CorranSec Posted October 18, 2002 Posted October 18, 2002 That's what unique unit sets are. Different tech trees, different units, different buildings, etc. Maybe I used the wrong words. It's not just the civ diversity which filled up the CD. It's the campaigns, the cutscenes, the cinematics (do you have any idea how big they are!?), the sound, the maps, the editor, and so on. And anyway, what's so bad about multi-disk games? I've played great games with around 6 CDs. I really can't see what the problem is...... though I'm not exactly sure how disk-switching would work in an RTS. How about one CD for the campaigns, one CD for the editor, one for install, whatever... I don't know much about that kind of thing. Anyway, if you ignore theoretical concepts of space, size, RAM and so on, can anyone deny that more civs and unique sets are bad?
Arthur2 Posted October 18, 2002 Posted October 18, 2002 that's not what i mean u need graphics for each civ u got and sound effects , whatever.... i never said that civ diversity will increase the amount of CDs in each package
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 Well just as a exemple, in Command and Conquer Tiberium Sun, you needed to switch cds if you wanted to play either nod or gdi.And not on ly the campaigns, you needed to switch if you wanted to play a normal game.
CorranSec Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 Anyway, what's wrong with multi-disc games?
Arthur2 Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 there is nothing wrong with it it's just ANNOYING we should avoid switching disks install everything in to the hardrive... I like to run everything from my hardrive it's faster, and it's more convenient
Kryllith Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 Heck, 3 cds nowadays really isn't that much considering the size of harddrives. And if LucasArts release GBII around 6-8 months before the release of Episode III we're talking about 2 more years of technology advancements in the meantime. Of course, if you really want to make the game big, they could just put it on a DVD. Kryllith
CorranSec Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 Yeah, Kryllith is right. A larger number of CDs is becoming the norm, and I have no doubt LA will not hesitate to add more CDs in return for better gameplay. So..... er... any actual ideas for SW:GB 2? And also, can I suggest that all ideas be posted here rather than in one of the many offshoot threads sprouting up? It's getting rather irritating.
Arthur2 Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 CDs are ok but no CD swapping, it's nasty i like to run everything from my harddrive....
Breath Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 I hope that SWGB 2 will be made in a 3D engine (a good idea is Age of Mythology engine).
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 No Age of Mythology's engine is not made for aircrafts and we will have the same problem with the current AoK engine. Aircraft will probably be hovering.....
Breath Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 Age of Mythology's engine is not made for aircrafts and we will have the same problem with the current AoK engine. Aircraft will probably be hovering..... Age of Mythology supports air units. Take a look here.
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 I know it does but it does not support dog fighting. What would be really fun for swgb 2 would be seeing fighters dogfighting(swirling around, etc.). Something I don't think AoM does.
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 AoM has air units(Ravens, pegasi, phenoixes, rocs, and the Niddhogg. I think that LA will not use anyones engine except their own. But what i came here to say (i tend to avoid this thread like the plague), is that i hope any future SW RTS uses Random Maps instead of premade scenerios. Random Maps are the reason the "Age" series did so well (combined with superior gameplay) and are alos the main reason i dont like any of blizzard's games.
Arthur2 Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 hmm dogfly, u talking about the aircrafts in EE? well some ppl like dogflying (i do) some ppl don't... well in the movies, X-wings have vertical thrust engines, which allows them to hover instead of flying around all the time , non-stop... it'd be easier to control if the fighters are hovering but it'd look cooler if they act like real aircrafts (non-stop) depends...what u guys think? btw, LA...hmm I don't think they'll use their own engine, cause ever since win98 came out, games based on LA engines have been disasters...for example, force commander...ah..that game sux... i would say LA use other game engines...like it did for JK2 and SWGB
Arthur2 Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 some good ideas here guys is there a way to get these ideas to the developers???
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 LucasArts sometimes browses this forum.
simwiz2 Posted October 19, 2002 Posted October 19, 2002 Originally posted by Sithmaster_821 is that i hope any future SW RTS uses Random Maps instead of premade scenerios. I think they would put in random maps for any future SW RTS so that many of the AoK fans who bought GB will buy GB2.
Arthur2 Posted October 20, 2002 Posted October 20, 2002 Really? that's great hope that our ideas will go into GB2 about Aok players what I heard is that ppl don't really like SWGB although it's a big improvement from AOK/AOC (even better than AOK/AOC) but then they don't want to spend money on this game, cause it's pretty much the same thing...that's what I heard... if LA uses other game engines for SWGB and they want ppl to buy it (ppl besides SW fans) then they really have to put time into development and make it less obvious...(jk2 did a good job)
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 20, 2002 Posted October 20, 2002 You're right. Some researches have been transferred from AoKTC to SWGB directly and not to say unit classes. The ships are completely the same with AoK(frigate=war galley destroyer=fire ship cruiser=cannon galleon). Or even the hvy weapons(pummels= rams artillery=onager). It was a little to obvious.
simwiz2 Posted October 20, 2002 Posted October 20, 2002 The vastly better but almost identical statement is true. After buying GB I wish I had never spent the $80 to get AoK and TC.
simwiz2 Posted October 20, 2002 Posted October 20, 2002 Because GB was so good that it showed me how much better AoK could have been - and it made Ensemble's mistakes much more ovbious. Before GB I assumed all RTS had poor balance like AoK. GB proved that wrong, and highlighted that AoK was not really all that great. All that aside, I basically had paid more for the same game - and given a decision over which game to sell I would not hesitate to sell back AoK. Supposedly for AoM ES is for once going to put gameplay ahead of realism and not overpower units simply because they were strong in real life. If they do that then AoM will be as good as or better than GB.
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 20, 2002 Posted October 20, 2002 I have to disagree with the whole art=mangonel thing. Arts are more like a bombard cannon than a mangonel. Mangonels were many used for damaging tightly bunched units and archers, plus maybe on aggresive buildings. Arts are slightly worse vs units (about to the degree of bombard cannons) but serve as a mobile long range siege weapon that has less attack/ armor than a cannon/treb. Speaking about that cannons are the most obvious rip off. THey share the same stats and hotkeys as trebs, not to mention idea/purpose.
Darth Windu Posted October 21, 2002 Author Posted October 21, 2002 I just thought of something else i would like to see in SW:GB 2. Bridges in which land units can cross, while naval units can pass underneath.
Arthur2 Posted October 21, 2002 Posted October 21, 2002 yeah I agree in Aok, the castle is way tooooooo strong they balanced pretty well in GB the castles has less range and is less powerful. u can destroy castles will just assault mechs, dun need to rely so heavily on siege weapons anymore anywayz i think they should keep up the good work the good balance, and less micromanagement it's a strategy game, not a tactics game. strategy is wat's fun about AoK/GB, not tactics...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.