Was it really a battle?

[Tom Servo]

I have both games and in my opinion i like bfme2 as a hardcore generic rts and i spend most of time online having a lot of fun.

However eaw is so simple and fun that i can just pop in to play a campaign for a couple of minutes if im bored and the next thing you know its 3am. Both games are great.

Oh and if you are comparing developers i think they both care about their games. However as far as publishers go, EA is hands-down the worst thing to happen to pc gaming ever.

[Spiralarchitech]

Ever since i saw this i look at lord of the rings stuff differently, warning may cause distress.

 

http://www.fazed.org/video/view/?id=75

 

I think BFME1 was better than BFME2, anyone else feel the same?

[lonepadawan]

Well, it's not based on the movies and also it's pretty close on the scale of Tolkien's world

 

If you think that, you've clearly never read the books. Goblins riding spiders? Dinosaurs? Goblins in gold armour and lightsabres? And for your information they DO still have the film license. They just use the book license to be lazy! Means they no longer have to follow the high quality film art and design and come up with their own crappy design. Big chunky dwarves with big chunky weapons, Glorfindel being some random elf with silver hair despite the fact his damn NAME means Golden-haired, in an abandoned piece of goblin armour concept art, which was abandoned because it was impossible for a human to get into!

 

Not to mention the dragons, sandworms which breathe fire and the big fat, bald and ginger Gloin (EA said in one of their unit rollouts they based Gloin on the movie Gloin. This is utterly hilarious seeing as how Gloin in the movie is a venerable white haired dwarf wearing some fairly nice scale mail) Of course some of this is just art design. But the inconsistencies from the book are pretty bad too. Of course EA just say "well we wanted cool units" Of course this is the only way for them to make this dull game interesting. Middle Earth isn't suited to be C&C

 

btw, did you even try the game?

 

For your information, as part of T3A the main BFME modding site and head modeler of the Rhovanion Alliance, I was offered a "beta" along with other members of the inner chamber.. when it turned out to be just a demo with 2 sides (which everyone who pre-ordered the game would also get, and the general public would get the same thing, minus multiplayer) I declined. Playing it, all my expectations were confirmed. It's a total joke of a strategy game. You can sort of tell that by the way they advertised "build anywhere" as a feature.. (personally I PREFERED plots).. orcs can chop my walls down with swords? No point in fortress upgrades or static defenses, a single squad of unupgraded archers can in general tear them down in seconds. Walls included.

Resource collection system was poorly implemented - you have to spend too much time microing your base building. IF the whole point of "territory for resources" was wanted, they should make it so that you don't need a building to annex territory. AI is absolutely STUPID. All you have to do to beat the hardest difficulty is to build a resource building behind your army. Then they'll throw themselves mindlessly at it, while something like elven laser-archers mow them down.

Unit counters are too "hard" - ie 1 unit archers vs 1 unit pikes is instant death. No time to tell them to flee, no time to bring in counters, no time to even go "Where did my army go?". I'd like to have a few seconds to respond to new threats.

As others have said, online, most of the new features are unused. Fire? who has time to set a fire trap if you're busy microing your army so it won't die in seconds? Create your landmark fortress? Pfft. Naval? No maps need it at all. Most online games (that I played) lasted around2 minutes... ie the time needed to run a couple unts of the faction's best unit to your structures.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Not 200,000. But the LOTR mod for Rome:TW can fit quite a few units onscreen, and has better skins and models than EA! (And having worked with EA's stuff for a year, I do know what I'm talking about) And the increased horde sizes looked ugly, and I can increase pop count through an INI change in 5 seconds.

 

EaW all the way.

[Commander Obi-Wan]

If you think that, you've clearly never read the books. Goblins riding spiders? Dinosaurs? Goblins in gold armour and lightsabres? And for your information they DO still have the film license. They just use the book license to be lazy! Means they no longer have to follow the high quality film art and design and come up with their own crappy design. Big chunky dwarves with big chunky weapons, Glorfindel being some random elf with silver hair despite the fact his damn NAME means Golden-haired, in an abandoned piece of goblin armour concept art, which was abandoned because it was impossible for a human to get into!

 

Firstly, Games > Realism, video games are rarely realistic. Plus,dinosaurs? lightsabers? What the **** are you talking about.

 

You can upgrade your units to make them stronger. What's wrong with that. Plus, like I said earlier, games are rarely exactly what they are posed as in the books/movies. If it was, It would quite boring. A little twist in the game doesn't hurt.

 

Not to mention the dragons, sandworms which breathe fire and the big fat, bald and ginger Gloin (EA said in one of their unit rollouts they based Gloin on the movie Gloin. This is utterly hilarious seeing as how Gloin in the movie is a venerable white haired dwarf wearing some fairly nice scale mail) Of course some of this is just art design. But the inconsistencies from the book are pretty bad too. Of course EA just say "well we wanted cool units" Of course this is the only way for them to make this dull game interesting. Middle Earth isn't suited to be C&C

 

Still, like it said earlier, it's just a game. They don't have to be exact models.

