Guest DarthMaulUK Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Prior to the launch of Lucasarts' successful Empire at War, most gaming sites were throwing EaW into the arena against EA's Battle for Middle Earth 2. EaW also crushed BFME 2 in a recent poll and with just over 2 weeks between them in release dates, popular gaming site Gamespot has given EaW the thumbs up over BFME 2 in their recent review of EAs second coming. Empire at War scored a healthy 8.7 in their review whilst Tolkiens world scored a respectable 8.3. IGN seem to be the only site giving BFME 2 a higher score - but what do they know about computer games? Tell us your thoughts and have you played both games? Which do you think is more fun and enjoyable to play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foshjedi2004 Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 EAW...EAW...EAW...EAW Better Battles IMO. Faster pace. The Only thing BFME has over EAW is Custom Characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwps Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I have both games but i have not played bfm so much but it is fun but it has long load time. Eaw is the better game if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkodeon Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I don't think you can actually compare them; for now, it's like comparing Battlefield 2 to Battlefront 2, two very different styles of FPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athanasios Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I think they are comparatable in any way; they're both RTS, they're both inspired from some futuristic worlds, they're both released the same period, in one side you see lasers, in the other your see magic bolts and arrows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gswift Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I don't have BFME, but since I love EaW, and people are comparing the two of them so much, I think I'll buy BFME this weekend. If there are very many people who share my feelings, then sales for both games may be increasing because of the 'competition' between them. I probably wouldn't care much about BFME, or even think about buying it if I hadn't seen so much about it on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wuyanxu Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I think they are comparatable in any way; they're both RTS, they're both inspired from some futuristic worlds, they're both released the same period, in one side you see lasers, in the other your see magic bolts and arrows. not only that, for EaW, you get both ground and space plus a sort of Civ-like strategy game, so EaW is 3 in 1 whereas BFME2 is only one single game with old fasioned arrows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I'm both a dedicated SW and Tolkien/LotR fan, and I went for EaW for a single reason : I felt (and still feel) horribly ripped-off after buying the first BfME. After seeing screenshots and videos on the net, I was really excited and bought the game when came out. As soon as I started playing, I just felt that something was wrong. I was extremely disappointed by that game, and I'm sure that many people think that way too; that would explain why EaW seems to be in advance. That being said, BfME2 *looks* way better than the first one (and my cousin, who bought it, told me it was extremely great). I might buy it eventually, but if the two games had come out the same day, I would have picked EaW without hesitation. not only that, for EaW, you get both ground and space plus a sort of Civ-like strategy game, so EaW is 3 in 1 whereas BFME2 is only one single game with old fasioned arrows BfME2 also has a risk-like mode called War of the Ring. From what I have heard, it's not that great. You can only build 4 types of buildings, and you don't keep your whole army and base after attacking or defending a territory. The only feature that looks interesting to me is the create-a-hero system. GameSpot said it was lame though, and I found that I tend to agree with gamespot reviewers more than anyone else, so I lost interest in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiralarchitech Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Played both, BFME2 is only for fans of the first and its basically BFME1 the multiplayer edition as this is what it is aimed at imo. But i would pick EAW over BFME2 as i find the single player campaigns more fun and more variety (someone mentioned space and land in another post vs just land) Now multiplayer, i feel that petroglyph have done a fantastic job balancing the sides i really feel the 2 are pretty much equal and coming up to a full month since release neither side is the 1337 side. BFME2 multiplayer is more traditional to the RTS genre as already people are developing near unbeatable rushes which will in turn lead to people crying about unbalanced sides and there will be a patch or 2 (a few) to try and improve balance. If your the sort of gamer that likes to try out the latest uber rush on new players in your 'NOOBS ONLY' game you'll be right at home with BFME2. Myself i like fun games not competitive games though EAW has an excellent multiplayer game i enjoy it more than i do BFME2's or my old favourite c&c generals as these games are really 'you either win or lose in the first 3 minutes' type of games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Now multiplayer, i feel that petroglyph have done a fantastic job balancing the sides i really feel the 2 are pretty much equal and coming up to a full month since release neither side is the 1337 side. If they couldn't balance two sides, they would be in trouble as a company. BFME2 multiplayer is more traditional to the RTS genre as already people are developing near unbeatable rushes which will in turn lead to people crying about unbalanced sides and there will be a patch or 2 (a few) to try and improve balance. You are absolutely right. The problem with EA is that they will only release one or two patches. Actually, LucasArts will probably not realese more than this either. LA obviously knows this, since they went for two sides (really, it would not have been hard for them to include the reps and seps; the hard part is the balance). EA does not, and gamers will be mad at them eventually, as always. Then they will come up with a new game and people will forget everything and say "I love EA!". [[This is, by the way, what happened to BfME1]] This is also kown as "using the most successful movie franchise as a cash cow". Now, I'll take my traditional "Blizzard fan-boy attitude" : That's the difference between companies like EA and Blizzard. EA makes cash cows over and over again, while Blizzard actually gives a damn great support to their games, and in turn get huge sales. The difference between EA and LA is that LA cannot produce as many cash cows as EA in the same amount of time (though LA also has better support than EA, to be honest). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athanasios Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Now, I'll take my traditional "Blizzard fan-boy attitude" : That's the difference between companies like EA and Blizzard. EA makes cash cows over and over again, while Blizzard actually gives a damn great support to their games, and in turn get huge sales. The difference between EA and LA is that LA cannot produce as many cash cows as EA in the same amount of time (though LA also has better support than EA, to be honest). The outcome of both tactics? A simple marketting law states: "When 1 customer is satisfied, he can influence 5 other customers (to buy the product/ create a good image of a company). When 1 customer is dissatisfied, he can influence 20 other customers (no to buy the product/ create a bad image of a company)" Deductions are yours... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiralarchitech Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 With good p.r . and a load of spamable licences (sims/fifa) You can become a giant in the game industry and make millions. With a good idea for a game and dedication to make it a reality. You can become legendary. I know which one i would choose, because i ain't a greedy b*****d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Obi-Wan Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Ummm....since I am a few of those people who actually enjoy and have BFME II... Okay, I enjoy both games. I have played both games quite frequently. Though, I play BFME II more often. Mainly because I was released just under a week ago. BFME II has some neat, new modes that are quite fun. Both campaigns are awesome too. I think that online is better in BFME II than in EaW. Though, the custom hero option is rather dissappointing. But, I honestly like BFME II more than EaW. I find BFME II harder than EaW, though EaW's campaign is longer, which I like. BFME II>EaW IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Looks like EA is trying to get BFME II back on track by bribing people: http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=10766 In you want to read the review the same guy gave for EAW: http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=10755 His review for BFME II can be summarized in a few words:"Buy BFMEII, not E@W" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Ironically, I haven't played the EaW game, only the demo, and I haven't played BFMEII. But from what I can tell, EaW has better features and more original ideas. Though BFMEII has looked more enticing to me recently for some reason, I'm definitely going through EaW before I get the other game. The only major problem I hear with EaW is the maps aren't big enough, but I'll deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmaster3265 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Looks like EA is trying to get BFME II back on track by bribing people: http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=10766 In you want to read the review the same guy gave for EAW: http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=10755 His review for BFME II can be summarized in a few words:"Buy BFMEII, not E@W" *sigh* Just drop the BFMEII issuie before this topic starts becoming if it hasn't already a flame topic..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 It's not a flaming topic and I wasn't flaming BFMEII, I was flaming a strange review that had a strange message in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmaster3265 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 It's not a flaming topic and I wasn't flaming BFMEII, I was flaming a strange review that had a strange message in it. Well yeah but come on you and i both know you dislike BFMEII as well as a few other people on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 True, but nowhere did I actually say anything about BFMEII being better or worse then E@W in this thread. I would've pointed the thing out even if the roles had been inversed in those reviews. Now, let's get this thread back on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dede_frost Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I'm gonna have to hand it out to hand it out to BFME 2 this time. I have to agree with that review... E@W just dosen't get me that exited. I mean, every single mission plays out the same way: "Yes, we got the middle, lets get to tech 5 and get those cap ships goin!!!" "Yes, his station is almost down!!" "Oh no!!! He sent 10 maurader cruisers to our base and is kickin our asses..." E@W just dosen't get me wanting to play it. I mean, I've had the game since it came out, and now I got so tired of it I'm actually having more fun playing the BFME 2 demo (no, I don't have the game yet, but I'm going to buy it tomorrow !!!). I think it really come down to the fact that E@W is more of a generic type of RTS, like you don't have that much strategy involved, you basicaly try and figure out what you enemy is making, and pump out LOTS of counters for that unit, not to mention that it kind of lacks micro management, which takes away from the multy player aspect. But BFME 2 has lots more strategy invloved: hiding your units in the trees (that really helps out), flanking, controling a larger part of the map so you can make more efficient resource structures... it all adds up to make (the first, IMO) hardcore strategy game that can also be played by the average person (not the Rebelin style, which drove me just crazy!!!!). Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed E@W, its just that I think its just the same old thing over and over again - no variation between 1 misson and another, so I just got bored of it fast, faster than I ever got bored of any other RTS. Just 1 thing, I don't want to flame E@W and start a discussion, that's just my oppinion there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiralarchitech Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 At the end of the day both good games, but it comes down to this Do you like STARWARS or LORD OF THE RINGS? No point in discussing which is better both have there good points and bad as every one has there own opinion. The sith rules (get it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I have to agree with dede_frost on certain points. I personally hate the counter units system. It's way too extreme and makes some parts of the game quite frustrating. I think EaW would gain a lot if it took more aspects from Rebellion. Not just the diplomacy; all the espionage and sabotage missions you could do really made the game more interesting. Given how "light" both space and ground battles are in this game, I think it just needs more "oomph" to keep people interested. Reading through the reviews from boomtown posted by Luke, I found some interesting passages : it’s lacking the epic scale of the movies I think the guy is kind of right here. The units limit in space battles is too low and the maps are too small to create epic space battles. Despite the terribly unconvincing Darth Vader voice I thought that Vader's voice was actually quite good. Katarn's is horrible though. Why couldn't they get Jeff Bennett, or even Jason Court, to do the voice? even the largest of battles feel like minor skirmishes compared to actions we’ve seen in the films such as the Battle of Endor or the Hoth. Ground Battle of Endor was large? No way. Hoth wasn't that big either. There were like 4 or 5 AT-ATs, a bunch of snowspeeders and a few rebel soldiers. Most battles in the OT are small skirmishes. It's nothing like the Clone Wars. Unlike the Star Wars game though, both campaigns offer instant appeal because the good guys in LOTR have plenty of cool toys too. Proof that the reviewer is a 12 years old kid who doesn't quite understand how X-Wings are cool. You can’t build as many structures as you like on the strategic map – meaning you have to plan more carefully Oooh! I have four structures to choose from! Too.... many.. choices... The best approach I found was to build resource gathering structures in the lands far from the frontline, meanwhile the cutting edge of the conflict would be where troops and forts would be constructed. Everyone right that down! He's a brain on two legs, the absolute mastermind of strategy games : the Darth Revan of PC gaming. What of the battles themselves? I’m happy to report they a whole order of magnitude more interesting that those in Empire at War. You can partly put this down to a greater variety in weaponry and weaponry created for a tactical reason rather than to look cool in a George Lucas movie. I didn't quite understood that part. Unless I'm mistaking (and I could very well be), the guy says that the battles in BfME2 are better because the units you create serve a strategic purpose instead of looking cool. Well, I think an X-Wing looks both cool and is a great fighter against Imperial TIEs. I think a Star Destroyer looks cool and has enough turbolasers to justify its use against Rebel ships! You're right Luke, the guy was paid. That or he is a SW-hater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 My goal was not exactly to bash him because he didn't like E@W that much, but rather how he simply compares two games currently competing against each other. Had he made the same comments about epicness and variety against what we can consider a benchmark like R:TW or Warhammer: 40K, it would have been fine and a truly objective review. Both BFMEII and E@W are currently in direct competition. A review that compares both at this point from a generally good site is simply unprofessional IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonepadawan Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 whilst Tolkiens world Please don't say BFMEII is Tolkien's world. It's EA's horrible cliche fantasy world. It's about as far removed from Tolkien and the movies as you can get. And that guy says that EaW lacks the epic scale of the movies.. look at BFMEII... Battle of Pelenor in the films... 6000 riders charge 200 000 orcs... BFME II ... 40 riders charge 200 orcs. What an idiot. Once again I state EA is killing the LOTR license. They only care about money. Petroglyph actually seem to care about the license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Obi-Wan Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Please don't say BFMEII is Tolkien's world. It's EA's horrible cliche fantasy world. It's about as far removed from Tolkien and the movies as you can get. Well, it's not based on the movies and also it's pretty close on the scale of Tolkien's world. But, also games aren't specificallu supposed to follow the exact guidlines from the books. Look at EaW. And that guy says that EaW lacks the epic scale of the movies.. look at BFMEII... Battle of Pelenor in the films... 6000 riders charge 200 000 orcs... BFME II ... 40 riders charge 200 orcs. What an idiot. Okay...can you honestly fit 200 000 orcs on the screen. That lag was be horrible. Now, they increased the size of the units you get in one group, plus the command limit can go much higher than in BFME II. Once again I state EA is killing the LOTR license. They only care about money. Petroglyph actually seem to care about the license. Of course they care about the money. Well, if they are killing the LOTR license, why are they making money of it. Plus they did a great job. IMO. They improved the game ten-fold. btw, did you even try the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.