Star Wars Game Rights Sold [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

satorian

2013-05-07, 12:44 AM

The only good thing about this is the number of internet memes that will be born. EA as Empire Arts. Lots of nooooooo gifs in addition to the link you posted. I can see it all now.

The future, certain it is. What with EA's approach to customers, I foresee myself picking up a second hand console version of a subpar Star Wars RPG Ultimate Edition in about four years.

Sith_Happens

2013-05-07, 12:45 AM

Don't get your durajeans in a twist. It's not like EA is handing the license to some no-name team and telling them to crank out a new Star Wars Kinect every six months; they're putting their actual, good developers on it. Seriously, DICE+Star Wars? That's called "Battlefront III, just with a different name," and it's going to be amazing.

satorian

2013-05-07, 01:19 AM

Zevox

2013-05-07, 01:26 AM

I am completely okay with this. Gives us the highest odds of Bioware making another Star Wars game that isn't an MMO at some point.

McDouggal

2013-05-07, 01:28 AM

Grif

2013-05-07, 01:47 AM

Given how risk-averse EA is these days, (especially with the SimCity fiasco), it's safe to say that the next Star Wars game would either be:

RPG (Probably KOTOR style)
FPS (Battlefront)

...

I got nothin' more.

It's also a very safe bet that those waiting for a continuation of X-Wing/TIE Fighter, RTS-es or atypical Star Wars games would have to wait for a very long time.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-05-07, 01:51 AM

I am completely okay with this. Gives us the highest odds of Bioware making another Star Wars game that isn't an MMO at some point.

Or Dragon Age 3 flops and then EA fires the entire studio.

Sith_Happens

2013-05-07, 03:09 AM

Battlefield 3, while a great game, isn't what I look for in a Star Wars game. I prefer to have story, TYVM.

Which you'll get from BioWare and Visceral. Meanwhile, near as I can tell there's a lot of Battlefront fans out there (personally, I'll take both).

Mx.Silver

2013-05-07, 05:12 AM

Or Dragon Age 3 flops and then EA fires the entire studio.

Oh come on, what are the odds of that? EA would fire a successful critically acclaimed studio. I mean, you can't make statements like just because of what they did with Origin Systems. And Bullfrog, And Westwood.

Ok fine, but still the Star Wars licence will be fine, it's a major property. I mean it's not like they disbanded the studio who made the previous Battlefront games or anything.
Okay, they did do that but err...

Yeah.

Cikomyr

2013-05-07, 05:52 AM

.... well, this is the end of any potential good thing that could have ever came out of the Star Wars gaming franchise.

Artanis

2013-05-07, 06:24 AM

Well ****. So much for me getting to buy a new SW game anytime soon :smallfrown:

factotum

2013-05-07, 06:26 AM

Gamerlord

2013-05-07, 06:33 AM

Eh, can't say I'm particularly optimistic. Battlefield 3 was pretty mediocre, so DICE taking control of Battlefront doesn't fill me with much hope for a theoretical third game (On the other hand, the only other company that has shown they know how to do a combined arms shooter is Bohemia Interactive, and I'm not sure how well a hardcore military sim would fit the Star Wars franchise.) Bioware has had a pretty questionable track record over the past few years, and nothing from the surprisingly small amount of information on Dragon Age 3 has me optimistic for the company's future. Also, The Old Republic was a buggy WoW clone whose main gimmick was having more voice acting, so they haven't exactly done much good with the license even when they get their hands on it again.

Maybe if we're lucky Obsidian will get to make some spin-off KOTOR. They only game I've played from Visceral Games is Dead Space 1, so I can't really comment on them. All this, plus EA's (in)famous business practices, means I'm probably going to wait until the reviews for the games roll in post-release day before I start throwing money at the screen.

EDIT: Oh, and hooray for all Star Wars games becoming Origin exclusive! :smallsigh:

Artanis

2013-05-07, 07:10 AM

Well, every Star Wars licensed game released in the last decade or so has been rubbish, and this decision means the future ones likely will be as well, so it's not like this has actually changed anything...
It's changed in that if they somehow do manage to make a good game, you still won't be able to play it.

Wookieetank

2013-05-07, 10:49 AM

It's an exclusive deal...
with EA (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/05/07/dun-dun-dun-dun-duh-duh-ea-gets-star-wars-exclusivity/)

I think many of us are anxious to see what happens (http://nooooooooooooooo.com/)

I was hopefully about what new Star Wars games would possibly be released until I learned of this. I've wasted enough of my money on EA and their crap. :smallsigh:

warty goblin

2013-05-07, 11:04 AM

I am continually reminded of the vast amount of suffering my decision to not really care about Star Wars has saved me.

Cikomyr

2013-05-07, 11:05 AM

Well, every Star Wars licensed game released in the last decade or so has been rubbish, and this decision means the future ones likely will be as well, so it's not like this has actually changed anything...

There has been a number of very good ones.

Republic Commando, for one.
KOTOR, KOTOR 2 also were pretty strong

factotum

2013-05-07, 03:23 PM

There has been a number of very good ones.

