If a new WC was made, should it be based on the movie or current game series?

Originally posted by Mekt-Hakkikt
But I haven't played Starcraft enough to say sth about the eveness there.
Click to expand...
StarCraft is very well balanced. But what really makes it special is that unlike C&C and most other multi-campaign games, the three campaigns in StarCraft are not parallel to each other - each campaign takes place after the successful completion of the previous one. Which creates some interesting paradoxes (as the Zerg, you command an invasion of the Protoss homeworld... and then you spend the whole Protoss campaign essentially undoing your achievements from the Zerg campaign).
 
I heard that Starcraft was very well balanced and experienced the successive campaigns: nice idea.

And to be really fair, weren't it just two imperial Admirals who defected - Harkov and Zaarin - and the latter was only brought to justice in the add-on? ;)
 
Originally posted by Mekt-Hakkikt
I heard that Starcraft was very well balanced and experienced the successive campaigns: nice idea.

And to be really fair, weren't it just two imperial Admirals who defected - Harkov and Zaarin - and the latter was only brought to justice in the add-on? ;)
Click to expand...

Two is two too many -- we got to fight Rebels for about a minute and then spent the rest of the damned game chasing admirals <G>
 
Maybe I am giving way too much weight but: Is it really that bad? Because that's absolutely not the impression I had but as with many other things, it has been quite a long time since I played TIE.
 
Well Starcraft did it well but only because you came engrossed in the plot, there was no real bonding with characters after the Terran campaign and that would remove an important element of Wing Commander.
 
Originally posted by Col.Dom
Now, I know the character art for the first Metal Gear on MSX was anime style (with the exception of that badass pic of Snake takin' a drag from his cig) but the rest seemed to have pretty realistic art. MG2 for the MSX had quasi-digitized characters and MGS1 had (for a PS1 game) realistic-looking and detailed characters and, in both MGS' cases, the artwork was beatifully realistic and not very anime. Maybe there's something I don't know about Metal Gears origins?
Anyone for "Maniac Missions!?"
Click to expand...

No, you have a perfectly good understanding of Metal Gear's origins, the comic came out well after the series' debut. I believe they went for the less realistic look because they knew the PS2's hardware. Fact is, of the all the Next Gen systems, it's technically the weakest. So, a game with a simple, stylized look is easier to pull off, because you don't get so distracted by things trying to look real. Sure, SH2 was great, but there was something downright annoying about the way the models spoke. Every clip of speech reminds you you're playing a video game. With a stylized look, MGS2 immerses you in an environment. It has complete continuity; models don't look realistic one moment and all the sudden weird when they're speaking. Movement and speech feels natural at all times... It was a brilliant use of the ps2's hardware. As for multiple view-point games, I remember how cool the idea was waaaaay back in War Craft II. But no one's done anything new with the idea for a long time, and while Aliens vs. Predator 2 is great, it works because it's a FPS. Personally, I'd love a game in which you play as one of the Kilrathi survivors, maybe even in some distant future where Kitties and Men work together...
 
Well Mekt, a lot of people wanted to fight Rebels in TIE Fighter. Naturally, such people were rather disappointed ;).

Pedro, you didn't like the Protoss characters?
But yeah, it's true that such a system would not work too well in WC. Imagine first flying WC1-SM2 on the Confed side, and then flying the first Enigma campaign on the Kilrathi side. Nuking the Tiger's Claw might not be too pleasing for most players ;).
 
I played again today and they just DIDN'T look anime style, the PS2 can be a real polygon pusher, its huge landscapes you're unlikely to see because of the trouble it has with textures, you'd never see Rogue Leader or Halo on the PS2 (look how blurry Starfighter is) but they really really don't look anime to me.

EDIT: Nope the Protoss were WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY too bland as characters
 
Originally posted by Pedro
I played again today and they just DIDN'T look anime style...they really really don't look anime to me
Click to expand...
Not anime, no, but certainly stylized. They aren't attempting to be photorealistic because of "the PS2's problems with textures."

Starcraft I don't think was about charcaters. I enjoyed the Protoss campaigns immensely...
 
That's why if a new WC game is made from an alternate perspective, it has to be Maniac. Origin did have the idea floating around, you know!

