View Full Version : SWGB2 Campaign

06-12-2003, 07:37 PM
We haven't talked a lot about this but I thought it would be fun to see everyone's version of what would be a nice campaign for SWGB2.

I remember StarCraft. I became such a big fan of that game just because of it's great story (about its gameplay it's argueable especially balance wise). I remember almost crying when Tassadar sacrificed himself to destroy the Overmind(come on I was 12).
Of course a good story doesn't make a good game(like Enter the Matrix) but it would be good for SWGB2 to have a great story so I thought about this.

The Saga starts with ep1 and finishes with ep6 in such a nice ending(almost made me cry again). I think the campaign makers are gonna need to capture your emotions.

This is what I propose:
1. The Invasion of Naboo
You start the whole campaign with the invasion of Naboo(cinematic of the TF landing). You then proceed as a TF commander leading his troops into battle to invade Naboo.
(cinematic of the TF enteriong Theed)

2.The liberation of Naboo
(cinematic of the Gang getting back to Naboo after debating stuff on Coruscant)
You play as both the Naboo and Gungan. You start by landing in the swamps(playing with Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Jar Jar, etc.) and you'll go on looking for the Gungans. You then prepare the reconquering of Naboo by paying sometimes as the Gungan(preparing the Grand army) and sometimes with the Naboo (sabotaging key TF installation).
(ends with cinematic from the celebrations)

3.Begun, the Clone War has.
(cinematic of Republic landing)
You start as the Republic landing on Geonosis and driving them out. You then switch to the confed and battle the republic in whatever scenario and of course you'll then play as the republic in the last battles which will determine the victor of the clone war and of course the final battle playing as the Republic.
(I don't know what kind of cinematic but they'll find out)

4. Rise of the Empire
(cinematic of the Imperial army)
In this part you play as the wookiee or the hutt cartel(you can play any of these parts since they are available at the same time)
With the wookiees you organise a resistence force against the rising Empire and as The hutt cartel you try to smuggle goods and avoid the Empire's touch when you try to take control of a system's econ.
(no ending cinematic)

5.The empire strikes back
(long cinematic showing the destruction of the first Death Star and the Imperial army moving on the rebels to have revenge on them)
You play as the Empire starting from the hunt of the rebel forces away from Yavin and their continues running until the beginning of Return of the Jedi(includes Hoth Scenario).
(ending cinematic showing rebs getting their ass whipped)

6. The last stand
(cinematic showing the rebels preparing battle plans) You play as the rebels and prepare the way to the final battle of Endor. You play in various scenarios such as saving Bothan Spies and stealing armements(sp?) from the Imps. The last scenario features the Ground battle at Endor and the escorting of the Millenium Falcon to the Death Star tunnel.
(ending cinematic: Lando and Wedge blowing up the Death Star and everybody dancin' at the party on endor and people from various planets cheering the end of the Empire)

The various scenarios are cut by cinematics(maybe la C&C or la AoM or even la WC3) and the briefings are done by commanders( la StarCraft) discussing and everything.

Feel free to add, remove or flame me as you like.

06-12-2003, 07:52 PM
If I remember correctly (I haven't played in a year), I think that's what the campaign was in GB1. But it would be nice if they could add the space battles in there (Death Star Assault would be complicated though. You could just fight the Battle over Endor) and have a real clone War with all those cool Republic units. It'd also be nice if they could "imbalance" the game a bit. You know, like make some races better than others in certain areas (more than just having one race not being able to build a certain unit). I hated the fact that the units were the same except for the upgrades. I like races having individuality, like in RA2. Battle of Hoth would be nice too, if they could get some good graphics for it instead of using the low graphic quality engine of AOK.

06-12-2003, 11:20 PM
Yeah, the unit imbalances are better than not having specific units unless it fits with the planet surface as well as the technological development. You're not going to have a B-Wing in the Battle of Yavin. AT-AT's only at the Battle of Hoth and past that.

Maybe there should be one other mission. If there will be decent space battles, what about when the New Republic and Thrawn find the Katana Fleet? That was a good battle in the book.

06-13-2003, 12:41 AM
It'd be cool if it were all one campaign and it followed the rise and fall of the Empire, but from all the different civ's perpectives.

By the way, WC3 had really bad in-game cinematics. That was the main thing that AoM trounced WC3 in (campaign-wise, gameplay-wise its not even a competition). The ones in AoM were really well done, they were entertaining in their own right, but the ones in Warcrap 3 just push the game along.

06-13-2003, 06:09 AM
I thought that StarCraft (including Brood War) had the best, most utterly brilliant storyline I've ever seen in a game. The way they linked together... the way they fitted so well with the actual missions... the great cinematics... the voice acting... it was just all great.
Needless to say, it'd be good if GB2 reflected this. Unfortunately, the the variety of civs and the spread over such a huge timeline would make it impossible to actually have the whole 'flowing campaign' thing.
However, several self-contained campaigns, all with great storylines, would be just as good, in my opinion.

If we are going to heavily involve the movie storylines in the campaigns (which I might add is unnecessary), then I'd rather it show stories of people who, although they may be supporting the main characters, aren't actually those main characters. Think Enter the Matrix- although its gameplay was questionable, its plot was nicely executed, and it used characters who undertook missions parallel to those done by Neo, Trinity and Morpheus, only occasionally overlapping.
This overlap was made much easier by the fact that the movie cast and crew actually worked closely with the game producers. Now, I doubt this would ever happen with Star Wars (especially considering that the OT was filmed a couple of decades ago) and if it did, it would probably be in an action game, like Enter the Matrix.

And more to the point, the only movie storylines which could really be done that well in an RTS is the Invasion of Naboo and some battles of the Clone Wars (which haven't been shown yet). Considering that Ep 2 was about Jedi running around with a big FF (fixed force) battle at the end, Ep 4 was a couple of heroes running around a big battle station, Ep 5 had a big FF battle at the start with the aforementioned heroes running around for the rest, and finally Ep 6 had, yes, those same heroes running around doing stuff with a big ship battle at the end...
... it's pretty easy to see that they wouldn't make great RTSs. They are a great inspiration, and something to build off, but the tales told by the movies themselves are not ample strategy game material.