Republic Commando, for one.
KOTOR, KOTOR 2 also were pretty strong

How does that contradict what I said? Those three games are between 8 and 10 years old, which is why I said "decade OR SO" rather than just flatly saying a decade.

Iskandar

2013-05-07, 03:58 PM

Well. It really comes down to how much did EA really learn from SimCity?

Well, that and having faith that ANYONE can release a Star Wars game that isn't utter crap, something that we haven't seen in way too long.

Of course it really won't matter to me much, because I can almost guarantee there will be two words attached to any Star Wars game that rules out me ever playing them, Origin Exclusive.

Reverent-One

2013-05-07, 04:53 PM

Well. It really comes down to how much did EA really learn from SimCity?

...And Mass Effect 3.

...And Dragon Age 2.

..And possibily others I'm forgetting about.

Of course it really won't matter to me much, because I can almost guarantee there will be two words attached to any Star Wars game that rules out me ever playing them, Origin Exclusive.

Depends, Disney might require them to expand the availablity of the games beyond origin. Maybe.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2013-05-07, 06:32 PM

Well. It really comes down to how much did EA really learn from SimCity?

Well, they've made a big point of announcing that Sims 4 or whatever they're up to is single-player offline only...

The_Jackal

2013-05-07, 09:12 PM

I'm not re-installing Origin on my system. That is all.

McDouggal

2013-05-07, 09:32 PM

I'm not re-installing Origin on my system. That is all.

I have Origin for one purpose: Battlefield 3. Even then, I have a special account that is the only place I have to deal with Origin's <redacted>.

mandijames

2013-05-08, 02:21 AM

satorian

2013-05-08, 07:46 AM

I'm not interested in a Battlefront-style game with microtransactions, DRM and always-on forced internet connection. I'm not interested in a KOTOR with a multiplayer component that is necessary to success in the singleplayer game.

Um, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and all, but did you intend to say anything else besides just copying and pasting my post?

OracleofWuffing

2013-05-08, 11:00 AM

Um, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and all, but did you intend to say anything else besides just copying and pasting my post?
That was a spam bot, so it's probably best to ignore it and continue talking about how Star Wars has been ruined forever.

Wait, are we talking about EA or George Lucas? :smalltongue:

Mando Knight

2013-05-08, 11:05 AM

That was a spam bot, so it's probably best to ignore it and continue talking about how Star Wars has been ruined forever.
Yep. It's a newer tactic to try to avoid spam detection: copy & paste legit posts and then use the signature line to spam the links. It doesn't work when live people are on the other end, though.

Wait, are we talking about EA or George Lucas? :smalltongue:
Don't worry, Lucas is where he works best, as a vision consultant rather than as a scriptwriter/director.

KillingAScarab

2013-05-08, 11:25 AM

I'm going to join in on the doom 'n gloom, but not so much about a new Star Wars: Battlefield every year, only it's the exact same game, just with different DRM and such. No, the worst of it is they'll be the only ones able to publish Star Wars games. If you don't want to work with EA, your game might as well be frozen in carbonite, and we don't even know for how many years, because the press announcement doesn't say (http://starwars.com/news/electronic-arts-selected-for-multi-year-agreement-for-the-future-of-star-wars-gaming.html).

Yep. It's a newer tactic to try to avoid spam detection: copy & paste legit posts and then use the signature line to spam the links.Is that what's going on? If so, this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15194170&postcount=17) in a different thread is doing it wrong; there isn't a signature.

Gamerlord

2013-05-08, 11:35 AM

Is that what's going on? If so, this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15194170&postcount=17) in a different thread is doing it wrong; there isn't a signature.
The bot seems to be selecting the option to not display the signature on some of it's posts, presumably to make it look more legit. Before it got banhammered, you would be able to see the spam link on it's profile.

Bravo

2013-05-08, 11:41 AM

If they finish the Force Unleashed story, I'll be happy.

Opperhapsen

2013-05-08, 11:46 AM

Well that both sucks and blows. :smallmad:

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2013-05-08, 12:10 PM

Eh, I think it'll be fine. So long as EA parcels out the IPs to their more arms-length developers... I mean, DICE and Visceral have both announced that they're doing Star Wars games. So Battlefront III or equivalent (cool) and probably a single-player serious 3rd-person shooter, both from tried-and-tested developers. Visceral is, from what I've experienced, held more arms-length than DICE is, which makes sense again from the kind of game they make. Not much sense for a single-player shooter to use EA infrastructure, more sense for a multiplayer FPS to.
While the DICE shooter may not be my personal kinda thing, I predict it to be a quite solid shooter that will be more interesting than your generic grey-and-brown-and-sand CoD/Battlefield clone on account of its setting. Even if it's basically a Battlefield clone set in the Star Wars universe, that alone will raise it above its competitors in interesting-ness, even if not necessarily in mass-market sales. A decent compromise between mass-market FPS and geek-gamer multiplayer FPS, though leaning towards the mass-market side is what I'd expect from that.

