if you dont enjoy it as much as you could because you hate one particular related aspect. This is where markypants is spot on. This comment:

    "Battlefront 2, then, is without the aura of 'fantasy fulfilment' that I've heard so many folk refer to with reference to these games. Apparently we were supposed to forgive the rubbishness of the original Battlefront because it allowed us to take our place in the Star Wars battles around which our tiny imaginations were clustered. I can't see it like that." sums it up.

    He didnt allow himself to become immerssed in the games atmosphere like alot SW fans will. Thats the point of the licence. And I'm sorry, but if you really feel this game lacks the Star Wars feel, you havent seen the same movies I have.

    Please dont see me as saying this is a bad review. As I said earlier, its all about opinions, but it just seems to be coming at it from the wrong angle. Its well written and so on, I just feel its maybe wrong to look at it as direct BF2 competitor - alot like some of the reviews about OFP which are saying its a crap FPS. My first impression of the first Battlefront was "this, more than any other SW game is firmly aimed at the fans only".

    I hope he reviews King Kong without seeing or liking the film, because it should get no more than the same comments if you remove the atmosphere/"playing the film" feeling.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/05 @ 12:29

  • gaijin #59 6 years ago

    what kangaroo said. while retaining the right to correct spelling and grammar.

    /hugs pedant hat

  • superdelphinus #60 6 years ago

    My god you are actually all MAD!

    What are you doing all arguing about a review on a website? That thing between your legs, have you tried playing with that instead?

  • Dizzy #61 6 years ago

    Good review.. fun to read. I agree with the 6 as well ;)

  • kangarootoo #62 6 years ago

    @superdelphinus

    I asked the same thing. "meh" apparently means a shrug of the shoulders, to suggest not really having an opinion either way. "so what is this to me" or "whateveeeer" type thing.

    The daft spelling of teh is just part of the leet mis-spelling that is the scourge of the web. Early hackers had no sense of correct spelling or grammar, but the result of the mistyped gibberish is a web language all of its own. Fashion trends, they suck wherever they are found.


    @gaijin
    I reserve the right to abandon proper english when on a rant :)

  • shamblemonkee #63 6 years ago

    cake or death?

  • krudster #64 6 years ago

    Cake please.

  • LOLLERS #65 6 years ago

    "What are you doing all arguing about a review on a website? That thing between your legs, have you tried playing with that instead? "

    Clearly they have, they're all wankers!

  • Genji #66 6 years ago

    "So would someone who only liked FIFA98 and hated the others (and admitted as much) be the right person to review FIFA2006?"

    Bad comparison. FIFA98 is a game, Star Wars is a movie. Liking or not liking a movie has nothing to do with liking or not liking a game. The "atmosphere" is there whether you've seen the film or not. At least that's what I think.

    But there's no "right" person to review this game. If the person hates the Star Wars movies, then he has every right to judge the game as a regular shooter with a scifi theme. He shouldn't judge the game based on his opinion of the movie, whether that opinion is favourable or not.

    I don't mind a reviewer being biased towards or against anything Star Wars-related. As long as he/she's honest about it, then I don't see any problem at all. This reviewer was honest. This is a game for the fans only.

  • Furbs #67 6 years ago

    Nice self ownage! Its a game for fans only, but lets judge it against the usual criteria. Riiiiiiight.

  • Dougs #68 6 years ago

    Not played it, but am quite enjoying the original. I imagine I'll feel much the same about this one....good clean fun, in Star Wars land. And I don't want, nor expect it to be anything else really.

  • Genji #69 6 years ago

    @furbs
    Guh, I'm confusing even myself here. Yeah, I'm going to go back on my "liking the movies has no bearing on liking the games" statement. It obviously does, and I have no idea why I wrote that. Maybe I'm going insane, or something.

    I still don't think that the reviewer is approaching this from the "wrong" way, however. He's approaching it from his own viewpoint, having not "got" the fantasy fulfillment part of the game. As long as he says that in his review, then I'm ok with it. He can then compare it to Battlefield 2, for that's essentially what this game is without the Star Wars fantasy bit. Those wanting a fan's perspective can just look elsewhere. It's got nothing to do with "quality".

  • space_ace #70 6 years ago

    star wars: battlefront 2

    hmm if this is about some movie stars engaged in frontal battles, could be interesting :)

  • Furbs #71 6 years ago

    Sounds fair enough. Like you say, there are sites which will review it from a Star Wars-centric perspective.

  • Feanor #72 6 years ago

    I guessed a 6 without reading a word of the review.

  • Stickman #73 6 years ago

    "What are you doing all arguing about a review on a website? That thing between your legs, have you tried playing with that instead?"

    ..and here you are commenting on an argument about a review on a website!

    Personally, I'd rather have an exchange of ideas with other people than sit masturbating all day, but that's really your choice. Just remember, just because your mum's knickers are in the washbasket DOESN'T mean she won't need them again.

  • Stickman #74 6 years ago

    Like I said, your choice!

