PDA

View Full Version : Why this game is going to suck


Darth Windu
01-23-2005, 06:03 PM
Hi folks, i'm back for a quick post here. I have been following the news of this game for a while, and must say I am not impressed. Therefore, from what we know, i'm pretty confident that this game will crash, for a number of reasons.

1. Too small - 20 planets? There is no way 20 planets is going to be enough to hold anyone's attention for any length of time, except maybe Viceroy :P. Seriously though, someone said Rebellion had 200, and other great games like 'Star Trek: Birth of the Federation' had heaps. The problem here will be a definate lack of replay value.

2. Two sides - we deal here only with two sides, which will exacerbate the previous problem in terms of replay value. Not only that, but the lack of the Republic and Confederacy will mean a smaller multiplayer pool, which again means lack of replay value.

3. Too much EU material - while some of it makes sense to a point, such as the Interdictor Cruisers and the Victory-class Star Destroyers, other units do not, such as the TIE Crawler. Realistically, something that fragile and slow would get ripped to pieces without being a threat, and simply doesnt make sense when the Empire already has superior AT-ST, AT-TE and AT-AT walkers. Even if one looked at things such as Cost, aircraft (with the Crawler basically is) cost a lot, lot more than ground vehicles. In addition, where are the Imperial Speeder Bikes? It's bad enough to add superflous EU material, but to exclude film material at the same time is criminal.

4. Space and Ground battles at the same time - can we say 'confusion central'? There is simply no way this can be done well, which is no to say it cant be done. The problem here will be having to be forced to divide your attention between Space and Ground, when any sensible commander would know to divide your attention is death. Really, they should be two seperate entities operating at different times.

5. Timeframe errors - this game is supposed to be set between Ep3 and 4. Why then do we have A-wings, Mon Cal Cruisers, TIE Crawlers etc and battles like Hoth and Endor? The team creating the story seems to be at the very least incompetant, or simply do not care about the SW timeline. I should also point out that at the start of Ep4, the Rebellion had just won it's first victory - which seems to mean the game will be rather predictable up until the end of it.

These are just five points, and i'm sure I could come up with more. Basically though, what we have here is another white elephant from Lucasarts. While there is no doubt some great games have been made recently, such as KotOR (which I bought this month and love), Empire at War will not be one of them. This then brings me to my final question, does anyone actually like the name? Personally I couldn't think of anything more horrible, but there you go.

stingerhs
01-23-2005, 07:45 PM
umm, wow. pessimism at its finest. thanks for reminding me that not everyone out there is optimistic and unbiased in their observations until the release date. :dozey:

Darth Windu
01-23-2005, 08:23 PM
Yeah, because people on this forum writing "this is going to be the best RTS ever!" isn't biased in the slightest :rolleyes:

OverlordAngelus
01-23-2005, 08:31 PM
1. 20 planets might not seem like much to begin with but think about it. There will be two battles to control each planet, one space and one ground battle and if each battle takes 30 minutes to an hour, you're looking at a good 20-40 hours of gameplay time and that doesn't even include the time spent between missions on the galactic map. I will admit that I hope they include an editor that allows custom planets to be added.

2. The game setting means that the Republic and Seperatist forces no longer exist as such. I suspect that left over forces from both sides will be included in the Imperial and Rebel unit selection. I do think they could have had a third smuggler side though.

3. The TIE Crawler is most likely a cheap unit. Think of it as a light tank from the original Command and Conquer. Also if you look at some of the screenshots, you will see speeder bikes.

4. They said that the space and ground aspects of the game will affect each other, not take place at the same time. Example: if you have an ion cannon on the planet, you can fire it at enemy ships in a space battle. This will most likely function like the super weapons from the various c&c games.

5. I keep saying it. The game only STARTS before ANH. Time will pass as the game continues. Not only that but giving the player access to all technology at the start would be boring. It would make more sense for players to either research new units, or be given access to new units as time goes by.

Missions such as stealing the X-Wing prototype would mean the player gains access to the X-Wing earlier than they would by researching/waiting for it.

DarthMaulUK
01-23-2005, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
4. Space and Ground battles at the same time - can we say 'confusion central'? There is simply no way this can be done well, which is no to say it cant be done. The problem here will be having to be forced to divide your attention between Space and Ground, when any sensible commander would know to divide your attention is death. Really, they should be two seperate entities operating at different times.


How do you know that this can't be done correctly? The game has a completely new engine so taking an early guess - anything would be possible.

As we approach E3, I am sure more will be revealed on this but let's not start calling the game rubbish before we actually know more about it.

DMUK

DK_Viceroy
01-24-2005, 02:25 AM
Why was I predicting that he'd pop in here with a Topic like this?

Windu don't judge it before it's even released you only don't like it because they didn't bother with your design, you also don't like it because it's a smack in the face for you saying there would be no space.

Windu if you actually read anything here we've already discussed the TIE Crawler, you've already said your not going to buy the game so don't flame it.

Goodbye again Windu

Alegis
01-24-2005, 06:30 AM
Well you can always have something against the concept, but at such an early stage I think the information is unsufficient for a series of rantings. Everyone is entitled to his/her/its opinion.

