FroZticles Posted July 23, 2005 Author Share Posted July 23, 2005 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. Exactly, there are stories but thats why they have RP servers so the people make there story while quests provide small stories along the way while gaining levels. 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. Games like Kotor rely on plot. MMO's rely less on story because there is alot of other things people can do where as SP RPG all they got is the plot and story to make it good. Until I read this thread, it never truly struck me just how much some people think that RTS games are multiplayer games. As I said I'm in the minority on this forum because most of you go on MP a few times and probably just don't want to face the abuse you get or are intimidated by players or just hate losing. 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. Jedi Outcast isn't a RTS so you can't use this to back up your claim. All those things that you think will make it different really is scary I thought there would be more its Star Wars isn't different and GB was a SW RTS so thats not new. Its not different its SW. Space combat, flashy trailers and cool characters, vehicles and the death star is what they are relying on to get consumers to buy it. I hope they offer more then what they have because I have been waiting for this for about 3 years. Looking more like BFME as time goes by :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Originally posted by FroZticles Games like Kotor rely on plot. MMO's rely less on story because there is alot of other things people can do where as SP RPG all they got is the plot and story to make it good. No, SP RPGs still have to rely on other gameplay elements. If the only thing that's good in KOTOR is the story but the gameplay is total crap, the overall experience would be pretty lousy. Originally posted by FroZticles As I said I'm in the minority on this forum because most of you go on MP a few times and probably just don't want to face the abuse you get or are intimidated by players or just hate losing. A poor assumption. I play a lot of MP FPS, from Battlefield1942 to Wolf:ET. Why? These games gather a lot of players on a server in a controlled environment, watched over by admins or automated defense systems. However, RTS are very different, in the way that nobody can watch over a game out of an official tournament or something similar. You get a LOT of crap and that's not only in a single RTS that I got crap from weaker players, but every single one. If I crush an opponent under 10 mins, he'll start begging to restart the game "because he made a mistake". I refuse and he disconnects. This is also the same thing that I hated about Diablo 2 MP. You were thrown into a game without any capability to kick out annoying assholes. That's why I stopped going to places like the Zone or Battle.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad However, RTS are very different, in the way that nobody can watch over a game out of an official tournament or something similar. You get a LOT of crap and that's not only in a single RTS that I got crap from weaker players, but every single one. If I crush an opponent under 10 mins, he'll start begging to restart the game "because he made a mistake". I refuse and he disconnects. This is also the same thing that I hated about Diablo 2 MP. You were thrown into a game without any capability to kick out annoying assholes. That's why I stopped going to places like the Zone or Battle.net I have had the same problem playing Warcraft on Battle.net. Hopefully this one will have much better online capabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawaJoey Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Originally posted by FroZticles Exactly, there are stories but thats why they have RP servers so the people make there story while quests provide small stories along the way while gaining levels. Having players "make up their own story" isn't a plot. Not that that's relavant anyways. Games like Kotor rely on plot. MMO's rely less on story because there is alot of other things people can do where as SP RPG all they got is the plot and story to make it good. First of all, duh. MMO's rely less on story because it's impossible to have one, and they dont' need one. What does that have to do with anything? I never said that MMO's sucked for not having plots. Second, the previous poster is right, SP RPGs do depend more on other aspects too. As I said I'm in the minority on this forum because most of you go on MP a few times and probably just don't want to face the abuse you get or are intimidated by players or just hate losing. Once again, what's your point? Yeah, I played online a few times and found that no one who plays online plays at the pace I enjoy, and are always in a rush to win, and obviously I got my ass kicked. And I didn't find it fun. I don't want to play at the speed people online do, and I don't want to play against someone who who seems to be far more concerned with winning than anything else, because that's not fun. Maybe I was wrong in detecting that bit of contempt in what you wrote, but criticize people who don't play online all you want, because it's your fault. Jedi Outcast isn't a