Now that all that's said and done... I've made up a couple of campaigns myself already, but only one's really done in detail. None of them are actually movie campaigns, but they are still in some way linked to the movie plot, and will nonetheless be enjoyable to play. Tell me if you want them.

A couple of important points.
- All 'campaigns' (other than the learning campaign) should actually be made up of two civs' campaigns in a row, those civs being mortal enemies. It's easy to see how the pairs match up- TF vs Naboo, Rebs vs Empire, Republic vs Confed, and so on.
- Cinematics should be live-action (think Jedi Knight 1) rather than cinematics (eg StarCraft). Not only does this really enhance each storyline, but it would be a fairly unique feature and possibly even a crowd-winning one, plus it would aid in bringing back the 'movie' feel (I'm sure some cinematics would have saber battles..)
- If possible, known and established actors should be used for the voices (and, of course, the live-action cinematics). We've been shown how much this helps the storyline in games like Vice City, and it'd be great here.

That's all for now. Of course, you're all entitled to accept, deny, argue with, or eat my ideas.
Eating would be preferable to denying or arguing with. Of course.

06-13-2003, 05:40 PM
Corran-Good to see someone who agrees about StarCraft's story:p
I understand your points about such a huge serie cannot be put in a single storyline...well it can. If AoM could put three mythologies together I think this is possible for SWGB2 as well.

Maybe you follow the life of some Naboo guy throughout his battles with the Trade Federation first. Then he sees he made a mistake and rejoins the Naboo and Gungans. He then defects again to the Confed but sees the Light and joins the Republic. When the Empire rises he sees their cruelty and helps wookiees to resist the Empire. He then becomes a smuggler for the Hutt Cartel. He gets brainwashed by the imps seeing he could be a worthy ally and at the end he's rescued by the rebs who brings him back to the light side.

I tried to do a little ''life of Arkantos'' like in AoM. I know it's confusing a bit but I tried to put all the civs in there.

And all the games with good stories who followed were more popular then say AoK and SWGB's campaigns.

06-14-2003, 01:07 AM
How about we do a combination of the two. We use the support characters (ie 00M-9, some naboo guy, etc.) for their own storyline, and were their story overlaps with the other characters story, the character and civ changes to fit the new minicampaign. EX: Start about some tf droid goes with tf until after theed falls and this tf droid is jailing this naboo guy. Then it switches to naboo, and chronicles his escape and ho he goes and joins up with the gungan army and meets this gungan...

Darth Windu
06-14-2003, 11:10 AM
I actually agree...sort of. I see 8 campaigns in the game, each linked. I see it going like this-

1. TF - invasion of Naboo (OOM-9)
2. Naboo - recapture of Naboo (Qui-Gon Ginn)
3. Confederacy - beginning of Clone Wars (Count Dooku)
4. Republic - end of Clone Wars, destruction of Confederacy (Mace Windu)
5. Wookiees - mopping up Confeds, fight the Empire (Chewies dad)
6. Empire - crushing Wookiees, fighting Rebels (Darth Vader)
7. Hutt Cartel - skirmish then alliance with Empire, fighting Rebels (Jabba)
8. Rebels - destroy Jabba, destruction of the Empire (Han Solo)

PS: the person at the end in brackets is the 'hero' you play the role of while playing these campaigns. I would also like to see it that you HAVE to play the campaigns in order to make one huge campaign, and also have a 'conquer the galaxy' feature like RoN's 'conquer the world'.

06-14-2003, 12:49 PM
Hutt Cartel? What happened to the Gungans?

And I'd prefer the characters be either invented minor characters or real minor characters that are fleshed out...

06-14-2003, 06:03 PM
Nice idea Sith. Personnally a totally linked campaign by a certain character is funnier then campaigns that are only linked by the timeline.

06-14-2003, 11:34 PM
Yeah, but you'd run into objections by the SW purists like Vostok and Windu. I'd personally rather have a good campaign, but some people do play this for the Star Wars portion...

Darth Windu
06-15-2003, 01:33 AM
Sith - you have to remember that in my idea-
Royal Naboo + Gungans = Naboo

Also, i dont know about anyone else but i loved playing the Empire's campaign as Darth Vader, and i think it would be a lot of fun to play, for example, as Dooku or Windu.

06-15-2003, 10:50 AM
Besides, I'd rather NOT have Jar Jar running around the battlefield...he he he...hundreds of Jar Jars vs. fifty Jedi...

The Empire Campaign was ok...a bit one sided with some but ok. The Rebel Campaign was better. Good idea with the Hutt Cartel Windu.

06-15-2003, 07:24 PM
Yeah, I preferred the Rebel campaign to the Imperial one.

Oh, sorry Windu, didn't know...

06-16-2003, 02:16 PM
The Imperial Campaign was just long. You always had to build lots of stuff.
In the rebel Campaign you could finish it using Echuu-Shen Jon or Luke only(except last mission).

It was too easy
and the story was kinda boring

06-17-2003, 07:13 AM
I think that trying to link every civ's campaign together and follow the journey of a single character simply won't work.
It was fine in AoM, for several reasons. Firstly, there was no established storyline that they had to work around (other than general myth, but they had full artistic rights there). There were no timeline troubles- that is to say, there should have been (never did the three mythologies exist at the same time in real life), but once again, they could change that all they liked. AoM dealt with a single easily travelled world, not an entire galaxy filled with diverse species.
And finally, Arkantos himself didn't actually change his allegiance, considering that the three civs weren't actually doing battle with one another anyway, instead fighting against themselves. He merely went to a different place, and was forced to work with their stuff.
This wouldn't work in the SW universe. Can anyone visualise a battle droid general going to Naboo and fighting with some naboo and gungans against some naboo and gungans, then going to Geonosis to fight with the Confed against some Republic, then flying to Coruscant and joining the Republic, then somehow surviving until the days of the Galactic Civil War (where he miraculously fights with both sides), then lasting until the Yuuzhan Vong crisis, dealing with the Remnant, New Rep, Hutt Cartel and Smugglers' Union on the Way?

As I said before, separate campaigns made up of two opposing sides which nevertheless follow the path of specific characters (generally one from each side, mortal enemies and suchlike) will provide just as much entertainment as a single huge campaign which somehow traverses every civ, especially when the tales are backed up by full live-action cinematics, something AoM didn't have. They'll also be a lot more realistic when you consider the impossibility of a single commander going to every civ as I explained above.

