lukeiamyourdad Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Star Wars has been around alot longer then AOE and if E@W is basing all there sales towards Star Wars fans and not appealing to RTS players then this game will crash faster then Windu's discussion points. Your point is? It might die fast, but will be good for as long as it lasts. RTS players are not as numerous as Star Wars fans. God, what would LucasArt's head of marketing do?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Make it good.... make it strategic....make it a good RTS. And if an RTS dies fast its not good if it lasts for a few years thats how it should be not sum up its life-span in 3 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 I don't think you grasp any kind of marketing knowledge. Look at the waves of people wanting to get Battlefront 2 even after the short-lived game that was Battlefront 1. LucasArts marketing knows these things. They're going to make it live 3 months. Then comes an ex-pac and after that a sequel (or prequel). They're smart. I'm not being supportive of these methods, I'm being realistic. This is how it works today and you'll have to deal with it. Marketing folks realized that making a game that lasted a long time didn't bring as much money as spamming many games. Deal with it, there's no reason to whine. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garbageben Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Yeah I agree with you. EA with Battlefield 2 is an example. They are already releasing the Special Forces expansion 5 months after they released the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pho3nix Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 I put my vote on Empire at War and Age of Empires III. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 They have to release expansion after expansion to keep making money thats still doesn't define it as a good RTS. I'd rather buy 1 good quality game then buy 1 that has been rushed and is only worth a week of entertainment then they try to get you to buy there expansions sorry but thats not going to happen. Hey without me arguing with you all this would be one boring forum. Lets all be happy and bored.... Hmmm Quality>quantity the game sites all know how to weed them out thats why its a huge phase in the first few months of release and then bammm ummmm what was the name of that game again? Take MMO's for an example... World of Warcraft was released almost coming up to a year of its release nothing has really changed in the game the patches are slow but filled with a new dungeon or battleground to explore. Why is it so popular the quality content is there thats why. Game sites still review them they have an expansion in the works due for late release next year. They don't need to push out expansion after expansion to keep the game alive. It is still currently the best MMORPG out there and I think noone is even going to come close to it. Updates are slow but filled with great content and its great to see someone finally getting it right. Now take SWG was a great phase I bought it a few months after release then the community started to realise that the game lacked alot in alot of different areas. The game was being patched alot faster then WoW like 2 patches a month full of crap. Then they added in Jedi (game killer) that annoyed and saw the community change. Now they rely on expansions space was released big thing for about 2 weeks people got bored of that landed there ships and never flew again. Wookiee were added around the time of Episode 3 release trying to keep there dying community alive adding in quests and episode 3 content. Now they are trying a pathetic gimic of Obi-Wan trials. I bet they are marketing there next expansion as we speak just to keep it going. I'll say it again Quality>Quantity Lets hope E@W has the quality to back up the quantity they are going to sell to star wars fans, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 SWG is by far the crappiest Star Wars game so far, filled with bugs and continuity problems (mainly Jedi). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Quality>quantity the game sites all know how to weed them out thats why its a huge phase in the first few months of release and then bammm ummmm what was the name of that game again? Did I ever say that I support the spamming of games? No. I simply realize that marketing says so and it has become one of the realities of the gaming world and neither you, nor I, can do anything about it. I still remember the 90's when games could last you a few years. It isn't the case anymore and the marketing department of every gaming company knows that. Take MMO's for an example... World of Warcraft was released almost coming up to a year of its release nothing has really changed in the game the patches are slow but filled with a new dungeon or battleground to explore. Why is it so popular the quality content is there thats why. Game sites still review them they have an expansion in the works due for late release next year. They don't need to push out expansion after expansion to keep the game alive. It is still currently the best MMORPG out there and I think noone is even going to come close to it. Updates are slow but filled with great content and its great to see someone finally getting it right. Now take SWG was a great phase I bought it a few months after release then the community started to realise that the game lacked alot in alot of different areas. The game was being patched alot faster then WoW like 2 patches a month full of crap. Then they added in Jedi (game killer) that annoyed and saw the community change. Now they rely on expansions space was released big thing for about 2 weeks people got bored of that landed there ships and never flew again. Wookiee were added around the time of Episode 3 release trying to keep there dying community alive adding in quests and episode 3 content. Now they are trying a pathetic gimic of Obi-Wan trials. I bet they are marketing there next expansion as we speak just to keep it going. MMOs are different from RTS. They are normally supposed to last a long time since you happen to pay-to-play a fee every month. Thus, making an MMO last only a few months is quite stupid. Frankly, you cannot compare the same model with other games that only make money on the sale of the code in order to play. Also, SWG died because it did not reach anyone's expectations. The game was way overhyped and when the result was less then average, people quickly threw it out while LA marketing and SOE tried to spam expansions in order to boost it up. It's more the result of bad marketing decisions then anything. You'll note that the Jedi were part of these bad decisions, as it used to be too hard to become one, no one was a Jedi. People whined. Then Jedi were given. People whined about too many