HaruGlory89 Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 It's just my idea, but I feel that having less civs adds more variety to the game. Other factions can be added, like in Emperor: battle for Dune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 I agree to an extent, though I think it should be "No more civs, more variety". Adding in all these other rediculously insignificant civilisations is going to force the game to be unbalanced, repetitive, and not fun. Keeping the same amount of civs but diversifying them will be much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 It's gonna turn into AoM if we have less civs and make different factions for each of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 1 more new civ (vong) and then work on them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Siraious Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak 1 more new civ (vong) and then work on them NO, NO, NO, Talk about an unbalanced civ that would be, Now I like the NJO series but the Vong should never be put into a game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Hey guys, all we need is 4 civs : Empire Rebels Republic Confeds LucasArts should try to make their games more original *cough* rip-off *cough* What we really need is diversity; we want each civ to be completly unique (don't give me the AoE's crap like a unique unit and a couple of upgrades). LucasArts should also try to make their own engines (KotOR = BioWare's Aurora engine, JKII and JA = Quake, SWGB = AoK) The only original game I can think of is YODA STORIES (but I'm not completly sure of its integrety) The product is not always bad (JA and KotOR both look promising), but it would definitly help if LA was more creative... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Hmmm... well I dunno about the engine thing...you know Force Commander had an original engine(correct me if I'm wrong) and look at the results...although the best way for LA to go for SWGB2/SWRTS is their own engine or a HEAVILY(and I mean HEAVILY) modified existing engine. A bit like Raven did for JK:JO and JK:JA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Hmmm... well I dunno about the engine thing...you know Force Commander had an original engine(correct me if I'm wrong) and look at the results...although the best way for LA to go for SWGB2/SWRTS is their own engine or a HEAVILY(and I mean HEAVILY) modified existing engine. A bit like Raven did for JK:JO and JK:JA. Is the quake engine really heavily modified? And Force Commander was freakin' good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 3, 2003 Share Posted September 3, 2003 Originally posted by Darth54 1-Is the quake engine really heavily modified? 2-And Force Commander was freakin' good 1) My point is that when you play RTCW, MOH or JK:JO, you don't feel like you're playing Q3. 2) No comment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legameboy Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 I think Warcraft 3 was excellent with their civs, it should be that (or more) uniquye in SWGB2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaruGlory89 Posted September 5, 2003 Author Share Posted September 5, 2003 Hey guys, all we need is 4 civs : Empire Rebels Republic Confeds exactly what I thought. 2-And Force Commander was freakin' good Umm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Originally posted by legameboy I think Warcraft 3 was excellent with their civs, it should be that (or more) uniquye in SWGB2. YES!!! At last!!! Someone who's actually intelligent! (I'm a WC3 lover, in a forum full of WC3 haters) Originally posted by HaruGlory89 exactly what I thought. Everybody here is obsessed by more civs... Many civs doesn't really make a good game, what we really need are completly different civs. Take RoN for example; they used the same "unique units and techs for specific civs" crap. I got RoN from a friend, and I only played a couple of times; I feel like playing AoK with new civs and better graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 We Need a mental Doctor stat some NUTCASE thinks FORCE COMMANDER0 was anything but crap Get0 Off0 this forum anyone who thinks Force Commander was good is mad insane not right in the membrane ah here's the docotr he'll check if your sane. Doctor : Do You Think Force Commander is Good? Nutcase : It's Freakin Good Doctor : MyDiagnosis is that he is clinically Insane send him off to the asylum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_trooper Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Yes, more variety! Im no obsessed player, but I really dont care what civ I take when I play with friends cuz its all the same for me. I know theres a couple of almost meaningless upgrades that each civ has and one unique unit, but thats just not enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Hmmm... On the case of SWGB, unlike most RTS, you have a ton of facts, vehicles, units available. It would be a shame to kill off all the good stuff we have. The materials to make a civ in a SW games is limitless since most of the stuff you can put in all come from movies, books etc. You make up some units along the way to fill in the gaps. NO ONE has ever proposed a non-completely-unique civ ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Ok, 1. Look around. I haven't found a single person who hasn't said that there should be less civs and unique unit sets and characteristics (windu doesnt count). There are also some nice templates out by various forumers that try to accomplish just that (my next installment is typed but not uploaded...) 