Archangel88 Posted December 9, 2002 Share Posted December 9, 2002 AOM seems to be the favourite engine for SWGB2, but what about using the Warcraft 3 engine. The heros (e.g. Yoda, Obi-wan) can then have special abilitys and can move up in levels just like Wcraft 3. I think it would be pretty good, but then again I haven't played AoM so who knows? cheers, Archangel88 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishflesh Posted December 9, 2002 Share Posted December 9, 2002 Bad idea, BAD IDEA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted December 9, 2002 Share Posted December 9, 2002 Archangel88, dont listen to him!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted December 9, 2002 Share Posted December 9, 2002 So then SWGB2 is to be a mindless clickfest designed for 8-year olds who don't know real strategy? Some SWGB fans are converted AoK fans and would not be very pleased with a Warcraft-style game. As some of WC3 will inevitably be implemented in GB2 if WC3's engine is used, I must say it is a BAD BAD IDEA! Besides, the cartoony graphics of the WC3 engine don't exactly fit the SW universe very well. I doubt that engine was even designed to show good graphics, just cartoons for the kiddies. If the WC3 engine were used for GB2 I would not even consider buying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 9, 2002 Share Posted December 9, 2002 well I kinda like the -Craft because of their really great stories but for the engine that is a really BAD IDEA. Unless they heavily modify it. For everything else I'm with Simwiz. Except that I'm not a converted AoK fan. I liked AoK but before I had AoK and swgb, I liked StarCraft better(considering I was younger and StarCraft's story is really good.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 WarCraft is too cartoony for the realistic SW universe. Not to mention Blizzard's only forte is their campaigns, which arent included in the engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 Now I don't mind these so called "clickfest" games but in my opinion the major problem with WarCraft III as an engine for SWGB2 is that the Blizzard games are skirmish based while a Star Wars game needs epic-scale battles. In the regard the WarCraft III engine would fail miserably. The powerful hero idea is nice but ultimately heroes as they appear in the current SWGB are more suitable for a Star Wars game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 HELL NO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted December 12, 2002 Share Posted December 12, 2002 Actually, I don't think it would be a good idea. The Hero business just doesn't fit with SW. However, I don't think they should use the AoM engine. The "Troop Recruit---Troop---Hvy troop---repeater troop" system doesn't fit with SW, as well as the "mech destroyer/strike mech/assault mech" system. LUCASARTS SHOULD CREATE THEIR OWN ENGINE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 12, 2002 Share Posted December 12, 2002 Originally posted by Darth54 LUCASARTS SHOULD CREATE THEIR OWN ENGINE!!! EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted December 12, 2002 Share Posted December 12, 2002 ...but if they DON'T want to create their own engine, I would go for StarCraft : All races are differents, OK graph, good gameplay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 12, 2002 Share Posted December 12, 2002 If they did a StarCraft 2 (not Ghost) with a hell of a good engine, well maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted December 12, 2002 Share Posted December 12, 2002 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad If they did a StarCraft 2 (not Ghost) with a hell of a good engine, well maybe. I was talking about Sc1's engine. Maybe Sc2 will be based on Wc3's engine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel88 Posted December 13, 2002 Author Share Posted December 13, 2002 Ok point taken, Warcraft 3 graphics are a bit cartoony, but what about the CAC Generals engine, that is one mean looking engine and this one dosn't have cartoony graphics. Oh and simwiz2, its obvious you have never played Warcraft 3 otherwise you would know just how much strategy you need to complete that game. AoK took me about a week to finish while Warcraft 3 took me about2 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 I played WC3. Once. I am certain that I will never do so again. It was a complete joke. I was trying it out at a friend's house, and the whole time I was wishing I had brought my copy of AoM to install on his computer. The graphics were crap, plain and simple. AoM's are better. GB's are better. Civ3's are better. AoK's are better. AoE's are better. Even Civ2's are better! The "strategy" was a joke. The strategy was, within a 1.5 second timeframe, click a hero, click some buttons, click a spell, and click a spot on the map. "Who can click faster" games are fun in the form of FPS, not RTS. RTS's are more fun as strategic games, not as who can click faster. Playing WC3 was an hour of torture I will never repeat. The graphics are of the type that would make a small child afraid to ever look at a computer screen again, the gameplay was straightforward and peurile, and after a mere 5 minutes of play I was bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 Originally posted by simwiz2 I played WC3. Once. I am certain that I will never do so again. It was a complete joke. I was trying it out at a friend's house, and the whole time I was wishing I had brought my copy of AoM to install on his computer. The graphics were crap, plain and simple. AoM's are better. GB's are better. Civ3's are better. AoK's are better. AoE's are better. Even Civ2's are better! The "strategy" was a joke. The strategy was, within a 1.5 second timeframe, click a hero, click some buttons, click a spell, and click a spot on the map. "Who can click faster" games are fun in the form of FPS, not RTS. RTS's are more fun as strategic games, not as who can click faster. Playing WC3 was an hour of torture I will never repeat. The graphics are of the type that would make a small child afraid to ever