Does anyone else think this game is better than the 2nd OG game in quite a few aspects?

[TheVainOrphan2000]

I played both quite alot back on the PS2, and i remember thinking quite often that the first was better than the second (even though i played the second game first). Whilst its not without its issues, the first game had a couple of gameplay mechanics and other elements that made the game more fun imo including:

• The lasers from ground vehicles actually do a decent amount of blast damage, making them feel more powerful in BF1, with only BF2's AT-AT feeling like it has a decent splash radius. In BF2, you basically need to land direct hits on infantry, which was difficult for me back in the day, plus reduces the feeling of a power fantasy when using a AAT or similar tank.
  
• Air vehicles could actually be used on ground maps, although i'll admit that the overall effect was minimal (the AI has no idea how to strafe ground targets for example), it was fun knowing a dogfight was happening above your head
  
• you can actually go prone; sure, sounds like a minor detail but it was fun to be able to do so, especially when i'd LARP back in the day as a sniper for entire matches
  
• in general many minor details regarding weapon loadouts such as the two grenade types (anti-droid/anti-vehicle) in BF1 whilst everyone just has thermal detonators in BF2, or how the wookie bowcaster in BF1 has a single laser bolt in single fire, then multiple shots for the charged shot (which is flipped in BF2, where it files multiple when uncharged, then a single, more powerful shot when fully charged)

Obviously BF2 has space battles, and actual playable heroes but back in the day I'd often find myself playing BF1. Anyone else in the same camp?

[i give hatch]

first played swbf2 at a friend's house then i accidentally bought swbf1 on the ps2, thinking it was swbf2. it has a better ui imo, but i find it to have a steeper learning than its sequel, the introduction of award weapons and the persistent bonuses made it really easy pwn, whereas the only broken guns in swbf1 were the droid and empire pilot launchers, and the rebel pilot's scatter gun. the dark trooper's scatter gun was offset by the vulnerability of not using the jetpack correctly.

but in the end i probably played swbf2 a bit more, the replay value of it at the time was insane. you and the boys would just queue up a bunch of maps/modes and spend the day playing. there's also galactic conquest which was way more refined than swbf1's. console wise, i'd say i had more fun solo playing swbf1 than swbf2, but with friends i'd choose swbf2. biggest thing this game has over its sequel is its hard difficulty, hard > elite

[=CrimsoN=]

I definitely prefer the first Battlefront over the second, even though I have more hours in the second Battlefront. You're right about all your points, but to add:

In the first Battlefront:

-Battles felt more messy and chaotic. The bots seem like they were nav-meshed to attack each other at specific choke points, rather than focusing solely on capturing command posts. In Battlefront 2, even at 32 ai, the battles never really feel as chaotic and the ai has a hard on for capturing command posts. This is most prevalent in maps like Polis Massa where the CIS or Rebels will curbstomp the Republic/Empire respectively prioritizing command posts.

-I actually liked not having heroes. I mean granted, they are very cool in Battlefront 2, but not having heroes playable in the first Battlefront makes it unique. It's all about putting the player in the shoes of a grunt. You're not important. Just another soldier. Also, the heroes feel like hazards since they can't be "killed" (yes, I know there are multiple ways to kill them, but they just respawn so still a hazard).

-A point on the air vehicles thing. Yeah, the ai isn't too good with air vehicles, but they are perform more feats with them than in Battlefront 2. For example, the AI is capable of performing bombing runs and the ai can use the LAATs on Geonosis to pick up and drop troops around the battlefield. It's only really maps like Tatooine where they just tend to fly into rocks.

- I miss "native" factions. Yes, they still exist in Battlefront 2, but they aren't marked on the map as yellow blips anymore and they can't control command posts. Yes, I know that the Battlefront 1 maps were ported to Battlefront 2, including the three way Dune Sea map, but it isn't the same. It's not well balanced because Battlefront 2 wasn't designed for three way battles.

[Joseph]

I certainly agree. One big reason is that for me the physics or "feel" of SWBF1 is much more satisfying than in SWBF2.

[Empire_TW]

I too played the 2nd one before the first, rented the 1st one one day and was blown away.

