CorranSec Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Well, I've never seen this arcade game here in Australia, and I don't support the Luke and Vader duel idea. However, I have no doubt that a highly professional, PC-optimised version of our ideas would be a lot better than any arcade game. Not to rip off arcades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Arcades are made fo fast action which gives some temporary fun while any other type of game is suppose to be a long lasting fun! it's strange that we don't have it here in canada. we usually have everything the US gets at the same time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 I cant believe you guys haven't seen it. It's like a classic. It was created like in the mid 90's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 o...k...... That's weird... I don't remember seeing something like that... Was it something like rebel assault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Yet another reason why the PC game will be so much better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Well SW RTS/FPS is coming out...although it will be much bigger than just that...Galaxies is supporting PvP combat in certain areas where users go in and fight on either Rebs or Imps...big battlegrounds...it may not be dedicated to that...but you'll just have to live with it until the impossible happens... Although I think the best RTS/FPS in the near future is Planetside...it's so good I'm actually thinking about shelling out $10 a month for it...but I doubt it...:\ And while we're on games that LA would never make because they were too dense... Three starting points Pilot of Starfighter Captain of small frigate Admiral of small fleet. In each of these three positions you can work your way to the top...or refuse promotions and stay where you are. Say if you were a starfighter Colnel and commander of a Wing of Fighters and they wanted to pomote you to General and it requires you behind the command of a Star Destroyer, you could refuse it and stay where you are or you can get promoted to command several ships and fight the war from that perspective. As time progresses your skills are inhanced just like any RPG, you can choose special skills for your commanders to have like say "Increase forward battery firepower" or "We shall double our efforts." Then you can put points into these skills to inhance them so they will be more effective in battle. It would have a campaign with storyline, but it would also have an open ended campaign that involves taking your basic character through an infinate amount of mission that are randomly generated as you progress. Then you can also play online with up to 16 players. They will control various aspects of the navy which is why clans can flourish in this game. If they have a good Admiral plus maybe one or two good captains and the rest good pilots they are set for some bashing. All characters they have created on the SP campaigns can be imported and will gain experiance in the MP venue too. This is my ultimate game...now if only lucasarts was reading this miniature summary of the game...I've got all the aspects drawn out on paper etc. It really is a dream game since LucasArts has shown NO INTREST WHATSOEVER in capitol ships being playable. Now come on...be honest...which one would you rather control...an At-At or a Star Destroyer? yes I've posted it before...but heck:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 No, we do have that arcade game in Australia. Next time you're in Brisbane, Corran, go to the Indooroopilly Cinemas. They've got it there (I play it a lot) and I'm pretty sure I've seen it in one of the arcades in the city as well. I feel that if you don't play as a main character, it could be a bit hard to have objectives. What could one soldier do in the Battle of Geonosis that would have made a difference to the outcome? I haven't played B1942 so I don't know how it works, but what if you just have the battle raging around you and basically your only objective is to get a certain amount of kills and survive until the end? That way you could still hold true to the movies (even though the Rebels lost Hoth, you still did your part and took down sufficient numbers of Imperials for it to count as a success). In this way it would be hard to make Yavin since only the Rebel heroes survived, really. As long as you kill enough TIE fighters before you die, maybe? Or be like Wedge - "Oh, I'm hit! Well I did my bit, good luck Luke, you're on your own." Is the Clone Wars game similar to this? I'd love to play it but unfortunately it isn't on PC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 I've never seen it before...although that isn't saying much...arky doesn't exactly have alot in the way of arcades... What is the name of it? Will you do a quick search on the internet and show me a link to what it looks like, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 OK, OK, guys. Ewoks- Fine, they could be underblanaced bots. Characters- Characters