Darth Windu Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 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 . 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 Yeah, because people on this forum writing "this is going to be the best RTS ever!" isn't biased in the slightest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverlordAngelus Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DarthMaulUK Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alegis Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonepadawan Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 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 hey, i didn't say that everyone was unbiased. at least these people aren't taking petty issues and flaming them. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 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 . 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... 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 *Remembers Gunship thread* *shrugs* Don't worry guys, it's Windu's talent to post flame bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryllith Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nokill Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Originally posted by Jan Gaarni so true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 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 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.