20 planets is actually a lot, and I don't mind few maps at all if they're really good tactical wise. Rather focus on some than have "little tacs" for 2 dozen of em.

swphreak
01-24-2005, 07:59 AM
As Overlord said, it starts right before ANH.

Where did it say Ground and Space battles at the same time?

Maybe of the 20 planets, there will be many maps for them?

Too much EU? You just listed 1 EU unit.

As for the 2 sides.... I'm sure LA will release an xpac for the PT ;)

lonepadawan
01-24-2005, 08:53 AM
Can anyone say ridiculously petty?

And whats wrong with 20 planets? Once an engine gets slightly more complicated than the AoK engine SWGB used making quality maps takes LONGER. And 20 planets to conquer is fine for me. I'm still not sure whether were getting a linear campaign or a total war style map which I heard at some point, but that sounds a decent ammount for individually crafted maps to me.

Your other points are just silly...

2 sides isn't bad. I'd like to command the republic and Confederacy in the same game as well but it simply means each side will be incredibly developed in both land and space.

1 EU unit? That upsets you? Look at how many SWGB had! And I suspect some new units will be made up for the game... and I doubt the average persons going to CARE.

Space and Ground at the same time would be AWSOME. Although they've mentioned orbital bombardments and ion cannons as examples of the two seperate areas interacting I doubt they'll be simultaneous . If they are then if it's too complicated for you, it'll be no great loss for the games sales.

Timeframe errors? The game STARTS. Read STARTS in that time period. And once again I doubt the average person would care.

Once again I doubt the lack of the official "DARTH WINDU SEAL OF APPROVAL" is going to bug anyone.

stingerhs
01-24-2005, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Yeah, because people on this forum writing "this is going to be the best RTS ever!" isn't biased in the slightest :rolleyes:
hey, i didn't say that everyone was unbiased. at least these people aren't taking petty issues and flaming them. :dozey:

you know, if you started looking forwards to things instead of bashing them, you might find that some things will become more enjoyable. and don't take that as a flame: its a suggestion. ;)

Prime
01-24-2005, 10:33 AM
I'm not saying it will be the best game ever, but...

Originally posted by Darth Windu
1. Too small - 20 planets? There is no way 20 planets is going to be enough to hold anyone's attention for any length of time, except maybe Viceroy :P. Seriously though, someone said Rebellion had 200, and other great games like 'Star Trek: Birth of the Federation' had heaps. The problem here will be a definate lack of replay value. Actually, 20 planets seems like an absolute truckload to me. That's a ton of possible enviroments. Definitely a lot more than warcraft and starcraft from what I remember, and those had decent longevity. I'm not too up on my RTSs, but are there games out there with lot more than 20 planets/environments?

Originally posted by Darth Windu
2. Two sides - we deal here only with two sides, which will exacerbate the previous problem in terms of replay value. Not only that, but the lack of the Republic and Confederacy will mean a smaller multiplayer pool, which again means lack of replay value. So are you saying that you want anti-canon battles between the Empire and Republic, for example? Or are you looking for a Battlefront-esque system. Just trying to clarify.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
3. Too much EU material - while some of it makes sense to a point, such as the Interdictor Cruisers and the Victory-class Star Destroyers, other units do not, such as the TIE Crawler. Realistically, something that fragile and slow would get ripped to pieces without being a threat, and simply doesnt make sense when the Empire already has superior AT-ST, AT-TE and AT-AT walkers. Even if one looked at things such as Cost, aircraft (with the Crawler basically is) cost a lot, lot more than ground vehicles. Actually, they are just cheap ground units. From the databank:

"An unlikely fusing of two vastly different vehicle types, the TIE crawler was a cheap, mass-produced ground combat vehicle.

So I don't see what the problem is. Yes, it may not be superior to the AT-AT, but those are expensive and not perfectly suited to every role. Just like the US has battle tanks and jeeps. The need for one does not exclude the need for another, especially where cost is a factor.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
In addition, where are the Imperial Speeder Bikes? It's bad enough to add superflous EU material, but to exclude film material at the same time is criminal. Good thing they didn't then...

http://www.gamespot.com//pc/strategy/starwarsrts/screens.html?page=18

Originally posted by Darth Windu
4. Space and Ground battles at the same time - can we say 'confusion central'? There is simply no way this can be done well, which is no to say it cant be done. The problem here will be having to be forced to divide your attention between Space and Ground, when any sensible commander would know to divide your attention is death. Really, they should be two seperate entities operating at different times. It remains to be seen whether they will be successful in this aspect, but if they do you are really going to have egg on your face. :) But then again, it sounds like you are going to be unhappy with whatever method they use.

