lukeiamyourdad Posted January 1, 2005 Author Share Posted January 1, 2005 Hmm there must be few who feel that way...KOTOR had nothing from neither the PT nor the OT...best seller. Jedi Outcast featured nothing from the PT...best seller. Jedi Academy featured nothing from the PT...best seller. >_> Great great monetary loss... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 They really have not giving PT the chance to shine besides BFME and GBG which they had to share with OT except the odd couple bounty hunter and clone wars. I would love a SW MMORPG set in the clone wars since the OT one was a huge flop thanks to SOE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 2, 2005 Author Share Posted January 2, 2005 It will only work if no one has the ability to become a Jedi or everyone's a Jedi. Other then that...never will a Star Wars MMORPG work. Pfff...humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Giving everyone a Jedi solves nothing a galaxy full of nothing but Jedi how boring its just as bad as SOE "keep Jedi rare but tell everyone how to get it". The only solution would be no player can be a Jedi or make them extremely hard to get like 1 in 100 players. Dont give it to SOE ever!!! They care more about money then there customers. It was not just the Jedi problem also the lack of high content was bad and everyone could solo almost anything in the game. Not to mention the 1 character per server thing which drove hordes of people away quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 luke - but the problem there with the games you listed is the KotOR had neither the OT or PT, although it connects with both; while JO and JA featured Jedi which are always popular, and had to be set in either the PT or OT, the game could be not believable while spanning both. This new RTS however is different. The forces involved could very easily add in the Republic and CIS and give a great deal of more re-play, more multiplayer options, 'what if' battles like the Republic vs Empire, and create a connection to RotS, which would be smart considering they will be released in the same year. As I said though, it seems like a cop-out to be only doing the OT, and i'm sure there are other SW fans out there who are more interested in the PT than the OT. Regardless, if this game only features the OT, I will not buy it. Hopefully though, Activision, Lucasarts and Petroglyph will be smarter than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishflesh Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 here is a net screenschot of the magazine from the force.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 this might actually be the game now though or they might be reffering to a part of the game, or this could be a shameless ploy to make money and having an expansion pack which adds in PT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadyshaun Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Im kinda new to all the star wars games but the movies are verry good especially the originals but im kind of confused, is this game a expansion pack for "Star war Galactic Battlegrounds" or a completely new game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DarthMaulUK Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 This will be a totally new game. (welcome to our forums btw) I firmly believe that 'Empire At War' WILL be the name of the new RTS. Why? Couple of reasons 1) The Empire will be at War after Episode III to take over the galaxy 2) Lucasarts have just purchased Empireatwar.com DMUK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 but why no PT sides? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 2, 2005 Author Share Posted January 2, 2005 Originally posted by Darth Windu while JO and JA featured Jedi which are always popular, and had to be set in either the PT or OT, the game could be not believable while spanning both. The point is? They didn't lose any money. Remember here that they would need more money to code in new unique civs with their own unique features. The monetary loss might not be as great as you think. Don't get me wrong, I want the Republic and CIS to be in, it's just that even if they're not in, doesn't mean LEC and Pletogryph are stupid in any way. They probably had a market analysis already and decided to go with Empire vs Rebels only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 I don't see how the Republic could be added in because the entire army is now Imperial. I hate that name, they could have used something with more kick. Isn't the whole point of this about making money? You didn't think they would just be making them for our entertainment now did you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 luke - you missed the point. They wouldn't have lost money because it had to set in one or the other, whereas this game could be set in both very easily. As for other civs, GBG had 8, and most modern RTS' have at least 3. For example- - C&C: RA2 Yuri's Revenge = 3 - C&C: Generals = 3 - Empires: Dawn of the Modern World = 7 - SW: GBG = 8 and others such as AoE, AoK, AoM, RoN etc all had more than four, so I fail to see why Petroglyph and LA couldn't or wouldn't make four. FroZ - exactly, and they would make more money by having more variety. DMUK - if you are right, I will be extremely dissapointed, not only because the game will be limited but also because of the shoddy title. Also, I just tried empireatwar.com and it doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 2, 2005 Author Share Posted January 2, 2005 Look, I'm not saying they couldn't make some more money by adding a two more civs, I'm saying they still can and will make a large enough amount of money. Besides, like I said, they made market studies and came up to this conclusion. It certainly must mean something. Though I agree we need more then 2 civs. empireatwar.com doesn't exist yet. They bought the name meaning nobody can use it. They've saved it for later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I get what you're saying luke, I just don't like it. I guess that most of all i'm just disappointed. After so long in waiting and getting even tiny bits of info, LA decides to ignore fans of the PT and create yet another sub-standard game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I also hate the title but I don't care about how many sides there are as long as the game is good. I'm sure they will add more as time goes by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DarthMaulUK Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Adding too many Civs does become boring. Star Wars was all about the Rebels v Empire until the new prequels came along. The point here, is we finally have a chance to combine ground and space battles and it wouldnt surprise me if the technology tree starts from around Episode III upgrading to Episode IV (death star etc) Can you imagine attacking the death star?! It will rock (fingers crossed) Empireatwar.com has been purchased but there is no website yet. If you cast your mind back to Galactic Battlegrounds, it was announced in February and released in November DMUK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I will also point out that westwood bought Tiberian Twilight but never used it,Lucasarts could be doing the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 I believe it only costs 300$. For them it must be peanuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 DMUK - perhaps, but I fail to see how four civs could be more boring than two. Also, SW is about Anakin Skywalker, not the Rebellion, or the Empire, or the Republic, or the Confederacy. However, all four sides are as important as each other in the story of Anakin and they all combine to form SW, so really we will only be getting half a game. FroZ - maybe, we'll have to see. Still, if they release the game with four civs, I will buy it. If it only has the Rebels and Empire, I will never buy it. If, though, they release it as Rebels' and Empire, then create an x-pac for the Republic and CIS, I would buy it, but only after it had come way down in price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nairb Notneb Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I've been on vacation for a while and look what I missed!!! I'm back now!! It seems that two civs will work fine. It's not a perfect pure RTS, but it can work. Here's why. It appeals to the OT crowd which is of the appropriate age of most RTS players. By developing the OT first, they can later create a PT game later cheaper because the engine is already made. By limiting the Civ's they can concentrate on the graphics and gameplay. Also by limiting the civ's, each civ can now have more unique units and characters. With only two civ's balance is easy to achieve (to easy really and that is also a drawback). Some questions I have: How customizable will it be? Multiplayer mode? With two civs will it be any fun to play? Well, I'm going to reserve most of my other comments for the Empire at War forum I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Though another thing must be taken into account if you only do two at a time, Balancing it with the PT sides which will take even more effort because you balanced them perfectly against each other that may not however work perfectly against the PT sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nairb Notneb Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Good point Viceroy. Bringing in other Civ's in an xpac later would be difficult, if that's what you mean. After reading more about it from DMUK's in the Empire at War Forums, I don't think an xpac from the PT's would work. I think that this is going to be a stand alone 3-D RTS that is mainly space combat supplemented with ground combat. The new forum is hopping now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saberhagen Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 I think they're moving away from the "what if" mix and match approach and going for a more purist approach to tie in with the films better. eg although Battlefront has 4 factions and combines both trilogies, you can't mix them up. You have to play in one period or the other. You also have the problem that the Clone War wasn't a proper war: both sides were being manipulated by Sidious and neither was intended to win. They were just paving they way for his empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nairb Notneb Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I agree that sticking to the trilogy sets makes more since in an RTS. It gives it a better sense of reality to it and creates a better story line. It also makes for a greater possibility to make other games in the future if the first is successful. It was a surprise to say the least, but a welcomed one. I think that it is a great idea and I am looking forward to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.