 

 

You can sort of tell that by the way they advertised "build anywhere" as a feature.. (personally I PREFERED plots).. orcs can chop my walls down with swords? No point in fortress upgrades or static defenses, a single squad of unupgraded archers can in general tear them down in seconds. Walls included.

Resource collection system was poorly implemented - you have to spend too much time microing your base building. IF the whole point of "territory for resources" was wanted, they should make it so that you don't need a building to annex territory. AI is absolutely STUPID. All you have to do to beat the hardest difficulty is to build a resource building behind your army. Then they'll throw themselves mindlessly at it, while something like elven laser-archers mow them down.

Unit counters are too "hard" - ie 1 unit archers vs 1 unit pikes is instant death. No time to tell them to flee, no time to bring in counters, no time to even go "Where did my army go?". I'd like to have a few seconds to respond to new threats.

As others have said, online, most of the new features are unused. Fire? who has time to set a fire trap if you're busy microing your army so it won't die in seconds? Create your landmark fortress? Pfft. Naval? No maps need it at all. Most online games (that I played) lasted around2 minutes... ie the time needed to run a couple unts of the faction's best unit to your structures.

 

Eh, would you rather have a simple base set up for you. Or would you like to create your own. I certainly would. The resource collecting system is rather fine. It take about 10 second to build up to farms. Not a whole battle. I can build my base in 15 minutes. And be ready for assualt.

 

 

Not 200,000. But the LOTR mod for Rome:TW can fit quite a few units onscreen, and has better skins and models than EA! (And having worked with EA's stuff for a year, I do know what I'm talking about) And the increased horde sizes looked ugly, and I can increase pop count through an INI change in 5 seconds.

 

EaW all the way.

 

IN BFME II, you can fit quite a bit units on the screen, more than EaW at least.

 

Meh, you're entitled to your opinion, and as am I.

 

BFME II > E@W

[†Saint_Killa†]

If BFME just had a little resemblence to R:TW battles I would go all the way but they had to do it small scale. BUMMER.....

 

So I have to go to E@W.

[dede_frost]

omg... here I go again...

 

First of all, lonepadawan, I would be a litle more carefull when expressing my opinion so the mods don't lock this thread, just something to think about.

 

Now, onto my ncontinuous rambling...

 

In BFME, you can made a poit that some features go un-used (fires, flanking, high-ground av, etc), but I can't seem to think that your point is noobish. Things like fires and stuff aren't meant to be used in large battles, but to take out sections of the enemie's army (small military raids, if you will), and if you can't incorporate that into normal play, then I'm very sory, but u need to work on your micro a bit. Flanking is already used by most hardcore RTS players, even if you don't have a bonus, I really think this bonus added a whole new level of gameplay to the game. There are many other features and many other reasonings, and I don't have time to type all of them down.

 

Again, I go back to my first post: E@W is a good distraction to play once in a while, but the thing is it just dosen't have that many interesting features, the consequence is that you can experience the entire game in 1 day, aand then just get bored away (IMO)... In BFME is a RTS that can get u playin it for weeks straight and still have fun with it. I experimented some on-line play and found that the key thing that will keep the game above E@W for replayability value is the great difference in the maps. I foun that things like the assault on Helms Deep and Minas Tirith are unbeleavebly well balanced because of the automatic resource bonusses, and the great high-ground advantages.

 

Well, as I said, I like E@W too, but it just dosen't keep me playing for that long, while BFME2 does...

[lonepadawan]

Still, like it said earlier, it's just a game. They don't have to be exact models.

 

So if say a minor character like Veers, was completely reinvented into a ninja AT-ST driver, you'd be happy with that? Or if they took away Boba Fett's armour and gave him a lightsabre? Plus EA actually said they based Gloin totally on the movie. Actually SAID that.. this is somthing called lying children, and is generally frowned upon in polite society.

 

Oh and if you ask me if I could do better art than EA then I'd answer, yes I can. I totally can.

 

Firstly, Games > Realism, video games are rarely realistic. Plus,dinosaurs? lightsabers? What the **** are you talking about.

 

Seen forged blades? Seen the "mountain giants"?

 

Eh, would you rather have a simple base set up for you. Or would you like to create your own. I certainly would. The resource collecting system is rather fine. It take about 10 second to build up to farms. Not a whole battle. I can build my base in 15 minutes. And be ready for assualt.

 

Doesn't alter the fact that you can take down most buildings in 5 secconds. Which makes the whole "customize your base" thing a little pointless does it not?