And do you mean to say that a player's attention is never divided during an RTS game? I seem to remember lots of time where I was attact on multiple fronts and had to keep track of what was happening where. That certainly is divided attention. I don't see how adding space battles all of sudden makes this regular division of attention unmanagable, nor how it is automatically going to fail. Especially since we have very little idea how it is supposed to work yet.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
5. Timeframe errors - this game is supposed to be set between Ep3 and 4. Why then do we have A-wings, Mon Cal Cruisers, TIE Crawlers etc and battles like Hoth and Endor? The team creating the story seems to be at the very least incompetant, or simply do not care about the SW timeline. Or perhaps they realize that it is a game and so some liberties need to be taken in order to make the game fun. If there are A-Wings that appear a few years early, so what? 90% of the people that buy this game aren't going to know that anyway. Nor does it affect whether the game is fun to play or not. Most if not all SW games take such liberties in terms of canon. Again, I don't see how having an A-Wing that is a bit out of place timeline-wise automatically makes the game an abomination. That attitude will lead you to be unhappy with every game. Do you apply the same canon criteria to every other game you play?

There's another thread where some people want a bunch of Jedi on the battlefield, for crying out loud. I don't think the A-Wings are a big concern. :)

Originally posted by Darth Windu
These are just five points, and i'm sure I could come up with more. Basically though, what we have here is another white elephant from Lucasarts. While there is no doubt some great games have been made recently, such as KotOR (which I bought this month and love), Empire at War will not be one of them. Well, you have already decided that it is a failure, and so it will be to you. Most of us will wait and see how it develops, and then decide when we have more than a few scraps of information.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
This then brings me to my final question, does anyone actually like the name? Personally I couldn't think of anything more horrible, but there you go. Are you serious? Hell, it is better than The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. And I can think of many worse possbile titles, like Star Wars: Tiny Soldiers and the Anti-Canon A-Wings. Who cares what it's called? Are you really going to not get a game because of the name?

DK_Viceroy
01-24-2005, 11:21 AM
Windu you will find yourself cruelly isolated I advise you do what you said you were going to do and not talk about the game and leave those who like the idea of the game to debate it in peace.

swphreak
01-24-2005, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Prime
Or perhaps they realize that it is a game and so some liberties need to be taken in order to make the game fun. If there are A-Wings that appear a few years early, so what? 90% of the people that buy this game aren't going to know that anyway. Nor does it affect whether the game is fun to play or not. Most if not all SW games take such liberties in terms of canon. Again, I don't see how having an A-Wing that is a bit out of place timeline-wise automatically makes the game an abomination. That attitude will lead you to be unhappy with every game. Do you apply the same canon criteria to every other game you play?

There's another thread where some people want a bunch of Jedi on the battlefield, for crying out loud. I don't think the A-Wings are a big concern. :)


But the fact is: It doesn't take place between Ep3 and 4. It starts before Ep4. Windu just can't read.

lukeiamyourdad
01-24-2005, 01:16 PM
*Remembers Gunship thread*

*shrugs*

Don't worry guys, it's Windu's talent to post flame bait.

Prime
01-24-2005, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak
But the fact is: It doesn't take place between Ep3 and 4. It starts before Ep4. Windu just can't read. That's what I thought, but I didn't know for sure.

Sithmaster_821
01-24-2005, 05:08 PM
Empire board, meet Windu. Windu, meet Empire board. Hopefully this one won't last 17 pages.

-Planets: Ummm, Windu, planets are big. They aren't one battle affairs. I imagine there being a series of battles needed to take some of the more populated and defended planets. Besides, how many truly important planets are in Star Wars. I can't thik of twenty, and I'm sure the average consumer can't either.

-Sorta with you on the whole two sides thing. I thought, post-StarCraft, that there would be no two-sided RTS's. But thats why they make x-packs! And, if the sides are different enough and deep enough, there's plenty of replay value.

-Ummm....no one cares about EU

-Can you...er....normal people handle multiple ground battles at once? How about if there was little/no economy? Good, then space/ground shouldn't be "confusion central".

-I know this has been said before, but it STARTS in pre-EP 4 times. Dear lord, ES f-ed up history in AoK because they have gunpowder in a game that starts in the dark ages.

-I sorta like the name. Its direct, and oddly similar to the ones we came up with at the SWGB forums.

lukeiamyourdad
01-24-2005, 05:53 PM
There has been 0 ban up to now. One can only hope it stays that way.

EDIT: Oh Jan! You were asking who Windu was and to point him to you. Well...here you go.

Darth Windu
01-24-2005, 06:52 PM
First off, I think I should point out right now that this thread is not intended to insult or flame anyone, it is actually my opinion.

The main reason I think this game will be rubbish is simply because it is too limited. Having gotten SW:GBG shortly after it came out, I was very interested in a new SW RTS using a new engine and whatnot. The problem is that I am a much bigger fan of the PT than the OT, so basically Lucasarts is ignoring PT fans while at the same time restricting the playability of the game.

DMUK - It's also possible that I could grow wings and learn to fly, but it's not going to happen.

Alegis - as I said, these are not rantings, just my opinion on the game from what I have seen and read of it.

Phreak - okay great, it starts before ANH...where the Rebels have one victory to their name...sounds like fun. As for EU, I was using the TIE Crawler as an example , not a definitive list, there is a difference.

