I've read a few interviews and there best answer is that you can blow up a planet with the death star. Now it may only be me but if thats the best the game has to offer it won't last long against some heavy competition with Rise of Legends and AOE3.

*fingers crossed they give us a little more than that*

It most certainly is going to be a tough year for the RTS market with so much quality being released.

As I type this, rumour has it that Age Of Empires might be going online like Galaxies.

With Empire At War, the dev team behind it are experienced so we all know that this game will not be like any other Star Wars RTS before it.

Plus, EaW will tend to use more long distance artillery, machines and troopers compared to the sticks N stones of AoE 3 and Rise. My only concern is ground battles in EaW - we need to see more pics because space is where its gonna be at !

DMUK

I don't think the storyline with AOE is enough to make a good MMORPG but who knows. By the time it comes out the MMORPG boat would have set sail and in comes the .... MMORTS!!! :D

Seriously they need better answers then doing this in every interview

Susie the reporter: What will make this better and different to other RTS before you?

Petro Geek: Ummmmm Hmmmmm tough one.... Ohhh hey look we have a Death Star!!!!

It's Star Wars. That's a pretty big plus. :)

They better have zoom in cameras and stuff too >_>

*plays his old school starcraft while awaiting EaW*

I agree with FroZ here. Blowing up planets with the Death Star might be cool, but ultimately it's pointless and harmful to your conquering. In addition, and yes I know i've gone on about this before, but EaW lacks diversity that is seen in all other RTS' - thats where its biggest downfall will be says me.

Originally posted by Prime
It's Star Wars. That's a pretty big plus. :)
I have to agree here. Even if it turns out to be nothing special (hopefully not), it will still be fun because it is a Star Wars rts, not just an rts.

Still be fun when the online community goes from 2000 to 300 in 2 weeks?

Originally posted by FroZticles
Still be fun when the online community goes from 2000 to 300 in 2 weeks?
To put it bluntly ..... yes. :)

But that's just me, I'm not a big fan of online RTS anyway. (might have to do I like to take things slower than most :D )

Losing online community is never a good thing. A SWG moderator should know this all to well :D

Aaa, but SWG is an Online game only. ;)

There's a difference there. :p

EAW can probably stay alive online for a long long time. RTS games are different than otehr Genres. Perhaps it's because you can have plenty of fun with very few players. Since most matches are either 1v1, or 2v2, you don't need alot of players. (As opposed to other genres and games like say Battlefront or RC where even just 8 players may be too small.) Hey I still play a 6 year old RTS game that is still fairly active online. And as Jan said, SWG isn't a fair comparison at all. I mean, really the only relation it has with EaW is that it is based in the Star Wars universe.

I wasn't compaeing I was just aying that losing an online community in a RTS is just as devasting in a MMO.

FPS have huge booms for the first 2 months then it dies down.

MMORPG stay strong for the first year can start to die after that if there has been no huge changes or new stuff added.

RTS time varies depending on gameplay, balance and how well it meshes together. To most RTS players they only play them online well they play the campaign once but its more fun with people. Some RTS last for years some only last a month.

I hope we don't have another BFME on our hands since thats were most of these developers came from. The potential was there but it getting rushed to stores, major balance issues and gameplay were not enjoyable.

BTW Bepop play SWG and you will see its not the Star Wars universe but one of SOE's mutant creations nothing like SW at all IMO.

Don't worry about this turning into BFME2. EaW isn't under EA's evil rule.

An RTS' online community is as important as any other game.

However, it shouldn't be the only focus. Single player in an RTS is of great importance.

Games like Rome: Total War have very solid single player modes and still subsist.

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Don't worry about this turning into BFME2. EaW isn't under EA's evil rule.

An RTS' online community is as important as any other game.

However, it shouldn't be the only focus. Single player in an RTS is of great importance.

Games like Rome: Total War have very solid single player modes and still subsist.
lukeiamyourdad! You're back! Welcome back.