should not be in the game. Just simple troopers, sorry. Single-Player campaign- Debate all u want here, because as long as it sticks to SW warfare then it's fine by me. Hoth Scenario- OK, let's make this a bit more clearer, for the single player "skirmish"(multiplayer game but with only 1 player and bots) and multiplayer anyway. All Imp soldiers start out on foot on a spawn point/base called "Landing Zone". There are 6 AT-AT's their and a few AT-ST's, maybe a few AT-PT's, and other Imp vehicles. Any Imp player can take up any vehicle provided it isn't already taken, or attempt the dangerous Hoth terrain on foot. There the Imps progress onto some Echo Bases and the Shield Generator, which isn't an objective but since it gives all Rebel things shields within a certain radius it is likely they eliminate it anyway. Eventually they reach the main Echo Base. Once it is taken, the Imps win. All buildings are destructible. Once a spawn point/base is captured, it cannot be used as a spawn point by the enemy. Vehicles and players both spawn at bases. Heck, the Rebels could rush the Imp's landing zone before they begin their assualt and win the whole battle. "Tickets" basically determine how many times each player on the team can spawn. If a team runs out of tickets, they lose. Bases, besides being spawn points, also contain bacta tanks, ammo crates, and other useful things. Rebel players can start on any of the Rebel Echo bases they choose. Then can man turrets, repeater blaster posts or ride airspeeders. Or they can attempt to defend Echo Base on foot, which will be very hard to do unless u are an Anti-Vehicle guy, or are defending Echo Base underground from any troops that may enter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 fergie-Galaxies really isn't an FPS. It's an RPG.And what's planetside? Vostok-Who cares about the 100% accurate story. In Medal of Honor-Allied Assault, you made the difference and you were fighting a WAR! In a war a single person is not supposed to do the difference but that's how an FPS works. Crazy_dog no.3- What are those spawn/bases? Does it means you can create vehicles at that point? if yes then it should be like that although it would be an FPS/RTS...It means that you can attack enemies with 20 AT-ATs even with your ticket thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 No! Vehicles respawn there after they are destroyed, just like players. But of course they take longer to respawn, about 2 mns, and player's maximum respawn time is 20 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad fergie-Galaxies really isn't an FPS. It's an RPG.And what's planetside? I know but it will have to do... anyway planetside...well it's friggin awesome... http://pc.ign.com/articles/380/380065p1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3 No! Vehicles respawn there after they are destroyed, just like players. But of course they take longer to respawn, about 2 mns, and player's maximum respawn time is 20 seconds. That kind of neglect the fact that you are KILLING an enemy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 I think that it was just called Star Wars. It's kinda old, but it was a combination of FPS, flight simulating, and vehicle driving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 What about if instead of respawning you are merely transferred to another trooper's body? In that way the enemy can win by killing your whole army, rather than having an army that comes back twenty times before it dies. Maybe when you are killed you get an overview of the battle (like the view in an RTS) and you can select the trooper you want to possess next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 I think that the Hoth multi sounds like a good start. But there's one thing- we need a Rebel objective. How about the one I proposed earlier- simply keep the Imps away from the Falcon's hangar for **** minutes? Or defend the shield generator? And something else- I don't think the AT-ATs should respawn. It's a bit unfair (and doesn't make sense) if the Imperials can just keep coming with wave after wave of AT-ATs and crush all the Rebels that the missed with the last wave, even though there were only a limited number in the real battle. As for respawning, I prefer the typical 'go back to spawn point' than just taking over a random trooper. Especially seeing as it's multiplayer- I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I suddenly took control of you! The problem with these multi-player scenarios is that for the plot to progress, one side has to lose. But perhaps that's a good thing- to see how things would have turned out if Han and Leia were captured, etc... Just as long as the single-player doesn't interfere with the plot. Fergie- Luke is right. Galaxies isn't anywhere near an RTS, and it isn't much of an FPS. It's a MMORPG, completely different to the game we're dreaming up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted January 13, 2003 Author Share Posted January 13, 2003 Originally posted