    /moves 'out of range' of LeDilettante

  • markypants #75 6 years ago

    Just remember, just because your mum's knickers are in the washbasket DOESN'T mean she won't need them again.
    Brilliant!!
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/05 @ 14:47

  • AHiFi #76 6 years ago

    I know many non-SW obsessives who think this game is great. It has brilliant split-screen MP as well.

    I agree with the second poster, jlaakso, about the style of the review. Then again - I never really follow EG for reviews, just news.

  • sharpkiddie Verified Lead Developer, Eurogamer Network #77 6 years ago

    Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarhghghghheverybodyshutup!

    Now, would anybody like a cup of tea and a jaffa cake?

  • Speedwolf #78 6 years ago

    But it has 5p33d37-Bik35!!!oneone!1OMFGZORZ!

    (Did I do it right? I failed l33t at sixth form.)
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/05 @ 17:02

  • Bertie Verified Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net #79 6 years ago

    L0LZ3RC0Pt0Rzzzzz

  • sharpkiddie Verified Lead Developer, Eurogamer Network #80 6 years ago

    F3L4F3L

  • O-Fox #81 6 years ago

    hate to join the fray here, but I do think a little objectivity is needed in a video game review.
    This may be the opinion of the reviewer, but maybe someone with his mind so made up about star wars may not have been the right man for this particular game.
    :/

  • BraveArse #82 6 years ago

    Gotta agree with O-Fox. But not necessarily about the the anti-SW stuff - I didn't much enjoy the latest 3 movies either. BUT tbh that doesn't affect how much I enjoy SW:BF2 which I really see as being one of the best games in months to come out on xbox live. And that's the thing. Why is someone, who admits in this review that he is biased towards PC games - and hence (I would assume ) not much of a fan of the xbox control system etc. - asked to review an xbox game?

    "With my PC bias I can see that the real sense of battle-fun war-intensity was delivered best by Battlefield 2, while the throbbing heart of Xbox action still remains in the armoured torsos of Halo and Halo 2. Living up to the achievements of other games is one of Battlefront 2's biggest problems: The acute sense of excitement and precision in combat of the Halo games is absent, likewise the intensity of being in a firefight delivered by Battlefield 2."

    Not exactly comparing like with like are we? Only saving grace is at least he admits it in the review. I don't really mind when Eurogamer marks a game down ... but sometimes, just sometimes, there can be massive inconsistency in who gets to review what on the site.
    Edited by 2 at 10/11/05 @ 18:44

  • Stickman #83 6 years ago

    ""......, while the throbbing heart of Xbox action still remains in the armoured torsos of Halo and Halo 2. Living up to the achievements of other games is one of Battlefront 2's biggest problems: The acute sense of excitement and precision in combat of the Halo games is absent......"

    Not exactly comparing like with like are we?"

    ...ummm...

  • Merefield #84 6 years ago

    I was surprised at the sheer audacity of the reviews awfulness. Entertaining, yes, but in some tortured, ironic sense of the word I'd not been expecting. In fact having recently read some of Jim's old reviews for the first time in many years, it seems as if the older and more recent reviews are barely related at all.

    poor game, much worse review - 2/10

    ROFLMAO

    I liked the review, thought it was fair, and this comment made me p%$$ myself laughing.

    Hey, its all good!
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/05 @ 20:05

  • Merefield #85 6 years ago

    You know, EG is like Edge "online"

  • L0cky #86 6 years ago

    Either a lot of you are happy with shit or have been playing games for about a week, or are Star Wars fanboys :p

    6/10 is generous, I'd say it scrapes a 5 if it's lucky.

  • Furbs #87 6 years ago

    Umm yeah...that was kind of the point a few of us were making. Its a game made almost exclusively for fans.

  • jack_klugman #88 6 years ago

    Now for the love of God, stop complaining there's no SW:BFII review

    And start complaining about the absense of a BF2:MC review

  • BraveArse #89 6 years ago

    "...ummm..." what?

    I was referring to comparing this to a very very different beast that is the *PC* version of Battlefield 2.

  • Stickman #90 6 years ago

    But you managed to quote a piece of the review where direct comparisons were made between this game, and another multi-player shooter on the XBox!

  • BraveArse #91 6 years ago

    Funny though... I can't really see how i could have kept all the bits about Battlefield 2 on the PC while removing the intertwined halo comments, without completely skewing that quote and misquoting Jim Rosignol. Plus I honestly don't think that Halo 2 is comparable to SWBF2; they're very different beasts. The whole quote was meant to show that Jim Rosignol had very preconceived views of what makes a good PC game and what makes a good xbox one. Therefore, in his view ( it would appear ), SWBF2 fits into neither pigeonhole comfortably.