No offense, Luke- it's a good plan, and I wish we could do it. I know it worked great in AoM. But it's just not for this game.

06-17-2003, 03:48 PM
Corran- It can work. You do play as a Battle droid commander but rather as a simple droid who gets caught up in all sorts of situations which leads him from civ to civ. You don't play as him but you could be errrr....God. You follow his path and play as any civs he gets caught up with. He only witnesses the whole story. Of course, you see him getting captured or whatever. He's on the battlefield doing nothing. He's only a witness.

Darth Windu
06-18-2003, 05:16 AM
Luke - its not going to work. I think almost everyone would prefer to have it just as a different Hero for each campaign, unless of course you play the game as Anakin or Palpatine...

06-18-2003, 03:58 PM
Windu- Yes it can work. And all the games with linked campaigns have better success then simple campaigns. You simply follow the life(or let's say existence) of a simple droid, a protocol droid who witnesses everything that's happening in the galaxy. At first, he's owned by the Trade Federation then gets captured by the Naboo and so on and so on. He keeps changing owners. It's not hard and it will work.

It doesn't totally follow the storyline. You won't get to run around on bespin with Lando and Leia but you will be doing something else while they run around.

And those campaign's stories will totally suck a bit like SWGB1's(with a few exceptions). At least you won't have to do things that contradicts the movie(if you remember in the Imperial Campaign, Vader finds out about the location of the rebel base while destroying a base while in the movies he sent probe droids everywhere and caught a glimpse of the shield generator on Hoth and told everyone to go there).

And Echuu Shen Jon is not supposed to exist. Gungans did not openly fight the TF before Grassy Plains since the TF seemed kinda surprised.

Sev Rance Tann cannot exist neither since Dooku does not have an apprentice.

Why does the republic which is already so rich would need to take a small part of the profit of the Hutts?

Why would Vader do some grunt work?

Why would Maul do some ground work?

How can the Wookiee resistence beat the Empire then and not before? and without the help of the New republic?

Plenty of things like that will happen in campaigns that won't have anything to be based on.

06-18-2003, 04:16 PM
The protocol droid idea would work, but it still would seem kinda wierd that the droid would be shipped around so much.

06-18-2003, 05:10 PM
If C-3PO can get a battle droid body and shoot against some Jedi I think everything is possible.

06-21-2003, 02:31 AM
Luke's dad: Well then, if this useless droid doesn't get involved in combat, you'll need a main character General figure for each campaign, wouldn't you? So we're back to my plan again.
Thankyou for that list of GB1's campaign shortcomings. It's things like these that make all of the campaigns fall down in the face of any scrutiny by someone who knows a tad about Star Wars. We do not want that kind of flimsiness again, if I'm not wrong. Trying to move a single character, and a non-combat protocol droid at that, around every civ is just asking for a plothole.

But this droid idea could still be implemented. The simple droid could be a recurring character who manages to pop up quite a few times across the course of the campaigns, and could do so in a funny way. You might spot him as a translator for a Naboo dignitary, working as a base loadlifter for the Imperials, acting as a Smugglers' Union copilot (after extensive reprogramming), and being sacrificed to the Yuuzhan Vong gods (evil laugh). This way wouldn't set him as a major character, merely as a funny little easter egg. A bit like Where's Wally, if you get my drift. Except not so hard to find.

C-3PO shooting at the Jedi was a little slapstick gag put in the movie for entertainment value. And with my idea above, your droid could be much the same.

06-22-2003, 12:30 PM
Technically yes I guess. But I changed my mind anyway. The protocol droid is just the one who narrates everything. He just tells the story he witnesses. So forget about everything. The only thing that will link the campaigns is the narrator.

06-22-2003, 04:03 PM
Ok that makes sense then...

Admiral Vostok
06-23-2003, 06:47 AM
I think your plans for campaigns are okay, Luke's Dad. I don't think they can be completely linked together like in AoM, but at the same time I don't think we should limit them to just fighting their "mortal enemies" as Corran suggests. The reason for this is because we want the civs to be so unique, if you only end up fighting one civ it is a fairly limiting experience. Then again, the Trade Federation, Naboo and Gungans can only really fight each other... so I don't know.

Here's my ideas for how the campaigns would work:
:atat: The campaign outlines are pretty much as Luke's Dad suggested.
:atat: Rather than follow a made-up character, WE become a part of the storyline. What I mean is, a leader will brief us on our mission and we command our troops as if we are a General or something sitting back giving orders. We aren't actually a character to control. The only heroes in the game are the movie heroes, but we rarely fight alongside them - in fact they might only be computer-controlled, so if we fight alongside them we'll have to back them up, sending troops to escort them rather than controlling them ourselves. So for example, Nute Gunray briefs us, a Battle Droid Commander whom you don't see on screen, and we carry out the mission with the forces at our disposal. Those forces might include Darth Maul, though he'll run along by himself and we'll have to back him up if he gets in a tight spot.

06-27-2003, 06:16 AM
Protocol droid narrator: I'm still uneasy. This narration would be in place of a briefing or opening cinematic, which are both things that would be great. And once again, it pushes the boundaries of disbelief to a, well, unbelivable extent. People will look at it and say, "Oh, they tried to do what AoM did, except it's dumbly obvious and doesn't work."

Vostok: Mortal enemies are the most obvious enemies and, more importantly, the established enemies and the ones that fit with the timeline. What would you prefer? Rebels fighting the Smugglers Union? Trade Fed fighting Empire? Hutt Cartel fighting Old Republic?
I don't see how only fighting against one other civ in the campaign makes the civs less unique. They can fight against all the others in multiplayer, scenarios and random maps, where realism and SW storyline doesn't matter.
Once again, you return to interfering with the lives of the main movie characters. I tell you again, it simply won't work. They have established event timelines that run all the way through the current SW timeline. They tried to do this in the original GB, and as a result the campaign storylines (especially Rebel and Imperial) are thus little more than fairly pointless side thoughts which never distract from the actual game.
So you want the briefings to be like those in StarCraft? Well, leaving the issue of having movie characters involved aside, putting the player in the position of an invisible commander once again lessens the realism. That was one of the problems with StarCraft. Somehow you were an Executor, Commander and Cerebrate, who was never mentioned by name. It didn't seem real, merely a device by which you're told what to do, and that is the kind of thing that really detracts from a good story.
Why should we have these briefings instead of my idea, in which each campaign features a new (or already existing, but minor) character, who the player basically identifies with, but still controls? My plan offers far more story avenues, especially with characterisation and all that, but it also increases the realism without it feeling forced.

