Kamino Cloners CIV

[Admiral Vostok]

I already offered my proof.

 

People did not complain about WarCraft 2 having the same civs. Great new gameplay, a new interface and a bigger variety of different units was enough for people.

 

People did not complain about Red Alert 2 having the same civs. Once again they added all of the stuff I said above and that was enough for people.

 

The Age series went from having 18 generic civs and 5 art sets, some of which people rarely played, to 9 unique civs and 3 art sets, which are all played pretty equally. Age of Mythology is obviously the best and most successful of the Age games, and even that has 9 civs.

Yes, like I said, AoM has a reduced amount of civs from AoK but as each civ is more diverse no one is complaining. It seems as though you aren't disagreeing with me here. SWGB2 should have eight civs, each with unique art and totally unique unit sets. This is far more variety than AoM has, so I don't see that we need any more.

 

Of course, it also has heaps of new features, new puzzles, new locations, a new storyline, and new battles.

All of which I want for SWGB2. Did they have new civs as well which you failed to mention? Because if not I don't see what that has to do with the argument.

[Ecks_Gecar]

Thanks man. I always wondered what the Gungan fighetrs were doing on Bespin.

 

 

what????!!! It Kamino not Bespin

[swphreak]

um. . . are yu refering to the flying creatures at Bespin? If you arem those are Thrantas.

 

Those things on kamino were Aiwhas, and yes, the Gungans use those for flying.

[CorranSec]

People did complain about WC2 having the same civs. The units were essentially alike, and although gameplay differed people much prefer the huge expansion of civs in WC3.

Red Alert 2..... as well as all the C&C games..... pathetically alike. Having a game with only 2 civs is a bad idea to start off with, and not expanding on the number is plain foolishness.

 

AoM has a reduced number of civs, sure. But it still has more than GB. And doesn't RoN have about 14 unique civs?

 

Broken Sword III doesn't have 'civs'... it's not an RTS. What I was trying to say, by means of the BS3 analogy, is that sticking with the same civs and just having a gameplay update isn't going to be enough. That would be like BSIII just having a change to 3D, with no new gameplay, puzzles, storyline.....

[Admiral Vostok]

AoM has a reduced number of civs, with technically only one more than SWGB. But SWGB has five more unique art sets than AoM.

 

Lets look at it this way: we want SWGB2 to have unique art and unique unit sets, so each civ looks and plays differently. This will have more variation than RoN's 14 civs, which are not unique they are only generic unit sets with a few special unique units. It will also have more variety than AoM, which is technically just 3 unique unit sets, each with three different tech trees and different special units. In fact, the most amount of truly unique civs I can think of in a game is WarCraft 3, and with 8 unique civs SWGB2 will double WC3's number of civs.

 

Eight really unique unit sets is more than any of the other popular RTS's can boast to have. People won't be comparing it to the number of civs in SWGB1, because SWGB1 had generic unit sets, not unique unit sets.

[CorranSec]

AoM still doesn't have eight civs- further proof that eight isn't the perfect number.

 

Yes, GB2 will hopefully have unique art and unit sets. However, in the next three years, we're sure to see plenty of games with large numbers of truly unique civs. Why shouldn't we aim for the stars (or the stratosphere, at least) when it's obviously possible?

 

Eight is more than they can boast to have now. However, the competitors have a couple more years to improve. People will be comparing it to GB1, seeing as it's the next in the series, and the civs will possibly (if my worst fears come to pass) be the same.

[swphreak]

No, I think it would be suicide to have 3 years to make a really cool game, but have the same civs. . . BORING. At least put some frosting on the cake, or some spice on the. . .uhhh whatever you put spice on. They need to add at least, IMHO, 2-3 more. But which ones? I say EU civs: the Vong and, one of yall's Hutt merc civ, ansomethin else.d. The movies already have 8, give the EU some. After all, it IS Star Wars too. All the people that know the EU (or at least the NJO) will love it. If I saw the words "Yuuzhan or Vong" anywhere on a video game box, I'd buy that game in a heartbeat. . . as long as it's not rated "EC" or if it's a kiddy game. . .

[Thrackan Solo]

Caminos are cloners not fighters they simply use the birds for transpotation

[Admiral Vostok]

The competition might have a few years to improve. But how many years were there between StarCraft and WarCraft 3? About five I think, and WarCraft 3 still has only one more unique civ than StarCraft had.

 

I seriously doubt we'll see any extra civs. But if we do, I can only really see them making two extra civs at the most (maybe EU). EU civs will probably be seen as a waste of time by developers, because not everyone knows them. They will most likely stick with what EVERYONE knows, not gamble on people becoming interested in EU based on their work.