Prime - with the Republic and Confederacy, I actually developed the concept in my proposed SW RTS, 'Star Wars: Galaxy in Flames' which can be seen at my website using the link in my sig. Anyway, the concept was to have two seperate campaigns, 'Clone Wars' featuring the Republic and Confederacy; and 'Galactic Civil War' featuring the Empire and Rebellion. They would not intermix at all, although a random battle ability to put anyone against anyone would be fun. However in terms of stroyline and campaigns, there would have been no crossover.
Frankly, I don't see why this is not possible, and it shows the lack of interest in fans that Lucasarts has.

With the TIE Crawler, i'm not saying the databank is wrong, i'm saying the whole concept of the vehicle itself is wrong.

In terms of timeline errors and liberties, well then what is the point of setting it just before Ep4?

For the names, I have never understood what is wrong with the name 'The Phantom Menace'. I mean really, what is wrong with it? (this is a serious question)

InsaneSith - I have never posted the phrase in your "quote" and want it removed. If you want to use real quotes, fine, but don't invent them. In addition, there is a little something I like to call 'freedom of speech' - this means if I object to something or do not like something, I have the right to express my opinion regardless of whether you like it or not, as long as it is not offensive. None of my posts have been offensive, therefore I can post here.

Sith - while I would love to believe there will be a PT x-pac, I highly doubt it, mainly because the Empire has the main Republic ship, and I can't see the dev's giving the major Republic ship to two different sides, unless they are mutually exclusive, which removes part of the 'fantasy battle' fun. However, if there was an x-pac that added the Republic and Confederacy I would seriously consider purchasing the game.

El Sitherino
01-24-2005, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
InsaneSith - I have never posted the phrase in your "quote" and want it removed. If you want to use real quotes, fine, but don't invent them. In addition, there is a little something I like to call 'freedom of speech' - this means if I object to something or do not like something, I have the right to express my opinion regardless of whether you like it or not, as long as it is not offensive. None of my posts have been offensive, therefore I can post here.
It's called shortening a quote, and I believed your post to be utterly stupid. Pardon me if my opion offended you. I thought I too had freedom of speech.

The point is, if you don't like a game or think it sucks, why do you feel the need to come to a forum specifically designed for said game and saying you think it sucks? Especially when it's not even released and your points are flawed. I'm sorry but that seems like trolling to me.

Darth Groovy
01-24-2005, 09:29 PM
I love it when people here yell "freedom of speech" in regards to posting.

May I remind you all that this is NOT the USA.

The only law here, is LF for dummies, know it, live it, and love it.

Happy posting! ;)

Jan Gaarni
01-24-2005, 10:21 PM
:wstupid:

Kryllith
01-25-2005, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
In terms of timeline errors and liberties, well then what is the point of setting it just before Ep4?

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing the idea is that people will watch Rise of the Sith and want to know what happened between the end of it and the start of New Hope. Said people can then get EaW and play for themselves (I'm hoping they design some campaigns based around exactly that, even if it's considered EU). Just seems the logical thing given the time of release.

Other than that, I tend to agree with you on various things. Though I'm not going to boycott the game unless there's a x-pack put out, I'd be interested in seeing one. What I'd really like to see is the last remainents of the Republic and Separtists go through the changes which result in the Empire and the Rebellion (ie, we'd see some of their units early on, eventually replaced by those of the OT). I'd love to see a full x-pack based around the time of AotC through RotS (or even earlier, hell I mostly play Gungans anyway).

As it is, I'm kind of disappointed in the fact that resource management has been removed (or is it just resource gathering?). I kind of enjoy that part of SWGB since balancing workers and military could make or break you. I guess I'll just have to see how they handle tech advancements before I form an opinion on it. I'm also sadden that the lack of more than 2 civs will most likely mean that diplomacy features may be completely removed from the game. The features sucked in SWGB as it is, and I was hoping to see some improvement upon them in the followup RTS--not likely to happen now. :( But then, it's a whole different ballgame, so I guess it's better to have all the info on what the game comprises before making a decision one way or another...

Kryllith

Nokill
01-25-2005, 04:26 AM
Originally posted by Jan Gaarni
:wstupid:

so true :xp:

swphreak
01-25-2005, 05:44 AM
3. Too much EU material - while some of it makes sense to a point, such as the Interdictor Cruisers and the Victory-class Star Destroyers, other units do not, such as the TIE Crawler. Realistically, something that fragile and slow would get ripped to pieces without being a threat, and simply doesnt make sense when the Empire already has superior AT-ST, AT-TE and AT-AT walkers. Even if one looked at things such as Cost, aircraft (with the Crawler basically is) cost a lot, lot more than ground vehicles. In addition, where are the Imperial Speeder Bikes? It's bad enough to add superflous EU material, but to exclude film material at the same time is criminal.
As for EU, I was using the TIE Crawler as an example , not a definitive list, there is a difference.

:rolleyes:

Anyways, like Kry said, it starts before ANH because of Ep3. The movie ends and the game begins.

As for the Space/ground at the same time... it can be done. I imagine a button that switches between the 2 during battle. Maybe the AI will be intelligent enough so you can leave one battle and direct the other.

Vagabond
01-25-2005, 07:28 AM
I haven't read this entire thread, but all I can say is that I find it extremely incredible for someone to say that a game, for which very little public information has been released, will suck :rolleyes: Based off of what I little currently know, I'm not even sure how to categorize this game, much less reach a conclusion on how successful it will be.