06-27-2003, 08:46 AM
He's got a point with the between game breifings. The Starcraft ones were ok but there was no actual character they were talking to in the game, not you yourself.
The idea of having the computer control the hero's is a VERY bad idea. Reason being, if you had to escort him/her to a specific area on the map and along the way, there is an ambush with more units than the ones escorting the hero, what do you do? The hero is already picked a path and you can't stop and search for another way around. What if he/she just randomly walks out of your base and you don't even notice it? What do you do? What if the tight sopt the hero is in is even tighter than expected and risks dying? Will he/she continue to fight or retreat? Unless you can overcome these obsticles, it's pointless to allow the computer control a hero, especially a mission critical one.

06-27-2003, 11:48 AM
StarCraft's ingame briefings couldn't have been better for the time. It explained things clearly and basically told you a story which was its purpose.

What if you're playing a Jedi and an unknown voice representing the Force talking to you narrates. It's possible...

06-28-2003, 12:45 AM
Ed: That's what I'm trying to say about the briefings. However, I'm not talking about a computer controlling the hero. You order the hero about just as you would any other in-game unit. It's you that has to move the hero to the specific area, and you'll have some guys with him that can protect him, and so on. I never wanted to computer to control the hero.

Luke's dad: The only way the briefings really told a story was with the conversations/banter between the actual characters (Arcturus Mensk and Raynor for example), which were actually very well done. However, these could have been better achieved in cinematics, rather than having a briefing where they talk to the invisible character.

Which of these sounds better?
Method 1: StarCraft briefing. Computerised woman tells you (Unknown Commander) that you have to protect a supply convoy. Mensk pops up and starts telling you about how crucial this is to the rebellion, but Raynor also pops up and gets into an argument. You just get on with the mission.
Method 2: Cinematic. Commander Devlin (main character), a good friend of Jim Raynor's and high-ranking within the Terran rebels, walks into a command room. Raynor is already there, and greets Devlin. They communicate with Arcturus through a vidscreen, and the three of them get into an argument. Finally Raynor storms off, and Devlin follows him. They go and undertake the mission.
It's clear to see that number 2 is a far better choice. Even if it wasn't a cinematic, having my fictional Devlin actually participate in the briefing rather than you just sit there and be talked to would be much more exciting and enjoyable, deepening the story to a great extent.

If you were playing a Jedi, you could still be a Jedi with a name and a personality, rather than an invisible presence in a briefing room. And the Force talking to you? Someone get Vostok in here. That will throw off all previous perceptions of what the Force actually is, not to mention that all the missions will either sound ridiculous (The Force ordered me to hijack an Imperial convoy!) or be ridiculous for an RTS (By the will of the Force, I shall travel to a far-off shrine).
Must I also point out the possible political and religious problems? God told me to do this, this and this... and I don't want to have to mention the words 'For Allah'...

Darth Windu
06-28-2003, 06:21 AM
I dont know if this is like starcraft or not, but i really liked the pre-mission breifings in 'Command & Conquer: Red Alert' where the Allied generals, or Stalin, conversed with you, told you what you needed to do, provided cinematics etc. Far superior to the junky breifings in GB.

06-28-2003, 02:12 PM
StarCraft is an old game. You can't blame them for this. of course cinematics in these days would be far better.

Isn't the Force supposed to be a guide? Shouldn't it be a source of wisdom? Of counseling? I'm not talking about getting direct orders from the force('cause it really sounds ridiculous). I'm talking about some tips from the force. Since if you're a jedi, you can meditate and predict if something bad is going to happen then you should hear the force give you some tips. A bit like the Terran Robot thingy that always talks to you without ever doing anything. It just counsils you on various situations and giving you tips to bypass them. This is what I think the force should be if you're playing a Jedi Character.

And this is stupid to start comparing various fictionnal situation with real life. Or you would ban all the video games on the market and movies also.

06-29-2003, 02:19 AM
Windu: I preferred the StarCraft briefings to the C&C ones, but the point is that the C&C ones still place you as the invisible commander, which is something I want to avoid.

Luke: I know that StarCraft is an old game. Were you referring to me when you said this?

The Force can sometimes be a guide. But only Jedi Masters can tap into its flow, and even then, they only get vague flashes of insight, and they're often wrong. Luke saw a glimpse of his friends on Bespin and in danger- and look how that one turned out.
The Force is not a direct source of information, and a direct source is what we want for briefings. You're not just going to be able to sit meditating for a while and then suddenly get an image of an enemy supply convoy, complete with coordinates and data on their protection forces. It's not an appropriate springboard for a mission. It could be used to some extent in a few missions- a Force sensitive character in the game might have an insight that their enemies are gearing up for an attack- but this would only be as plot point, not as the reason for every mission.
The Terran robot woman, the Zerg Overmind and that Protoss guy (I forget his name) are nonetheless direct sources. Should the Force pop up and say "Your base is under attack" and stuff like that? I don't think so.
You've proposed something that could be used, and is a good idea in some ways, but can't stand up to support an entire campaign or even an entire mission (without extensive plot surrounding it, eg a Jedi gets a flash of insight and goes off against orders to destroy a hidden enemy base that he saw in his flash of vision).

Am I comparing fictional situations with real life? I can't remember doing so. I did compare your idea with the movies though, which is entirely justified.

Darth Windu
06-29-2003, 05:17 AM
Corran - the way i see it, we can go either of three ways-
1. Invisible Commander - ala C&C: Red Alert
2. Pre-established Character - ala C&C: Tiberian Sun
3. 'Flashback' - ala SWGB

The problem with 2 & 3 is that it makes the player distant from the action, as you are not liken to it. 1 would be the best, because you are placed directly in the action and are told be superiors what you have to accomplish etc.

If there are any other ways i have left out, please tell me. Otherwise i would go with 1.

06-29-2003, 05:19 PM
Sorry Corran for misunderstanding you. It sounded like computer controlled heroes to me...