I definately agree with you. I will probably play more single player, so if single player sucks, then the game will suck to me.

Yes I am back :D

Back from hibernating in 'Nam.

Concerning MP being as important in an RTS then in an MMORPG, I don't think it's comparable since MMO's are MP ONLY while RTS have an SP portion.
That said, many games live very well without a very large MP community. Look at Civilization 3 for exemple. MP was unplayable, yet the game is still great and still has tons of fans still playing the game religiously.

Alot of MMO have a small community look at the new Matrix MMORPG.... and we know RPG's don't need to be online games to be good take the Kotor series. (even though it would be great as a online game)

In RTS it is still what keeps the game going and replayable. Civ 3 could have been alot greater if it supported MP more. You can only play the campaigns so many times before you start getting bored.

I know I'm definately in the minority on this forum since most Hardcore RTS players don't post here and alot of you only play SP and even when you play online prolly just a custom map player. (Nothing wrong with custom maps all been there). Once the online community dies the game is basically had its time whether it be long or short.

It's going to depend on what the developpers focus more on.
If they want the ultimate SP experience, they'll focus on SP. If they want the ultimate MP experience, they'll focus on MP.

A lot of games are SP only, but for the short while they live, they're great fun and stay on the mind of players everywhere.

I'd rather have a game that I can play for a couple of years then one that entertains me for a month or a couple of weeks. Online is always more fun then SP thats why MMO's are in big demand right now. In a couple more years SP might not even exist.

I doubt that since there cannot be much story telling in an MMO. Part of the fun of an SP game is often the story. RPG's for example, live or die depending on how well written they are.

You can't have that in a purely MP game. Nor can you find breath taking scripted action (а la Call of Duty to name one).

MP is not always fun. Such communities like Battle.net for example, are huge but full of retards. StarCraft and WarCraft are good games, but the MP communities are among the worst.

Of course, I would like a game that can entertain me for a couple of years but that seems to be impossible in our time. Games are made to be shorter then they used to be and don't stay long. As such, a game that stays as strong as StarCraft is impossible.
Besides, unless you're really fanatical, you'll play a game for a year or two max.
Besides, the new life extensions for a game are mods.
Even an SP only game like KOTOR can survive a lot longer thanks to mods made by the community.

Anyway, I think I lost myself.

The point is that MP isn't better then SP, it's a matter of taste.

Most battle.net games need a very required taste. WC3 and SC are full of hackers and idiots but there online communites are still thriving. You cannot avoid them they are in every game that has MP.

Not much story telling in an MMO? Ummmm they update the storyline every patch basically. I'll take WOW as an example. They have story based quests that really make the story more believable and some of them are really fun and to watch how your journey unfolds. They add new dungeons that give new quests. So I disagree the MMO's don't have a story when the whole game is based on story.

Also depends on the quality of the MMO, WOW is still the best out there. SOE MMO's are not the best story tellers of the industry. If you see some new and creative ideas from them start panicing.

Originally posted by FroZticles

Also depends on the quality of the MMO, WOW is still the best out there. SOE MMO's are not the best story tellers of the industry. If you see some new and creative ideas from them start panicing.
ROFLMAO :D :D :D

Originally posted by FroZticles
Not much story telling in an MMO? Ummmm they update the storyline every patch basically. I'll take WOW as an example. They have story based quests that really make the story more believable and some of them are really fun and to watch how your journey unfolds. They add new dungeons that give new quests. So I disagree the MMO's don't have a story when the whole game is based on story.

This is quite arguable.

There is no larger storyline so to speak. The quests are mini-stories at best, each being their own, but whatever you do in World of WarCraft, you won't have the "importance" of say Diablo 1 and 2's hero.

Also, WoW already has this humongous background story that is the WarCraft universe with its past 3 games (and expansions).

