Star Wars: Episode I: Battle For Naboo - Reception

Reception

Many reviews compared Battle for Naboo to Star Wars: Rogue Squadron. GamePro remarked that the games share the same "exciting aerial combat, sturdy controls, and ... absorbing story line", and IGN's Fran Mirabella III wrote, "Battle for Naboo proves to be a worthy follow up to Rogue by improving on nearly everything that held it back from perfection." EGM believed that, "if you liked Rogue Squadron, it's a good bet you'll like Naboo even more." GameSpot's Ryan Davis, however, thought that the game remained fun despite of the "general lack of innovation over its predecessor" and believed it to be "one of the best Episode I titles to hit the market". The Nintendo 64 version received mostly positive reviews and received an aggregate score of 82 percent and 84 from Game Rankings and Metacritic, respectively.

Battle for Naboo's controls were described as tight and responsive. Reviewers praised the addition of ground vehicles, which were completely absent from Rogue Squadron. Both Davis and Mirabella remarked that this addition keeps the game from getting stale or redundant. Nintendo Power thought that the game is at its best when the action isn't grounded, however, describing some of the ground missions as "tedious" and "uninspired". Some reviewers believed that the game's Episode I setting is less engaging than Rogue Squadron's original trilogy setting. Mirabella stated that "any fan of Rogue Squadron should enjoy Battle for Naboo just as much if they can get past the Episode I barrier", and Davis wrote that the game's setting "does not carry the same impact as the story of the original ."

The game's visuals were a source of disagreement between some critics. Extended Play's Matthew Keil wrote that the game's visuals are the "most notable improvement" over Rogue Squadron. Mirabella agreed and went on to call Battle for Naboo "one of the prettiest games to grace the N64." Both Keil and Mirabella praised the game for being less dependent on distance fog and "vastly" improving the draw distance over Rogue Squadron. Davis, however, wrote that "the graphics in Battle for Naboo are exactly the same as those of Rogue Squadron, flaws and all", and Nintendo Power's Andy Meyers cited "drab backgrounds and dry cinemas". EGM enjoyed the game's models and lighting, but thought the environments looked "blurry". Reviewers' opinions on the game's music and sound effects were generally less divided. Keil stated that the game showcases Factor 5's audio talents, and Mirabella and Davis described the audio as "atmospheric" and "immersive", respectively. One EGM reviewer lamented "the low-quality cartridge Episode I music", but another thought the sound was impressive.

With aggregated scores of 57 percent and 54 from Game Rankings and Metacritic, respectively, Battle for Naboo's PC port garnered significantly lower review scores than its Nintendo 64 counterpart. Many complaints about the PC version stemmed from the fact that the game was not optimized for the PC when it was ported. Computer Games Magazine's Adam Fleet thought the game was ugly, citing "truly bland textures and sad-looking 2D sprites". Next Generation Magazine's Jim Preston bluntly wrote that the "graphics suck." Of the audio, GameSpot's Giancarlo Varanini wrote, " isn't that bad, but it isn't quite as good as the audio in other similar games", and goes on to describe the music as sounding "tinny." Varanini also took issue with the PC version's aiming controls, stating that because Battle for Naboo was originally designed for the Nintendo 64's analog controller, it is difficult to aim using a PC's digital keyboard. Preston agreed, writing that controlling the game is "nearly impossible" with a digital controller or mouse.