I remember reading about the possibility of the "Maniac Missions," add-on for WC4 way before WC4's release. I was so excited (cuz Maniac's the MAN)! Of course, as LOAF filled me in, it's vaporware. What a let down *sigh*

So, the way I see it, ol' Chris Roberts owes me a game revolving around Maniac :cool:

... with lots of Hellcats :p
 
Not anime, no, but certainly stylized. They aren't attempting to be photorealistic because of "the PS2's problems with textures."
Click to expand...

Umm there really aren't characters with that detail yet on GCN games or X-box games (Starfox despite all his glorious fur is hard to call photo realistic seeing as hes a walking talking fox) for comparison and they don't look anymore "stylized" than Shenmue or CODE Veronica, hell by your definition the characters in the Final Fantasy movie are "stylized" cos they didn't look photo realistic to me.

EDIT just like to point out that high detail characters are normally restrained by poly count, not textures and besides the texutres WERE high definition (thanks to the PS2s lacklustre anti-aliasing its easy to tell when they're not)
 
Re: MANIAC

Originally posted by Col.Dom
OH YEAH!! MANIAC IS ONE CRAZY MO-FO! HE'S UNSTOPPABLE!

MANIAC FOREVER!!

HE R0X0RZ w00t w00t!!

:cool:
Click to expand...
Yeah you're crazy too...
rcain.gif
:)
 
Originally posted by Mekt-Hakkikt
Maybe I am giving way too much weight but: Is it really that bad? Because that's absolutely not the impression I had but as with many other things, it has been quite a long time since I played TIE.
Click to expand...

To be fair, you also fight in a civil war between two planets, against pirates..and more pirates!
 
Originally posted by Col.Dom
That's why if a new WC game is made from an alternate perspective, it has to be Maniac. Origin did have the idea floating around, you know!

I remember reading about the possibility of the "Maniac Missions," add-on for WC4 way before WC4's release. I was so excited (cuz Maniac's the MAN)! Of course, as LOAF filled me in, it's vaporware. What a let down *sigh*

So, the way I see it, ol' Chris Roberts owes me a game revolving around Maniac :cool:

... with lots of Hellcats :p
Click to expand...

Yeah I would like to see a Maniac adventure set between WC3 and WC4. The ships available would be the WC3 ships plus the Morningstar II (Morningstar updated to WC3 level stats with four particle cannons, a Mace, two torps, six missiles, and shields/armor the same as the Thunderbolt) and maybe a new experimental fighter as well (Maniac WAS the head of the test pilots for the Morningstar project after all). What would you like to see for a plot? Maybe Maniac has to hunt down and stop a group that is threatening to break the new, fragile peace being built between he humans and the Kilrathi? Maybe Maniac has to destroy the Mandarin movement once and for all.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Well Mekt, a lot of people wanted to fight Rebels in TIE Fighter. Naturally, such people were rather disappointed ;).
(...).
Click to expand...

It was my dearest wish to fight that rebel scum and from my memory I did it a lot. :)
But it seems that my memory is not correct...
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
A Morningstar 'II' would be a whole new fighter, though...
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but WC3/4 seems to use a different system for ships from what was used in WC2. Two missiles isn't going to cut it on a WC3/4 type ship, so the advanced version of the Morningstar would probably need to have six missiles (or maybe four missiles and two Maces). Perhaps it can just be an upgraded version of the Morningstar in the same way that the WC2 version of the Rapier is an upgraded version of the WC1 Rapier--the WC2 Rapier has FF missiles and packs twin particle cannons instead of win neutron cannons. Here are the specs I would give a WC3 version of the Morningstar:

Max Speed: 400kps
Max Afterburner: 1200kps
Turn Rate Y/P/R: 60/60/60dps
Shields front/rear: 250cm (same as Thunderbolt)
Armor front/rear/left/right: 120/120/100/100
Guns: Particle Cannon (4)
Missiles: 2x3 (3IR/3IR), Mace/Torp 2x2 (can load either Mace or Torps)
Decoys: 24
Jump Capable: Yes
Atmospheric missions: Yes
Autoslide: No

The Morningstar in this incarnation would have speed and agility about equal to a Hellcat, with armor and shields about the same as a Thunderbolt. Its guns would be weaker than those of the Thunderbolt or the Excalibur, and it would carry six missiles compared to the Excalibur's twelve (same number as the Hellcat and Thunderbolt). However, its ability to carry four Maces/Torps would make it preferable to the Thunderbolt or Excalibur when going against capships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top