In my opinion about the briefing, as long as they explain what you're up to, objectives and why is fine with me. I really don't like long and extensive briefings though...that' s just me...

Admiral Vostok
06-30-2003, 04:49 AM
I'd prefer an invisible commander a la StarCraft. I think it involves you in the action more, they are actually talking to you rather than a third-person character who you might not even like.

Perhaps to this extent there is a way that YOU could be included as a hero in the game. For example, they take your player name and give it to a character. Before embarking on the campaign you choose what you might look like. This would be repeated at the start of every civ's campaign, so you aren't the same character the whole way through. This way makes you more part of the action, and avoids having to make up another EU character.

Having the Force talk to you, while ideal, is totally wrong. This has already been established, but there is no way this could be reasonably implemented.

07-01-2003, 09:21 AM
The problem is that the invisible commander isn't actually involved in the action, as he/she is, indeed, invisible. The commander might not actually be you at all. Mensk could indeed be talking to my fictional Commander Devlin, who is out of sight, and you might just be a security camera recording the briefing.
But must we actually be ourselves to be 'involved in the action'? I say no. Vostok's proposal doesn't place us as us anyway, it's still just an avatar. And that's plenty fine with me.
When the Royal Theatre Company puts on Romeo & Juliet at The Globe Theatre in England, do the actors get annoyed because it's not actually them who's part of the action, but actually Romeo & Juliet? Of course not! The point is that it's an enjoyable play, and enjoyable to be the actor.
Thus, in GB2, it's an enjoyable story, and it's enjoyable to fight your enemies in the actual missions. Legions of action games place you in the role of an actual established person, which you often see doing stuff you don't control in the cutscenes- Tommy Vercetti in Vice City, John Dalton in Unreal 2, Cate Archer in No One Lives Forever. Other RTS games have done this too. In AoM you 'are' Arkantos, in WarCraft you 'are' Arthas and co, and so on. Those two RTS games were between them liked by nearly all the strategy gaming community, and the storylines were far better than those of C&C and StarCraft, with their invisible commanders. GB2 can do this too.

07-01-2003, 04:43 PM
Hello everyone.

Now I've been away for a few days...


1.StarCraft Thingy: Yes I was. StarCraft is old that's why you only see avatars talking.
2.Comparing life and fiction: I was referring to what you said about ''god'' told me to do and what ''allah'' told me to do and how you compared the ''the force told me to do'' with both of those. That's what we shouldn't do.

3.Actually, StarCraft is the best selling RTS of all times (yes it is true). Now for Vice City, No one lives forever and Unreal 2...well Vice City is third person shooter, Unreal and No one lives forever are 1st persons. Nevertheless, they are shooters with a story(better then dumb old shooter games without a story) so you can't compare that to any RTS.

No seriously in AoM did you ''felt'that you ''were'' Arkantos? I didn't.
So I say invisible commander is the best since it puts you behind the eyes of the errrr...commander. Were you behind the eyes of Arkantos in AoM? And Arthas in WC? I don't think so.

Admiral Vostok
07-01-2003, 09:06 PM
Actually I believe StarCraft has the best story by far for any computer game. It is, as Luke's Dad said, the best-selling RTS of all time, so there is no denying it is a great game.

As Luke's Dad also pointed out, half of the games you mentioned aren't RTS. For those you did mention that were RTS, you were kind of right about Arkantos - except for those missions were you 'play as' that Egyptian chick... forget her name... and as for WarCraft 3 you do not play as Arthas/Thrall/etc, that's why when you click on them they say "What do you want?"

Actually having thought about it, I don't really care what form the campaigns/briefings/missions take, as long as they don't pull any silly EU stunts (making unimportant characters and events more important than they deserve).

07-02-2003, 12:20 AM
Its Amanra, by the way.

I prefer in-game cinematics as opposed to graphical briefings, as they make the campaign more intresting and more memerable. But if they are going to do them, they should do them right, with unit animations a la AoM, and no dumb blinking units like in Warcraft.

Admiral Vostok
07-02-2003, 12:31 AM
Yeah, what Sith said.

07-02-2003, 09:17 AM
1. StarCraft Thingy: I'm not sure what Luke meant by this, but my point is that even if the technology couldn't handle full-fledged cinematics (although it could, and there were some in the game), the commander could be an actual person, and an avatar taking part in the briefing.
2. I wasn't comparing games to real life, I was looking at possible ethical, political and religious problems, such as that members of religious groups such as Muslims would take offense at the idea. It's happened.
3. ... okay, hurrah, StarCraft is the best-selling RTS of all time. What precisely was this said in response to?
I said in my post that NOLF, Unreal and GTA:VC were shooters, so you didn't really need to say that. I was just pointing out that games which have a central, fully-fleshed character that you 'play' often have great storylines. Compare GTA:VC to the original GTA3, which was more like StarCraft, in that the hero was always silent and had no real story surrounding him at all.
I didn't actually feel that I was Arkantos in AoM, but I didn't feel that I was anyone in StarCraft, and so Arkantos was a huge improvement. It's a bit like the Romeo and Juliet metaphor. The actors aren't actually being themselves- it's not the story of Leo DiCaprio and Claire Danes, or whoever it was that played Juliet- but are instead playing Romeo and Juliet. So in a way, you 'play the part' of Arkantos, Amanra, Ajax and all the rest, just as Leo played Romeo, and controlled what he did.
This may not make sense to some, and others will feel that they didn't play any parts. But to go back to the play metaphor... *allows space for groans*... if you're the director of the play/movie, you don't need to be Leo or Romeo. You see them do their stuff, you take shots of them with a camera, and tell them what to do, how to act, what to say. And this is enjoyable.
The concept of actually 'being' a person and controlling everything that they do is impossible in any game, because of the obvious problems inherent in controlling a character during a cutscene. But in an RTS it's even more difficult, as you can never actually be behind anyone's eyes, apart from if the camera took that view during a cutscene. You could be my Commander Devlin, but would he be sitting at a computer screen, clicking on units and right-clicking to move them? I don't think so.
There is an obvious suspension of disbelief involved in games, especially RTSs. It's clear that no general would actually command forces from a top-down view with the push of a button, and there's all sorts of other issues like the fact that the process construction of bases, battles and the destruction of the opposition's base is so short. But we ignore these in the interests of having fun.