[swphreak]

But many people DO know EU. Not all but I think enough do. And i wouldn't be a waste to make them. Everybody will use them. If not, oh well, I would. If you ask me, the Gugans and Confed were a waste of time. No one seriusly plays as them.

[lukeiamyourdad]

not enough people know EU. I'd say not more then 20% of any Star Wars fan in the world.

 

And I do play with Gungans and Confed. Without them, it would not mek sense to have the Trade Fed and the Republic.

[Admiral Vostok]

Exactly, not enough people know EU. Many Star Wars fans don't even know of it, and I'd say about half of all Star Wars fans who do know EU don't like it.

 

Get rid of Gungans and Confed? You must be joking. I'll assume you are and not dignify that statement.

[CorranSec]

Ah, but WC3 had double the civs that WC2 had. Wow- a sequel with far more civs! And was it a terrible, pathetic failure? No.

 

I seriously doubt we won't see any extra civs. EU will not be seen as a waste of time, because developers think about a good game, not 'trueness to canon.'

And I think that's the main point. Who cares if not many people know of EU? Not many people know of the Norse pantheon, but that doesn't make the Norse a useless addition to AoM.

Do the EU civs work bad in gameplay terms? No. They will play just as well, and be balanced just as well, as the canon civs. Are the EU civs bad for realism? Nope-they're Star Wars, and they don't do anything to detract from the 'canon-ness' of the PC (pure canon) civs. Will the EU civs kill the game in terms of marketing, and make even the vaguest SW fan turn up their nose in disgust? Um. No.

 

So basically, there is no reason not to include the particular important EU civs that I am supporting.

[Admiral Vostok]

Except for the fact that to have extra civs, all with unique unit sets, unique art sets, individual AIs and related campaigns requires far much more work than is needed to make the game highly successful. The game will be just as successful without EU civs, so why put in all the extra resources to add unnecessary civs?

[CorranSec]

Stop being unrealistic. By no means should we (or the devs) not attempt to do something just because it requires more work. It will make the game better- that is a fact (or at least as close to a fact as a theory can be).

 

You have no idea how successful the game will be, but I give you my utmost assurances that the new civs will make the game more successful.

 

Unnecessary? Not in the slightest.

I'm sure that's what Ensemble thought when they were making AoM... "Oh, three Greek civs are fine. There's no need to put all the effort into making those new unique Norse and Egyptian fellas. It'll be plenty successful without." Or even... "No! We have Zeus, Ra, and Thor. They're the most prominent gods. Why do we need to add in these others... Poseidon, Set, Loki, blah, blah, blah... they'll destroy the game! It'll be just as successful without."

Or what Blizzard thought when making WC3... "Nah, we don't need to add any more civs. We'll just stick to the Humans and Orcs, which even casual WarCraft fans will be sick to death of by now, and totally restrict our gameplay options and most importantly our storyline options. If we add these proposed 'Night Elves' and 'Undead,' the game will be far, far less successful as it would without."

[Admiral Vostok]

I'm not saying it will be less successful with EU civs. I'm saying it will be equally as successful with or without.

 

Are people who love Star Wars going to buy it? Yes.

 

Are people who love EU going to buy it? Yes.

 

Are people who don't know about EU and only have a passing interest in Star Wars but were going to buy it anyway going to buy it? Yes.

 

The addition of EU civs will not attract any buyers who otherwise would not buy it. The exclusion of EU civs is not going to lose any buyers who otherwise would buy it. So if they are going to be the same anyway, why put in the extra effort?

 

You are the one who is being unrealistic.

[CorranSec]

I'm saying that with the inclusion of some more civs (that happen to be EU), the game will be better and thus more successful. Look at the examples I gave! Would AoM have been just as successful with only Greek, or only one major god from each pantheon? No. Would WC3 have been just as successful if they stuck with Orcs and Humans? Definitely not.

 

The addition of more and new civs, EU or not, will attract plenty more buyers. The casual gamer will be much more impressed with a game that boasts "14 totally unique civs, with a huge variety of strategy options, from both the Star Wars movies and the Expanded Universe" than just 8 unique civs.

[Admiral Vostok]

I think AoM would have not as been successful if they had only Greeks because there would be no variety, which is something that SWGB2 with 8 civs will still have.

- Different civs were NECESSARY so the game would have more variation than it's predecessor.

 

I think AoM would have been just as successful with only the Major Gods, because there was still enough variety and uniqueness amongst the three civs to be interesting, which is something that SWGB2 with 8 civs will still have.