look at a computer screen again, the gameplay was straightforward and peurile, and after a mere 5 minutes of play I was bored. If you write this on blizzard's forums, they will say that AoM and AoK are jokes and it was a torture for them to play it! It's only your opinion, many ppl don't like the "age" style, and many ppl dont like the "craft" style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 I like both. -Crafts because of their excellent stories which never bores me. AoKs- because of their better gameplay and graphics. Also note that WC3 was meant to be cartoony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acharjay Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 Do you guys even realise that Warcraft 3's comical graphics are not even part of the engine? LEC could easily change the graphics to look way more realistic, but I don't think Blizzard would willingly sell LEC the engine when the game is so new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 simwiz, was your friend holding a gun to your head? If not why play a game of "torture" for an hour? And StarCraft's engine would not suit Star Wars either. The three races in StarCraft operate completely differently. The Terrans are fairly normal, the can build anywhere and have supply depots for their population. Zerg spread out creep and use actual units for their population. Protoss use pylons both to power their building and provide population. While the Star Wars races are different, they aren't that different. They still function in fundamentally the same way, whereas the StarCraft races a different all the way down to a basic level. The same can be said for WarCraft 3, except that even those races mine resources differently. Star Wars races, I'm fairly sure, would all mine resources in the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 Originally posted by Admiral Vostok simwiz, was your friend holding a gun to your head? If not why play a game of "torture" for an hour? And StarCraft's engine would not suit Star Wars either. The three races in StarCraft operate completely differently. The Terrans are fairly normal, the can build anywhere and have supply depots for their population. Zerg spread out creep and use actual units for their population. Protoss use pylons both to power their building and provide population. While the Star Wars races are different, they aren't that different. They still function in fundamentally the same way, whereas the StarCraft races a different all the way down to a basic level. The same can be said for WarCraft 3, except that even those races mine resources differently. Star Wars races, I'm fairly sure, would all mine resources in the same way. Yeah, they would have to fix a couple of things like the creep... I agree with your points, but I still think they should not have used the AoK engine... it just doesn't fit... The trooper-hvy trooper-repeater trooper and the mech destroyer/strike mech/assault mech doesn't fit with SW. Just think of it : an At-St takes more time at killing troops than other troops do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 Originally posted by Admiral Vostok simwiz, was your friend holding a gun to your head? If not why play a game of "torture" for an hour? 1) He kept saying it would get better, it would get more fun later in the game, etc. It never did. 2) I like to give things a good chance before I decide they are horrible. Though I now intend to make an exception for Blizzard games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demolisher Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 I like the idea of having a 3D game with models and all the features of Warcraft III. Warcraft III doesnt look that cartoonish and the models and stuff for a SWGB game would look cooler. It could be like Jedi Knight II where the people are small. I would say use a 3D engine, but have all the stuff that SWGB has. I mean l if SWGB had more of a 3D engine, it'd be cool to be able to look down into the game as if it was a game like JKII. Having heroes would be cool too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 Darth54, AoK still fits Star Wars better than StarCraft or WarCraft3 would. Unless you limit every race to being just like Terrans or Humans. But that gets rather silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 Originally posted by Demolisher (1) I like the idea of having a 3D game with models and all the features of Warcraft III. (2) Warcraft III doesnt look that cartoonish and the models and stuff for a SWGB game would look cooler. It could be like Jedi Knight II where the people are small. I would say use a 3D engine, but have all the stuff that SWGB has. I mean l if SWGB had more of a 3D engine, it'd be cool to be able to look down into the game as if it was a game like JKII. Having heroes would be cool too. 1 - There are many games that are/would be 3-D and have/would have much better engine features than WC3. Namely, AoM, SC4, LucasArt's own engine, etc. 2 - Not cartoonish? The Human town center building looks like a mockery of an idealistic painting of a medieval european town! The roof is tiles with some obnoxiously ugly reddish coloring that looks more like crayon than anything. And that's only the beginning. The battlements on top of the Human scout towers are obnoxiously expanded. They should make them even more huge and blocky, I don't think the average idiot can't decipher them as towers yet! And when you have soldiers fighting next to a tower, you can see that it (and all other buildings) are smaller than the soldiers themselves! Maybe that's how they got the units "flashy" enough for the 8-year olds - by making them obnoxiously massive enough so that their archaic engine could put enough detail in. The only things WC3 has over AoM is sounds and campains. And AoM has horrible sound, so that's not saying much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 So much anger... LA should and probably will make their own engine. End of disucssion. And i'd prefer WC3 over SimCity, which isnt even an RTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.