Talk about the glass being half full vs. half empty, it would seem that Darth Windu merely has a hand full of water :cool:

lonepadawan
01-25-2005, 08:04 AM
I actually developed the concept in my proposed SW RTS, 'Star Wars: Galaxy in Flames'

.... and you think Empire at War is a bad title. Forgive me.. of course your soooo much better at game design that former Westwood guys...

Personally when I saw that first preview, with snowspeeders, AT-ATs, X-wings and the heroes of the OT I was so glad. It looks like FC done RIGHT. Hopefully it will have the soul that the OT had and the PT doesn't have.

As it is, I'm kind of disappointed in the fact that resource management has been removed (or is it just resource gathering?). I kind of enjoy that part of SWGB since balancing workers and military could make or break you. I guess I'll just have to see how they handle tech advancements before I form an opinion on it. I'm also sadden that the lack of more than 2 civs will most likely mean that diplomacy features may be completely removed from the game. The features sucked in SWGB as it is, and I was hoping to see some improvement upon them in the followup RTS--not likely to happen now. But then, it's a whole different ballgame, so I guess it's better to have all the info on what the game comprises before making a decision one way or another...

I am so GLAD they removed resource management. It means the game may have more complicated tactics than "build up your army as fast as you can and use certain types of units against other certain types of unit"

Diplomacy stuff... that was mainly left overs from AoK as was the resource system... it didn't really fit into Star Wars AT ALL.

Vagabond
01-25-2005, 08:23 AM
For what it's worth, I too have always despised resource management, and am thrilled to hear that it won't be part of this game :cool:

Resource management on it's own can be quite fun, but not as part of a real-time comat game. The only way that managing resources can work and be fun is if the game is turn-based. The last thing you want is to be in the middle of some throught-provoking analysis on the future state of your resources, only to have to drop everything and lasso up everything on the screen and have all of them attack one of the voluminous invaders that interupted your strategizing.

Jan Gaarni
01-25-2005, 09:04 AM
There will be some managements you need to do of course, how else do you get to build up your forces or set up your bases propperly?

They've just removed it from the combat part of the game. :)

lonepadawan
01-25-2005, 09:18 AM
Hopefully it'll be in the combat map like the Total War series.

Prime
01-25-2005, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
The problem is that I am a much bigger fan of the PT than the OT And you are in the minority, like it or not.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
so basically Lucasarts is ignoring PT fans while at the same time restricting the playability of the game. They just know that there is a bigger market and demand for OT games. They are a business. If the PT was in higher demand, then they would make the game based on that. They do not have some random bias against the PT. They make games that are going to appeal to the widest number of players. And that game is going to have plenty playability for the majority of fans.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
Prime - with the Republic and Confederacy, I actually developed the concept in my proposed SW RTS, 'Star Wars: Galaxy in Flames' which can be seen at my website using the link in my sig. Anyway, the concept was to have two seperate campaigns, 'Clone Wars' featuring the Republic and Confederacy; and 'Galactic Civil War' featuring the Empire and Rebellion. They would not intermix at all, although a random battle ability to put anyone against anyone would be fun. However in terms of stroyline and campaigns, there would have been no crossover.
Frankly, I don't see why this is not possible, and it shows the lack of interest in fans that Lucasarts has. Horse****. Lucasarts has an interest in fans because fans = customers. They want to sell games, so they cater to the largest portion, which are primarily OT fans. Not to say there aren't a lot of PT fans (most SW fans are both), but OT games seem to have the biggest attraction. Many do not like the PT. It is the same reason an NJO game will likely never get made. It is a business decision.

And why not have both eras? Time, money, and resources. They are finite. They can only do so much. Taking what they have now for the OT, doing the PT as well would perhaps take twice as long, twice as much money, and double the resources. So there are two options. One is to do both eras, and make a more limited game. The other is to pick one era and make a better game. They chose option 2, and I'm glad they did.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
With the TIE Crawler, i'm not saying the databank is wrong, i'm saying the whole concept of the vehicle itself is wrong. Says you. But since it is in the EU, it is fair game.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
For the names, I have never understood what is wrong with the name 'The Phantom Menace'. I mean really, what is wrong with it? (this is a serious question) Nothing is wrong with it, just like there is nothing wrong with "Empire at War." I used TPM and AOTC as examples to show that Empire at War is hardly the worst name imaginable as you claim.

Kryllith
01-25-2005, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by lonepadawan
I am so GLAD they removed resource management. It means the game may have more complicated tactics than "build up your army as fast as you can and use certain types of units against other certain types of unit"

Diplomacy stuff... that was mainly left overs from AoK as was the resource system... it didn't really fit into Star Wars AT ALL.
Actually I'm not all that concerned about resource gathering as inquisitive about how they're going to do resource managing. They've got to have something set up to set limiter on what you can build (otherwise everyone will just use ATATs and Star Destroyers). More than that, I'd like to know about tech advances. Kind of takes the fun out of it if everything just advances at a set time.

