lukeiamyourdad Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 This isn't about SWGB2 anymore! This is a pointless debate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad This isn't about SWGB2 anymore! This is a pointless debate! Yes I know. I don't want to talk about it, but when my credibility is questioned I have to respond. Sorry. If you want to question my credibility do so through pms please and stick to the thread topic at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 Fergie- Who cares if they're planet-specific?! If they are there only as a scenario editor unit, they won't get the coverage they diserve.As for Naboo bieng part of the Republic: True, but u don't see (or read, or hear, for that matter, that Naboo ever used Clone Troopers) Also WC3 is boring becuase it has limited options and I hear u can just end the game by casting some kind of heroe spell. That probably defies the whole concept of RTS even more that u do! It is STRATERGY so u actually need to use ur head! Everyone else- Yeah WC3 sucks, but RA2 doesn't. And there is not actually 2 civs, there is in fact 3 civs with YR X-Pack and within 2 of those civs there are about 5 sub-civs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 Fergie- Who cares if they're planet-specific?! If they are there only as a scenario editor unit, they won't get the coverage they diserve.As for Naboo bieng part of the Republic: True, but u don't see (or read, or hear, for that matter, that Naboo ever used Clone Troopers) because the Republic has the power to make the army, not the Naboo. I mean making the Naboo would be exactly like making the plantary defense force of any other planet...let's make the Correlian Security while were at it. The Republic's army is suposed to wage war on a galactic level. The Naboo inside the republic have a small, plantary force. A militia if you want to call it that. Also WC3 is boring becuase it has limited options and I hear u can just end the game by casting some kind of heroe spell. That probably defies the whole concept of RTS even more that u do! It is STRATERGY so u actually need to use ur head! lol I wish it was that easy sometimes, but there is no end all hero spell sorry. Now heros do have spells they can cast like Arthus' Holy Light which will heal an allied human unit or hurt a zombie unit and others have enhanced attack spells so their attack is doubled and all the heros have super spell they can earn in their later levels like Undead Arthus' resurection spell which temporarily reserects dead, decaying units in the nearby area. There is no end-all spell...so please next time get your facts straight. Everyone else- Yeah WC3 sucks, but RA2 doesn't. And there is not actually 2 civs, there is in fact 3 civs with YR X-Pack and within 2 of those civs there are about 5 sub-civs. ROTFL sure it sucks. I mean it's the game of the year so it must suck...riiiiiight... RA2 the game has 2 civs, then there is a seperate X-Pac...Yes there are subcivs, but the subcivs are very very very close with only a few real differences being the favored Unique Unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 Fergie you have way too much time on your hands. WC3 got game of the year sheerly off of it's well-done campaigns, which comprise the majority of the game. The other stuff, which most RTS's focus on, seems like an add-on for people who are bored and have beaten the campaign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 Originally posted by Sithmaster_821 Fergie you have way too much time on your hands. WC3 got game of the year sheerly off of it's well-done campaigns, which comprise the majority of the game. The other stuff, which most RTS's focus on, seems like an add-on for people who are bored and have beaten the campaign Yeah...it's X-mas break and my brother is on the PS2...so I kinda get bored... See the thing I like most in an RTS is a good single player. I'm mediocre at MP, but I don't like to lose to friends becuase they will have braging rights...tis annoying. (that's why co-op is my fav. part of MP) I get bored with linear campaigns...luckly there are d/loaded campaigns and scenarios to fall back on sometimes, but I really love the open ended campaign map/board. That's just a nice feature I like in games. Many RTSs are just a quick play and then your done, but I want to have more replayablilty. So I'd like to see a campaign map that lets you choose where and when to attack, to build up forces in an area, assign generals to armies...but then the game changes genres a little with a combination of WarGameing and RTS. Two seperate engines like Shogun...I'd love that even if it was a 2D battle map to cut down on memory for the lower comps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 Actually, as many as you want. I have already drawn up a rough draft of what i want in SWGB2, and i will post it shortly. I believe that SWGB2 should be based on 4 features. 1. Generic Unit sets 2. Unique Unit sets (civs have a mix, explain later) 3. Unique Abilities 4. Unique Buildings As i said, ive already drawn it up, and would appreciate public comment when it is posted so that i can refine it a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 (civs have a mix, explain later) I read your entire post, twice, and you never explained later. In fact, you gave little to no justification for your 4 features. I know you're only Windu, but still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 I'm waiting...*taps foot* I can't critisize it if it isn't here:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 Don't worry. I'll back u up if needs be Windu! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 Come on stop debating! It's christmas day! Let's have a litle break! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted December 28, 2002 Share Posted December 28, 2002 Wow, luke's dad, you made everyone shut up! Fergie, what exactly is the difference between 'WarGaming' and RTS? You have greatly confused me. And even though I'm not quite sure what you meant, I believe that trying to make 2 genres of game in 1 generally gives you low-quality versions of both, while focussing on one will generate a much better result. Wouldn't it be far better to have a game with equally good single-player and multi-player? I'm sorry, fergie, but we shouldn't tailor a game for single-player just because you don't like multi. And we shouldn't tailor a game for multi because some people don't like campaigns. A mix is always good. WC3's main point was its campaigns, and sure, they were fantastic. But the multi wasn't that great, especially considering that you had to use pre-made maps instead of randomly generated ones. Thus, the lack of good multi and a maniacal focus on the campaigns is what drew many people away from WC3. It's clear that if GB2 is a mix of all the great parts of