STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) vs Star Wars Episode I: Racer
STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) is an FPS game from Pandemic Studios (2019) while Star Wars Episode I: Racer is a racing game from Lucasfilm Games (1999).
Quick answer: STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) rates higher, 7.7 to 6.8 on the GamingPickz Score.
What each one is
STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) is filed under FPS. In contrast, Star Wars Episode I: Racer under Racing.
Fight the greatest battles in the STAR WARS universe any way you want to. The choice is yours.
Two Engines. One Champion. No Limits.
Story, characters and reception
No Wikipedia detail on file.
Reception
Reception The game was met with positive to average reception. GameRankings gave it a score of 75. 78% for the Nintendo 64 version; 75. (Wikipedia)
At a glance
| STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) | Star Wars Episode I: Racer | |
|---|---|---|
| GamingPickz Score | 7.7/10 | 6.8/10 |
| Steam rating | Overwhelmingly Positive (96%, 4,710) | Very Positive (86%, 2,363) |
| Critic aggregate | No aggregate | No aggregate |
| Price | $9.99 | $9.99 |
| Install size | 3 GB | 0.54 GB |
| Steam Deck | playable | playable |
| Released | 2019 | 1999 |
| Developer | Pandemic Studios | Lucasfilm Games |
Prices and Steam ratings are read live and move over time.
STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) vs Star Wars Episode I: Racer, point by point
Each facet side by side. A round is marked won only where a figure settles it; feel and "which is better" carry no mark, because no number we hold decides them.
Genre and premise
STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004)FPS gameStar Wars Episode I: RacerRacing gameWhat each is filed as. Each game describes itself in full above; we do not judge a premise.
How it plays
STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004)Action, Classic, FPSStar Wars Episode I: RacerRacing, Action, ClassicThe tags players apply most, in order of votes. A read on feel, not a verdict.
Reception
STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) ✓Score 7.7 · 96% on SteamStar Wars Episode I: RacerScore 6.8 · 86% on SteamThe GamingPickz Score is a composite of player sentiment, critics and popularity, computed the same way for every game.
Content and scale
STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004)4,710 reviews · 3 GBStar Wars Episode I: Racer2,363 reviews · 0.54 GBReach and footprint, not quality: more reviews or a bigger install is not a better game.
Price
STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004)$9.99Star Wars Episode I: Racer$9.99Read live from Steam and subject to change.
On a Steam Deck
STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004)PlayableStar Wars Episode I: RacerPlayableValve's own Deck compatibility rating.
STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) takes 1 of the marked rounds to 0. That is only what a number can decide, not which you will enjoy more.
The two on the grid
Compare the whole catalogueSTAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) and Star Wars Episode I: Racer on the axes the GamingPickz Score is built from, on the full 0 to 100 scale so each dot is its real position. Change either axis to compare them on any measure.
2 games have both
Players. The share of Steam reviews marked positive, pulled toward the catalogue average in proportion to how few reviews stand behind it. A game with 200 reviews moves a long way toward the average; one with 200,000 barely moves at all. Without this a title sitting at 100 percent on nine reviews outranks Half-Life 2 at 98 percent on 278,000.
Popularity. A blend of two things that are not the same. Audience is how many people wrote a Steam review, which is a floor on how many played it. Reach is how many language editions of Wikipedia document the game, which is cultural footprint rather than sales. A game can score high on one and low on the other: a huge free-to-play title has audience without reach, and a landmark console exclusive has reach without a Steam audience at all. Where both exist they are averaged; where only one does, that one carries it.
- Nintendo
- PC
Every point links to that game's entry. The value map and the reception map are fixed views of the same data.
How positions are decided
No paid placement, no favouritism, live third-party data
- Placed by the published method, not by us. Every coordinate is computed from the axis definitions and weights printed on this site. Nobody moves a point. See the axes.
- Nothing here is paid for. No sponsored placements, no promoted slots, no arrangement of any kind affects a position. If that ever changes it will be labelled and sit outside the ranking.
- No favouritism, including our own. The 16 games we have written full reviews of are scored by exactly the same formula as the other 1,510, from the same third-party inputs, and they land where it puts them. Our own opinion of a game does not enter its coordinates.
- A position is not an endorsement. It says how a game was received and what it costs, not that we recommend it. Where we do recommend something, it carries a written review with a name on it.
- Fetched from live third-party data. Player sentiment from Steam, critic aggregates as published on store pages, prices checked hourly, attention from Wikipedia. Each figure carries its source and the date it was read, and we do not adjust any of them.
Which to pick, by what you want
- The higher-rated of the two: STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) (GamingPickz Score 7.7)
- Lighter on storage: Star Wars Episode I: Racer (0.54 GB)
What they have in common
Both are tagged by Steam players with:
ActionMultiplayerClassicSci-fiSingleplayerFirst-PersonGreat Soundtrack
Where they differ
FPSThird-Person ShooterShooterSpaceThird PersonCo-op
RacingArcadeRetro
Tags players apply to one game and not the other.
Difficulty and who each is for
By the tags players apply, STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) is middle-of-the-road on difficulty. Star Wars Episode I: Racer is middle-of-the-road on difficulty.
Accessibility features
Steam store pages declare 0 accessibility features for STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) and 0 for Star Wars Episode I: Racer. A declaration is a floor, not a review.
If you like one, also try
Common questions
How different are STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) and Star Wars Episode I: Racer in scope?
STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) has drawn 4,710 Steam reviews and installs in 3 GB. Star Wars Episode I: Racer has drawn 2,363 Steam reviews and installs in 0.54 GB.
Is STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) or Star Wars Episode I: Racer better?
By the GamingPickz Score, STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) rates higher (7.7 to 6.8). That is a composite of player sentiment, the critic aggregate and popularity, not our taste. "Better" also depends on price, length and platform, which the table above lays out.
Which is cheaper, STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) or Star Wars Episode I: Racer?
STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) is cheaper right now at $9.99, against $9.99. Prices move, so this is read live from Steam and can change.
Should I get STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) or Star Wars Episode I: Racer?
STAR WARS Battlefront (Classic, 2004) rates higher, 7.7 to 6.8 on the GamingPickz Score. It also depends on what you want: the "which to pick" section above calls out which is cheaper, lighter on storage, better on a Steam Deck and the safer bet by weight of reviews.
Do you rank one above the other for a fee?
No. Neither game, nor anyone else, pays for placement or a verdict here. The order and every figure come out of the same public data the rest of the site uses.
Related comparisons
All comparisonsHow we compare, and what we will not do
The GamingPickz Score is a composite of player sentiment (adjusted for sample size), the critic aggregate and popularity, computed by the same code every ranked list on this site uses. The Steam rating label is Valve's own, reconstructed from the positive percentage and review count. Prices are read live. We do not write an opinion of which game is "better": we report the numbers and say which wins each measurable question above.