View Single Post
Old 01-24-2005, 11:33 AM   #11
Prime
Am I a truck or robot?
 
Prime's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cybertron
Posts: 12,363
Current Game: Skyrim, Vector Thrust
10 year veteran! LF Jester Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Re: Why this game is going to suck

I'm not saying it will be the best game ever, but...

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...



Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Prime is offline   you may: