Slashdot Mirror
Star Wars Battlefront - Striving For Galactic Conquest?
Thanks to LucasArts for their press release officially announcing more information on Star Wars Battlefront, the PS2/Xbox/PC multiplayer action title featuring "the most memorable Star Wars battles set in over 15 environments across 10 diverse planets, including Hoth, Geonosis, Yavin, Tatooine and Naboo." However, a GameSpy preview adds further detail to the previously revealed information regarding this Battlefield 1942-like online-orientated title, including "the 'metagame' driving Star Wars Battlefront. Tentatively called 'Galactic Conquest,' this mode will throw players into a full-scale war. Once you capture every checkpoint on a planet and defeat the enemy's forces utterly, you'll control that planet."
The odds of this game coming out on time are 234,832... to 1....
*R2 bleep-moan*
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Also, nobody would buy a Gamecube.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
People who don't feel like dicking around with software installation and buying uber graphics cards would buy the console. Plug it in and it runs. There's nothing wrong with consoles in general, I just like everything being on the PC because I'm like that. Many people are not. Choice is good.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
And who makes money on hardware in the games industry? It is not Nintendo or MSFT, not sure about Sony but I'm going to guess they aren't either.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
No, my understanding is that Nintendo makes some kind of profit on every Gamecube they sell (although maybe that profits has been reduced with the $99 price). Regardless, they don't necessarily want to sell hardware for profit, they want to sell hardware in order to have a large user base so that developers will make games for the Gamecube. Every Gamecube sold is another potential purchaser for a Gamecube game. The more potential purchaser, the more likely your Square-Enix, or EA, or whoever, is going to want to make a game for the Gamecube.
if you can, expect armies of lightsaber-wielding Jedi vs armies of lightsaber-wielding Jedi...
if that happens, I'll be a sniper, since those lightsaber make obvious beacons for potential targets.
Seriously....orientated?
How about retardated?
No such word as "orientated" exists. The proper word to use is oriented. Unless, of course, you actually desire to give the impression of sub-standard intelligence.
It sounds pretty good, but so did the original specs for Star Wars Galaxies. I'll bet 2 years from now, we will be talking about how some cantina dancer took over the universe.
I remember thinking of a game like this back when X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter was first released, except it would be based on space combat rather than ground combat. My idea is still technologically infeasible because of latency issues, I guess. We'll see if this one becomes vaporware, or turns out to be shallow, buggy crap once it's released.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
I mean, come on. Nintendo is in the hardware business to make money off of licenses that companies pay to release games for their hardware. The more attractive they can make their hardware, [i.e. exclusive games that you can't get anywhere else] the more money they make.
Wait, did you understand all this and just expect Nintendo to ignore their business model so that you'd be happy?
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
The only design choice I have a problem with is the third-person perspective that they are using. FPSs are much more immersive than TPSs, however I think if they plan it right, we're gonna see some awesome things with this game if they playtest the hell out of it. I am foregoing the PS2 version and buying it straight for my PC.
Let's hope it's not a subscription.
And what's this about 4 armies to choose from? I thought there were only 2 armies? Who are the 3rd and 4th army?
I liked playing this game the first time it came out, when it was called Planetside.
-------
Bite Me Fanboy!!
Nintendo always sells their machines for profit. They do everything they can to lower part costs and optimize production before their consoles are released. GameCube, really, is the perfect example. It came out a little late (compared to the PS2, I mean) and it's got a few parts inside that don't seem to be as good as the opposition. But really they just built the console like I build my own computers--for the expensive parts, keep to just under top-of-the-line quality, save lots of cash, and then make up that barely significant power loss through good architecture.
It works really well for them, actually. They have exclusive games that people want, so those people buy the console, and then, hey, they have the console, better buy more games. And then those games tend to be Nintendo-oriented, so they make more money there.
And even though Sony and MS lose cash on every platform sold, they still want to sell consoles, to get a larger user base. That's what exclusive games are for.
I don't really see what the fuss is about over GameCube exclusives, though. All consoles have exclusives. GameCube just has many more than the others because Nintendo has such strong first and second party developers--development effort they put towards their own gain, and not that of competitors. Is that such a bad idea?
Your idea of what a monopoly is also needs some work. You want the government step in and tell Nintendo that they have to port Metroid Prime to the PC? And you're not eliminating any competition by doing both hardware and software. Companies are still entitled to develop their own hardware and software combination and beat you in the free market. I don't understand how you believe competition is being driven out.
If you don't like Nintendo's way of doing things, don't buy their products. But you certainly have no constitutional right to be able to play console games on any system. A monopoly huh? Check the market. Is Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony a monopoly in the video game hardware business? Gee, since I asked about three different companies, that should make that question fairly easy to answer for you.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
A monopoly? Uh, no. Not even close. It only sounds similar when you twist it like that. By that logic, I think...(looks around room)...that Heinz is a monopoly! Because they're the only ones that sell Heinz brand foods!
It really is the same thing. It's the GAME market that they's need to cover to be a monopoly. Covering the METROID market...not so much.
I just wish Lucasarts would do some more creative work like they did in the 80ies with titles like Maniac Mansion or Zak McKracken. Today they seem just to wait for other companies to come up with new ideas and concepts so they can make a Star Wars clone out of it.
-virgo cluster
This project is not only "technologicallty feasible" it has been done before, did no one played tribes and tribes 2? I mean seriously, halo, battlefield 1942 and call of duty are based on concepts they invented. Yet everyone thinks they are revolutionary.
Actually in Halo you can only handle terrain vehicles, while in Tribes2 you are able to drive flying ships and have passengers, pilots and bombers on them. Also you were able to switch armors AND have a trird person view.
Heck , ANYONE with enough coding knowledge,a budget and some talent can give a try to code a game like this, they sell their engine for $100 at GarageGames.com
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
Nintendo's business model relies on not porting their games to anything other than their platforms. Why can't you understand this? The amount of sales that they would get from the PS2, XBox, and PC would be weighed against the value-loss the Gamecube would feel and the fewer licensing dollars that would be coming in when everyone decided there was no need to own a Gamecube anymore.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
They are a hardware manufacturer, first and foremost, in the busininess of selling hardware. They make obscene amounts of money doing this, and if you to adjust the profits of Sony and Microsoft by the number of consoles sole, making it as if they had all sold exactly the same number of systems, Nintendo's profit would be higher than either of them. And you're telling me that their way is bad?
1. Identify most popular game genre (FPS, RTS, RPG, etc) and subgenre (FPS: Strategic, say).
2. Apply Star Wars template (i. e. medics become Bacta Droids, magic becomes "force," etc)
3. Name game Star Wars: [Random Star Wars noun] + [Name best befitting genre & subgenre].
Hey if it worked for Force Commander, it's gotta work with...oh; never mind.
Sony doesn't sell at a loss. The only console companies that have ever sold at a loss [and were not just clearing inventory at the end of a product's lifetime] are Sega and Microsoft.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Well, at least it worked for Galactic Battlegr--oh. Whoops again!
Seriously, until I played it I didn't realize that it was just an AOE mod.
I doubt it.
Rabid fans usually don't boycott things they are fans of. I'm a rabid Tool fan, and I bought all their albums. See?
I would be a paying gamecube customer if I could play it on my pc
Why, God, Why? This hurts so bad...If you were a paying GAMECUBE customer, you would play it on your GAMECUBE. It's $100, it's a small console, even the liddle, itty-bitty discs are soooo cute...Cough up the c-note and get over it.
And face it: Nintendo has, and is making, much, much, more money than you and I will ever see, despite all their rabid fans who are boycotting them, yet would buy a gamecube if they could play it on their PCs.
1. From everything I've read on this game, it appears its limited to 32 players per server. BF1942 had 64 when it came out. And some of the newer ones are planned to have 128. You can't take a step backward in the number of players with this kind of game and expect it to succeed.