Squark

2013-05-08, 12:33 PM

Eh, this doesn't really surprise me. It's not the first time the people handling the Star Wars IP have tried to keep their licensing simple by dealing with only a single company, and considering Bioware's still working on TOR, EA was the logical choice in that regards.

Mando Knight

2013-05-08, 12:44 PM

So Battlefront III or equivalent (cool) and probably a single-player serious 3rd-person shooter, both from tried-and-tested developers.
So 1313 is possible, still...

Emperor Ing

2013-05-08, 12:49 PM

I take this as mixed news. On one hand, the Star Wars gameiverse didn't die with Lucasarts' being murdered to death by Mickey Mouse, and EA has some pretty good game developers under its shadow.

On the other hand it's EA, and in that realm lies the near-certain possibility that whatever comes out is going to be a DRM Always-Online clusterfrag that forces you into multiplayer in order to complete the game, but not before you're forced to buy the game's retail value worth of DLC in order to complete the game by unlocking content that's already on the disc that's released at launch because those stubborn fools up in management haven't learned a damn thing from their litany of mistakes and failures over the last few months.

Sith_Happens

2013-05-08, 01:58 PM

You know, I can't think of a single game I've bought that had launch-day DLC that I didn't get a free code for in the box (then again, I pre-order a lot). Sucks for people who bought it used, sure, but I don't think I can really object to what amounts to a roundabout way of getting a cut of the secondary market.

Opperhapsen

2013-05-08, 02:14 PM

EA has some pretty good game developers under its shadow.
Who is left?
Bioware has drastically reduced their quality
Danger Close Games has made loads of good games, but their last two products were bombs, and they've made nothing good under their current name.
Maxis is a hollow husk.
Dice are okay, but their competition with activision has made them a bit formulaic.

That leaves... visceral (Who still tried to introduce microtransactions into a supposed horror game.) and popcap.
Luckily it seems they chose visceral.

KillingAScarab

2013-05-08, 02:18 PM

Eh, this doesn't really surprise me. It's not the first time the people handling the Star Wars IP have tried to keep their licensing simple by dealing with only a single company...To what time period are you referring? I really have no clue. Atari 2600 days, when there just weren't many companies around? Perhaps you were thinking of a point when LucasArts was the only one making the games?

Even in the X-Wing days, LucasArts was still getting multiple developers to make Star Wars games. Looking at all of these games (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars_video_games), I also have the impression that the franchise has done the best when multiple outside influences were at work. In the last decade, you've got BioWare/Obsidian for KotOR, Traveler's Tales for LEGO, Pandemic for Battlefront, SOE for Galaxies, and LucasArts was able to do its own thing, such as Republic Commando. There were still bad handheld games like Pocket Studios' Flight of the Falcon, but Factor 5 and Raven wrapped up Rogue Squadron and Jedi Knight II in the same year, respectively.

Ebon_Drake

2013-05-08, 02:28 PM

On the other hand it's EA, and in that realm lies the near-certain possibility that whatever comes out is going to be a DRM Always-Online clusterfrag that forces you into multiplayer in order to complete the game, but not before you're forced to buy the game's retail value worth of DLC in order to complete the game by unlocking content that's already on the disc that's released at launch because those stubborn fools up in management haven't learned a damn thing from their litany of mistakes and failures over the last few months.

I was going to ask what's so awful about EA, since I can't remember the last time I bought one of their games. However, that seems to have nicely answered my question.

By "nicely", I of course mean "deeply disturbingly".

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2013-05-08, 02:48 PM

On the other hand it's EA, and in that realm lies the near-certain possibility that whatever comes out is going to be a DRM Always-Online clusterfrag that forces you into multiplayer in order to complete the game, but not before you're forced to buy the game's retail value worth of DLC in order to complete the game by unlocking content that's already on the disc that's released at launch because those stubborn fools up in management haven't learned a damn thing from their litany of mistakes and failures over the last few months.

Again, ignoring the fact that their latest announced EA flagship game (and not even one of their arms-length developers) is stated to be single-player offline... Of course, it IS the worst of all of them in mandatory DLC game content and all, but yeah. EA is fully capable of learning from mistakes. They're pulling a lot of their social-media games as well, they seem to have realized that the casual sims-type gamers don't care about multiplayer, they care about customization. Finally.

warty goblin

2013-05-08, 02:55 PM

Just to throw this out there, EA's released I think a sum total of three always online non-MMO games ever. It's clearly not a consistent policy on their part, but something they do occasionally for some inexplicable internal reason.

factotum

2013-05-08, 03:23 PM

Again, ignoring the fact that their latest announced EA flagship game (and not even one of their arms-length developers) is stated to be single-player offline...

Even EA wouldn't be so stupid as to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, and The Sims definitely fits that category. That doesn't mean their drive to put microtransactions and online-only features in every game isn't going to apply to every other game they release!

warty goblin

2013-05-08, 03:43 PM

Even EA wouldn't be so stupid as to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, and The Sims definitely fits that category. That doesn't mean their drive to put microtransactions and online-only features in every game isn't going to apply to every other game they release!