RTS so you can't use this to back up your claim. My claim was that a game doesn't need good Multiplayer to still be good. Jedi Outcast was a game that would have still had a good SP whether it had MP or not. How can I not use it to back up my claim, which fundamentally had no specific ties to RTS games? All those things that you think will make it different really are scary. I thought there would be more. Its Star Wars, Star Wars isn't different and GB was a SW RTS, so thats not new. Its not different its SW. Okay, I edited your paragraph to say what I think you meant to say. Star Wars is different. In the big picture, it's not incredibly different from the world we live in, but what is? But the universe of Star Wars, and combat within it, IS different. Also, GB existing hardly makes EAW less unique. Did they stop making Star Wars games after the original on the NES? Did people say to the newer Star Wars games "What the heck? They already made a Star Wars game. Now it's not cool." "It's not different, it's SW." SW IS different. I'll give you that it's not terribly different, but it is! And, it's still awesome. Space combat, flashy trailers and cool characters, vehicles and the death star is what they are relying on to get consumers to buy it. I hope they offer more then what they have because I have been waiting for this for about 3 years. I hope they have more, too. Because I'd like a really good game. But think about this: Worst case scenario: It's a pretty mediocre title, but still looks nice and is Star Wars. Best case scenario: It's an awesome game, one of the best RTS on the marktet, PLUS it's Star Wars. Also, what reason do we have to beleive that this game will be mediocre? We don't have enough information to make any judgements on gameplay. You're losing faith in the game for no apparent reason. Finally, I'd like to ask you why you've been waiting three years for this game. There are plenty of other RTS games out there, some of them probably satisfy everything you think belongs in an RTS. You obviously don't expect it to be exceptional, or beyond anything else other games have to offer. So why hang in anticipation for this one? Could it be that it's because it's Star Wars? Could it be that maybe the reason you anticipate this title is because it's Star Wars and you just really want to play a good SW RTS? If so, then there you have it. Star Wars makes this game worth wanting. We all hope it will be a great RTS. But I can garuntee you it will be better than GB and Force Commander combined, and both of those games were worth playing, so how bad can it honestly be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted July 24, 2005 Author Share Posted July 24, 2005 First of all, duh. MMO's rely less on story because it's impossible to have one, and they dont' need one. What does that have to do with anything? I never said that MMO's sucked for not having plots. Second, the previous poster is right, SP RPGs do depend more on other aspects too. SWG had a plot but then they really went away from it. Like putting in a story driven quest that then effected what happens next in the overall story of the galaxy so its not impossible. Out of interest how many MMO's have you played the pay for play ones. My claim was that a game doesn't need good Multiplayer to still be good. Jedi Outcast was a game that would have still had a good SP whether it had MP or not. How can I not use it to back up my claim, which fundamentally had no specific ties to RTS games? I've played JO2 AND JA I played them once and was over it tried playing online but me and FPS don't mix. Once again, what's your point? Yeah, I played online a few times and found that no one who plays online plays at the pace I enjoy, and are always in a rush to win, and obviously I got my ass kicked. And I didn't find it fun. I don't want to play at the speed people online do, and I don't want to play against someone who who seems to be far more concerned with winning than anything else, because that's not fun. Maybe I was wrong in detecting that bit of contempt in what you wrote, but criticize people who don't play online all you want, because it's your fault. My point was you don't care if the online side is good or bad because as you said you don't like getting rushed or learning how to play at an efficient level. It sucks when you are a noob but once you hit the expert high inter levels its alot of fun win or lose. People get annoyed because you sound like the type of person that just wants to sit there for 2 hours mass an army and the biggest side wins. Stick to scenarios you'll be happier and they take 2 days to learn. Okay, I edited your paragraph to say what I think you meant to say. Star Wars is different. In the big picture, it's not incredibly different from the world we live in, but what is? But the universe of Star Wars, and combat within it, IS different. Saying its SW is nothing new we all know what SW is. I'm talking gameplay wise and It's Star Wars!!! is in the same league as Ohhhhhhh we have a Death Star!!! I hope they have more, too. Because I'd like a really good game. But think about this: Worst case scenario: It's a pretty mediocre title, but still looks nice and is Star Wars. Best case scenario: It's an awesome game, one