What sets this game apart from other RTS?

[FroZticles]

I've read a few interviews and there best answer is that you can blow up a planet with the death star. Now it may only be me but if thats the best the game has to offer it won't last long against some heavy competition with Rise of Legends and AOE3.

 

*fingers crossed they give us a little more than that*

[Guest DarthMaulUK]

It most certainly is going to be a tough year for the RTS market with so much quality being released.

 

As I type this, rumour has it that Age Of Empires might be going online like Galaxies.

 

With Empire At War, the dev team behind it are experienced so we all know that this game will not be like any other Star Wars RTS before it.

 

Plus, EaW will tend to use more long distance artillery, machines and troopers compared to the sticks N stones of AoE 3 and Rise. My only concern is ground battles in EaW - we need to see more pics because space is where its gonna be at !

 

DMUK

[FroZticles]

I don't think the storyline with AOE is enough to make a good MMORPG but who knows. By the time it comes out the MMORPG boat would have set sail and in comes the .... MMORTS!!!

 

Seriously they need better answers then doing this in every interview

 

Susie the reporter: What will make this better and different to other RTS before you?

 

Petro Geek: Ummmmm Hmmmmm tough one.... Ohhh hey look we have a Death Star!!!!

[Prime]

It's Star Wars. That's a pretty big plus.

[Mike Windu]

They better have zoom in cameras and stuff too >_>

 

*plays his old school starcraft while awaiting EaW*

[Darth Windu]

I agree with FroZ here. Blowing up planets with the Death Star might be cool, but ultimately it's pointless and harmful to your conquering. In addition, and yes I know i've gone on about this before, but EaW lacks diversity that is seen in all other RTS' - thats where its biggest downfall will be says me.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Prime

It's Star Wars. That's a pretty big plus.

I have to agree here. Even if it turns out to be nothing special (hopefully not), it will still be fun because it is a Star Wars rts, not just an rts.

[FroZticles]

Still be fun when the online community goes from 2000 to 300 in 2 weeks?

[Jan Gaarni]

Originally posted by FroZticles

Still be fun when the online community goes from 2000 to 300 in 2 weeks?

To put it bluntly ..... yes.

 

But that's just me, I'm not a big fan of online RTS anyway. (might have to do I like to take things slower than most )

[FroZticles]

Losing online community is never a good thing. A SWG moderator should know this all to well

[Jan Gaarni]

Aaa, but SWG is an Online game only.

 

There's a difference there.

[BeBop]

EAW can probably stay alive online for a long long time. RTS games are different than otehr Genres. Perhaps it's because you can have plenty of fun with very few players. Since most matches are either 1v1, or 2v2, you don't need alot of players. (As opposed to other genres and games like say Battlefront or RC where even just 8 players may be too small.) Hey I still play a 6 year old RTS game that is still fairly active online. And as Jan said, SWG isn't a fair comparison at all. I mean, really the only relation it has with EaW is that it is based in the Star Wars universe.

[FroZticles]

I wasn't compaeing I was just aying that losing an online community in a RTS is just as devasting in a MMO.

 

FPS have huge booms for the first 2 months then it dies down.

 

MMORPG stay strong for the first year can start to die after that if there has been no huge changes or new stuff added.

 

RTS time varies depending on gameplay, balance and how well it meshes together. To most RTS players they only play them online well they play the campaign once but its more fun with people. Some RTS last for years some only last a month.

 

I hope we don't have another BFME on our hands since thats were most of these developers came from. The potential was there but it getting rushed to stores, major balance issues and gameplay were not enjoyable.

 

BTW Bepop play SWG and you will see its not the Star Wars universe but one of SOE's mutant creations nothing like SW at all IMO.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Don't worry about this turning into BFME2. EaW isn't under EA's evil rule.

 

An RTS' online community is as important as any other game.

 

However, it shouldn't be the only focus. Single player in an RTS is of great importance.

 

Games like Rome: Total War have very solid single player modes and still subsist.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

Don't worry about this turning into BFME2. EaW isn't under EA's evil rule.

 

An RTS' online community is as important as any other game.

 

However, it shouldn't be the only focus. Single player in an RTS is of great importance.

 

Games like Rome: Total War have very solid single player modes and still subsist.

lukeiamyourdad! You're back! Welcome back.

 

I definately agree with you. I will probably play more single player, so if single player sucks, then the game will suck to me.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Yes I am back

 

Back from hibernating in 'Nam.

 

Concerning MP being as important in an RTS then in an MMORPG, I don't think it's comparable since MMO's are MP ONLY while RTS have an SP portion.

That said, many games live very well without a very large MP community. Look at Civilization 3 for exemple. MP was unplayable, yet the game is still great and still has tons of fans still playing the game religiously.

[FroZticles]

Alot of MMO have a small community look at the new Matrix MMORPG.... and we know RPG's don't need to be online games to be good take the Kotor series. (even though it would be great as a online game)

 

In RTS it is still what keeps the game going and replayable. Civ 3 could have been alot greater if it supported MP more. You can only play the campaigns so many times before you start getting bored.

 

I know I'm definately in the minority on this forum since most Hardcore RTS players don't post here and alot of you only play SP and even when you play online prolly just a custom map player. (Nothing wrong with custom maps all been there). Once the online community dies the game is basically had its time whether it be long or short.

[lukeiamyourdad]

It's going to depend on what the developpers focus more on.

If they want the ultimate SP experience, they'll focus on SP. If they want the ultimate MP experience, they'll focus on MP.

 

A lot of games are SP only, but for the short while they live, they're great fun and stay on the mind of players everywhere.

[FroZticles]

I'd rather have a game that I can play for a couple of years then one that entertains me for a month or a couple of weeks. Online is always more fun then SP thats why MMO's are in big demand right now. In a couple more years SP might not even exist.