What's the big deal with microtransactions anyway? If you don't want to pay for unlockable crap, don't pay for unlockable crap. Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly does this tarnish the rest of the game?

Wookieetank

2013-05-08, 03:52 PM

What's the big deal with microtransactions anyway? If you don't want to pay for unlockable crap, don't pay for unlockable crap. Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly does this tarnish the rest of the game?

Maybe its just me, but my experience with games that have microtransactions is that the games seem to be taylored to be less-enjoyable if you don't make use of the transactions, than if you were to. For me it feels like extortion, particularly if you had to pay for the game upfront as well. *shrugs*

GloatingSwine

2013-05-08, 06:46 PM

Battlefield 3, while a great game, isn't what I look for in a Star Wars game. I prefer to have story, TYVM.

Battlefront is what a lot of people are going to look for in a Star Wars game though, the series was mega successful, at one point the best selling Star Wars videogame, and since Battlefront was basically Battlefield 1942 in Star Wars clothes, having it being by DICE and running on Frostbite will basically make those people spontaneously soil their Chewbacca panties.

Grif

2013-05-08, 06:56 PM

Maybe its just me, but my experience with games that have microtransactions is that the games seem to be taylored to be less-enjoyable if you don't make use of the transactions, than if you were to. For me it feels like extortion, particularly if you had to pay for the game upfront as well. *shrugs*

It's deliberately designed that way, of course. How else would they get you to buy their DLCs? :smallsmile:

Exceptions applies, of course. Mass Effect 2 DLC were particularly well-done in the sense that you don't feel like you missed out on anything without the DLCs. It's just that DLCs make it so much better than it already is. Other worthy mentions are Paradox games (Crusader Kings 2) and maaaaybe Borderlands 2.

Squark

2013-05-08, 07:05 PM

To what time period are you referring? I really have no clue. Atari 2600 days, when there just weren't many companies around? Perhaps you were thinking of a point when LucasArts was the only one making the games?

Wasn't thinking of Video games at all, actually- A large part of why Decipher lost the rights to the Star wars CCG to WOTC was so that the rights to Star Wars Miniatures, RPGs, and TCGs were all under one company. Granted, that's a while ago, and that might have been an isolated case, but no, I wasn't talking about LucasArts at all.

It's deliberately designed that way, of course. How else would they get you to buy their DLCs? :smallsmile:

Exceptions applies, of course. Mass Effect 2 DLC were particularly well-done in the sense that you don't feel like you missed out on anything without the DLCs. It's just that DLCs make it so much better than it already is. Other worthy mentions are Paradox games (Crusader Kings 2) and maaaaybe Borderlands 2.

Going to disagree, here. ME2's DLCs may not have affected the ME2 storyline, but I feel a playthrough of the whole trilogy would feel incomplete without Lair of the Shadow Broker and Arrival. I guess it's not that ME2 feels incomplete so much as ME3 would without those DLCs. Also, it's a lot easier to get everyone out alive if you've got Zaeed and Kasumi.

warty goblin

2013-05-08, 07:58 PM

Battlefront is what a lot of people are going to look for in a Star Wars game though, the series was mega successful, at one point the best selling Star Wars videogame, and since Battlefront was basically Battlefield 1942 in Star Wars clothes, having it being by DICE and running on Frostbite will basically make those people spontaneously soil their Chewbacca panties.

I played the hell out of Battlefront (mostly 2) back in the day. Never really liked the later generation Battlefields though; there's something about Frostbite 2 that just feels kludgy.

KillingAScarab

2013-05-08, 08:05 PM

Wasn't thinking of Video games at all, actually- A large part of why Decipher lost the rights to the Star wars CCG to WOTC was so that the rights to Star Wars Miniatures, RPGs, and TCGs were all under one company. Granted, that's a while ago, and that might have been an isolated case, but no, I wasn't talking about LucasArts at all.Ah, it has been so long since I played Decipher's CCG, it wasn't even on my mind. After that incorrect assumption, I feel dirty, like I just won with a Dagobah/clouds deck.

Grif

2013-05-08, 08:20 PM

Going to disagree, here. ME2's DLCs may not have affected the ME2 storyline, but I feel a playthrough of the whole trilogy would feel incomplete without Lair of the Shadow Broker and Arrival. I guess it's not that ME2 feels incomplete so much as ME3 would without those DLCs. Also, it's a lot easier to get everyone out alive if you've got Zaeed and Kasumi.

I'd disagree. :smallwink: I played through once without DLCs, and twice more with DLCs. DLC made things easier, yes, but not substantially so. (Considering I was also playing Soldier, ostensibly one of the more underpowered class in ME2...)

Of course, ME3 feeling incomplete without LotSB and Arrival is really not the fault of ME2 game design. It's entirely ME3's fault. :smallbiggrin: ME2 DLCs are well-designed and should be applauded as such.