2. Planetside was a cool concept, but they alienated many gamers by their less than stellar FPS translation. IE. "cone of fire" and no headshots. Aim is relative in Planetside. If they could make this SW game behave like a "true" FPS, AND have the massively multiplayer part of Planetside, it would draw in a HELLUVA lot of gamers.
3. Mods. Every major FPS has them. Hell, CS drove more sales for Halflife than the original game did, and currently there are more DC servers in BF1942 than BF1942 servers. If you let the fans mod it, more people will buy it. PLEASE release an SDK for it and don't force people to make their own like they did for BF1942.
4. Don't use anything like Steam. It complicates things, it breaks, its an inconvenience that ultimately will not stop anybody from pirating your game if its good and just causes issues for paying customers.
If they can address the issues I have listed, I feel they have a good shot at becoming a top game, especially since they have the backing of the Star Wars license. I know I have a blast playing the SW d20 game, sometimes even more than D&D because its the SW universe, and I'm somewhat familiar with it.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Hmmm...
4 Armies/Races.. take over planets to establish galactic dominance...
Sounds familiar.
clicky linky
Companies like EA do PC ports of a lot of popular sports titles. They're usually sold cheap, and still don't sell nearly what the console versions do.
Why?
Picture you and 3 friends crowded around your PC to play Smash Brothers. Do you have 4 seats at your computer? Do you have 4 gamepads with sufficient buttons? Do you even have 4 USB ports?
Metroid's a little better, and might sell a few copies on the PC, but why would Nintendo dilute the appeal of its flagship unit (the GameCube) in order to sell a few more copies of anything? If it was going to do ports of Smash Brothers, wouldn't it start with a PS2 copy? It would sell lots more...
Until Nintendo doesn't make hardware, it isn't going to be doing a lot of ports.
Until pigs fly, you're not going to see heavy "one machine, many players" on computers. And, yes, I remember Star Control II multiplayer. It's not that multiplayer is unworkable on one computer, just that it isn't nearly as workable as the same thing on a console (or multiplayer over a network).
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
(4 visors (scan, combat, infrared, x-ray), 4 beam weapons (energy, ice, plasma, heat. Not counting charge beam.), jump, morph, missle/bomb, shoot. Not counting targetting/strafing, looking, and walking.)
You switch a LOT in the game, as anyone whos played through it will tell you. The game would NOT translate onto the PC well at all, MAYBE the PS2 if the hardware could handle it, and probably not for the Xbox since the controller is notably more stiff.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Can you not see the forest through the trees? There's no reason they couldn't start manufacturing USB Gamecube controllers along with ports of their games to the PC.
Just because something is not done does not mean it is impossible.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Somehow I get the impression (after reading through the rest of your posts) that you'd start complaining about how you can't play Nintendo games well without buying their controller. In any case, the GC is only $100, a fraction of the price of your computer; so why should Nintendo waste time trying to cater to people who will buy an expensive PC but not a cheap Gamecube?
You can afford to buy a PC beefy enough to run a "native port" of Smash Brothers for GCN, but you can't afford a $100 GCN and the game itself? Quite a few of the console games I've played that are ported to PC (Knights of the Old Republic, Deus Ex, Halo - sorry I don't recall any PS2 ports to PC) are fairly unoptimized. In fact, when was the last time Nintendo published a game for the PC platform?
I would say that this is one of the most lucrative times for consoles ever. I have no stats to back it up, but it's pretty fair, right? Besides, PC gaming is dying, didn't you know?
Now, I don't know if you just typed it quickly (in which case skip to the next paragraph), but you said these games are currently ported to the Gamecube only (emp. mine). They are developed for the Gamecube. I'm not a game coder, but developing for the Gamecube, by all accounts, seems to be drastically different from developing for the PC. That is, gamecube exclusives make, understandably, good use of what makes a Gamecube a Gamecube. So porting them would be more than just a recompile.