An MMO's story will never achieve the grandeur of an SP RPG's one. You cannot even compare the stories and characters of games like KOTOR, Jade Empire, Baldur's Gate, FFX, Chrono Trigger even Diablo. The characters stick with you which isn't something you'll find in an MMORPG outside of RP servers. Even in RP servers, I doubt you'll find "well written characters".

I think an MMO story just gets drowned out because of all the content. A character in an MMO is what you make it if people are there only to become a pvp god or a loot farmer then you can't really force them to have a story behind there character. There are well written characters in WOW like Tyrande and Thrall just to name a few. Quests really add alot of backstory of what has happened to Azeroth after the Burning Legion was defeated.

Where as SP RPG's all you really have is the characters and the story so it really shines out more. Kotor has quests like WoW but an MMO has more of them where as once the game ends in a SP the story cannot continue unless expansion comes out.

MMO's don't have stories, they have backstories. There's an explanation for the setting, and sometimes, in the good MMO's, the story of the world at large advances.

Both MMO's and single player games (I'll compare MMORPGS and RPGS for this example) have backstories. There has to be some setting, some overarching world that the game takes place in. It's the backstory, and both MMO's and SP games need it. MMO's have quests, which are like small sub stories, but those are the equivalent of side-quests in SP games. What SP games have that MMO's lack is an actual plot line.

You can only argue that MMO's have a backstory, but they dont' have a plot, and plot is what makes a lot of games, like KOTOR, really good.


Okay, I'm just a little sidetracked there. Back to RTS games, though, for me personally, MP is not that big a factor for RTS games. I very rarely play any RTS online. I play for the single player experience, and not even just the campaign.

Until I read this thread, it never truly struck me just how much some people think that RTS games are multiplayer games.
I want to let all the hardcore MP RTS fans out there know, that you're view isn't the only one, and to many, MP is a bonus, not an asset, and the longevity of the MP playerbase only matters to that playerbase.

It's worth pointing out that an RTS without MP should be just like any other SP game without MP. Jedi Outcast was a great game in SP, and had great multiplayer. It would still be a great game if it didn't have multiplayer. It would just have lost money from the PKing pwnz0r sp sux gamers.


Even further back on topic, what does EAW have to offer over other RTS.

I can think of three things.

1. It's a different, futuristic, universe. In EAW, you won't be advancing from cavemen to cavalry to tanks. There will be no stage where melee combat is the primary combat. It's a ranged world. Deeper than that, it's a world with lasers and completely different technology. It's a different world, there are going to be different rules.

2. Space combat. EAW will have a big bit of space combat on the scale of capital ships and entire fleets. I don't know of any games besides Homeworld and Rebellion that have really done that. Plus, it will be integrated into normal land based gameplay.

3. It's Star Wars. Ask any Star Wars fan why Galactic Battlegrounds was better than AOE2. I doubt the answer will be Airbases. The answer will be "It's Star Wars, man!" or even just "Jedi!" It's that simple. Just being associated with Star Wars gives anything a certain level of innate awesomeness. Star Wars alone is enough to make any mediocre game unique, fun, and awesome.

MMO's don't have stories, they have backstories. There's an explanation for the setting, and sometimes, in the good MMO's, the story of the world at large advances.

Exactly, there are stories but thats why they have RP servers so the people make there story while quests provide small stories along the way while gaining levels.


You can only argue that MMO's have a backstory, but they dont' have a plot, and plot is what makes a lot of games, like KOTOR, really good.

Games like Kotor rely on plot. MMO's rely less on story because there is alot of other things people can do where as SP RPG all they got is the plot and story to make it good.


Until I read this thread, it never truly struck me just how much some people think that RTS games are multiplayer games.

As I said I'm in the minority on this forum because most of you go on MP a few times and probably just don't want to face the abuse you get or are intimidated by players or just hate losing.

It's worth pointing out that an RTS without MP should be just like any other SP game without MP. Jedi Outcast was a great game in SP, and had great multiplayer. It would still be a great game if it didn't have multiplayer. It would just have lost money from the PKing pwnz0r sp sux gamers.