Maps in the first are far better and the battles flow better too, in the 2nd one it feels like everyone just runs to the middle of the map and just shoots each other while the first actually feels like a large battle with skirmishes happening all around the map.

The Empire getting AT-STs on almost all maps is better too where in the 2nd they were rare.

[=CrimsoN=]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Empire_TW:

The Empire getting AT-STs on almost all maps is better too where in the 2nd they were rare.

Agreed. I kind of like how some maps in the first Battlefront are hilariously unbalanced. Like the Empire/CIS being favored on the Yavin temple map (since they have tanks and the Rebels/Republic only get speeder bikes) or how the Empire and CIS can be easily crushed on Kashyyyk Islands. That level of unbalance made the maps feel unique. You couldn't just apply the same strategy to nearly every map like you can in Battlefront 2. Only a few maps in Battlefront 2 are unbalanced, like Polis Massa. But every other map is balanced to the point where the factions don't even feel that unique.

[Sharpe's Sword𓅣𓃠]

I like BF1 over Bf2 in most regards. The graphics are more clean and attractive (BF2 was going for a more gritty look though so it was a purposeful choice) and the maps are better designed in my opinion. The character models look better and I like the physics and playstyle more of BF1. BF2 has space battles and a few extra maps over BF1 but thats the only reason I play that one.

[JC Dallas]

I completely agree

[LordZeusCannon]

Absolutely not. not this ♥♥♥♥♥♥ steam version. I have the cracked original PC version installed and you have the same controls as on PS2, it's great. Steam really let us down this time when they added their own form of controller support instead of using the intended keybinds which allows Auto Aim.

In conclusion, Star Wars Battlefront 1 (OG PC version) is the greatest star wars game of all time

[Bfloo]

The 1st has the best maps. GC was set up better needing 2 battles to win a planet.

[Dreagon]

I think the second game was better but I like the first game better.

[Fahobomoclowbia]

i played this one for a long time before getting the second one as a kid so i know the maps in this one a lot better.

i think overall, the improvements in the second game make it better as a whole, although like you said there are some things missing from it that this game had.
i really wish there was a battlefront 3 that was the best of both worlds, but the modern ones are pretty bad.

[Captain Pentium]

There are a variety of reasons why this one is better, but to reduce dittos I'll go straight to AI.

Bots in this game actually focus on killing each other, instead of solely targeting the human player(s).

The AI engineers don't run around like headless chickens with fusion cutters, thanks to the fact that it's in a grenade slot instead of the pistol slot (They threw the fusion cutter in the pistol slot and forgot to change their AI for it? Maybe?)

AI combat effectiveness is higher on High difficulty in this game than that of BF2's Elite. And it's there in the .odfs. Aggressiveness is something like 0.95 here and in BF2 the default is 0.50 or similar.

AI snipers will go prone in certain spots of the map, making them perform nice surprises if you forget to check.

The AI pathing, while not amazing, get stuck less on these maps than their ported variants in BF2. My guess is that they hacked and slashed parts from the maps without accounting for AI navmeshes. Cool. Thanks.

Bots love grenades. Keeps you on your toes and forces you out of hiding spots.

Rebel AI don't shoot dead bodies and potentially waste ammo (ammo more specifically applies to wookies and engineers)

They can actually aim turrets.

Not AI related, but the HUD is just outright better and more stylized. It's like they couldn't figure out where to place the stamina bar so they decided to change it up completely. Not to mention that atrocious main menu. Eww. Battlefront 1's looks better, but I will give the second game that it is easier to set up a lot of maps in Instant Action.

EDIT: Oh, and command posts are actually named. Why they changed that has always baffled me.

[=CrimsoN=]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Facepalm Full O' Napalm:

They can actually aim turrets.

Certainly helps that turrets actually do damage in the original too. The turrets in Battlefront 2 (unless it's the large two cannon types) do a pathetic amount of damage.

[John]

This one had better maps and being able to hope in a different vehicles was good.

[Kirbymasters87]

When I was younger I played 2004 Battlefront more than its younger sibling. I really liked the blue Assault Droid, b1 skinned Droid Pilot and Red Assassin Droid. Didn't like the camo Assassin Droid, Red Assault Droid, but the Orange engineer droid was okay.