Vostok: Okay, so you wrote a post, and then said that you don't care. Fine with me. But you just had to put in a parting shot about EU, didn't you? *sigh*

Sith: WC3's actual 'cinematics,' which came once or twice per campaign, were far superior to anything AoM had, so I wouldn't go foaming at the mouth just yet. I actually found the in-game cutscenes of the two games to be quite similar. Both had different camera shots of the in-game units in in-game locations, except that WC3 had the avatars appear at the bottom of the screen when a character spoke. That wasn't too good, as the movements of the avatar faces didn't match up properly, but I have no idea what these 'dumb blinking units' are.

07-02-2003, 04:19 PM
1. Nothing else to say.

2. That's stupid. screw them or ban everything in the world.

3. Actually, I felt I was the executor/commander/cerebrate in StarCraft. I guess this is just a question of liking certain types over another. This will never end. Let's end this discussion before it turns into another ''windu type'' discussion.

07-03-2003, 12:06 AM
The units flashed whenever they began to talk, and then the avatar began to ramble, but it look like it was dubbed from japanese or on the weather channel, cause the avatars didnt fit with the words. AoM was a lot better in terms of in game cinematics. A lot more happened in AoM's cinematics. In Warcraft, they just explained the storyline and pushed the game along, but in AoM they were entertaining and exciting. My favorite one was the end of I think #20, when Osiris is summoned and the meteors fall and Osiris kills all of the bad guys.

Admiral Vostok
07-03-2003, 12:18 AM
Corran, I hate to break this to you but the play metaphor doesn't work. The primary mode of entertainment comes from watching the play, not acting in it.

Nevertheless you make some good points. I don't think there is really any "right" way to do this for RTSs. However, I think I would prefer the AoM/WC3 approach: you aren't really a commander or playing a part of a character, you control and act as the army as a whole. There may be important characters (Arkantos/Amanra/Arthas/Thrall/etc) but you don't "play the part" of these characters - you are not them and they are not you. You don't really play any part, except that of everyone in the army at the same time.

It's sort of hard to explain, but this idea is a good one for an RTS, where you do control/play an entire army, not just a single character. There isn't a metaphor (like a play) that describes this, you're not even really playing the part of a god-like entity looking down on them.

Anyway I think I'm rambling.

07-03-2003, 05:42 AM
Luke's dad:
1. Aye.

2. I don't want ban everything, but this is a specific thing which may indeed cause much discontent. This was just another reason why the 'talking Force' idea was bad.

3. So you felt like you were a person in StarCraft? Well, that's personal preference, and you could also just be saying that to bolster your argument. But the point is that there was no evidence, and for all that I know, you could just be a security camera.
And the other point is that the WC3/AoM way was far better, because we knew who the main character was, and it was a real person.

Yes, the dubbing etc was not that good, but the in-game cutscenes were nonetheless good. Did the AoM ones not push the storyline along? That's what cutscenes are meant to do. And the most definitely happened in WC3's actual cinematics- eg the end of the Orc campaign, where Thrall and Grom killed someone, or the end of the Human campaign, where Arthas (accompanied by choral music) strode into the council chamber and murdered his father. WC3 had an astounding story (primarily with the whole Arthas thing, although it was basically a ripoff of SC's), and it is foolish to disregard it.
They both had good points and bad points. I loved WC3's cinematics, and they were far superior in terms of graphics etc. We each have our own opinions about storyline etc, such as Sith's point as a staunch opposer of anything Blizzard.

Okay, kill the damned play metaphor... and then go on to support my case? You are puzzling. Nonetheless, thanks for the backup.

You think you're rambling? All of my recent posts struggle to fall under a page in Word. Scary.

07-03-2003, 01:17 PM
2. Actually many movies could be banned, many games could be ban. Did you heard what they banned in the US? In elementery school, they banned many books for the stupidest reasons. Like they banned some book talking about dolphins because not all kids lives near the ocean so it's discriminating them. Another about mountains suffered the same fate and countless others. This falls in the same category.

3.Actually in SC, when someone was giving an order to the cerebrate/executor/commander, he's really talking to you. Or else it's stupid...but it's personnal preferences so let's end it here.

07-04-2003, 12:59 AM
Yeah, Blizzards actual cinematics arent half bad. Too bad I rarely can suffer through an entire campaign to see one:) If only Blizzard made games as well as they made movies...

I think that the whole "control the army not the person" fits the RTS better. Thats what RTS's are about, controlling armies. It is just natural to do it that way.

2. Actually many movies could be banned, many games could be ban. Did you heard what they banned in the US? In elementery school, they banned many books for the stupidest reasons. Like they banned some book talking about dolphins because not all kids lives near the ocean so it's discriminating them. Another about mountains suffered the same fate and countless others. This falls in the same category.
Yeah, the goddam Republicans in the House now want to disallow kids from buying games where one character attacks another. Im serious. So that not only means EVERY RTS is out the window, even games like Sonic or Mario or Link must be bought by a person 18 years or older. That means some 7 year old can go watch a Disney movie by himself, but he needs his mommy to hold his hand when buying the accompanying game, which contains the same level of violence.

07-04-2003, 01:11 AM
*goes wide eyed*You've got to be kidding...do you have the link to this potential ban of games to children under 18? I want to see the site if there is one cause this will never happen, hopefully. Many will argue about it...big time. I would, and you'd probably see me infront of the White House with a picket sign. Why do that anyway? Violence? That's what the game ratings are for. Why else?

07-04-2003, 01:27 AM
It was in the NY Times Magazine a couple a weeks ago. It wasnt a ban, just that you have to be 18 years or older to buy certain games where you (im quoting from memory I apologize) "kill or are engaged in combat with another human or human-like character". There was other stuff like prostitution and selling drugs, but thats what caught my eye. Cause when you think about it, almost every game has combat with another human or human-like character. Remember, its only the proposed bill. It still has to pass both houses and, even if it made it that far, it would be watered down.

I think they should do it by ESRB ratings too, and, you never know, another Congress person could submit a bill that uses ESRB instead of the stupidity of the current one.

Admiral Vostok
07-04-2003, 04:42 AM
This is getting a bit off topic but here's my two cents:

When will people learn that banning stuff isn't going to change the world. Violent video games don't make psychos, psychos exist already. Australia has access to all the same stuff Americans do (infact, half of your R rated movies become MA here, which means you have to be 15 not 18 to see them, so we technically get more) and we have a tiny fraction of the violence the US does. Stop killing yourselves, Americans!