Jedi Outcast isn't a RTS so you can't use this to back up your claim.





All those things that you think will make it different really is scary I thought there would be more its Star Wars isn't different and GB was a SW RTS so thats not new. Its not different its SW.

Space combat, flashy trailers and cool characters, vehicles and the death star is what they are relying on to get consumers to buy it. I hope they offer more then what they have because I have been waiting for this for about 3 years.

Looking more like BFME as time goes by :/

Originally posted by FroZticles

Games like Kotor rely on plot. MMO's rely less on story because there is alot of other things people can do where as SP RPG all they got is the plot and story to make it good.


No, SP RPGs still have to rely on other gameplay elements. If the only thing that's good in KOTOR is the story but the gameplay is total crap, the overall experience would be pretty lousy.




Originally posted by FroZticles
As I said I'm in the minority on this forum because most of you go on MP a few times and probably just don't want to face the abuse you get or are intimidated by players or just hate losing.

A poor assumption. I play a lot of MP FPS, from Battlefield1942 to Wolf:ET. Why? These games gather a lot of players on a server in a controlled environment, watched over by admins or automated defense systems.

However, RTS are very different, in the way that nobody can watch over a game out of an official tournament or something similar.
You get a LOT of crap and that's not only in a single RTS that I got crap from weaker players, but every single one. If I crush an opponent under 10 mins, he'll start begging to restart the game "because he made a mistake". I refuse and he disconnects.

This is also the same thing that I hated about Diablo 2 MP. You were thrown into a game without any capability to kick out annoying *******s.

That's why I stopped going to places like the Zone or Battle.net

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
However, RTS are very different, in the way that nobody can watch over a game out of an official tournament or something similar.
You get a LOT of crap and that's not only in a single RTS that I got crap from weaker players, but every single one. If I crush an opponent under 10 mins, he'll start begging to restart the game "because he made a mistake". I refuse and he disconnects.

This is also the same thing that I hated about Diablo 2 MP. You were thrown into a game without any capability to kick out annoying *******s.

That's why I stopped going to places like the Zone or Battle.net
I have had the same problem playing Warcraft on Battle.net. Hopefully this one will have much better online capabilities.

Originally posted by FroZticles
Exactly, there are stories but thats why they have RP servers so the people make there story while quests provide small stories along the way while gaining levels.

Having players "make up their own story" isn't a plot. Not that that's relavant anyways.


Games like Kotor rely on plot. MMO's rely less on story because there is alot of other things people can do where as SP RPG all they got is the plot and story to make it good.

First of all, duh. MMO's rely less on story because it's impossible to have one, and they dont' need one. What does that have to do with anything? I never said that MMO's sucked for not having plots. Second, the previous poster is right, SP RPGs do depend more on other aspects too.


As I said I'm in the minority on this forum because most of you go on MP a few times and probably just don't want to face the abuse you get or are intimidated by players or just hate losing.

Once again, what's your point? Yeah, I played online a few times and found that no one who plays online plays at the pace I enjoy, and are always in a rush to win, and obviously I got my ass kicked. And I didn't find it fun. I don't want to play at the speed people online do, and I don't want to play against someone who who seems to be far more concerned with winning than anything else, because that's not fun. Maybe I was wrong in detecting that bit of contempt in what you wrote, but criticize people who don't play online all you want, because it's your fault.



Jedi Outcast isn't a RTS so you can't use this to back up your claim.

My claim was that a game doesn't need good Multiplayer to still be good. Jedi Outcast was a game that would have still had a good SP whether it had MP or not. How can I not use it to back up my claim, which fundamentally had no specific ties to RTS games?





All those things that you think will make it different really are scary. I thought there would be more. Its Star Wars, Star Wars isn't different and GB was a SW RTS, so thats not new. Its not different its SW.