of the best RTS on the marktet, PLUS it's Star Wars. Worse case: Game is unbalanced, online interface is poor, the graphics are so high it causes major lag when in big battles. Best case: Nice well rounded game supporting hardcore and casual gamers. Finally, I'd like to ask you why you've been waiting three years for this game. There are plenty of other RTS games out there, some of them probably satisfy everything you think belongs in an RTS. You obviously don't expect it to be exceptional, or beyond anything else other games have to offer. So why hang in anticipation for this one? Could it be that it's because it's Star Wars? Could it be that maybe the reason you anticipate this title is because it's Star Wars and you just really want to play a good SW RTS? GB was my first RTS that I really got into I never got into AOE series so this was different pace. I like SW games but I don't want them to just rely on the brand name to get people buying it. Thats what EA is good at just check at how many games they make about movies Spider-man the game Batmna the game and many more. I bought BFME expecting a different style but it was a failure mostly on EA's side where it took them ages to patch and it is unbalanced even SP sucked. No RTS has interest me since GB. I play WC3 time to time but there online community is the worst I have ever seen. EVER!! I might get AOE3 while waiting but I'm a very fussy RTS player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Finally, I'd like to ask you why you've been waiting three years for this game. There are plenty of other RTS games out there, some of them probably satisfy everything you think belongs in an RTS. You obviously don't expect it to be exceptional, or beyond anything else other games have to offer. So why hang in anticipation for this one? Could it be that it's because it's Star Wars? "Hang in anticipation"? You make it sound like I haven't bought a single game since Empire at War was announced. On the contrary, I bought Battlefield 2 only yesterday and Silent Hunter III a few months ago. I'm also addicted to Empires. Could it be that maybe the reason you anticipate this title is because it's Star Wars and you just really want to play a good SW RTS? Quite possibly. Force Commander failed for a lot of reasons, Galactic Battleground was good, but not great, and Rebellion... I might buy it if I see it someplace, but from what I hear it's tedious and pretty much a poor game. So yes, I want a good Star Wars RTS experience. I've got X-Wing Alliance, TIE fighter, and Galactic Conquest, but I want an RTS game, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted July 27, 2005 Author Share Posted July 27, 2005 BFME 2 has been announced here is a link. Looks like they have learned there lesson and are going back to the old style which is nice. Not sure what timeframe it will be in but before the ring is destroyed I'm guessing . Info http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=26915&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 Screens http://www.hdr-inside.de/gal_details.php?go=kategorie&kat=1277 I guess they were disappointed with BFME so they wanted to give themselves a better image. Still annoyed because they have ditched BFME and moved onto this project which is probably part of the reason why it failed. Back to E@W I have been playing other games WoW and recently Sims 2 the last RTS was BFME but this is the one I've been waiting for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBop Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 I'm cautious about BFME2. The videos of the fortress construction (yes they ditched the pre set plot idea! Free placemnt!) and battles look good but that means nothing. And yes it is set during the War of the Ring. It deals with the war in the north between the orcs/goblins and the elves and dwarves. Eluded to in the books, but never described in much detail. Here's hoping for a skybox. Until then I'll just wait for the Fourth Age modification for Rome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE VIGILANTE Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 ^^^^ Why does everyone hate BfME so much? Anyways, it's nice to see naval battle in there as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted July 28, 2005 Author Share Posted July 28, 2005 Not so sure bout these custom heroes being playable online 6 sides and all those abilities to balance doesn't look like a light is anywhere to be seen with a successful RTS coming from EA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 To answer the original question, ground based RTS a la AoE fused with a space RTS a la Homeworld. As I type this, rumour has it that Age Of Empires might be going online like Galaxies. Its been confirmed that it is not an Age game, but some other new franchise. Although AoE3 is a MMORTS of sorts. 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. Really? I thought it was because it improved on AoK's already great gameplay in nearly every catergory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 Pfft I doubt any RTS has over a million players at launch. I find the AOK engine outdated, but its probably still the best overall one out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.