- Minor Gods were probably not NECESSARY, but the programming and art that was required to implement them is significantly less than that required for one more unique civ.

 

I think WarCraft 3 would have been less successful with two civs, because this is one less than StarCraft which came before it. However, I think it would have been just as successful with three civs instead of four, because that is just as many as StarCraft plus you have 3D environments and different gameplay, which is something that SWGB2 with 8 civs will still have.

- A game will never be less succesful for having the same amount of civs as it's predecessor as long as it has new features and gameplay (look at the Westwood games for evidence). However, Blizzard wanted to incorporate both the Zerg's idea of morphing into their structures and the Protoss' idea of calling in structures and moving on, and as neither of these fit either Orcs or Humans a fourth civ was NECESSARY so their wasn't a reduction in Gameplay.

[CorranSec]

Yes. And by the same token, AoM would not have been successful if there was just Zeus, Thor and Ra.

- Different civs, and minor gods, are NECESSARY for variety and a large number of strats. Minor gods especially- with different minor god choices, Hades can play completely differently to Poseidon.

 

Um. Your logic is quite flawed. The majority of gamers do not immediately think in terms of "does it have more civs than StarCraft?" The best thing to compare a game to is the previous one in its series. StarCraft is not WarCraft 4, and WC3 is not StarCraft 2. Gameplay is far better with four civs instead of three, and all the things you mentioned are things that GB2 with 14 civs will still have.

- A game will be considered by many as not being much of an improvement if the devs can't even include a few more civs. Tiberian Sun would have been such an absurdly better game if it had managed to squeeze in just one more civ! The same goes for Red Alert 2 and WarCraft 2. Blizzard wanted a better game, with a better storyline, and all-new stuff (a huge improvement over WC2), so they included double the number of civs.

[Admiral Vostok]

No, your logic is flawed. Let's say for arguments sake WC3 did only have three civs. It is one extra civ than WarCraft 2 and each civ is unique, so surely that would be fantastic! BUT it is the same amount as StarCraft, where each civ was still unique, and since the Humans and Orcs aren't entirely different (they still build and mine the same) it's more like two and a half civs. That is what people would point out, not that it is already much better than WarCraft 2.

 

Let me again lay out my reasoning for why there are four civs in WarCraft 3:

 

There was originally Humans and Orcs in WarCraft 2, so they were definitely going to be in WarCraft 3. However, in WarCraft 2 they were virtually identical except for their magic, so making them work as differently as the races in StarCraft did would be a mistake in terms of continuity.

 

A number of things (apart from unique unit sets) set the Zerg and Protoss apart from the Terrans in StarCraft. Among them were the following:

1) Zerg could only build on creep.

2) Zerg drones morphed into buildings. The original drone was lost, but you had a new building.

3) Protoss needed to build within range of a pylon in order for their buildings to be powered.

4) Protoss probes could warp in a building and move on to other duties while the building was ariving, enabling one drone to warp in a large colony in a matter of seconds.

The developers of WarCraft 3 felt inclined to include all of these ideas in the game, because they were such great ways to add uniqueness to a civ. But you couldn't give any of them to the Orcs and Humans, because continuity with WC2 would be destroyed. Adding one more civ could use up two of the ideas, but to use all four you would need two extra civs at least.

So that is what they made. The Undead used ideas "1" and "4" and the Night Elves used ideas "2" and "3" (I think they use 3... I haven't played with them yet but I assume moonwells or whatever they are work similar to pylons). Neither contained both the Zerg ideas or both the Protoss ideas, because then it would be seen as just a WarCraft interpretation of a StarCraft concept.

 

So four civs was the minimum WarCraft 3 could have, because people WERE comparing it to StarCraft and it needed to have all StarCraft's great ideas and more.

[CorranSec]

Okay, I'll imagine WC3 did only have three civs. If this was so, the storyline would have suffered, the gameplay would have suffered, and so on. But it still would have been better than WC2, so it is an improvement.

However, if StarCraft could be considered as opposition/competition to WC3, then it makes sense that Blizzard would want an all-round better game than SC: thus, more civs, more gameplay, more everything. Sure, people would point out that it has the same civs as StarCraft. And people would point out that your GB2 has less civs than even RoN and AoM, three-year-old rivals.

 

1) Yes, the Humans and Orcs had to be continued, and yes, they do have some similarities. However, they are greatly unique in thousands of ways.

