StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://pc.ign.com/articles/581/581901p1.html

FUCK YES! I can't wait for this game. I hope they do it right.

http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?pager ... Id=3137719

Given Lucasarts' bumpy record lately, I'll not be holding my breath. It'll either rock amazingly, or fail miserably.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Given Lucasarts' bumpy record lately, I'll not be holding my breath. It'll either rock amazingly, or fail miserably.

Well, this is being done by outside help. Specifically the team that originally brought you Command & Conquer.

Obviously, you can't just plug something this big into an existing game engine. You need to create one from scratch, and it'd better be good. That's why LucasArts was anxious to work with Petroglyph (see sidebar, page 59). "Who," you ask? These are former Westwood Studios employees, the guys who created the Command & Conquer series. The engine they assembled for C&C: Generals is still being used by Electronic Arts (most recently for Battle for Middle-earth). As you can see from the screenshots, even this early on, it looks awesome.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

or you may find yourself targeting the shield generators of a ship with proton torpedoes to open the enemy up to laser fire from your fighters.

So fighters will be able to fire through shields and hit the sensor globes which will count as shield generators. COME ON PEOPLE! Don't follow the brain bugs!

As much as we'd like a "realistic" SW space sim it ain't happening. There are also balance issues to consider that supercede realism.

I know, and I would be fine if they made the globes shield generators, but they're talking about firing THROUGH the shields to hit the generators. That's the WORST possible version of the brain bug.

Did you miss my point about game balance?

Yes, where naturally the massive investment of a capital warship should be so vulnerable. Balance my ass. Do not, however, balance ON my ass, as that would just be wierd.

The engine will render the vistas of familiar planets such as Hoth, Tatooine, and Dagobah, as well as some hitherto unseen locations from the Star Wars films and novels.

Alright, am I the only one who is TIRED of MIDDLE OF NOWHERE planets like these appearing in game after game after game? NO ONE CARES about Tatooine. No one even knows Dagobah exists. And ain't /nobody/ wants to go to Hoth.

The Rebels wanted to go to Hoth. Empires at War is set before Episode IV. There's nothing wrong with re-creating a few battles.

Hoth I could see, if for some ungodly reason the game wants to re-do old battles. But Tatooine? Nothing's there to take. Dagobah? Nothing's there /period./

Yes but wishing for an entirely accurate Star Wars game is like looking an entirely accurate war simulator - I mean, this is as close to 'real life' Star Wars as say, Command and Conquer is to the real world. Tanks are pretty easy kills in C&C too relative to say, how hard a M-1 is to kill in the real world. While we here would all love a RTW+Homeworld game with hundreds of fighters pounding on an ISD to no all and hundreds of Stormtroopers and rebels being blow to bits by heavy artillery, how are you going to market something like that to the masses - BFME sells way better than RTW (the analysts predicted it that way, anyways) and the Homeworld's series is dying - traditionalism does sell.

LA is playing it safe - BFME for Star Wars. Cool-looking though.

There's a new article over at the OS with screenshots:

+http://www.starwars.com/gaming/videogam ... 50121.html

I don't get it. Is this supposedly a Rebellion/Rome: Total War hybrid?

looking good

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:I don't get it. Is this supposedly a Rebellion/Rome: Total War hybrid?

No, more like Rebellion with C&C generals.

Ace Pace wrote:

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:I don't get it. Is this supposedly a Rebellion/Rome: Total War hybrid?

No, more like Rebellion with C&C generals.

Can't wait...

Well atleast it's looking fun. And Finally, Unit's that group right. Oh and as for the space aspect, the "Like Star Trek Armada, But better" sounds promising 'cause I looooved STAII (never played the origional but they were very similar so...)

Fuck, what are you guys talking about! The space battles look like crap! The biggest things games are missing with space battles are size difference and space. Homeworld had a mod to chang things over to Star Wars and that kicked ass. A Tie-fighter compared to a StarDestroyer. There is a HUGE size diference. And there was space for them to manouver, there was also 3 Dimensions of movement. Why do they have to make things look so out of proportion. If you still have homeworld, get this mod. It can be found here
http://swnr.themaw.net/

Trust me, after this you will say this upcoming game looks like ass.

