Admiral Vostok Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 How so? I explained above my Purist thoughts on including characters. Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted April 7, 2004 Author Share Posted April 7, 2004 And I don't see how playing on the zone gives you any better judgement on what the name of a character should be. It might give you insight into how people play, but not what the name of a character should be. That's just taking things too far, Froz. WTF is that ment to mean? I didn't even imply that cause I play on the zone that you won't understand its just to hard to explain. My template has nothing to do with SWGB 1 and it has no heroes so what are you on about? Well you are not the purist you make yourself out to be. You want movie characters in RM but if Luke SKywalker dies 1000 times he still leads the rebellion to victory......... The heroes from the movies get old they are great for scenario players but not rmers. I'd rather generic heroes or no heroes at all. You can make up a history for a character and fit them into a story line quite easily. With Sev'Rance Tann she is ment to be Count Dooku's apprentice and she is from EU so if they can bring a EU character into it why can't they mak up there own and add them in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 And from a gamers stand point its if you play online I would rather some made up hero in a civs arsenal then a movie hero.Sorry, I interpreted this remark as saying "The point of view that matters is gamers who play online. I play online and I would rather some made up hero in a civ's arsenal than a movie hero." If I interpreted incorrectly, I apologise. As for Purism, you're looking at it the wrong way. In RM, the Rebellion can fight against the Republic, which doesn't follow the movies at all, so it is quite acceptable for Luke to die 1000 times as you put it. RM is like what-if battles, just for fun. But as a Purist I'd much rather use characters from the movies than non-movie characters, because the movies are supreme and nothing can compare to them. While most people are not Purists, I'd wager most people would rather use movie characters than characters they've never heard of as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted April 7, 2004 Author Share Posted April 7, 2004 I don't mind them in terminate the commander but in an RM it seems weird to be building a Luke Skywalker or a Yoda..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Well it's far better than having a no-name character no one cares about like Echuu Shen Jon or Ziff Kalasco. Yes I did make up Ziff Kalasco. He's my generically-named hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Remember that not everyone is a huge RTS player. Moderates and newbies will prefer movie heroes, characters they already know to randomly generated ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted April 8, 2004 Author Share Posted April 8, 2004 Well if there not a RTS fan why buy the game? They can still have there movie heroes in the scenario toy box and in the campaigns but the RM should be the one boundary they cannot cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted April 8, 2004 Author Share Posted April 8, 2004 Vostok- You don't base a hero on his name its what he does in game and the story the creators put behind him that really matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Actually that's a very narrow-minded comment. I can safely say that at least half of the people who will buy the game will be RTS moderates or newbies. They'll move to RM later but if they don't see anything that they like in it, they won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted April 8, 2004 Author Share Posted April 8, 2004 Sorry I misread and thought you ment people who don't like RTS... SWGB didn't have heroes in RM and plenty of people played. People jump straight on the scenario band wagon cause they are the easiest games to play. With RM it takes months to get up to scratch and even longer to catch up to the high inters. So what your saying is noone will play RM cause theres no movie heroes? Well I'm sorry but your way off the mark. I fhtye don't like RM they don't they just continue with scenarios and keep blinding themselves with the same comments I hear all the time is RM sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 No. I'm saying that RM will be more appealing to the regulars if they had movie heroes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted April 8, 2004 Author Share Posted April 8, 2004 I'm a regular and that wold not impress me at all. People have different thoughts you can't possibly know what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saberhagen Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Ziff Kalasco sounds cool. Which side is he on? Does he have a droopy moustache? Tell me more. I want to know all about him. Now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Argh Froz.... If I was a RTS and a low Star Wars fan, I would more attracted if I got the chance to play witht he characters I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Think of it this way: nearly every single piece of EU ever made has at least one character in from the movies, or failing that a relative of a character from the movies. The movies are what matters. This is my belief as a Purist, and I'm sure most will agree that the movies are far more popular than the EU is. If you have generic characters like Ziff Kalasco (who does have a droopy moustache) that are not in the movies, they can never hope to compete with the popularity of a movie character like Luke Skywalker. Yes, SWGB1 didn't have movie