 

In BFME, you can made a poit that some features go un-used (fires, flanking, high-ground av, etc), but I can't seem to think that your point is noobish. Things like fires and stuff aren't meant to be used in large battles, but to take out sections of the enemie's army (small military raids, if you will), and if you can't incorporate that into normal play, then I'm very sory, but u need to work on your micro a bit. Flanking is already used by most hardcore RTS players, even if you don't have a bonus, I really think this bonus added a whole new level of gameplay to the game. There are many other features and many other reasonings, and I don't have time to type all of them down.

 

Why bother with raids or flank when an early game rush can win you the game so much more easily?

 

Sorry, but as far as I can see now, BFMEII is just another run of the mill fantasy RTS.

 

finally

 

IGN seem to be the only site giving BFME 2 a higher score - but what do they know about computer games?

 

Notice that IGN was also hosting all the unit rollouts and videos

[DarthMuffin]

IN BFME II, you can fit quite a bit units on the screen, more than EaW at least.

Did you ever notice that none of the OT battles have a large number of troops on both sides? In the OT, it's all about small skirmishes, not huge battles like during the Clone Wars or LotR. Yes, Hoth is quite large. But it's still insignificant next to what you see in TTT and RotK.

 

A LotR game *needs* to allow tons of units on the screen. An OT game doesn't need to allow this to stay movie accurate.

 

I can only agree with you concerning space battles; the number of capital ships is too low to be movie accurate. But ground combat is fine.

 

Bear in mind that I haven't played the full version yet, but what I really hate is that EA chose to do BFME2 instead of fixing their first game. I remember when BFME1 came out last year, people on the forums wanted patches to fix the various bugs and imbalance. Instead of making such patches (or even making an expansion), EA announces a full new game. This really irritated me.

 

I have for my saying that, as long as the core engine is not changed, the next game should be an expansion. Game developpers nowadays tend to think that this is not necessary, and try to fill us with new games at full price. Think about Bfront 1 & 2. Jedi Outcast and Academy. Bfront is notably the perfect example of a company who decides to release a new game instead of fixing the first thing. "Live the Star Wars battles any way you want" and not include space battles? The designers said in an interview concerning BFront 2 that "this is the game we wanted to make in the first place" (or something like that). Well, why didn't you make it like that in the first place? The engine hasn't changed at all, so it's not like you did not have the technical expertise to do it.

[stingerhs]

well, i decided to get BFME II earlier this week, and i have to say that i wasn't impressed. the worst part about the whole deal was that i played BFMEII right after playing E@W. although BFMEII has a number of features that i prefer over E@W, it most definately does not have as much staying power. the game balance isn't nearly as good as E@W, and the AI feels slightly over-aggressive, IMO.

 

after sitting down and thinking about which game is better, E@W is the clear winner for me. i'm a huge fan of both the Middle Earth series and the Star Wars Universe, and i really felt like E@W is much more in line with what i expected from a Star Wars standpoint. BFMEII really missed the mark on a number of points that really aren't in line with what had been established in J.R.R. Tolkien's novels, and that is a turnoff for somebody like me.

 

in short, E@W>BFMEII.

[lonepadawan]

Yeah.. and there is so much reused stuff in BFMEII... I mean Haldir is pretty much just a reskinned elven warrior.. men of Dale are just yeoman archers, Dunedain are blue reskinned Ithilien rangers... the list goes on. (Though the arrow volley thing is quite nice.. as are a few other features of the game)

One of the worst things in the game? Galadriel doing martial arts... oh dear...

 

Anyone looking for epic LOTR battles should check out this mod for Rome:TW. Far more units onscren, proper tactical battles and the units themselves are far higher quality. Oh.. and he's done just as many units as EA. His Sauron is godly, especially compared to EA's.

 

[Commander Obi-Wan]

Meh. **** it. You guys win. But I still stand for my points. I like BFME II a tad bit more. But I still enjoy E@W.

 

Though, when you say about how so much of the units are reused for BFME, I tend to disagree. But, I don't wanna bitch about this topic any more.

[Spiralarchitech]

That rome:tw mod looks quality , might even make me dust of my copy and re-install it.

 

Well after i get bored with EAW.

[jediturkey]

RTS's:

 

Petroglyph > *

 

[thedoctor44]

I've played both games and BFMEII to me is just an attempt to re-make BFME the way it should of been. It's a good game and similar in some aspects of EAW, but doesn't stand a chance against EAW. Besides...I find the EAW campaigns harder and more entertaining than BFMEIIs ones. Plus Galactic Conquest lasts much longer(and is much better than)EA's War of the Ring mode.

[Jmaster3265]

Well i haven't played or tried BMFEII or BFMEI but i have heard they are both great games. The only problem i dislike with EaW is the campagin is VERY VERY weak. I think they could have put more thought and effort into it. I mean come on Mara Jade and Ob-Wan aren't even in the campaign...

[Commander Obi-Wan]

I mean come on Mara Jade and Ob-Wan aren't even in the campaign...

 

Yeah, though they could've been included, but I guess Petroglyph felt it don't work with them in. maybe......