    As he said. he admits his PC bias ... my only point was that perhaps someone with a strong PC bias shouldn't be reviewing a console game. And as I said - at least he admitted it so that readers can read between the lines.
    Edited by 1 at 11/11/05 @ 11:54

  • Stickman #92 6 years ago

    Fair enough. It's a tricky spot I suppose. I'm of the opinion that someone with a pc leaning and not being a Star Wars fan might be able to give a more objective view of the game. Then again, like Furbs says, much of the game's appeal is aimed at fans and living out SW moments yourself. Plus, IMO, FPS's always work better on pc than console(just can't beat mouse and keyboard). Jim's pointed this out, and it's a fair point and correct, but again, as you say, perhaps not relevant to an XBox review.

  • botherer #93 6 years ago

    Listen. This is how journalism works: Someone writes something, then you read it.

    The end.

    That this is one of the most entertaining reviews I've read in ages is almost beside the point.

    John Walker

  • botherer #94 6 years ago

    Also.

    Every time someone makes a comment like this

    "it came across quite strongly to me as if the reviewer had already decided that games fate in the first few lines purely because of his view of the films."

    they are accusing the reviewer of being corrupt.

    Please stop accusing people of corruption without evidence. It attracts lawyers.

  • blueseagull #95 6 years ago

    > Listen. This is how journalism works: Someone writes something, then you read it. The end.

    What's this "Your comment" lark all about then?!

  • Furbs #96 6 years ago

    "John Walker"
    The American Taliban??

  • botherer #97 6 years ago

    You can make comments. You can't dictate the content of the website, and announce what a reviewer can and can't do.

    "I think this review was rubbish," is obviously fine, although remarkably unhelpful for anyone reading, other than those wishing to share in narcissistic catharsis. "I think this review was rubbish because..." is obviously far more helpful.

    But, "While I wholeheartedly agree with the reviewer's opinions of the movies, I do think they have no place in a game review," is utterly without place.

    And that's by FAR the most polite I've ever read. This belief that one can dictate the content of a review because one can comment at the bottom is fallacious. While it should not, it invades the mind of the writer, perverting his talent, and preventing his imaginative flow when creating - that hideous thought at the back of the mind that a spiteful little shit will cruelly publically denounce you, accuse you of corruption, or any other of the frequent habitual tendancies of those who think themselves so important as to control the content of whatever they happen to read.

  • Furbs #98 6 years ago

    I think you're corrupt.

  • BraveArse #99 6 years ago

    "that hideous thought at the back of the mind that a spiteful little shit will cruelly publically denounce you, accuse you of corruption, or any other of the frequent habitual tendancies of those who think themselves so important as to control the content of whatever they happen to read."

    And that little tirade places you exactly where in this "hierarchy", how important do you think you are? I can't see any importance in any of the comments made here ( least of all my own ). I do, however, see an interesting, diverting and entertaining debate, which encompasses the whole spectrum of opinion on the subject at hand, and is all the more valid for it.

    The whole point and attraction of the modern interweb is that it democratises information and also democratises the opinion forming process, on what is and what is not "good art, gaming, taste etc." Everyone is entitled to their say. If EG didn't agree then they could just remove the Speak Your Brain button. And in the process remove all that extra advertising space which is currently flashing Operation Flashpoint at me. If you don't like the comments section you really really don't have to click the link. You could even read - shock horror - games magazines - although you would still have to avoid the letters page.

    Funny that, everything changes, yet it all stays the same.
    Edited by 1 at 11/11/05 @ 16:47

  • blueseagull #100 6 years ago

    *removed*
    Edited by 1 at 11/11/05 @ 19:52

  • gaijin #101 6 years ago


    "Every time someone makes a comment like this

    "it came across quite strongly to me as if the reviewer had already decided that games fate in the first few lines purely because of his view of the films."

    they are accusing the reviewer of being corrupt. "

    Incorrect. They would only be accusing them of corruption if they were saying the reviewer had already made up their mind because of some kind of external incentive such as money, food or sexual favours. The above is an accusation of bias rather than corruption.

  • Khab #102 6 years ago

    TIE Fighters can't carry photon torpedoes.

  • AOFanboi #103 6 years ago

    <em>they are accusing the reviewer of being corrupt.</em>

    Almost. But the corruption would be if EG did as the fanbois seem to want, and went looking for a reviewer likely to give it a high score...

    To the apparent fanbois: Why not IGNORE the score for a Star Wars game and pretend it says "10/10 OMG GAME OF TEH YEAR OH I CRAPPED IN MY PANTS IT'S THAT GOOD LOL!!!" instead? I mean, if you like it you're already so disconnected from reality you might as well pretend.

  • Stickman #104 6 years ago

    botherer - unfortunately for 'your kind' if you write a review for EG, then you open yourself up to the comments section. That's the way it works around here! Anyway, for everyone not liking the review, there's another voice supporting it. Like my first post on this review, I think you're overreacting based on what you've seen on other comments sections. I think this one is quite a good natured discussion.

    edit - almost made myself a games journalist then!
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/05 @ 19:09

  • ImGameCube #105 6 years ago

    My dream is to write enough witty comments in the comments section of Eurogamer, so that one day the editor wakes up at his desk and points to my comments and says,

    "That guy really knows his eggs, lets hire him!"