Tendo City

So they've decided to make their own Battlefied rip-off, Star Wars-style!

From The OPM site:

Quote: Ever wonder what makes your PC friends yap on about Battlefield 1942 all the time? You're about to find out -- but not in a World War II setting. Star Wars: Battlefront takes the idea behind 1942 and moves it to a galaxy far, far away.

In the latest issue of OPM (January 2004, which celebrates 2004's big games on the cover), we exclusively reveal the next major Star Wars game.

Think SOCOM's online-multiplayer experience, only with a wide variety of characters to choose from and a bunch of cool Star Wars vehicles to operate. You can play in the Galactic Civil War or the Clone Wars, meaning you can choose one of four armies to command (Rebels vs. Imperials or Republic vs. Separatists). You can't mix and match sides (e.g., no Republic vs. Empire), but battles can take place on any planet.

As for the vehicles, Battlefront includes pretty much every major ride you've seen in a Star Wars flick. Yes, even AT-ATs. Yes, even X-wings. Hell, you can even mount a tauntaun. Better yet, certain vehicles carry multiple troops: One player drives as the others man guns.

For plenty more info and screens on Star Wars Battlefront, make sure to pick up the new issue at your local newstand. Or, try to track down an OPM subscriber, who should have a copy in hand by the time you read this. Better yet, do yourself the favor and subscribe to OPM right now, just so you won't have to deal with waiting in the future.

By the way, in addition to sneak peaks at major 2004 games like Battlefront, the new issue of OPM includes playable demos of Rise to Honor, R-Type Final, Whiplash, Freedom Fighters, and many more.

It's also coming out for the PC and X-Box.

Oh joy.

Wait, I don't care...

I concur with ABF.

If you love Battlefield and Star Wars you'd love it... but while I would say that Battlefield is more fun than 99% of multiplayer FPSes, nothing in that genre holds my interest for long at all. So I don't care.

You guys are nuts. Battlefield is by far the single best online multiplayer game EVAH!

Starcraft. Followed very closely by Warcraft III. Nothing else is anywhere close... but if I had to mention some names I'd probably say stuff like Age of Empires, NetStorm, Warcraft II, Gettysburg, Shogun... Pod, back before teh game died...

You've lost your marbles. Can you play any of those games with 63 other people at once??!! NO, you can't!!

:shakeit: :shakeit: :shakeit: :shakeit: :shakeit: :shakeit: :shakeit:

But with the kind of lag you'd have with 64, who'd want to?

In a modern FPS can you play even a 1v1 when both people have 56k modems (any distance apart) and have ZERO lag 99% of the time? You can in Warcraft III... :)

Yeah...this would be good news if I actually cared about games like Battlefield.

...

...

Which I do! So that means I'm extremely excited about this! Plus it's Star Wars! Just so you know, I'm totally getting this game when it comes out.

...

...

ABF and Weltall are crazier for not being crazy about being crazy about getting this game and then acting crazy about it.

First Person Shooters... never liked em. Controlling them is too complicated for my tastes.

Buwaagh?

Well to each his own.

And ABF, I've played on many 64-player servers with very little lag.

My experiences with FPSes and modems has been lag. You can still play, but it's not nearly as fun...

And Weltall... uh, the controls are too complex? But FPS controls are mindlessly simple...

Oh, as I've said plenty of times before, I like FPSes as mindless diversions every so often in single player mode (I like having a goal to have to achieve and a path to follow in this genre...), but in multi while I can tell the games are often good (RtCW, for instance), it just doesn't interest me for long... I get tired of running around and dying and I quit. Warcraft is much more fun. And keeps track of a record (well only of ladder games, but that's fine) of your wins and losses, too... something I wish FPSes would do...

I've only experienced lag a few times in Battlefield, and it never lasted long. Guess you just suck!

And considering all of the extremely simple, mindless games that you love so much I'm very surprised that you don't like FPS's. Perhaps you like so many mindless games that you have to put one genre down before someone calls you a simpleton? Mmm? Little insecurity we got there, buddy? Widdle ABF doesn't like to seem stupid? Would you like a cookie? Does widdle ABF want a cooke? Mmm??


Okay I'll stop.

Uh, didn't I say MODEMS? Unless you've tried them on dialup sometimes too?

And OB1, how about reading what I said? Didn't I say that I do sometimes like FPSes in single player? I did have fun playing through Voyager Elite Force, Jedi Knight, Return to Castle Wolfenstein... and have had some fun in the multi too. It just seems pointless... there's no overall objective, it doesn't keep track of any records in any of the games I've played... like Battlefield's demo. It was fun... I just got bored of it after a little while (longer than most other online FPSes...). I know I would with the full game too... I'd know it's a good game, but just wouldn't have much of any interest in playing online. Just like all the online FPSes I have.

But... while I do have fun in the genre, I just don't like it as much as some (many) other genres. For instance I'd rather play Gauntlet Legends than Perfect Dark if someone wants to play a 4-player multiplayer action game on the N64... yes, they are action games too, but a different and IMO not quite as fun subgenre of them.

Who the hell uses 56k modems anymore?

*looks at GR*

By choice, I mean.

And I really don't understand the fascination with crap like Gauntlet Legends, but hey, whatever floats your boat, right?

If you need a story or a linear objective in order to enjoy a FPS then that's your loss, bubba.

We still have one at home...

And Gauntlet Legends is one of the best multiplayer games on the N64... like it's sequel/add-on Dark Legacy on the Cube, except the N64 has more good multiplayer games than the Cube...

Oh, and it's not just FPSes where I prefer having a point... RPGs too. Diablo II in particular... it's online multiplayer mode, where you run around in the same levels you've already beaten over and over in an attempt to get better items, has absolutely no intrest to me...

Unreal Tournament is one of the coolest FPSs ever.

I don't like Diablo II because I don't like the combat. I play Battlefield simply because it's fun. Not because I want to get that secret item or because I want to reach level 200 real badly. It's just pure good fun!

Diablo II was a lot of fun for the length of time that the single player game lasted the first time through. The problem is that I finished that in 8 days...

I've never been into those mindless addictive games like Diablo II and PSO. They just get repetitive for me, not addictive.

Or Gauntlet? It's the same thing, just moved farther into the action genre. :)

I think they're fun, as long as I have something to progress through... though, some are boring. I love Gauntlet, on the action end... and Diablo, which is action but has the strategic depth of a large skill tree... but Dungeon Siege? That game is like the worst of Diablo crossed with a dull RTS. I know it's a very popular game, but I found it very boring...

Oh, and RTSes online are an exception to that 'need a task' thing. Custom mode (where records aren't kept) is one of my favorite types of games in SC and WC3... just shows that strategy games are indeed my favorite genre.

I used to play Diablo 1 a lot, but I never played Diablo 2 much aside from one LAN adventure with my brother.