Squark

2013-05-08, 08:34 PM

The teasers for LotSB were already in ME2 at launch, though (Just like the teasers for the Omega DLC, actually). The deciscion to make LotSB part of ME2 was made before the game was even released, so I do consider it a problem with ME2.

Zevox

2013-05-08, 08:40 PM

(Considering I was also playing Soldier, ostensibly one of the more underpowered class in ME2...)
:smallconfused: I thought Soldier was considered one of the two most powerful classes in ME2, alongside the Sentinel?

Squark

2013-05-08, 08:47 PM

:smallconfused: I thought Soldier was considered one of the two most powerful classes in ME2, alongside the Sentinel?

It is. It's only truly bonkers with the mattock (Adrenaline Rush gives a damage boost to compensate for the reduced fire rate- But the mattock's fire rate is only limited by the speed of your trigger finger, so...), but Soldier is generally considered one of the Easy Button classes.

Anyway, getting the best ending is a matter of making the right choices during the suicide mission and having enough people left behind at the end of it to hold the line (Which is a lot easier with Zaeed's hefty bonus). I can't think of anywhere having a more challenging class would affect that.

Grif

2013-05-08, 08:55 PM

:smallconfused: I thought Soldier was considered one of the two most powerful classes in ME2, alongside the Sentinel?

Shows me what I know. :smallwink:

Anyway, it's meant to refer that DLC weapons did not make it significantly harder, nor the absence of DLC characters made Mass Effect 2 any less enjoyable. Story-wise, I wasn't missing out on anything either, since both Kasumi and Zaeed had little connection to the main plot.

LordShotGun

2013-05-09, 06:13 AM

ANYWAY!!!! Back on topic. I don't particularly like that the rights for star wars went to EA but I look at it just like Disney getting the movie rights.

It's not like we were getting good products before this all happened and even if we DON'T get anything good now that the rights to star wars has been divide up, it is not like we are losing anything except pride.

On the plus side we are gaining that the possibility that within the shear quantity of merchandise there may be a few gems that sneak in every so often.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-05-09, 06:25 AM

While the DICE shooter may not be my personal kinda thing, I predict it to be a quite solid shooter that will be more interesting than your generic grey-and-brown-and-sand CoD/Battlefield clone on account of its setting. Even if it's basically a Battlefield clone set in the Star Wars universe, that alone will raise it above its competitors in interesting-ness, even if not necessarily in mass-market sales. A decent compromise between mass-market FPS and geek-gamer multiplayer FPS, though leaning towards the mass-market side is what I'd expect from that.

Call of Juarez Tatooine: The Hutt Cartel.

Forbiddenwar

2013-05-09, 09:17 AM

What's the big deal with microtransactions anyway? If you don't want to pay for unlockable crap, don't pay for unlockable crap. Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly does this tarnish the rest of the game?

Game Message: "You are out of special bullets. To continue playing please deposit $15" or "Skip this tedious and terrible and required minigame that we shoveled into the game for no reason for the low, low price of $29.95." for a game that cost you $60. And have that message pop up every 2 minutes in a fps, blocking the screen and you'll get an idea of what EA's concept of Microtransactions are.

warty goblin

2013-05-09, 09:41 AM

Game Message: "You are out of special bullets. To continue playing please deposit $15" or "Skip this tedious and terrible and required minigame that we shoveled into the game for no reason for the low, low price of $29.95." for a game that cost you $60. And have that message pop up every 2 minutes in a fps, blocking the screen and you'll get an idea of what EA's concept of Microtransactions are.

Which games do they do this in? My understanding is that the only micro-transactiony full priced game they'd done recently is Dead Space 3, which just lets you buy crafting components.

pendell

2013-05-09, 09:54 AM

Dienekes

2013-05-09, 10:14 AM

Question.

How did the Old Republic MMO turn out? Did it stink? I saw a few vids on youtube. Didn't look terrible , but not really interesting enough to shell out money for. Besides, I didn't like what they did with Revan's character.

It doesn't look like there's a thread for it as there is for World of Warcraft, so it must not be very popular on the playground. But did it *suck*?

Sort of. It wasn't so much that the game was bad (though it was a bit repetitive, I guess that's a thing with MMOs that I'm just not used to). It's that the major selling point was the stories, some of them were really good (Imperial Agent being the best if memory serves).

The problem was that after you beat the stories there was nothing to do, and definitely nothing worth shelling out money to pay per month. I think they stopped that now.

NEO|Phyte

2013-05-09, 10:17 AM

Question.

How did the Old Republic MMO turn out? Did it stink? I saw a few vids on youtube. Didn't look terrible , but not really interesting enough to shell out money for. Besides, I didn't like what they did with Revan's character.

It doesn't look like there's a thread for it as there is for World of Warcraft, so it must not be very popular on the playground. But did it *suck*?

There is a thread for it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233146).