Okay, I edited your paragraph to say what I think you meant to say. Star Wars is different. In the big picture, it's not incredibly different from the world we live in, but what is? But the universe of Star Wars, and combat within it, IS different.

Also, GB existing hardly makes EAW less unique. Did they stop making Star Wars games after the original on the NES? Did people say to the newer Star Wars games "What the heck? They already made a Star Wars game. Now it's not cool."

"It's not different, it's SW." SW IS different. I'll give you that it's not terribly different, but it is! And, it's still awesome.

Space combat, flashy trailers and cool characters, vehicles and the death star is what they are relying on to get consumers to buy it. I hope they offer more then what they have because I have been waiting for this for about 3 years.

I hope they have more, too. Because I'd like a really good game. But think about this: Worst case scenario: It's a pretty mediocre title, but still looks nice and is Star Wars. Best case scenario: It's an awesome game, one of the best RTS on the marktet, PLUS it's Star Wars.

Also, what reason do we have to beleive that this game will be mediocre? We don't have enough information to make any judgements on gameplay. You're losing faith in the game for no apparent reason.

Finally, I'd like to ask you why you've been waiting three years for this game. There are plenty of other RTS games out there, some of them probably satisfy everything you think belongs in an RTS. You obviously don't expect it to be exceptional, or beyond anything else other games have to offer. So why hang in anticipation for this one? Could it be that it's because it's Star Wars? Could it be that maybe the reason you anticipate this title is because it's Star Wars and you just really want to play a good SW RTS?

If so, then there you have it. Star Wars makes this game worth wanting. We all hope it will be a great RTS. But I can garuntee you it will be better than GB and Force Commander combined, and both of those games were worth playing, so how bad can it honestly be?

First of all, duh. MMO's rely less on story because it's impossible to have one, and they dont' need one. What does that have to do with anything? I never said that MMO's sucked for not having plots. Second, the previous poster is right, SP RPGs do depend more on other aspects too.

SWG had a plot but then they really went away from it. Like putting in a story driven quest that then effected what happens next in the overall story of the galaxy so its not impossible. Out of interest how many MMO's have you played the pay for play ones.



My claim was that a game doesn't need good Multiplayer to still be good. Jedi Outcast was a game that would have still had a good SP whether it had MP or not. How can I not use it to back up my claim, which fundamentally had no specific ties to RTS games?

I've played JO2 AND JA I played them once and was over it tried playing online but me and FPS don't mix.



Once again, what's your point? Yeah, I played online a few times and found that no one who plays online plays at the pace I enjoy, and are always in a rush to win, and obviously I got my ass kicked. And I didn't find it fun. I don't want to play at the speed people online do, and I don't want to play against someone who who seems to be far more concerned with winning than anything else, because that's not fun. Maybe I was wrong in detecting that bit of contempt in what you wrote, but criticize people who don't play online all you want, because it's your fault.

My point was you don't care if the online side is good or bad because as you said you don't like getting rushed or learning how to play at an efficient level. It sucks when you are a noob but once you hit the expert high inter levels its alot of fun win or lose. People get annoyed because you sound like the type of person that just wants to sit there for 2 hours mass an army and the biggest side wins. Stick to scenarios you'll be happier and they take 2 days to learn.


Okay, I edited your paragraph to say what I think you meant to say. Star Wars is different. In the big picture, it's not incredibly different from the world we live in, but what is? But the universe of Star Wars, and combat within it, IS different.

Saying its SW is nothing new we all know what SW is. I'm talking gameplay wise and It's Star Wars!!! is in the same league as Ohhhhhhh we have a Death Star!!!





I hope they have more, too. Because I'd like a really good game. But think about this: Worst case scenario: It's a pretty mediocre title, but still looks nice and is Star Wars. Best case scenario: It's an awesome game, one of the best RTS on the marktet, PLUS it's Star Wars.

Worse case: Game is unbalanced, online interface is poor, the graphics are so high it causes major lag when in big battles.

