LibriumArcana.Games

Linky

Notables include.

Empire at War takes place between the two motion picture trilogies; that is, after Episode III: Revenge of the Sith and before Episode IV: A New Hope, so the evil Sith lord Darth Vader has just come into his own, while some farm boy named Luke is just starting to grow up on a desert planet. Still, this time frame has given the development team plenty of opportunities to draw upon classic Star Wars lore, characters, and vehicles. Among the hero characters, for instance, you can expect to see Darth Vader, the bounty hunter Boba Fett, Imperial officers Piett and Veers, and Emperor Palpatine; on the Rebel side, you can expect to see Han Solo and Chewbacca (who are treated as one powerful character, even though each has individual abilities), and a promising young Mon Calamari officer named Ackbar (who is destined to warn his Rebel allies of a certain trap in a certain future space battle).

Dear Force allmighty, what have they done?!

Even C-3PO and R2-D2 will be in the game, as Rebel hero characters who can smuggle themselves into Imperial territory to steal technology.

Darth Vader can use his "force crush" ability to ravage enemy buildings and ships

I think that speaks for itself.

Also, Gamespot has some more screenies of the space combat, if a fucking 2002 game can look better then that...Ground Combat as well, the ground is the only thing that dosn't look dated.

I've long since given up on most Star Wars games. Battlegrounds was adequate, BF2 is decent, but...

God, I remember when they did kick-ass (for their time) NES games. Since then... bah, Lucasarts...

game spot on the second page still say that its promising, i still think i'll get the game. I can always take it back if it is total shite.

I have a theory on the space graphics...

The game can't have two engines. thats way too complicated. Thing is that you don't need to render as much in space so we've had better graphics earlier, however its harder to render stuff on the ground so graphics are slightly behind. Therefore.. the ships look just as good as the ground stuff, which happens to look worse than previous space stuff and therefore makes it look like shit.

zac naloen wrote:game spot on the second page still say that its promising, i still think i'll get the game. I can always take it back if it is total shite.

I have a theory on the space graphics...

The game can't have two engines. thats way too complicated. Thing is that you don't need to render as much in space so we've had better graphics earlier, however its harder to render stuff on the ground so graphics are slightly behind. Therefore.. the ships look just as good as the ground stuff, which happens to look worse than previous space stuff and therefore makes it look like shit.

Except its obvious its the same engine, its on a 2D plane, same movement possibilities, same unit 'effects'(special actions possible). Its painfully obvious to me.

Gamespot can say that, but on RTSes, the last great RTS was Ground Control 1-2, and AoE3.

Ace Pace wrote:

zac naloen wrote:game spot on the second page still say that its promising, i still think i'll get the game. I can always take it back if it is total shite.

I have a theory on the space graphics...

The game can't have two engines. thats way too complicated. Thing is that you don't need to render as much in space so we've had better graphics earlier, however its harder to render stuff on the ground so graphics are slightly behind. Therefore.. the ships look just as good as the ground stuff, which happens to look worse than previous space stuff and therefore makes it look like shit.

Except its obvious its the same engine, its on a 2D plane, same movement possibilities, same unit 'effects'(special actions possible). Its painfully obvious to me.

Gamespot can say that, but on RTSes, the last great RTS was Ground Control 1-2, and AoE3.

oh i agree, but then i enjoyed star trek armada which was the same so its not all that much of a disappointment to me.


and AOE3 is okay... the AI is a bitch.

God, I remember when they did kick-ass (for their time) NES games. Since then... bah, Lucasarts...

There were one or two decent ones... such as that minor RPG which won an award or two for X-Box back in 2003 and that Shooter/Slash-em-up Series for PC which was pretty good... And the sequel to that X-Box RPG was pretty good, though not as good as the first.

And if you really need to guess at what those awesome games are... you obviously haven't seen real Star Wars games, for the RPGs themselves outdid the PT when it came to storyline...

I personally loved Rebellion .

Dakarne wrote:

God, I remember when they did kick-ass (for their time) NES games. Since then... bah, Lucasarts...

There were one or two decent ones... such as that minor RPG which won an award or two for X-Box back in 2003 and that Shooter/Slash-em-up Series for PC which was pretty good... And the sequel to that X-Box RPG was pretty good, though not as good as the first.

And if you really need to guess at what those awesome games are... you obviously haven't seen real Star Wars games, for the RPGs themselves outdid the PT when it came to storyline...

Dont forget that space-combat sim series from the mid 90s

Dont forget that space-combat sim series from the mid 90s

Ah yes, I nearly forgot about that one... excellent series for blasting TIE Fighters or X-Wings to space dust with reckless abandon...

Hah, I've said it before and I shall say it again. This is just a revamped version of Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds, it has the same sort of land combat, and all thats really new is the space stuff.

I assume most people will buy it for the sheer notion of having some sort of space RTS for SW.