FOC is very enjoyable and a great game; however, it does not expand on EAW because it elimanates regular EAW and you cannot play rebels or empire in single player campaign anymore (I know u can in galatic etc). Shouldnt an expansion pack EXPAND a game and not take parts of it completely away? Guess ill have to wait for that mod.
Cannot someone just mod the XML back in?
Ummm...no?
There's no clear definition for what should an expansion contain. They can remove, modify, change, whatever they wish while at the same time adding new content.
You got a new single slayer campaign, new units for the old factions and a whole new faction.
That is enough for an expansion.
Generally, expansions add not take away. I may have a few posts here but that doesnt mean I havent been playing games for a long time.
1. the act or process of expanding.
2. the state or quality of being expanded.
3. the amount or degree of expanding.
4. an expanded, dilated, or enlarged portion or form of a thing: The present article is an expansion of one he wrote last year.
5. anything spread out; expanse.
Note definition four of expansion it means ADDED to not takes away.
How did Forces of Corruption "take away" anything?
You know, I do remember not being able to play the original StarCraft campaign with the Brood War units, or the WarCraft III campaign with the Frozen Throne units, or the Total Annihilation campaign with the Core Contingency units, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...I don't know where anyone got the idea that they'd be able to go play the original Empire at War campaign with all the expansion pack features. That's not how expansion packs typically work, and it's what we've been told from the beginning by Petroglyph.
Personally, I can't see how having a GC game against two opponents is less enjoyable than a GC game vs. a single opponent. How could a 1/3 increase in game content be a bad thing?
One of the best selling games of all the Diablo II, the expansion for it added new content onto the ending, same thing for Dungeon Siege and Dungeon Siege II. I enjoy everything they added, I just wish I had the options to play the original EAW with the updated changes and content.
One of the best selling games of all the Diablo II, the expansion for it added new content onto the ending, same thing for Dungeon Siege and Dungeon Siege II. I enjoy everything they added, I just wish I had the options to play the original EAW with the updated changes and content.
Exactly what i really wanted from the expansion, to add to what is there, not keep the EAW stuff from the expansion so we have to change back to vanilla EAW to play the original stuff.
well to be onest, i wouldnt see the point in playing the vanilla eaw campaign with the new units. it sounds kool and that but the expansion takes the existing game and expands, the missions are nothing to do with it if you ask me. and if you want them in wanilla eaw then just mod them in
But it is exactly that, one campaign, and I've been told it is fairly short too, i cant personally do it as my game got stuck because of a bug.
Playing campaigns again with extra units just adds the extra fun to it, but if i modded it i could play vanilla EAW with new units, but then, I wouldn't have access to the new units on the expansion, so id have to mod them in there, so have to mod twice, and then if I want to plays some GC maps, I am only left with a few with all three factions and all the original with only two.
Its just too much effort, and I'm no game maker but I'm sure it wouldn't of taken that much effort wile they were making the game.
Adding an extra campaign to the ending would have been awesome. Replay value. Sacred and Sacred Underworld gives people the option to play the original single player campaign or the Underworld one from the start. Why remove the old campaigns so we cant play them with the better engine changes etc? Ill have to wait for modders to better the game like I did the orginal.
Uh--I haven't yet tried this, but can't you play the original EaW just by using the original EaW executable? It seems sensible.
What FoC has done isn't anything new--expansions have done this sort of thing for a while. My only real problem with the main features (as opposed to in-game things) is the limited number of GCs that were included. They surely could've made more than that.
This strikes me as really odd that Petroglyph would disable the original campaigns through the x-pac. I seem to recall, correctly or not, a few of the C&C games where you could still play the original campaigns with the added content - could have been some other game. The point is it effectively refreshed the campaigns by changing the sorts of strategies you could use, and the new strategies you had to defend against.
The campaign thing is ok, I thought the vanilla EaW campaigns weren't great, to be honest. Not playing them isn't a huge loss.
What I do find worrying though (I don't have the game yet) is that people are complaining about the GC matches.
Can anyone tell me how many FoC GC scenarios there are? If there aren't quite a few, that would be kinda frustrating.
More could always be added.
i dont know right now, i think its 6 or 7 GC maps.
well, that aint that much and i would like to get some more of them.
but...
theres somthing more important first:
u gonna win/lose if one of the 2 enemyfactions got defeated and that, sorry, sucks bad ass.
i was playing as the empire and the rebels bugged me so i couldnt build up things so fast, but in the meantime they killed the consortium and - tadaaa - ending screen saying "u got defeated"... o_O
hopefully they still listen here to the community, or that the guys at their forums stopped climbing up their asses n tellin the truth about the flaws of this exp pack.
you mean if you're say Rebels and the empire defeats the consortium or the other way around you lose?
or the Total Annihilation campaign with the Core Contingency units, .
omg some one actually remembers total annihillation engoth to make a compatent agument out of it
you mean if you're say Rebels and the empire defeats the consortium or the other way around you lose?
yea thats what i meant. thats what happened to me, the last 2 times i played a GC game. played both times as the empire. once i defeated the consortium and game ended with the screen sayin "you won", last time the rebels wipedout the consortium, screen came up sayin "u got defeated".
and that is annoying, since there are 3 factions. i would have thought that one side gotta defeat the other 2 for a win. but no. just one. and thats really dissappointing cause it feels incomplete everytime i play this game.