As for diplomacy, well the AoK system was crappy initially and GB did nothing to improve on it. Maybe that system didn't really fit, but diplomacy itself does, otherwise we wouldn't have a rebel alliance, or a confederacy, or a republic of systems. Could do a lot with it, but it would require expanding beyond two at-war civs.

Kryllith

lonepadawan
01-25-2005, 11:10 AM
There will probably be NO diplomacy. This is NOT a SWGB sequel. It's just a Star Wars RTS. That is the only relation the two will have.

The resources will prbably be handled in the same way base building is. NOT during combat. And probably no workers or peons *shudders* Like most RTS' these days, their going to streamline it, so you can focus on the FIGHTING. Star resource gathering: A new worker has yet to be released in cinemas so I can't comment on games based on it.

Jan Gaarni
01-25-2005, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Prime

Says you. But since it is in the EU, it is fair game.

Oh come on, Prime.

You gotta admit on that part, the TIE Crawler concept is just wrong.

A fighter can dodge bolts left and right, up and down, around it's own axis.

But a TIE cockpit mounted on tracks is just an explosion waiting to happen. It's pretty much a sitting duck.

It's not the Devs fault though, they didn't invent it. But they are using it.

There are better alternatives out there (example (http://swnr.starwarsclub.org/army/images/firehawkeside.gif), tank by West End Games I believe), and if none of those fit, they could always make something that actually looks like it could take a hit or 2.

Prime
01-25-2005, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Jan Gaarni
Oh come on, Prime.

You gotta admit on that part, the TIE Crawler concept is just wrong. If it is in the EU or movies, I have no problem with the devs using it. We have no idea how they will implement it, so I'll reserve judgement until that time and not jump all over them now. Yes, cheap = crappy. But that is by no means unheard of in militaries of the real world.

And as far as EU vehicles, it is better than just about everything designed by KJA. :)

Rogue15
01-25-2005, 07:59 PM
wow, glad to see another PT fan!!!

perhaps most of the EU units they use will be for skirmishes/mp and be left out of the campaign?

Kryllith
01-26-2005, 03:59 AM
Originally posted by lonepadawan
There will probably be NO diplomacy. This is NOT a SWGB sequel. It's just a Star Wars RTS. That is the only relation the two will have.
The fact that there will probably be no diplomacy is exactly one aspect that I dislike. Frankly, if it was a sequel to SWGB, the diplomacy probably would be lousy (if it's anything like it was in SWBG anyway). Actually diplomacy could work in this game, depending on how it plays. We're looking at at least 20 planets, right? Why not add non-playable independent civs? I'm not sure how they're planning on gathering worlds, whether you'll start with just one and you'll gather them uncontested until you encounter the opponent, or if half of the planets will start under 1 civs control and half the other, or if all the planets are "shared" from the outset and you just need to beat the opposition off of it. I'd prefer to see the first scenario and let you choose whether to try diplomacy with the inhabitants (the non-playable civs) of the planet or just to straight out conquer them.


The resources will prbably be handled in the same way base building is. NOT during combat. And probably no workers or peons *shudders* Like most RTS' these days, their going to streamline it, so you can focus on the FIGHTING. Star resource gathering: A new worker has yet to be released in cinemas so I can't comment on games based on it.
I don't have a problem with building and war being separate, though I wouldn't mind a jury-rigging style action during combat to attempt to repair damaged turrets, buildings, etc. Nothing along the lines of workers completely repairing or building new buildings like in SWGB, but just attempts to prolong the life of them for a small length of time. Not sure what you're trying to say in your last sentence... star resource gathering?

Kryllith

SirPantsAlot
01-26-2005, 04:30 AM
Most strategy games now days try to break the traditional base building and resource gatharing. Only a few still have it, EG Armies of Exigo. The same game, BTW, has both under and above ground action at the same time, which is kinda like space and ground in EAW.

lukeiamyourdad
01-26-2005, 05:05 AM
Windu-If the title of the thread was:"My worries about the new SW RTS" or something nice and decent, without adding the word "suck", you wouldn't have gotten any flaming. Nice job.

Darth Windu
01-26-2005, 06:36 PM
Insane - no, you weren't. Instead you were trying to put words into my mouth and I do not appreciate it. If you want to criticise what I have said, go ahead. But do NOT use fake quotes to do so.

Phreak - then why does LA says the game is SET between RotS and ANH, rather than STARTS?

Prime - actually, adding the PT would NOT take double the time, money etc. Why? Because a lot of their resources and money will have been taken up in creating the engine, style of play, resource collection (or whatever will pass for it), base building etc. Therefore, adding the Republic and Confederacy would not take up that much, and wouldn't set the game back far either.

luke - true, but then when I created this thread, I was (and still am) annoyed at LA/Petroglyph for ignoring PT fans. Having waited for so long on the old SWGB forums for any little scrap of news of a new RTS, it was a huge dissapointment to me to learn that only the Empire and Rebels would be included. Franky, to me this smacks of doing something half-arsed with the parties involved simply not being bothered to do a better job. Ergo, the title of the thread. Oh yeah, incidently I still really do think this game is going to suck.