 

2) Thankyou for that little rundown of fun uniqueness in StarCraft. Do you know what a major criticism of WC3 was and is? That it's too much like StarCraft, a three-year-old rival! The Undead are too much like the Zerg..... the Night Elves are too much like the Protoss.... the storyline is too similar.... Arthas is too much like Sarah Kerrigan... and so it continues. Now, this doens't mean that GB2 should be amazingly different to GB1 (ie switch to a different kind of engine, eg RoN's). But it means that there do have to be differences and improvements for a game to be new, and a game with the exact same civs is a real letdown.

[Admiral Vostok]

No, the eight civs I want can not be compared to AoM or RoN. Why?

 

AoM has three UNIQUE civs, each with different tech tree branches to make them subdivide into a total of nine civs. Each of the nine civs are different, but they are still basically only three UNIQUE civs. All the Greeks operate the same, all the Egyptians operate the same, and all the Norse operate the same. There are three sets of art, three main cultures.

 

RoN has no UNIQUE civs. It uses generic unit sets and each civ has a number of special units. They all operate the same way.

 

SWGB2 has eight UNIQUE civs. Each one has different units, different techs, different abilities, different strengths, different weaknesses.

 

The UNIQUE part is very important. From this sense, my SWGB2 has much more variety amongst civs than AoM and RoN, as well it should if it is a few years newer than them.

 

A game with the exact same civs and exact same gameplay is a letdown. A game with the exact same civs but drastically different and improved gameplay is not a letdown.

[CorranSec]

AoM has 3 unique sets, but the minor gods have the ability to make Zeus and Poseidon play completely differently- as I said previously.

 

RoN still has quite a lot of civs. I'll show how this is important later.

 

SWGB2 has fourteen UNIQUE civs. Each one has different units, different techs, different abilities, different strengths, different weaknesses. There is no reason not to attempt 14 (apart from laziness on Vostok's part), so I'm all up for it.

 

A game with the exact same civs and improved gameplay is quite a letdown when it is extremely possible to broaden your possibilities by expanding your amount of civs.

 

Let me explain something to you, Vostok. We've spent so much time thinking about GB2 that at this current stage in time, we could basically be thought of as the "game designers." I mean, we're not the real game designers, but we know more about our proposals than anyone.

I'm thinking about the casual gamer. As I said before, the casual gamer will look at the game and think:

 

"Eight civs... Wha!? I mean, it's entirely possible to make heaps more civs. I mean, RoN 2 has 22 semi-unique civs. Age of Futuristicness has 15 totally-unique factions. Even Age of Mythology and RoN 1 had more civs than this thing. And GB1, a pretty bad game when you look back on it, had the exact same civs as this supposedly 'dramatically improved' GB2! What was that game designer Vostok thinking?"

[Admiral Vostok]

Well, once again what we disagree comes down to EU vs Movies, Corran.

 

I believe it should remain at eight, because the eight civs in SWGB1 are the most important in the movies (yes even Wookiees, because they're the best known aliens). I don't see the need to add more because I think the rest aren't important enough. It's like Red Alert 2. The story was just about those two civs, so adding more doesn't make sense. I believe the same thing for SWGB, that the story is just about those eight (well maybe not Wookiees in this case), so adding more doesn't make sense to me.

 

You see Star Wars as encompassing EU as well, so you believe there are many "important" civs not represented in SWGB1. The EU civs to you are just as important as the movie civs, so they deserve a place.

 

Sure, other games might have more civs. But I believe more civs won't fit well, while you think they will.

 

I will say this, just to be clear. As much as I dislike EU, I would much rather the additional civs to be the Yuuzhan Vong and the New Republic than for the additional civs to be Trandoshans and Kaminoans. Why? Trandoshans and Kaminoans aren't important in either EU or the movies, but at least the Vong are important in EU.

[CorranSec]

Vostok, this is not an EU vs Movies debate. Sure, this is a Star Wars game, but it's a game above all else. And EU is still Star Wars (this is a fact), so if it is possible to include a particular EU civ, there's no reason not to- apart from Vostok's twisted version of fictional realism>gameplay.

 

I believe it should be increased for primarily gameplay reasons, but there's no reason why this should damage realism at all. All the civs will be recognised, official SW (which is what EU is)- we're not making anything up.

It's not just about the story. I doubt you have the vaguest idea of how my new EU civs could fit in to the story of GB2, so I wouldn't comment on such things. And as for Red Alert- well, it would have been possible to separate the Allies and Soviets into plenty of different factions/countries, and the game would have been better off for it.

In WC2, the story was just about the Humans and the Orcs. But Blizzard took the next step, and made a great new story with double the number of civs. Is WC3 a terrible game?

 

As for the Kaminoans and Trandoshans- yes, I completely agree.