Wait, you CAN'T run vanilla EaW through the old exe file?
You can but as far as I know its still VANILLA EAW not updated with any of the newer ships or engine fixes. FOC runs much foccing better than VEAW.
You keep mentioning RPG examples. Only Windu up to now seems to come up with an RTS example of old campaigns playable in the expansion. Frankly, I've never seen it.
Also, the new units wouldn't make sense in the old campaign. Its timeline stops at the end of A New Hope. B-Wings, Tie Defenders and Tie Interceptors did not exist then.
An option was not added. It doesn't mean something has been removed.
This is an expansion pack, it cannot be contested.
If I remember rightly, I haven't played it in a wile, but age of mythology's expansion kept all the original stuff, including the original campaign, so you could play it normally, I got the gold edition of it which came with the expansion and was able to play the first campaign, I'm pretty sure of it anyway, I'll try and have a look now just to check, but I could be wrong.
And I didn't think this game was cannon? so what happens if I wanted to play through VEAW campaigns with the new units, I don't see why not? in my opinion it gives the game a little more depth with new units and the "option" to pay with extra things. Its not like it would be one sided considering both sides would get new units.
And what just annoys me, is i really enjoyed going through the original campaigns using a MOD, as great as GC's are the campaigns gave it a little more purpose and story.
But as I've mentioned I'm not very impressed with the state the expansion came in, there are a bunch of silly mistakes in it, sounds not being right, and as has been mentioned on the forum, I swear in the trailers the eclipse was fully working, and that people cant get to tech5 with rebels if they change certain tech options, did no one actually test the game first?
But the main purpose of what I'm trying to say is that the game looks rushed to me, and it might for other people. It didn't disappoint my hype because I didn't give it any, but I love star wars and think it could of been better.
/Rant
:P
I'm fine with not having the new units in the old campaign because if you get a mod, say LoW or AGD, it is easy to mod into the campaing. And new GC's aren't hard to put in. I don't like the if one person dies, you lose deal. That, though, shouldn't be too hard to fix thorugh some XML editing.
Anything and everything can be argued. I have not played other RTS games because im not a huge RTS fan. However, it does not mean I cant compare apples to oranges and star wars movies to LOTR movies because they are of different genres (sci-fi/fantasy). I merely am speaking about games I have played in the past with expansions that done what I said. Sadly, wouldnt FOCEAW use the VEAW files; therefore, you could not mod the VEAW files without altering FOCEAW. I do notice people are rather pissed off about the SSD etc and Vader almost not being playable.
i noticed one more thing, when you complete GCs, the victory video doesnt plays, only the FOC credits, and i liked the videos(has the Zann Consortium one?)
If I remember rightly, I haven't played it in a wile, but age of mythology's expansion kept all the original stuff, including the original campaign, so you could play it normally, I got the gold edition of it which came with the expansion and was able to play the first campaign, I'm pretty sure of it anyway, I'll try and have a look now just to check, but I could be wrong.
If I also remember well, The Titans didn't add anything to the old civs.
And I didn't think this game was cannon? so what happens if I wanted to play through VEAW campaigns with the new units, I don't see why not? in my opinion it gives the game a little more depth with new units and the "option" to pay with extra things. Its not like it would be one sided considering both sides would get new units.
It does matter. It's a question of consistency. You're trying to tell a story after all.
Anything and everything can be argued. I have not played other RTS games because im not a huge RTS fan. However, it does not mean I cant compare apples to oranges and star wars movies to LOTR movies because they are of different genres (sci-fi/fantasy). I merely am speaking about games I have played in the past with expansions that done what I said.
It is possible to compare two elements depending on the angle of the comparison. Apples and oranges are both fruits for example. The reason why that expression exists is to avoid purely superficial conparisons. Expansions for RPGs and RTS games are similar only in both being expansions.
RPG expansions need the original game to be playable with new classes or else it has too little content, in RPG standards. However, RTS standards don't need that. Usually, they'll even find an excuse in the campaign to introduce new units. RTS expansions range from adding a handful of units and a new campaign (StarCraft: Brood War, WarCraft III: The Frozen Throne), to simply adding a new civ(s) and a new campaign (Ensemble Studios' Age games) to doing both (Relic's Dawn of War: Winter Assault and Dark Crusade, E@W:FoC). All of those are considered expansions.
Yet, strangely enough, they are mostly incredible expansions with varying degrees of content added. It simply doesn't matter how much you put in.