El Sitherino
01-26-2005, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Insane - no, you weren't. Instead you were trying to put words into my mouth and I do not appreciate it. If you want to criticise what I have said, go ahead. But do NOT use fake quotes to do so. I used no fake quotes. And please don't tell me what I was or wasn't trying to do. Kthx.

Also, this game is called EMPIRE At War. Why would you expect PT stuff to be in a game that mainly takes place when the Empire came into, and is now in power? The empire wasn't around in the PT, and we'll only see it's very small beginnings at the end of Episode 3.

Jan Gaarni
01-26-2005, 09:41 PM
He didn't expect the PT to be in it.

He says he is disappointed it isn't in the game, or set around the PT era.

But the numbers is clear though, the OT is the most popular era though. :)
Which I whole heartedly agree on. :D


About the SWGB, wasn't it supposed to feature PT era too? :confused:
Seem to remember something about that.

El Sitherino
01-26-2005, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Jan Gaarni
He didn't expect the PT to in it.

He says he is disappointed it isn't in the game, or set around the PT era.
I got that from this thread, but then I also saw his post in the Ideas thread saying they should put PT stuff in there. So I decided I'd just join responses, put them in here.

DK_Viceroy
01-26-2005, 11:39 PM
He didn't like SWGb even though it had PT, because it was generic and a whole other host of reason I don't care enough to find out.

He's always complaining about one thing or the other

swphreak
01-27-2005, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Phreak - then why does LA says the game is SET between RotS and ANH, rather than STARTS?

The new game will take place in the Star Wars universe all right, but its actual events will take place between the not-yet-released film Episode III and the 1977 film Episode IV (better known simply as Star Wars, the first movie in the original trilogy). The action will take place in the same galaxy and will include tours of duty on such planets as Hoth, Endor, Tattooine, and Dagobah
Set a few years before the events of Episode IV A New Hope, the game will let players rewrite history as well as experience the aftermath of Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith, the creation of the Rebel Alliance, and Darth Vaderís rise to power.


If that's true, then it has to take place throughout the movies as well.

OverlordAngelus
01-27-2005, 06:05 AM
Also, the victory conditions for the Rebels would be the fall of the Empire and the death of the Emperor and Vader (if they'er in the game). Even if that doesn't happen on Endor, the effect is pretty much the same.

For the Empire to win they would have to crush the Rebel scum. Which isn't really related to the movies at all because they didn't win.

SirPantsAlot
01-27-2005, 06:12 AM
SWGB was no more than a mod for AoE2. I might have had 6 armies, and two more in the campaigns, but eventually, they were all exactly the same. In EaW, there might be only two armies, but they are totally different in many ways.

OverlordAngelus, the victory condition for both armies, as far as I know, is to completally take over the galaxy.

lukeiamyourdad
01-27-2005, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu


Prime - actually, adding the PT would NOT take double the time, money etc. Why? Because a lot of their resources and money will have been taken up in creating the engine, style of play, resource collection (or whatever will pass for it), base building etc. Therefore, adding the Republic and Confederacy would not take up that much, and wouldn't set the game back far either.

luke - true, but then when I created this thread, I was (and still am) annoyed at LA/Petroglyph for ignoring PT fans. Having waited for so long on the old SWGB forums for any little scrap of news of a new RTS, it was a huge dissapointment to me to learn that only the Empire and Rebels would be included. Franky, to me this smacks of doing something half-arsed with the parties involved simply not being bothered to do a better job. Ergo, the title of the thread. Oh yeah, incidently I still really do think this game is going to suck.

Reply to Prime by Windu, counter-replied by me(sorry mate):
You do realize it costs money and time to make more models, balance all of the civs so they can be playable in multiplayer, etc.
Maybe be not double, but more nevertheless. I explained it to you why they would choose to do an OT game back at the SWGB forum but of course, you just ignored it.

Reply to me by Windu, counter-replied by myself:

Seriously, like others said, you are a minority, like it or not.
Age of average gamer: 29(according to USA today poll)
Age of average Star Wars fan: Around 30 if not more(considering the OT were first released 28 years ago)
So technically, they hit a much bigger market and even so, most Star Wars fan prefer the OT or like both.

Prime
01-27-2005, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Prime - actually, adding the PT would NOT take double the time, money etc. Why? Because a lot of their resources and money will have been taken up in creating the engine, style of play, resource collection (or whatever will pass for it), base building etc. Therefore, adding the Republic and Confederacy would not take up that much, and wouldn't set the game back far either. I was trying to make a point. It might not take exactly 2x the amount of time, but it won't be a lot less. As lukeiamyourdad has said, yes they use the same engine and there are certain parts of development that apply to both, but there is still a large amount of work that would have to go into adding PT content. For starters, they would have to:

extended design effort
create models for all troopers and vehicles
create textures for all troopers and vehicles
create animations for most or all the new units
design, code and/or tweek the AI to represent the new units
playtest the new units to make sure they are all balanced and have not added any issues/bugs for both SP and MP
for SP, write an entirely new storyline that takes place in the Clone Wars era
perhaps design and create new planets that represent those from the prequel movies
record/aquire new music and sound effects
And that is just the basics, without getting into the nitty-gritty software issues that more content leads to. The fact is that it isn't as trivial as you try and make it sound. Software development doesn't work that way. Look at it like this. Lucasarts decides on a budget and development timeframe. So if doing an OT game was originally going to take 100% of the time and money, adding the PT content might optimistically bump the OT development down to 60-70%. Regardless, the time, money, and effort devoted to making the best OT game possible is now less than it was. This means that the OT portion of the game is now going to be either worse or not as encompassing as it would otherwise. That is why I, and others I presume, are happy that they have chosen one era and decided to devote 100% of the effort towards it. It will result in a better game in the end.