As for how it is, I've never played WoW to know how accurate statements like "WoW clone" are, but I've enjoyed it enough to have 3 50s with more on the way. The main selling point is that each class has its own unique story that takes you from 1 to 50. Not to say it's an entirely different experience every time, you'll still be running into all the same nonclass quests along the way.

They've been making some questionable choices with the f2p/cartel market stuff, hopefully EA realizes this and starts being less dumb about trying to make money instead of making a quality product.

Gamerlord

2013-05-09, 10:19 AM

Question.

How did the Old Republic MMO turn out? Did it stink? I saw a few vids on youtube. Didn't look terrible , but not really interesting enough to shell out money for. Besides, I didn't like what they did with Revan's character.

It doesn't look like there's a thread for it as there is for World of Warcraft, so it must not be very popular on the playground. But did it *suck*?

Respectfully,

Brian P.
I played a Sith Warrior in the open beta, and when it went F2P came back and tried out a Smuggler. I was thoroughly unimpressed with both and gave up shortly after reaching Coruscant with the Smuggler. Even post-F2P the game was still buggy, the stories were very bland (I really wish MMORPGs would stop trying to make the players feel special, it falls completely flat when you see the hordes of other players with the same companions receiving the same quests) and the combat was a reskin of WoW, with all the dull quests that entails. Also, while this is rather nitpicky, it was pretty lame how unimaginative they were with the race selections, most didn't look much different from a standard human.

Sith_Happens

2013-05-09, 11:53 AM

Question.

How did the Old Republic MMO turn out? Did it stink? I saw a few vids on youtube. Didn't look terrible , but not really interesting enough to shell out money for. Besides, I didn't like what they did with Revan's character.

It doesn't look like there's a thread for it as there is for World of Warcraft, so it must not be very popular on the playground. But did it *suck*?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Been playing it, been loving it. I won't say it's for everyone, no MMORPG is, but I can say it won't cost you anything to try.

The problem was that after you beat the stories there was nothing to do, and definitely nothing worth shelling out money to pay per month. I think they stopped that now.

Don't know about you, but I've been running Ops and they're a bundle of fun.

Xenrei

2013-05-23, 10:19 PM

With the DICE studio, they could really make something amazing for the new Battlefront-esque game. I have been looking forward to another Battlefront for years, and we may finally get it! :smallbiggrin:

I would also like to see "The Sims: Death Star Edtion". One thing is for certain, I won't leave any exhaust ports open for fighters to shoot stuff down! :smallwink:

Sith_Happens

2013-05-24, 01:15 AM

I would also like to see "The Sims: Death Star Edtion". One thing is for certain, I won't leave any exhaust ports open for fighters to shoot stuff down! :smallwink:

And what do you plan to do with all your exhaust?:smalltongue:

Wookieetank

2013-05-24, 07:44 AM

And what do you plan to do with all your exhaust?:smalltongue:

Grating small enough that a proton torpedo can't fit through comes to mind. :smallbiggrin:

Aotrs Commander

2013-05-24, 08:36 AM

Grating small enough that a proton torpedo can't fit through comes to mind. :smallbiggrin:

I think the West End Games technical books suggested that the Death Star II's thermal exhaust would have been a series of 1mm outlets dispersed across the whole surface, hense why it had to be hit before it was finished.

I'm well ambivilent by this point. Bioware has long fallen from grace to the point I won't be touching anything until after release and I've gauged the reviews and the reactions, but if they can regain some of their old glory, a new Star Wars RPG would be nice. On the other hand EA. And the lasy SW game I bought was the Forces of Corruption expansion for Empire at War, so, yeah.

Sadly, though, I doubt we will see the glory of a TIE Fighter 2 even in a best-case scenario.

Philistine

2013-05-24, 06:42 PM

Sadly, though, I doubt we will see the glory of a TIE Fighter 2 even in a best-case scenario.

Well, no. Flight sims generally, and space flight sims in particular, haven't had a good... decade? Or so? They don't turn enough profit to attract major publishers - and while crowdsourcing is finally opening up ways for niche games to get funded again, bet on the Star Wars IP to always always always stay with a major publisher.

factotum

2013-05-24, 11:35 PM

Well, no. Flight sims generally, and space flight sims in particular, haven't had a good... decade? Or so? They don't turn enough profit to attract major publishers

Wow. I bet Deep Silver (publishers of the X series) are really impressed that you don't consider them a major publisher. :smallwink:

warty goblin

2013-05-24, 11:58 PM

Wow. I bet Deep Silver (publishers of the X series) are really impressed that you don't consider them a major publisher. :smallwink:

I like a couple of their games, but no way is Deep Silver playing in the same ballgame as Activision-Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft or even 2K. The X games are pretty niche, and Risen/Gothic, their other major franchise(s), is, well Risen/Gothic.

(Come to think of it, who owns the Gothic rights anymore anyway? They were with JoWood for a while, which allowed them to churn out the awesomely bad Arcania. After JoWood went belly up, Nordic published an expansion, just in there were a couple people who had played Arcania who hadn't gone catatonic yet. After that I have no idea.)

factotum

2013-05-25, 03:18 PM

I like a couple of their games, but no way is Deep Silver playing in the same ballgame as Activision-Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft or even 2K. The X games are pretty niche, and Risen/Gothic, their other major franchise(s), is, well Risen/Gothic.