Jedi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 BF2 is nothing like an RTS but you still used it to back your claims up. Did I say you did support that type of marketing? No. Also, SWG died because it did not reach anyone's expectations. The game was way overhyped and when the result was less then average, people quickly threw it out while LA marketing and SOE tried to spam expansions in order to boost it up. It's more the result of bad marketing decisions then anything. You'll note that the Jedi were part of these bad decisions, as it used to be too hard to become one, no one was a Jedi. People whined. Then Jedi were given. People whined about too many Jedi. E@W could fit right into this catergory if the current trends continue. It is being overhyped and I have a feeling it will be a flop even though I don't want that to happen. Sales will be great but in 3 months of release we will just be hanging on for the next SW RTS to come out. It was more than just Jedi that killed this game the overall state of the game before Jedi was just as bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 BF2 is nothing like an RTS but you still used it to back your claims up. Does BF2 require a monthly fee? No. Does BF2 make money after the sale of the core game code in order to play? No. Who ever said anything about gameplay anyway? We're talking about how they make money. Did I say you did support that type of marketing? No. You argued about this, which I said I agreed that quality was more important then quantity. Thus, if it wasn't used as a counter-argument, then that part about quality and quantity in your post was vastly irrelevent. E@W could fit right into this catergory if the current trends continue. It is being overhyped and I have a feeling it will be a flop even though I don't want that to happen. Sales will be great but in 3 months of release we will just be hanging on for the next SW RTS to come out. Absolutely not. The RTS genre still has its niche market, no matter the success of the recent DoW and R:TW. E@W gets nearly no hype compared to SWBF2 or even the next SWG expansion. Even AoE3 is more overhyped then E@W. This simply cannot be compared with the hype surrounding SWG. SWG had legions waiting for it to come out. E@W has a handful of people compared to that. It was more than just Jedi that killed this game the overall state of the game before Jedi was just as bad. I don't doubt it, though it still is partly because of the expectations of gamers everywhere. Even casual gamers were interested in SWG, which was rare during that period since MMO's had a bad reputation. When casual gamers came in a realized what an MMO was, they quickly went away. As opposed to WoW, SWG was still aimed at the MMO audience (and indirectly the SW audience). On the other hand, WoW was aimed at everyone. The game is accessible for everyone from the most hardcore MMO player to the MMO newbie. That's its beauty, one that SWG didn't have, a vision that they didn't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jokemaster Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Civ IV, and Ceasar aren't RTSs, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 I guess it should have been "Which Strategy Game" then. You're right though, they aren't exactly RTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jokemaster Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 B+W 2 is a bit of a stretch too, but it does have more RTS elements than civ so I'll let it go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 AOE3 gets more hype because its earlier titles were more successful then the SW ones. I've played R:TW and did not enjoy its engine or gameplay at all. Guess I'd rather have strategic battles and not a large scale assult. SOE is the worst MMO company out there LA was stupid to team with them. Now that the new kid on the block "Blizzard" has come along and blown away all of there titles even the recent EQ2. They need to step it up or step out. Its unfortunate that this is the way most games are marketed these days but with them releasing a demo there still might be some light at the end of the tunnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 I've played R:TW and did not enjoy its engine or gameplay at all. Guess I'd rather have strategic battles and not a large scale assult. Because you don't use strategy in R:TW? It's the only game that allows a smaller force to defeat a much larger one with almost strategy alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 I don't care if one guy can solo whole armies with strategy the game did not interest me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 There's a difference between disliking a game and making fallacious claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 I can't dislike something? Or does everything have to be one big statement with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jokemaster Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 He means that you acted as if though that game had no strategies, when in fact it's one of the few games that does allow you to win a straight battle with a much smaller army as long as you have a better strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 For the purpose of demonstration, I'm going to separate this quote in two parts. First part: I've played R:TW and did not enjoy its engine or gameplay at all. Which is all fine and nobody cares. Second part: Guess I'd rather have strategic battles and not a large scale assult. Which is a false statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 False statement according to you... and noone cares whether you think its false or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 It's not what I think, it's what it truly is. Not only according to me, but according to many. A game that allows you to defeat a larger army using strategy is indeed a game with strategy well implemented. IGN considers it the best representation of warfare yet. You claiming that the game only rewards brute strength and numbers over strategy is therefore a false statement. See, if you had not added that last part, there wouldn't even be a problem. It equals to uninformed bashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popcorn2008 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Even games that must be won with large scale assault vs. large scale assault have strategy. So games that allow a small force to overcome a big force must have quite a bit of strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I've already stated I did not enjoy the game I think a full page of comments over it is efficient enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Alright, let's just get over this and agree that FroZ didn't like it and Luke did, and get on with our lifes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.