I mean, look at JA and KOTOR 2. They are both games that are based on the same engine and use a lot of the same assets (models, textures, and the like) as their earlier versions. Yet, they still took 1.5-2 years to develop. It would be the same way if the PT were to be added to Empire at War. It would require a lot more time and money to create just as good a game.

Jan Gaarni
01-27-2005, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by Prime

for SP, write an entirely new storyline that takes place in the Clone Wars era


They wouldn't have to do this really, as there is no storyline here.

You begin a few years before ANH, and from there on you decide the future.

Think Rebellion when you think of this game, except better grafics, but far fewer planets (10%). :)

Which is rather disappointing, I would have wanted more, much more planets to conquer.

SirPantsAlot
01-27-2005, 07:57 AM
They wouldn't have to do this really, as there is no storyline here.There might not be linear scenarios, but there is a storyline and missions.

OverlordAngelus
01-27-2005, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Prime
I mean, look at JA and KOTOR 2. They are both games that are based on the same engine and use a lot of the same assets (models, textures, and the like) as their earlier versions. Yet, they still took 1.5-2 years to develop. It would be the same way if the PT were to be added to Empire at War. It would require a lot more time and money to create just as good a game.

Actually Jedi Academy uses the Quake 3 engine, along with Jedi Knight 2.

Both Knights of the Old Republic games uses a heavily modified version of the Neverwinter Nights engine.

lonepadawan
01-27-2005, 09:22 AM
He was referencing the fact that they were build on the same engine as their predecessors. JA on the JK2 engine (Which is the quake engine I know) and KOTOR2 on the KOTOR engine (Which is neverwinter nights) But still took a long time to come out.

OverlordAngelus
01-27-2005, 01:04 PM
Oops, I'll just go and throw myself onto a lightsaber.

joesdomain
01-27-2005, 03:34 PM
The only thing I am upset about in this game is that it is PC only. Well, Mac will eventually get it a year after it is release just like the Jedi Knight Games, Knights of the Old Republic, and Battlefront. I have a PC but this game definitely won't run on a Pentium III 667MHz, 128MB memory, and 8MB video card. All of my money is going toward paying pay college student loans for the next 20 years. :(

Sithmaster_821
01-27-2005, 04:13 PM
Im with Kryllith on the whole resource management/gathering. You only have to look at my avatar/title to figure out what I think of resource management. If not resources per se (cause that is very un-Star Wars), then some limiting factor to make the game more strategic and less tactical (it is an RTS after all). Thats what I hate about the Total War games, its almost all tactics. I want to be able to make some strategic decisions in a strategy game. That said, one of the game sites sort of confirmed that some form of resources will be in the game because it said that the Rebellion will have more expensive but better units while the Imps, on average, will have cheaper, worse units.

I also think that the TIE crawler will be exactly what everyone thinks of it. Crap. Cheap fodder crap. It will be what the emps have to use to keep up with the Rebellion tanks until walkers come niot play.

Darth Windu
01-27-2005, 05:32 PM
Insane - so now you try to cover your lies with more lies? In your reply to my first post, you included a supposed "quote" that contained a 'phrase' I never at any time used. That is lying, and using a fake quote. Trying to lie to get yourself out of something, believe it or not, is not a smart thing to do when the evidence exists for all to see.

luke - I have never contested the average age of gamers, the average age of SW fans etc. That, however, is irrelevant because my whole point here is that LA simply does not care about PT fans. It seems only fitting then that PT fans do not care about LA.

Prime - I am aware that there would be a significant amount of time and money invested in order to produce the Republic and Confederacy, but I still think they could and should have done so. Of course everything is economics, and while it may not seem like much (and in fact isn't), I will not purchase any SW RTS that does not include the PT simply on principle.

El Sitherino
01-27-2005, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Insane - so now you try to cover your lies with more lies? In your reply to my first post, you included a supposed "quote" that contained a 'phrase' I never at any time used. That is lying, and using a fake quote. Trying to lie to get yourself out of something, believe it or not, is not a smart thing to do when the evidence exists for all to see.
I'm not lying. Never did. I shortened your quote into a phrase I felt summed it up. I believed your entire post to be stupid crap so I changed it to say that, instead of leaving the entire stupid quote in to only say a few things.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
I will not purchase any SW RTS that does not include the PT simply on principle. Then stop whining about EAW. You're not going to buy it, fine. Noone cares, what we do care about however is your flawed BS.
Which has been covered in past posts.

Jed
01-27-2005, 05:43 PM
Alright, there's far too many irrelevant arguments in this thread.

Make a new one if you'd like to continue this. It's getting too hostile.