Dead Island is a major Deep Silver franchise, and they also got Metro: Last Light and Saints Row 4 in the THQ fire sale. It's owned by Koch Media, which is a company with a turnover into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Yes, it may not be in the same ballpark as EA, but that doesn't make it a *minor* publisher by any means!

Ebon_Drake

2013-05-28, 01:26 PM

tigerusthegreat

2013-05-29, 08:47 PM

I'm not interested in a KOTOR with a multiplayer component that is necessary to success in the singleplayer game.

This already exists....its The Old Republic

NEO|Phyte

2013-05-29, 09:20 PM

This already exists....its The Old Republic

Except that the "singleplayer", which would be the class stories, are entirely completable without ever having to interact with other players. Sure you might miss out on heroics (Though some of these can actually be solo'd if you're careful), flashpoints, operations, and warzones, but that's just multiplayer content.

Kish

2013-06-02, 12:42 PM

Except that the "singleplayer", which would be the class stories, are entirely completable without ever having to interact with other players. Sure you might miss out on heroics (Though some of these can actually be solo'd if you're careful), flashpoints, operations, and warzones, but that's just multiplayer content.
While this is technically accurate, I suppose, as should you be underleveled for the next planet in your class story you can always gain levels through ship missions and by soloing those heroic missions which are easy enough to solo, "Get to level 50 in SWTOR without doing anything that requires other players" sounds like one of those really painful challenge games which people more masochistic than I post bragging about doing.

Squark

2013-06-02, 02:01 PM

satorian

2013-06-02, 09:09 PM

When I was talking about forced multiplayer in a single player game, I was referring to Mass Effect 3. That, more than the ending controversy, is why I won't play that game.

Zevox

2013-06-02, 09:29 PM

When I was talking about forced multiplayer in a single player game, I was referring to Mass Effect 3. That, more than the ending controversy, is why I won't play that game.
Then perhaps you're misinformed on that, if you haven't actually played the game. The multiplayer in ME3 has never been required to get any ending. It was necessary to get a single very brief bonus scene in one of the endings, but nothing more. And even that is no longer the case, as the minimum Galactic Readiness score to get that scene was reduced when the Extended Cut ending was released, so that you can now get that bonus scene without ever touching the multiplayer.

The Valiant Turtle

2013-06-02, 09:52 PM

While this is technically accurate, I suppose, as should you be underleveled for the next planet in your class story you can always gain levels through ship missions and by soloing those heroic missions which are easy enough to solo, "Get to level 50 in SWTOR without doing anything that requires other players" sounds like one of those really painful challenge games which people more masochistic than I post bragging about doing.

Actually, not running heroics won't significantly impact your leveling at all. Plenty of people rush characters to 50 (55 now) before doing any multi-player. When they do a double-xp weekend people talk about skipping entire planets. I've done heroics on maybe 1/3 of the planets I've been through, and there were a few times where the group composition was so bad and it took so long that I would have been better off just killing random mobs. I've only done one flashpoint, but it went smooth enough that I'm probably going to try doing more of those on future characters. I actually see lots of complaints about no grouping being required while leveling.

I should note that there is a slight xp-penalty on free players that might alter that a bit.

Of course, if multi-player is really your thing you could level almost entirely on flashpoints after lvl 10 or so and never solo-quest at all. I understand that PVP is also viable for leveling. I haven't tried the PVP at all, but from what I've heard if you want to do it you actually should start as soon as possible, not wait until end-level.

I'm not quite to end-game on my main, but I'm really playing it for the class stories, any multi-player enjoyment I get is just a nice bonus.

factotum

2013-06-03, 01:49 AM

The multiplayer in ME3 has never been required to get any ending. It was necessary to get a single very brief bonus scene in one of the endings, but nothing more. And even that is no longer the case, as the minimum Galactic Readiness score to get that scene was reduced when the Extended Cut ending was released, so that you can now get that bonus scene without ever touching the multiplayer.

So you're basically saying that all the time they spent developing the multiplayer part of the game was wasted? Time they could have spent producing a decent ending in the first place, without having to write a major patch to do it?

Sith_Happens

2013-06-03, 01:53 AM

So you're basically saying that all the time they spent developing the multiplayer part of the game was wasted? Time they could have spent producing a decent ending in the first place, without having to write a major patch to do it?

No, because there's no reason the multiplayer and single-player wouldn't have been developed at the same time.

Flame of Anor

2013-06-03, 02:50 AM

Well, no. Flight sims generally, and space flight sims in particular, haven't had a good... decade? Or so? They don't turn enough profit to attract major publishers - and while crowdsourcing is finally opening up ways for niche games to get funded again, bet on the Star Wars IP to always always always stay with a major publisher.