Now back on topic:

Corran: just because I agree with you doesn't mean I'm going to put up with another of you weak metaphors :)

I totally agree with Luke's Dad on the whole "I am a character in StarCraft" issue. They aren't talking to surviellance cameras!

Darth Windu
07-04-2003, 10:16 AM
I think we all agree that the best way to do this is the 'invisible commander' approach. Of course the next question is do we play as ourselves, a major character, or a minor character? Personally i would prefer playing a major character.

PS: with this potential ban in the US, it serves you people right for electing the Republicans! I mean seriously, when will the Americans learn that electing Republicans isnt in their best interests?

07-05-2003, 06:51 AM
Actually, Windu, we don't all agree that the best way to do this is the 'invisible commander.' I'm dead against it, Vostok agrees with me, and as far as I can tell Ed and Sith don't like your idea, even if they haven't stated support for mine.
And if you're an invisible commander, you can't be yourself or a character. Your 'next question' is actually about some of the other approaches.

So. What is the best way to do it?
I've thought up campaigns with a fictional main character, which you sympathise with and follow the quests of (such as an Admiral Talthas for the Imperials and Commander Ariel Stanthor), but I'd like to have them as in-game characters, which you order around in missions (guide Ariel to a certain location, etc).
But I haven't got anything for the player to be, and... well, really, I don't think there needs to be anything. You could be Moff Devlin helping out Talthas, or Captain Devlin helping Ariel, but that's not really necessary. It would detract from the main story, lead to even more confusion and lack of realism (Why is Devlin sitting behind a computer monitor ordering Ariel into battle?) and just generally mess up the game. So I believe that the WC3/AoM way is best.

Vostok: Oh come on. It wasn't that bad a metaphor, as metaphors go. It made sense to a point.

And yes, all Americans should stop killing themselves, stop being Republican, and generally stop being stupid. No offense, Sith. :p

07-05-2003, 03:34 PM
I myself am a Republican but I think Bush has done nothing but follow in his fathers foot steps. I fear that the next voting will result in another Cliton win...

Anyway, it would be better off that you are NOT part of it, you're just commanding the ground and air forces (ie. Warcraft and Age of Mythology). The cinemats in Warcraft III (Thralls Dream, Arthas Walking in and killing his father, Archamendmon and the distruction of Lorderon, Death of Grom) were specactular. Now only if they could implement those graphics into the game...

07-05-2003, 09:48 PM
Well, its not only the Republicans who are against gaming. Lieberman is probably the biggest advocate for video game banning in the Senate, and uhhh.....maybe thats it. And to all you Aussies, I've yet to vote Republican (i cant vote) or kill anyone, but I cant vouch for the rest of my country. We got some real wackos in the South/Midwest (most of which just so happen to be Republican:)). Me and pbguy and JediMasterEd all atleast live in (somewhat) sane states (although everyone accuses New Jerseyians of poor driving habits)

Back on topic, the route of AoM/Warcraft/SWGB, where there is a central character that the story follows and the player just commands that character and their enterage(sp?) is the best bet.

07-05-2003, 11:48 PM
Off-topic: I remember in 2000 in the times of the american elections when Bush won. Now me and all my friends we're talking about that(if we lived in the US) we would vote for the democrats(in this case Al Gore). At that moment we didn't like Bush(we still don't) but if it wasn't Bush...it would be Al Gore(I mean what the ????).

That's the nice think about Canada having more then two parties:D !

Back On topic:

Nevertheless, you're still the ''invisible commander''. Think about it. When you order the guys to go around, do you see Arkantos or say Vader ordering to go around? Well I guess it comes down to the same think.
Let's get back to some Off-topic politics....

07-06-2003, 07:55 AM
Off Topic: Massacusetts is not sane...our two representatives are Democratic, and it's some-what rare that you'll see a shooting around here. Quite fankly, I really don't care who is leading our country, since I myself am too young to vote. As long as they don't do anything to our school systems or anything else, I'm fine...

07-06-2003, 08:01 PM
Off-topic: You should care wheter or not you're still too young to vote. The decisions of those leaders will affect your future. It's always important.

07-07-2003, 01:04 AM
Yeah, its our Social Security thats paying for the Bush tax cut. And both our Senators and the majority of our congresspeople are Democrats too. Whats so weird about that?

BOT, the "invisible non-existant commander" is by far the best way to go.

Admiral Vostok
07-07-2003, 02:06 AM
Canada doesn't have a two party system? Hurrah, I'm actually going to be moving there at the start of next year (Toronto, most likely).

On Topic: I think I'll start a poll on what people would prefer in terms of commanders/characters/etc.

07-07-2003, 03:18 AM
Off-Topic: Republicans, Democrats, whatever. Currently the US seems to be doing pretty well for themselves but is screwing up the rest of the world (as usual). But anyway, IMHO, the sooner they get Monsieur (I know he's not French, but I just like the sound of that world) George Warmongering Bush off his, ahm, warmongering path the better.

Off-Topic: I think young people still should care about politics, even if they are too young to vote. That's all I'll say on this, because if I say any more, I'll sound like one of those Electoral Commission ads *shudder*.

Off-Topic: I think that Massacusetts (sp?) is quite sane based on what Ed said. Having no shootings and no Republicans sounds okay to me.

Off-Topic: You're going to Canada, Vostok? Cool. You'll probably like it. :)

Off-Topic/On-Topic/I'm-not-too-sure: Okay, so it's now called Invisible Non-Existent Commander. Right. Oxymoron it may be, but it'll do...

Off-Topic/On-Topic/I'm-not-too-sure: A poll will be good. I'll go check if you've made it, and if you haven't, I'll make one myself. Never let it be said that Corran is not an opportunist (translation: thief). :p

07-07-2003, 12:57 PM
Vostok: Come visit me in montreal!!!

Corran: Let's avoid calling Bush whatever. I got smited the hell out of me the last time...

Actually Canada has as many parties as rich asses(and some poor) can make.

Here are a few stupid parties:

-Green Party
-Marijuana Party
-Dead Rhinoceros Party
-and coountless others...