by Admiral Vostok What about if instead of respawning you are merely transferred to another trooper's body? In that way the enemy can win by killing your whole army, rather than having an army that comes back twenty times before it dies. Maybe when you are killed you get an overview of the battle (like the view in an RTS) and you can select the trooper you want to possess next. Nah, what happens to the other trooper? Another player would be upset. Besides, most multi-player shooters use spawning anyway. CorranSec- OK, the AT-AT's don't respawn, but the other, smaller vehicles do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 In BF1942, the whole oint of it is to kill anything you see and take control f as many baes as you can. I think it'd be really hard to make it he storyline yall want but it would be really cool. Also,, you'd have to spawn. Or else people will hat eit. No one wants to die and not be able to play anymore. They'll jus leave and goto another game room or whatever. It could jus be after you die, you respawn at a place after 20 secs. Oh, and about the Arcade gaame. I think it's called Star Wars Arcade or something like that. It's based opn the Trilogy, and there are like 5 of them at my local Dave & Busters. And about every 3 hotels I've been to has like 1 of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted January 13, 2003 Author Share Posted January 13, 2003 I know, I have the game. Why though, would we want a story in multiplayer/skirmish? It's just several maps. In single player, yeah, do whatever u want, but single-player isn't the heart of BF1942. Let's take another scenario: Endor (ground). The Rebel players start out on a base named Shuttle or something. There is a neautral base called Ewok Village or something. If the Rebels capture it the Rebel players can get weak "vehicles" they can pilots like the catapult and glider. Meanwhile the Rebels also get weak Ewok bots to help them. if the Imps capture it is just another base for them. The Imps start out on one of 3 bases (Rebels get extra spawn tickets to compensate). the bases are thier main base; Shield Generator Base, Bunker and Scout Camp. When the Rebels reach the Bunker, they don't plant charges. Instead, the Imp's tickets trickle down faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Why not making it a defend the bunker scenario for the imps? and rebs also, but instead it's capture the bunker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 I think that an interesting thing for the multiplayer Endor scenario would be if the Imperial bases were always in the same place, but the Ewok village moved randomly around. The Imperials would have to send out speeder bike patrols to find the Ewoks (and the Rebels). Also, the Rebels shouldn't have any vehicles at their bases to begin with, but instead have to kill Imperial drivers and steal their vehicles. For example, a Rebel player shoots an Imperial speeder bike driver in the head and takes his speeder bike. Now speeder bikes are available and respawn at the Rebel base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted January 14, 2003 Author Share Posted January 14, 2003 No. The Ewok Village never moved anywere that I noticed. Maybe Ewok Village could be invisible to Imp players until they find it, and it could be in one of 3 different places. IMO, the Rebels shouldn't get Imp vehicles until they capture an Imp base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Maybe you could only capture enemy vehicles because in a Hoth scenario for example, you could start spawning some AT-ATs with the rebels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Of course the Ewok village didn't literally get up and move in the movies, but I'm just making it appear in a different place every time you start the map. This is to reflect the fact that the Rebels are a hidden guerilla movement, while the Imperials have established bases and need to go hunting. If the Ewok village is in the same place all the time, the Imperials could easily remember where it was and just crush it immediately, without having to send out patrols (which is what they should be doing). I don't think Rebels should get Imp vehicles in any multi map apart from Endor. Rebels piloting AT-ATs on Hoth? No, and it unbalances the map. Rebels piloting AT-STs and speeder bikes on Endor? Yes, and it would be fun, seeing as the Rebels have no other vehicles or even buildings and need some kind of vehicle (seeing as they are the attackers). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Yeah, I wasn't considering Multiplayer when I thought of the possessing troopers idea. Definitely only troops should re-spawn, not vehicles, otherwise the battle could go forever. I'd like to see (though this could be a lot of work) a tree-like campaign where you start with a basic scenario (Hoth) and you go onto a different next level depending on whether the Imps or the Rebs win. So it has a lot of re-playability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.