RTS- economy, battle, single-player, multi-player, so on and so forth- it will be a great game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 29, 2002 Share Posted December 29, 2002 Wow, you've played the whole of AOM single player *shock* must know everything about it now. All ES games are better multiplayer than single player. Go and play AOM online and see how much you know about AoM... He's probably used to WC3 and C&C where the campaign is the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesseg88 Posted December 29, 2002 Share Posted December 29, 2002 Perhaps LA could have Blizzard Ent. develop SWGB2. Just a suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted December 29, 2002 Share Posted December 29, 2002 Wow, luke's dad, you made everyone shut up! Nah, I was just gone Fergie, what exactly is the difference between 'WarGaming' and RTS? You have greatly confused me. And even though I'm not quite sure what you meant, I believe that trying to make 2 genres of game in 1 generally gives you low-quality versions of both, while focussing on one will generate a much better result. Wargaming is mainly the super micro managing strategy game. You know. You've probably seen the games if you look at PC Mags. They're the games with the world map, a few squares, and an impossibly huge game manuel with every single aspect described in detail. Board games with little Xs on the map. Although some have started using 3D. It probably isn't best known as the wargaming genre though...It's just what they call it on PCGamer. Wouldn't it be far better to have a game with equally good single-player and multi-player? I'm sorry, fergie, but we shouldn't tailor a game for single-player just because you don't like multi. And we shouldn't tailor a game for multi because some people don't like campaigns. A mix is always good. lol. I never said that multiplayer wouldn't be good. There can be world conquest games. Where the player orders his armies at each other on a big world map/contenint map, depends on the length of the game. Or there can just be straight skirmish. WC3's main point was its campaigns, and sure, they were fantastic. But the multi wasn't that great, especially considering that you had to use pre-made maps instead of randomly generated ones. Thus, the lack of good multi and a maniacal focus on the campaigns is what drew many people away from WC3. heh. wouldn't really know. I played a few games...but I mainly play d/loaded scenarios...so I won't argue with you here. I'm not offering up WC3 as the ultimate game. I'm only offering parts of it up as preferable and some of other games too. In fact I never really liked it's skirmish as much as some other games because of the quick lvl building on heros...but that's beside the point. It's clear that if GB2 is a mix of all the great parts of RTS- economy, battle, single-player, multi-player, so on and so forth- it will be a great game. exactly! Put the economy in the board map like shogun total war and the battling on a seperate part. Perfect balance:p as for the idea of blizzard deving the game...they'd do better then Ensamble (offering the old engine instead of making a new one for LA). Blizzard would most likely make a new engine for it because they are very meticulous with the game...but I doubt it would be out in the next year or so...probably in 2005 when Ep III comes out...if Blizzard takes it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 29, 2002 Share Posted December 29, 2002 Blizzard developping SWGB2=bad idea LA developping their game by themselves and being as meticulous as Blizzard=Good Idea Maybe we should tell them that... It's almost new year's eve so that day and january the first i will also make everyone shut up!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Hmm. I would shut up, but I'm really bored, so I'm going to post. Soo, let me see if I'm getting this..... 'Wargaming' is the kinda Civilisation, Alpha Centauri game? Anyway, whatever it is, I say no to big campaign/epic maps. Resource gathering is a big must, and the best way to do that (with gameplay in mind) is to have it as an integral part of the game handled by worker-type units, just as in GB. Economy and battle have to mix. Thus, economy building etc. takes place where (or near where) battle takes place. Thus, we only have one map! I agree with Luke's dad. Blizzard shouldn't develop GB2. However, LA could learn from Blizzard's successes, and work just as hard as Blizzard to make a great game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 http://www.battlefront.com/ go to products, then tacops 4...that what normal 'Wargames' look like...now look at the COmbat Mission series...it's the 3D experiment I was talking about...both very good games... anyways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Its like that new game (dont ask me how to spell it) thats based in Roman times. Pure military (and, if you ask me, the units/civs/buildings are a total ripoff of AoM) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Er... Sith, I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Could you vaguely attempt to spell it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DarthMaulUK Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Blizzard developping SWGB2=bad idea Warcraft III style SWGB game would be a VERY bad idea. WC3 is very limited in terms of units, structures etc and most will get bored of it very quickly. The same goes for Age Of Mythology. Everyone raved on about how good this game was going to be. Now, everyone is bored of it and coming back to Galactic Battlegrounds. I was bored of AoM the moment I opened the box. Although SWGB is old, it still has appeal and not many games can claim that. SWGB 2 has to maintain the appeal and with LA and Garrys team making it, I am sure it will. DMUK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU_Andy_Ewok Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 AoM is a great game, not boring at all. So much more options in game play than AoK or AoM imo. If gary gaber said he's making a SWGB 2 he works for LA so where did all the Blizzard talk come from ? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I think it was called Praliens or Prailinens or something like that. I just know how it sounds. Edit: AoM is awesome. I just added to my RAM, so now I can play on high graphics (yipee), and that game is so much better now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SE_Vader_536 Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad It's almost new year's eve so that day and january the first i will also make everyone shut up!!!!!! you wish... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Okay everyone it's new year's eve well new year for some at the time i'm posting. Anyway let's not start the new year by arguing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.