Guy N. Cognito wrote:Fuck, what are you guys talking about! The space battles look like crap! The biggest things games are missing with space battles are size difference and space. Homeworld had a mod to chang things over to Star Wars and that kicked ass. A Tie-fighter compared to a StarDestroyer. There is a HUGE size diference. And there was space for them to manouver, there was also 3 Dimensions of movement. Why do they have to make things look so out of proportion. If you still have homeworld, get this mod. It can be found here
http://swnr.themaw.net/

Trust me, after this you will say this upcoming game looks like ass.

This game is just starting development. Of course it looks like crap. I don't know a game in the first stage that didn't look like crap.

Thank you Captain Obvious. We are well aware of the size difference between a Star Destroyer and a Tie Fighter. However, Homeworld and this game are a bit different in terms of what they're designed to do. Comparing them is really like comparing apples and oranges.

No when you are comparing game battles, what do you compare? How they look and play. It's not apples and oranges for the battles, it's apples and oranges for the game as a whole. And it may have just started development, but they are still only planning on having a 2D spacebattles, unless they have changed it since then. So that means -1 point. Ship scales? Why would they build the models and show them and then change the sizes later. I'm pretty sure they are keeping them the same. If they change it, good, but how many RTS games have you seen where they keep scale appropriate between large and small?

Guy N. Cognito wrote:No when you are comparing game battles, what do you compare? How they look and play. It's not apples and oranges for the battles, it's apples and oranges for the game as a whole. And it may have just started development, but they are still only planning on having a 2D spacebattles, unless they have changed it since then. So that means -1 point. Ship scales? Why would they build the models and show them and then change the sizes later. I'm pretty sure they are keeping them the same. If they change it, good, but how many RTS games have you seen where they keep scale appropriate between large and small?

I haven't seen any where they keep the scale appropriate. I don't expect them to. I don't know about you but I like to be able to see all my forces from a good distance so I can keep my eye on the entire battle. If I have to scroll in close enough to find the tiny starfighters next to an ISD that's going to be a tactical handicap.

But really this is just personal opinion. You obviously don't like it. That's fine with me. You can play a Homeworld Star Wars MOD and I'll play this.

Guy N. Cognito wrote:No when you are comparing game battles, what do you compare? How they look and play. It's not apples and oranges for the battles, it's apples and oranges for the game as a whole. And it may have just started development, but they are still only planning on having a 2D spacebattles, unless they have changed it since then. So that means -1 point. Ship scales? Why would they build the models and show them and then change the sizes later. I'm pretty sure they are keeping them the same. If they change it, good, but how many RTS games have you seen where they keep scale appropriate between large and small?

Have you ever played Star Trek: Armada? Why is 2D battles a -1?

Yes, I've played Armade. And as for why I consider 2D -1 point. I don't know, because I think with a 3D mind? Space has 3 Dimensions,a nd I love the fact that 3 dimensions add so much to a battle. For instance. Let's say some on has a large flat carrier. I warp a sufficent number of ships below his carrier, he moves to engage. Then I move warp ships above his carrier. Then you attack his carrier and use his carrier as cover as you pick off his ships that are coming around his carrier one at a time. Trust me, it's more confusing, harder, and way more fun.

Guy N. Cognito wrote:Yes, I've played Armade. And as for why I consider 2D -1 point. I don't know, because I think with a 3D mind? Space has 3 Dimensions,a nd I love the fact that 3 dimensions add so much to a battle. For instance. Let's say some on has a large flat carrier. I warp a sufficent number of ships below his carrier, he moves to engage. Then I move warp ships above his carrier. Then you attack his carrier and use his carrier as cover as you pick off his ships that are coming around his carrier one at a time. Trust me, it's more confusing, harder, and way more fun.

I don't see how more confusing = more fun...

No one can be told what 3 Dimensions is. They have to see it for themselves. If you are curious, HomeWorld is dirt cheap since it's been out 6 years. Just pick it up. You'll either love it or hate it.