[lukeiamyourdad]

I doubt that since there cannot be much story telling in an MMO. Part of the fun of an SP game is often the story. RPG's for example, live or die depending on how well written they are.

 

You can't have that in a purely MP game. Nor can you find breath taking scripted action (à la Call of Duty to name one).

 

MP is not always fun. Such communities like Battle.net for example, are huge but full of retards. StarCraft and WarCraft are good games, but the MP communities are among the worst.

 

Of course, I would like a game that can entertain me for a couple of years but that seems to be impossible in our time. Games are made to be shorter then they used to be and don't stay long. As such, a game that stays as strong as StarCraft is impossible.

Besides, unless you're really fanatical, you'll play a game for a year or two max.

Besides, the new life extensions for a game are mods.

Even an SP only game like KOTOR can survive a lot longer thanks to mods made by the community.

 

Anyway, I think I lost myself.

 

The point is that MP isn't better then SP, it's a matter of taste.

[FroZticles]

Most battle.net games need a very required taste. WC3 and SC are full of hackers and idiots but there online communites are still thriving. You cannot avoid them they are in every game that has MP.

 

Not much story telling in an MMO? Ummmm they update the storyline every patch basically. I'll take WOW as an example. They have story based quests that really make the story more believable and some of them are really fun and to watch how your journey unfolds. They add new dungeons that give new quests. So I disagree the MMO's don't have a story when the whole game is based on story.

 

Also depends on the quality of the MMO, WOW is still the best out there. SOE MMO's are not the best story tellers of the industry. If you see some new and creative ideas from them start panicing.

[Jan Gaarni]

Originally posted by FroZticles

Also depends on the quality of the MMO, WOW is still the best out there. SOE MMO's are not the best story tellers of the industry. If you see some new and creative ideas from them start panicing.

ROFLMAO :D

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by FroZticles

Not much story telling in an MMO? Ummmm they update the storyline every patch basically. I'll take WOW as an example. They have story based quests that really make the story more believable and some of them are really fun and to watch how your journey unfolds. They add new dungeons that give new quests. So I disagree the MMO's don't have a story when the whole game is based on story.

 

This is quite arguable.

 

There is no larger storyline so to speak. The quests are mini-stories at best, each being their own, but whatever you do in World of WarCraft, you won't have the "importance" of say Diablo 1 and 2's hero.

 

Also, WoW already has this humongous background story that is the WarCraft universe with its past 3 games (and expansions).

 

An MMO's story will never achieve the grandeur of an SP RPG's one. You cannot even compare the stories and characters of games like KOTOR, Jade Empire, Baldur's Gate, FFX, Chrono Trigger even Diablo. The characters stick with you which isn't something you'll find in an MMORPG outside of RP servers. Even in RP servers, I doubt you'll find "well written characters".

[FroZticles]

I think an MMO story just gets drowned out because of all the content. A character in an MMO is what you make it if people are there only to become a pvp god or a loot farmer then you can't really force them to have a story behind there character. There are well written characters in WOW like Tyrande and Thrall just to name a few. Quests really add alot of backstory of what has happened to Azeroth after the Burning Legion was defeated.

 

Where as SP RPG's all you really have is the characters and the story so it really shines out more. Kotor has quests like WoW but an MMO has more of them where as once the game ends in a SP the story cannot continue unless expansion comes out.

[JawaJoey]

MMO's don't have stories, they have backstories. There's an explanation for the setting, and sometimes, in the good MMO's, the story of the world at large advances.

 

Both MMO's and single player games (I'll compare MMORPGS and RPGS for this example) have backstories. There has to be some setting, some overarching world that the game takes place in. It's the backstory, and both MMO's and SP games need it. MMO's have quests, which are like small sub stories, but those are the equivalent of side-quests in SP games. What SP games have that MMO's lack is an actual plot line.

 

You can only argue that MMO's have a backstory, but they dont' have a plot, and plot is what makes a lot of games, like KOTOR, really good.

 

 

Okay, I'm just a little sidetracked there. Back to RTS games, though, for me personally, MP is not that big a factor for RTS games. I very rarely play any RTS online. I play for the single player experience, and not even just the campaign.

 

Until I read this thread, it never truly struck me just how much some people think that RTS games are multiplayer games.

I want to let all the hardcore MP RTS fans out there know, that you're view isn't the only one, and to many, MP is a bonus, not an asset, and the longevity of the MP playerbase only matters to that playerbase.

 

It's worth pointing out that an RTS without MP should be just like any other SP game without MP. Jedi Outcast was a great game in SP, and had great multiplayer. It would still be a great game if it didn't have multiplayer. It would just have lost money from the PKing pwnz0r sp sux gamers.

 

 

Even further back on topic, what does EAW have to offer over other RTS.

 

I can think of three things.

 

1. It's a different, futuristic, universe. In EAW, you won't be advancing from cavemen to cavalry to tanks. There will be no stage where melee combat is the primary combat. It's a ranged world. Deeper than that, it's a world with lasers and completely different technology. It's a different world, there are going to be different rules.

 

2. Space combat. EAW will have a big bit of space combat on the scale of capital ships and entire fleets. I don't know of any games besides Homeworld and Rebellion that have really done that. Plus, it will be integrated into normal land based gameplay.

 

3. It's Star Wars. Ask any Star Wars fan why Galactic Battlegrounds was better than AOE2. I doubt the answer will be Airbases. The answer will be "It's Star Wars, man!" or even just "Jedi!" It's that simple. Just being associated with Star Wars gives anything a certain level of innate awesomeness. Star Wars alone is enough to make any mediocre game unique, fun, and awesome.