Best case: Nice well rounded game supporting hardcore and casual gamers.

Finally, I'd like to ask you why you've been waiting three years for this game. There are plenty of other RTS games out there, some of them probably satisfy everything you think belongs in an RTS. You obviously don't expect it to be exceptional, or beyond anything else other games have to offer. So why hang in anticipation for this one? Could it be that it's because it's Star Wars? Could it be that maybe the reason you anticipate this title is because it's Star Wars and you just really want to play a good SW RTS?

GB was my first RTS that I really got into I never got into AOE series so this was different pace. I like SW games but I don't want them to just rely on the brand name to get people buying it. Thats what EA is good at just check at how many games they make about movies Spider-man the game Batmna the game and many more. I bought BFME expecting a different style but it was a failure mostly on EA's side where it took them ages to patch and it is unbalanced even SP sucked.

No RTS has interest me since GB. I play WC3 time to time but there online community is the worst I have ever seen. EVER!!

I might get AOE3 while waiting but I'm a very fussy RTS player.

Finally, I'd like to ask you why you've been waiting three years for this game. There are plenty of other RTS games out there, some of them probably satisfy everything you think belongs in an RTS. You obviously don't expect it to be exceptional, or beyond anything else other games have to offer. So why hang in anticipation for this one? Could it be that it's because it's Star Wars?
"Hang in anticipation"? You make it sound like I haven't bought a single game since Empire at War was announced.

On the contrary, I bought Battlefield 2 only yesterday and Silent Hunter III a few months ago. I'm also addicted to Empires.

Could it be that maybe the reason you anticipate this title is because it's Star Wars and you just really want to play a good SW RTS?
Quite possibly. Force Commander failed for a lot of reasons, Galactic Battleground was good, but not great, and Rebellion... I might buy it if I see it someplace, but from what I hear it's tedious and pretty much a poor game.

So yes, I want a good Star Wars RTS experience. I've got X-Wing Alliance, TIE fighter, and Galactic Conquest, but I want an RTS game, too.

BFME 2 has been announced here is a link. Looks like they have learned there lesson and are going back to the old style which is nice. Not sure what timeframe it will be in but before the ring is destroyed I'm guessing :D.

Info
http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=26915&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)

Screens
http://www.hdr-inside.de/gal_details.php?go=kategorie&kat=1277)

I guess they were disappointed with BFME so they wanted to give themselves a better image. Still annoyed because they have ditched BFME and moved onto this project which is probably part of the reason why it failed.

Back to E@W

I have been playing other games WoW and recently Sims 2 the last RTS was BFME but this is the one I've been waiting for.

I'm cautious about BFME2. The videos of the fortress construction (yes they ditched the pre set plot idea! Free placemnt!) and battles look good but that means nothing. And yes it is set during the War of the Ring. It deals with the war in the north between the orcs/goblins and the elves and dwarves. Eluded to in the books, but never described in much detail. Here's hoping for a skybox. Until then I'll just wait for the Fourth Age modification for Rome.

^^^^

Why does everyone hate BfME so much?

Anyways, it's nice to see naval battle in there as well.

Not so sure bout these custom heroes being playable online 6 sides and all those abilities to balance doesn't look like a light is anywhere to be seen with a successful RTS coming from EA.

To answer the original question, ground based RTS a la AoE fused with a space RTS a la Homeworld.

As I type this, rumour has it that Age Of Empires might be going online like Galaxies.

Its been confirmed that it is not an Age game, but some other new franchise. Although AoE3 is a MMORTS of sorts.

Ask any Star Wars fan why Galactic Battlegrounds was better than AOE2. I doubt the answer will be Airbases. The answer will be "It's Star Wars, man!" or even just "Jedi!" It's that simple.

Really? I thought it was because it improved on AoK's already great gameplay in nearly every catergory.

Pfft I doubt any RTS has over a million players at launch.

I find the AOK engine outdated, but its probably still the best overall one out there.