You may be pleased to know of the upcoming Star Citizen.

factotum

2013-06-03, 04:39 AM

No, because there's no reason the multiplayer and single-player wouldn't have been developed at the same time.

That still means that the people who were developing the multiplayer stuff couldn't have been working on the single player side of the game, so there's still less effort going into the single player.

Kish

2013-06-03, 06:05 AM

Actually, not running heroics
Er-hem. Your post might be fundamentally unchanged, but please note, I didn't say "without doing heroics." Flashpoints require other players, warzones require other players.

NEO|Phyte

2013-06-03, 10:13 AM

That still means that the people who were developing the multiplayer stuff couldn't have been working on the single player side of the game, so there's still less effort going into the single player.

IIRC, the multiplayer was developed by an entirely separate studio as the singleplayer, so the people working on the multi wouldn't have been involved in the singleplayer development ANYWAY. It was never a case of pulling resources from the singleplayer to add multiplayer, it was adding resources specifically FOR multiplayer.

Zevox

2013-06-03, 10:22 AM

So you're basically saying that all the time they spent developing the multiplayer part of the game was wasted? Time they could have spent producing a decent ending in the first place, without having to write a major patch to do it?
Not in the slightest. The multiplayer part of the game is surprisingly good - it plays very much like a single-player survival mode, except that having actual players for your companions works much better than AI (usually), and thus allowed them to significantly ramp up the difficulty compared to the single-player portion of the game (even the lowest difficulty setting of the multiplayer is harder than the highest of the single-player). Plus the variety of classes made available, especially as more were added over time via free DLC, gives you a lot of options for how to play. It wasn't something I ever expected to find myself enjoying going into the game, but I do, and I give them a lot of credit for managing to pull that off.

And as NEO|Phyte said, it was developed by a separate studio, so no, it could not have impacted the single-player. At worst it could have inflated the budget and made it harder to make money on the game, but apparently that didn't happen (otherwise we wouldn't be getting free DLC for it).

warty goblin

2013-06-03, 10:22 AM

That still means that the people who were developing the multiplayer stuff couldn't have been working on the single player side of the game, so there's still less effort going into the single player.

This seems to be predicated on the odd stance that the multiplayer is an a priori inferior use of resources. I'm pretty sure quite a few people got a lot of fun out of the MP. And what the singleplayer suffered from wasn't a lack of resources, but a lack of decent writing. Throwing another twenty or forty programmers and systems designers at it wouldn't have fixed that.

Squark

2013-06-03, 11:43 AM

Yeah, almost none of the criticism I've seen for ME3 is over the mechanics. And considering ME3 Multiplayer's plot, such as it is, is established pretty much entirely through the single player game as a background (Which is to say, the multiplayer characters are running around holding the line while Shepherd goes around and gathers resources for the final fight), I don't think the writing team had to divert much in the way of resources for its development.

Aotrs Commander

2013-06-03, 12:41 PM

In fact, in can be reasonably said that ME3 is essentially a fantastic game up until the last fifteen minutes (and arguably during the cutscenes involving one NPC).

It's just that the ending - which was the last thing you took away, and the culmination of your 150+ single player (and possibly multiplayer, pre-ending DLC) was such a mess (and in my opinion absolutely risible from concept to execution - though DLC polished the latter part, at any rate) the contrast made it seem far worse. If ME3 hadn't been such a high standard throughout the rest of it, I don't think the ending - and thus the game - would have taken so much flak.

Wookieetank

2013-06-03, 01:18 PM

This seems to be predicated on the odd stance that the multiplayer is an a priori inferior use of resources. I'm pretty sure quite a few people got a lot of fun out of the MP. And what the singleplayer suffered from wasn't a lack of resources, but a lack of decent writing. Throwing another twenty or forty programmers and systems designers at it wouldn't have fixed that.

I've put over 100 hours into the MP myself and have still yet to touch the single player side of the game. Part of that had to do with me playing multiplayer regularly with my brothers and a friend of the family. 4 Vangards was amazingly fun and entertaining. Wasn't terribly impressed by ME2, so the desire to play the story of 3 hasn't been terribly strong. Definitely got my money worth from the game, if not in the way the developers intended. :smallbiggrin:

satorian

2013-06-03, 04:10 PM

I hadn't heard that the multiplayer was no longer necessary to get the best ending, no. Thanks for that. I still won't be buying the game until the ultimate edition, or maybe a trilogy edition, comes out for 20 bucks in a couple years. I'm choosing to vote with my wallet against multiplayer, which I loathe, against DLC bloat, against everything EA does all the time. I know other people enjoy the fact that almost every game has to have multiplayer and think the modern DLC system is great. They can pay 100 bucks for the game and its DLCs. I'll pay my 20.

I get plenty of joy out of being 2-3 years behind the curve. Just finished New Vegas. Well, not finished per se, but played up until I had to make an end-game decision none of whose options I wanted my character to do, so I quit. But I had a blast with it up to then. And I got the game and all its DLCs for 20 bucks. :smallsmile:

Squark

2013-06-03, 05:47 PM