characters in their RM, but they didn't have generic heroes either. If a Star Wars RTS includes heroes, why would the makers choose to have generic characters when such great and immediately recognisable characters already exist in the movies? I'm quite confident that if SWGB1 did have buildable heroes, they would have been movie characters. In fact I've come to the conclusion that to not include movie characters is far less pure than including them. The whole idea of Purism is that things need to be as much like the movies as possible, and if they substitute movie heroes for non-movie heroes, how can this be so? Perhaps we should not include movie civs and just have generic civs if we don't want to interfere with the movies? Froz, if you really are a gamer first and formost I don't see how the name of your character should make a difference. He'll still be exactly the same gameplay wise, so what does it matter if his name is Luke Skywalker or Ziff Kalasco? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted April 9, 2004 Author Share Posted April 9, 2004 luke-A low Star Wars fan wouldn't know his Vaders from his Padmes. vostok-The makers know if they added movie heroes into RM it would suck the realism out of it. Looking really stupid. You can't bring your less pure stuff over to RM. The campaigns fill the generic heroes journey and history. When playing SWGB I had no idea who Sev'Rance was but everyone accepted her. After this debate I've ejected heroes altogether accept from the campaigns and scenarios. Have your movie heroes for all I care our not the ones who play RM anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 First off, we do play RM. Second, give me a single low Star Wars fan who doesn't know who the hell is Darth Vader. I'm gonna take War of The Ring as an example here. I know it may not be the best RTS out there but here goes. In general RM, they used the books' heroes instead of unknown ones. People couldn't be happier. No on actually complaints about realism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 How exactly are movie characters less pure? They are from the movies, therefore they are pure. I was completely unaware you were a purist at all, Froz. Now you're challenging me as to what is and is not pure? And Luke's Dad, while War of the Ring was a load of rubbish, I think we should look to the upcoming Battle for Middle Earth as a better example. Because it is based on the Lord of the Rings movies, this makes it quite similar to a future Star Wars RTS (both based on movies). Battle for Middle Earth will have powerful heroes from the movies (and technically they're from the books too) that you can build and send into battle. Now you can't tell me you'd rather play as a generic Wizard hero instead of as Gandalf. The same goes for Star Wars. Why play as a generic Jedi when you can play as Luke Skywalker? I'd like to think EA has done a bit of research into what gamers want, so if LOTR movie characters are good enough for their LOTR RTS heroes, Star Wars movie characters should be good enough for Star Wars RTS heroes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted April 9, 2004 Author Share Posted April 9, 2004 I'm not a purist, I just was trying to show your not much of one yourself. With movie heroes in RM yes very pure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what exactly Purism is. It is not the desire to be entirely separate from the movies so as to not contradict them, it is quite the opposite. It is the need to make things as much like the movies as possible. To this end, since movie characters are in the movies and we want the game to be as much like the movies as possible, movie characters should also be in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted April 9, 2004 Author Share Posted April 9, 2004 No if you had it your way the whole game would be the movies all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Actually, no. I know Vostok. He cares for gameplay more then realism no matter what it looks like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Originally posted by Admiral Vostok You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what exactly Purism is. It is not the desire to be entirely separate from the movies so as to not contradict them, it is quite the opposite. It is the need to make things as much like the movies as possible. To this end, since movie characters are in the movies and we want the game to be as much like the movies as possible, movie characters should also be in the game. I do not agree with your theory. For the "Lord of the purists" you don't sound very purist to me I'd say make things as much like the movies, but don't contradict them at the same time. I.e. no wookie civ cuz we only see 4 wooks in the SW movies, but having luke in a skirmish contradicts the movies. Just my view. (I still can't accept to see Luke in a RM, but it doesn't matter since LA will probably never look at what we wrote here). Ok, I'll try to shut up again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 The thing is having the Confederacy fighting the Rebels is contradicting the movies, having the Republic fight the Empire even more. Therefore we can overlook minor things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted April 10, 2004 Author Share Posted April 10, 2004 Luke you don't understand that realism is left at the door in RM battles are ment to be huge and strategic. The only realism in there is the military units. This movie hero stuff isn't minor you have them in campaigns and scenarios what more do you want? RM IS NOT THE STORY!!!.......thats the campaigns job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.