07-07-2003, 08:09 PM
We have a lot of parties. Its just that no one votes for them:D

07-07-2003, 09:42 PM
Really? I thought america had a two party system...anyway it isn't long since I got interested in politics...

I'm sure people vote for those parties....some people...ok someone...ok their only representative...

hey anyway here in canada we can get some independant guy in the parliament...he just sits in a dark corner away from everyone else...sad life...

07-07-2003, 11:10 PM
We have independants as well. I think both the Senators from Vermont are independants (or a senator and a congressman). Other than that, the highest ranking third-party person is Jesse Ventura, Minneota governor and ex-prowrestler

07-07-2003, 11:15 PM
We have lots of parties, and we can get independants in the House of Representatives (that's Parliament, like your Congress, Sith). We also have some little parties in the Senate, such as the One Nation party (remember the days of Pauline, Vostok?), the Greens, the Democrats (poor Natasha...) and so on.
We have strange parties too, like the Nazi Party, the Communist Party, the Fishing Party and last but not least, the famed Hunting Party.
And I think our most prominent Independant is Bob Katter, representing Mt Isa, who has really, really, really freakishly white hair.

Hey Sith, on another topic, what do you think of Arnie running for governor of California? :D

07-07-2003, 11:24 PM
We have weird parties too, like the Pan-Sexual Party.

I think that its great that Arnold is running for Governor. I dont really mind moderate Republicans, especilly, socially liberal ones. I even told my parents that they should vote for McCain over Gore if he beat Bush in the primaries.

Darth Windu
07-08-2003, 03:32 AM
With the commanding thing, i guess the two approaches we can use are-
1. Inivisible Commander
2. Commanding commanders (ie. Vader in SWGB)

The first approach gives greater 'realism' and involves the player more in the game, while i think the 2nd approach is more fun becuase you can play with major characters like Vader. Personal preferance i guess.

Off topic - of course you should care about politics even if you cant vote. I can, but still at 17 (voting age is 18) i joined the Australian Labor Party (ALP), the major opposition party in Australia and have recently participated in the state conference for my state.

07-09-2003, 10:34 PM
Strange that the mods havent moved this thread to off-topic discussion...

The again, when was the last time you saw Fergie or Leon here:D

Admiral Vostok
07-11-2003, 01:59 AM
Yes, Australia has many parties but when it comes down to it we have a "two-party system", where one party is the goernment and the other is termed "Opposition". America has a similar system. While the Greens and Democrats aren't in power, they aren't the opposition either. That is a two party system.

Am I the only person old enough to vote here?

Oh and I think this forum is too small to attract unwanted attention from mods - kind of like Bespin and the Mining Guild.

07-11-2003, 12:55 PM
Thank you Vostok and your Star Wars allusion...

07-13-2003, 08:00 AM
Yes, we appear to have been deserted by all the minor-super-mods, although I suppose they're not really minor, they're just not DM. Hah.
And I really don't think any mod would stick their nose into every single thread just to check if it's off-topic, especially considering that this one has an on-topic name. And Windu is still endeavouring to stay on-topic. But I doubt anyone cares...

07-13-2003, 04:28 PM
L.A should loosely base the scenarios around the movies...
with things like

you could have trade federation, doing the initial invasion, defeating some naboo forces and establishing a base to wipe out a naboo one..
this sort of thing which leads upto the grassy plains battle... before that the production of an army... i dunno lol

EP 2..... presents a lot of opportunity
The republic could land to establish a base..

EP 3 we'll never know

EP 4.. er maybe L.A could develop a deathstar type terrain and the scenario could be inside the death star.. kind of like some of the starcraft missions

EP 5.. battle of hoth.... the battle itself and the lead upto it

EP 6... endor....this would be good to showcase the imperials establishing bases and eliminating ewok threats...

well i just realised how hard it would be to base missions on actual SW movie scenarios lol... maybe thats why LA made all the alternate scenarios

meh im gonna play the campaigns which i havent touched in over 6 months now..

07-13-2003, 05:47 PM
ok i just skimmed through the confederacy campaigns once more... they feel notoriously fake...

although the third mission (perilious dealings) i think it is, is an interesting scenario, the others are quite fake. Why would the ever-peaceful republic want to develop the decimator?? They wouldnt want to develop the death star or anything similar so why a decimator? What happened in episode II was a full-fledged assualt on Geonoisis the main planet for the Confederacy. And the whole sev-rance thing was so fake, first of all as it states in the movies there are always 2 sith: a master and an apprentice (sidious and dooku;tyrannus), so why would there be a third sith... dosen't make much sense.

Sev'rance looks too fake... a cartoon character like her does not look good in star wars universe etc etc..

I think they could of had the main clone war battle, They could of perhaps created an arena using some of their own created objects and added them into the scenario editor... or at least like the battle just after the jedi's landed in the genoisian arena... where the big control towers were being blown up...... even though it was in the republic scenario it looked and felt so fake... im sure that could of been implemented... and the aftermath where the remanants of the confederacy are trying to gather up a resistance .. this could of perhaps gone on for a few missions

now i just skimmed through republics missions

I dont see why Echuu would get involved in all of this
We are keepers of the peace, not soldiers
nor the jedi..

Once again the tatooine mission was ok... but i felt maybe LA could of shown tatooine in a more glorious form... it was a bit small ...

It was interesting how they tied Echuu in with the story, although i didnt really like it much its good how they implemented connections... and at least Naat looked more real

After going through ep II missions i think GB2 or whatever LA might call it should be 50/50 star wars missions/made up missions based around star wars ones. That way they could implement cutscenes from the movies, for example the scene seen in many trailers where the confederacy is fighting the republic ... they are only a few meters away from each other.. this could be a place to start.. the mission could start off with this battle and once its finished the player could take control pushing further into the confederacy base. Then when the mission is complete a cutscene of the republic beating confederacy forces from the movies could play.....

I didnt particulary enjoy the Scenarios of Battlegrounds nor age of empires as much as i did Starcraft or Warcraft III... maybe the engine was bad for single player scenarios heh. Even though warcraft excels greatly with its ingame cutscenes i still think more is possible in a star wars RTS and i do hope some L.A official will at some stage read this thread and gather ideas... similar to that of what Big Huge Games would of done for rise of nations..

Where else to get info than from the fans