2. This isn't a forum of complete WC3 hating forumers. I just post so much, it seems that way (or I used to). 3. AoK graphics>RoN graphics 4. There is nothing wrong per se bout making the game more like AoM:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 1. exactly 2. Only Sith here is a WC3 hater 3. not sure 4. yes there's a lot of wrongs... nice to have you back sith. It's been awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Its the brief hiatus that occurs when vacation meets summer school work.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 I pretty much agree with Vostok's stance here in that it should be "same number of civs, more variety", those civs being- 1. Confederacy 2. Empire 3. Republic 4. Hutts 5. Rebels 6. Naboo 7. Federation 8. Wookiees 9. Yuuzhan Vong (secret civ) anfor those who have read my latest idea for SWGB2 would know that the civs i have listed are far, far more unique than in SWGB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saberhagen Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Surely there's far more material for civs and units in real history than in all of the Star Wars stuff? It's just more difficult to get at and more subjective, and game designers generally prefer to deal in cliches that their audience can identify with. Sorry, I've just been playing a demo of No Man's Land and it's affecting my brain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Well the fact is that when you look at real civs from history, the all were pretty similar - I mean we are all human, and while our military organisations have differed we still send humans into battle. So for modelling historical civs, a generic unit set with a couple of unique units is entirely adequate. Star Wars is totally different, however. There civs are far more different to each other than anything in Earth's history has been. And I'd just like to go on record saying I loved WC3 as well. Though not as much as SWGB, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Originally posted by Darth Windu I pretty much agree with Vostok's stance here in that it should be "same number of civs, more variety", those civs being- 1. Confederacy 2. Empire 3. Republic 4. Hutts 5. Rebels 6. Naboo 7. Federation 8. Wookiees 9. Yuuzhan Vong (secret civ) anfor those who have read my latest idea for SWGB2 would know that the civs i have listed are far, far more unique than in SWGB. I don't quite understand your point with that "secret civ". Why would the designers include a secret civ? There's no point at it. Yes, many civ can be great. But there is no way they could make 9 civ completly unique (well, they could, but it would take too much time). IMO, 4 is a good number, 6 would be awesome. The unique unit and tech stuff is rather pointless, IMO. If I have like *really* nothing to do and play SWGB, I usually don't care about which civ I'm choosing; they're not different!!! That being said, SWGB was a really great game, but taking the AoK engine was a big (a HUGE actually) mistake. When SWGB 2 comes out (IF it ever comes out), I'll be sure to pick it up, because I'm a real SW fan. However, I think they should try to build up their engine this time. AoM *could* do fine, but is far from perfect for a SW game. Is Sith the only WC3 hater? I remember having some (a lot) of opposition when it came out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Originally posted by Darth Windu 1. Confederacy 2. Empire 3. Republic 4. Rebels 5. Naboo - don't really care if they're in or not 1. Federation 6. Wookiees - don't really care if they're in or not 7. Yuuzhan Vong (secret bonus civ) 8. Hutts (bonus civ) There's my list... Get rid of some of the useless civs and combine civs, and we're set. I've never played as the wookiees except when I'm really bored. 2-And Force Commander was freakin' good I thought it was good too. I liked how the AT-ATs were freakin huge... I want scale in SWGB2, no troopers being 1/3 the size of Assault Mechs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Darth54, back then I had quite a few people who agreed with me on Blizzard games. But they've all either left, or don't post about it any more. I agree with you about the diffuculty of making 9 completely unique civs. I think the number should be in the 6-7 range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted September 7, 2003 Share Posted September 7, 2003 Darth54 - the Yuuzhan Vong would be a bonus civs that could only be played in multi-player games, and would only become available after the player had completed every single-player campaign ion the hardest difficulty setting. With the number of civs, really it would be only 8 since the Vong wouldnt count, and anyone who believes you cant make 8 unique civs obviously hasnt seen my SWGB2 idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.