Well, it has been, what 2 months since I uploaded the first demo? Yeah, it has. Anyways, this version of the demo includes the additon of:
|Clone Campaigns required?:
|Number of scenarios:
Level 1 - Tatooine
Level 2 - Barkeshh
Level 3 - Corellia
Level 4 - Gerrard 5
Level 5 - Jade Moon
Level 8 - Fest
There will not "be" another demo, only the full version with all levels and another version with bug fixes. And read my comment on the first demo to see all the levels that will be in it.
|Author||Reviews ( All | Comments Only | Reviews Only )|
Rogue Squadron is a campaign based on the N64/PC game of the same name. In it, you fly a variety of Rebel aircraft across various missions throughout the history of Rogue Squadron. If that sounds like something you'd like to see in GB form, prepare to be disappointed.
The first notable issue is that this campaign requires the Expanding Fronts mod to work. The author makes no mention of this, so ensure you have it installed if you ever wanted to play this (for some reason).
This campaign is highly non-functional, even for a demo. Both the map design and trigger work are questionable, bearing little to no resemblance to the original game. Your objectives are vague and often don't work due to poorly-timed or outright broken triggering. Dialog will fire off at random for no reason; AI units who are scripted to move somewhere will stop to fight enemies and will never resume their route, leaving the scenario unwinnable without cheats (Barkesh, Fest); the computer may switch teams or just outright resign because their AI is still set to 'Standard.'
The author also apparently does not know the purpose of Map Revealer objects. Often times you are left to sweep the map edge to edge searching for the last wandering enemies, or using cheats to reveal them. When the author does decide to display areas of the map, it is done by covering it in GAIA Scout Troopers that are transferred to the player en masse and never removed.
Most of your time is spent gunning down ground units who cannot shoot back. The few times you do encounter enemy air units they are in small, scattered bunches that can be easily kited and picked off. Very few things pose a threat to your hero units. This becomes incredibly boring, especially the 'Gerrard 5' mission where you are forced to destroy well over twenty AT-PTs that are constantly running around the map (each hit from your fighters does 2 damage to them). What makes this particular crime worse is that the author acknowledges that this is dreadful in the readme file, but didn't actually put forth the effort to fix it.
Another GB adaptation of a videogame. Doing a proper flight-based campaign is very tricky in Battlegrounds due to the extremely primitive aircraft mechanics. Even the most seasoned designers tend to have trouble here. Suffice it to say, this author doesn't get it right in the slightest.
Map Design: 1
The maps have very little effort or thought put into them. They consist mostly of flat blank terrain with random scatted props to represent cities or bases. They bear little resemblance to their namesakes, and most of the gameplay will be spent traversing the featureless voids to find your objective.
As mentioned in Playability, your objectives are often vague and confusing. Some missions have no briefings at all, leaving you to guess/cheat. Even if you have knowledge of the proper Rogue Squadron game and remember the objectives of each level they do little to help you figure things out here due to the overall brokenness of the design.
A potentially great idea marred by very basic design knowledge. Now, some might argue that it being 'only a demo' makes it alright to be like this. I would reason that the purpose of a demo, in most cases, is to make people excited for your campaign. To show them a small fraction of the greatness to come, and to leave them wanting more. Thus, the demo should usually consist of the best you've got to offer right from the start. This slapped-together string of non-functional scenarios fails to do any of that, and does not make me particularly invested in the 'finished' product, whatever/whenever that may be.
It's best to avoid this one.