lonepadawan Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 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 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonepadawan Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Hopefully it'll be in the combat map like the Total War series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryllith Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonepadawan Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 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, 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryllith Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirPantsAlot Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted January 26, 2005 Author Share Posted January 26, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 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. About the SWGB, wasn't it supposed to feature PT era too? Seem to remember something about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 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 Vader’s rise to power. If that's true, then it has to take place throughout the movies as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverlordAngelus Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirPantsAlot Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirPantsAlot Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.