Powerful nostalgia that still holds up
Mentioned in ~2 in 5 positive reviews
“Crazy to think this is 22 years old and somehow still looks and plays fantastic.”
Steam review · 1.5 h played ↗
STAR WARS™ Battlefront (Classic, 2004)
Worth buying? What 255 Steam reviews say.Worth buying? Here’s what 255 Steam reviews actually say.
Overwhelmingly PositiveOverwhelmingly Positive · 97%Pandemic Studios2019FPS · Third-Person Shooter · Action
The verdict
A nostalgic class-based Star Wars battle shooter with big bot-filled maps that still holds up for fans. Skip it if you want sprinting, heroes or live multiplayer; Battlefront 2 (2005) does more.
Great for
Star Wars fans and nostalgia seekers who enjoy offline bot battles and old-school shooters
Main risk
Dated, clunky gameplay and dead multiplayer, with Battlefront 2 (2005) doing most things better
What players love
Fun with friends and in offline bot matches
Mentioned in ~1 in 11 positive reviews
“Game play is awesome. With friends even better.”
Steam review · 60 h played ↗
Massive, immersive Star Wars battles
Mentioned in ~1 in 13 positive reviews
“Battlefront nails the feeling of being a single grunt soldier in a massive, sprawling Star Wars battle.”
Steam review · 0.5 h played ↗
Runs well on modern and low-end PCs
Mentioned in ~1 in 19 positive reviews
“I am surprised that this game runs butter smooth on modern hardware without issues.”
Steam review · 3 h played ↗
Better maps and tougher AI than the sequel
Mentioned in ~1 in 21 positive reviews
“Arguably better land battles than 2005. Smarter AI by far and command posts matter more.”
Steam review · 5.7 h played ↗
What players complain about
Poor PC port: controls, widescreen, bugs
Mentioned in ~1 in 3 negative reviews
“If i hit crouch I crouch, but if i hit it again it makes me prone.”
Steam review · 1.8 h played ↗
Battlefront 2 (2005) is better in nearly every way
Mentioned in ~1 in 4 negative reviews
“If you have the sequel, you're not missing anything by not playing this.”
Steam review · 7.8 h played ↗
Dead or laggy multiplayer, cheaters
Mentioned in ~1 in 7 negative reviews
“The multiplayer is dead. Every time I search for a game, there are no matches.”
Steam review · 1.9 h played ↗
Crashes, freezes and failing to launch
Mentioned in ~1 in 7 negative reviews
“EVERYTIME I START A MATCH IT CRAASHES”
Steam review · 0.1 h played ↗
Poor AI and unbalanced difficulty
Mentioned in ~1 in 7 negative reviews
“The enemy always has a huge advantage that never transfers to you when you play as that faction.”
Steam review · 10.1 h played ↗
Dated, clunky gameplay with no sprint
Mentioned in ~1 in 8 negative reviews
“You can't even run in the game, the gameplay is slow.”
Steam review · translated · 0.9 h played ↗
System requirements
From the Steam store page
Steam Deck: Playable3 GB
Minimum
OSWindows XP/Vista/7/8/10
Processor1.8 GHz
Memory1 GB RAM
Graphics3D graphics card compatible with DirectX 9 and 256 MB VRAM
Storage3 GB available space
OSWindows XP/Vista/7/8/10
Processor1.8 GHz
Memory1 GB RAM
Graphics3D graphics card compatible with DirectX 9 and 256 MB VRAM
Storage3 GB available space
More games to check
Other games we’ve read the reviews for
Cyberpunk 2077
Very Positive · 88%+ Excellent story and characters
− Still buggy and unpolished
analyzed 2 d ago
Atomic Heart
Very Positive · 82%+ Striking Soviet retro-futurist atmosphere
− Annoying protagonist and weak dialogue
analyzed 2 d ago
Aimlabs
Mostly Positive · 78%+ Noticeably improves aim
− Paywalls and subscription pushed everywhere
analyzed 2 d ago
Bodycam
Very Positive · 81%+ Photorealistic graphics and immersion
− Matchmaking, party play and P2P servers broken
analyzed 2 d ago
Weekly digest
Fresh games worth a look, in your inbox
The most interesting games we’ve just analyzed, once a week.Once a week we send the most interesting games we’ve just analyzed: the verdict, top pros and cons, and what changed. No spam.
One email a week · unsubscribe in one click