Now, let me go back and see what it is you wanted to play...Smash Brothers Melee and Metroid Prime?! These are definitely CONSOLE games. Metroid I can understand. Hell, it might even do well on PCs (as long as it's not confused with a FPS) but Smash Brothers? That's a couch-in-living-room game if ever I've seen one.
Sounds to me like your (possibly irrational) aversion to consoles is needlessly cutting you out of some excellent gaming. Metroid alone is worth getting a Gamecube, not to mention Eternal Darkness, Zelda, Viewtiful Joe...etc.
Besides, if they did do emulation, you'd have to buy a specialty drive for the discs, and that would come awfully close to the price of a 'cube.
My point I wanted to make was not so much that YOU didn't have the equipment (individual people have all sorts of things, I have arcade sticks hooked up to my PC to play MAME) - the point I was getting at was that that configuration (as well as mine) is rare.
And, despite you being a contrary example, I don't think I'm wrong about this rareness. I'd venture to guess that less than 1% of computer gamers have 4 joypads, and I'd be surprised if even 20% have 2.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
So they need to buy the controller to play the game and play it right? There's no controller alternative? ...
Sounds like a monopoly to me.
Let the Jar Jar slaughter begin!
Would this game feature realistic blood and vital organs? or could be modded that way?
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
And you were calling what company a monopoly with your little comment? You never cleared that up.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Of course I understand their business model. My whole argument is that it's inferior to a business model in which they focus more on making games for all platforms and less on controlling their hardware.
Well, it's not.
Rob (Can't make it any simpler than that)
Try setting up a nice simple 16 button config and then explain it to an average gamer.
(4 visors (scan, combat, infrared, x-ray), 4 beam weapons (energy, ice, plasma, heat. Not counting charge beam.), jump, morph, missle/bomb, shoot. Not counting targetting/strafing, looking, and walking.)
That would actually be easy. A standard FPS control system seems like it would fit Metroid Prime fairly well (I haven't played it, so forgive me and explain if there's any weird reason why not).
Rob
My "possibly irrational" aversion to consoles is based on my not wanting to buy a new console every time a good game comes out. Plenty of people are ok with that, I'm not. I'm not saying everyone should stop buying consoles, I'm saying game makers should give me the freedom to choose my own platform.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Uh, because I already have a computer? Computers can do more than consoles, so I opt to use the better item of hardware. As much as I bitch and moan that I can't play GC games on my comp, I've still got NES, SNES, N64, Playstation1, and computer games. That's a whole lot better than GC in my personal opinion. But as I said, that's my personal choice. That doesn't mean my choice is better than your's or your choice better than mine. My choice is not to buy GC because it's proprietary hardware and IMO proprietary hardware with a single function sucks.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Use whatever controller you want, if you could play Metroid Prime on the PC one would assume you could map your own controls any way you wanted. But for those who like the real GC controller, give it to them in USB form.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
I mean, you brought up the term monopoly. Why did you even say monopoly? Who is a monopoly again? You still haven't answered that one tough guy.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
How petty. When you can't support your point you get frustrated and resort to insults.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
WHITE TRASH
nice subliminal message. LOL
. My whole argument is that it's inferior to a business model in which they focus more on making games for all platforms and less on controlling their hardware
It's not though, historically, software "sells" hardware. No consumer (outside of fanboys) really cares about what hardware they are using (PSX, PC, Gamecube, Xbox) they care about what games they can play with that hardware, and will be able to play in the future with that hardware. This is why consoles or handhelds without good launch titles bomb (see the n-gage, Jaguar, etc). Exclusive content sells systems to non-fan boy people (ie the majority).
The monopoly thing was way out of line too, saying nintendo has a monopoly on game consoles would be like saying mac has a monopoly on the home computing market.
Kicked royal ass, as well as Grim Fandango which was a totally original idea and very fun to play even today!
So exactly how is Nintendo not porting their gamecube games restriciting and frustrating to gamecube customers? me: i am frustrated at nintendo for not porting smash brother's melee to the playstation 2 or x-box. a game which i am happy playing on the gamecube which i purchased to play said game. where is the sense in that?