Battle for Middle Earth 2!

[TSKNF]

Ea has announced it's going to make a sequal to BFME rather than an x-pack. Seems good enough from the shoots I've seen of it, but EaW will beat it easily   Edited February 26, 2006 by Cain

[Darkmark]

They didn't do a great job with bfme 1.

 

With any luck they won't be making the same mistakes they did last time, but seems very much the EA way of doing things. If it doesn't work, make a NEW game. That way the consumers have to pay up again. I may buy it, but I'm waiting this time to see what it actually is like, not just what the EA bravado would like it to be.

 

Thing is, the whole idea of setting it away from the events in LOTR makes no sense to me. It's like that console game they had which had no real connection with the story. The reason for the strength of the game will be very much in the original story, which is why the BFME community still exists after the failings of the first. Methinks it is just another EA hunt for the big buck as opposed to a decent game.

 

Also, are they actually allowed to do this? Dwarves and Elves of the north not exactly in the game licence they purchased is it?

 

So yeah, you're right. Even if it's better than the first BFME, EAW will beat the crap outta it no problem.

[Little.B]

They didn't do a great job with bfme 1.

 

They just wanted to make some bucks out of the movies. I don't think the second part will be better. It will be outmatched by our beloved EaW with ease

[Fun-We]

Well luckily I didn't purchase BFME I rented it. It was an okay game but it did get annoying (especially that when a hero died, they still showed up in the next level. The ending kind of sucked as well) I must admit Darkmark I did like The Third Age (which apparently they are making a sequel to as well) It had really subtle connections with what was happening in the films but I liked the idea that there were other people fighting for existance at the same time. (which there essentially were)

[Fun-We]

just went onto EA's site and they have purchased the video game rights to the books as well. (probably means that we won't see Middle Earth online or w/e)

[Darkmark]

Thing with BFME was that balance was terrible.

 

Gondor was seriously underpowered as a side, but Gandalf for them was overpowered. So they only nerfed Gandalf.

 

Also if you play BFME online now, don't play against mordor 1vs1. Not unless you enjoy loosing to someone with 1/8th of your skill. It was the strongest race all along, so guess what? EA buffed it.

 

As long as balance in the next one better then it's bound to be more playable and enjoyable. Sure I'd like it not to have the NAT firewall issues of the first, but it's EA. We can't have everything

[TSKNF]

Well, EA has aquired the book license now, so they can add stuff from the hobbit and things not mentioned in the movies.

[Fun-We]

I think that was one of the main ideas of them doing 2. Hopefully they will improve the balance and graphics and hopefully increase the number of units you can have.

[Darkmark]

I was suprised just how few unit types BFME did have. When you compare it to how many have been shown so far in EAW, it shows just how few they actually modelled. The unit caps on BFME were a bit odd too, but these are minor things. With any luck EA will learn from its mistakes.

 

The only thing I like so far about the prospect of BFME2 is the ability to create your own heroes. This might just about cancel out the want for any more memorable heroes like in the fellowship or Saruman.

[Ghostly_Substance]

rofl, EA is learning after getting hit in the head by a baseball bat. Well I never played it but I am going to suggest what to fix from what I heard.

 

1) Bugs

2) mistakes

3) glitches

4) raise pop cap to actually make an army

5) for the fun of it create your own hero and skills

[MyZrael]

The only thing that pisses me off is the balace issues in BFME, for example if you play with rohan you can single handedly defeat 7 hard computer players with Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas, just try it. And those Rohirimm archers are completely out of control. And concerning the maximum unit cap, well you can get special mods on rpgplanet there are some that caught my attention, really interesting.

[Garbageben]

I enjoyed the original BFME (still play it a ton). Also am looking forward to this one. My main disappointment with the original was EA removing the ability to create your own heroes. This appears to be slated to be included in BFME 2 so I'm happy, plus you get to fight with dwarves.

[MyZrael]

U get to play with dwarves? Wow, great. So that means it's going to take the story to Silmarillion, hmmm... I'm getting goosebumps. Let me know on a release date.

[Bigedmond]

ouch, they are making about RTS. hasnt EA learned yet. Its gonna be pretty hard for EA to make an RTS, since what i have heard from friends at EA, alot of people have either quit, and be let go. Plus Luis castle is on extended vaction, like breet sperry was at westwood before he left for good.

 

Look, Delphi is a member of the EAW team, there goes one good designer right there.

[Cain]

Bigedmond nice to see you here :)Pls. enjoy your time with us. I look foward to see soon your avatar

 

Btw what exactly is needed to make a good RTS ?! Are the game designers the most impornat asset ? Or the way the game is tested and free of bugs ?!

[Foshjedi2004]

Greetings Bigedmond ! Welcome to our little Home online. Feel free to make yourself at home.

[Darkmark]

Btw what exactly is needed to make a good RTS ?! Are the game designers the most impornat asset ? Or the way the game is tested and free of bugs ?!

 

If we're to take BFME as an example:

 

Bugs were a big thing. When it was released there were countless things that could be abused, but not fixing some of them even now after 2 patches is perhaps the most frustrating.

 

Balance was abhorrent. Units would be so much better if they'd had the time to balance it right.

 

Nat/Firewall issues. This is a biggie nowadays for RTS'. Without the ability to connect properly the whole online community suffers, and it affects whether people play that game or another one where it is easier to connect. For BFME this still has not been fixed.

 

All of these seem to be things to make a RTS good, and are all reliant on the later game testing etc. But to make a game great, the foundations of it must have been done well first, so that's the job of the programmers.

 

But if I'm honest, community support after release is by far the best way to make a game last. This is perhaps why games like Warcraft last even now, while others suffer. To create a game without bugs or balance issues of any kind is impossible, but to sort them after they have been noticed by the community and when they ask for them to be rectified is the way to go at it. This is why I believe EAW will work so well, because petroglyph do play an active role in their communities and are unlikly to stop after EAW ships.

[TSKNF]

Hey Bigedmont, your right about that. A scary number of theold Westwood team are in petroglyph now, and Mark Skaggs quit I think, and another member of the old westwood team recently quit and joined blizzard (so we may be seeing starcraft 2 soon. Blizzard has also recently had a break-off in the form of Flagship studios, who are currently working on a new Warhammer fantasy rts as well as their rpg Hellgate London.)

[Bigedmond]

A game free of bugs, That is a dream unfortenatly. Its a just a fact that there will always be errors in code.

 

I think the fundementals to making a good game are:

 

1. A good initial first vision. This is how the designers think the game should look.

 

2. Picking a good engine/writing a good engine. Nothing to fancy, but something that does what the designers need it to do, and do it easily.

 

3. Good story line. The story is plotted out with the first vision of a game, but it is finished while the game it being made. A team needs to make sure that the maps, and AI can match what the story is saying is happening.

 

4. Probably the most important. Compatible with alot of older systems. Make it look great, but dont make your buys have to go buy the lastest and greatest hardware. Support atleast the past 2 to 3 years of hardware.

 

5 What we want the most. UNIT BALANCE. make sure that there is not 1 single unit that will decimate all the others. That hurts game play.

 

6. A great Multiplayer. Games today live and die by there multiplayer. If it sucks, you game will not sell. Plain and simple.

 

Those are jsut a few of my keys to a good game. Sorry i made such a long read.

 

The opinions expressed above are not those of any group, but just Bigedmond

[Darkmark]

I love the small print Bigedmond. Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. It does need to fundamentally work at all stages.

 

And your post wasn't all that long. Enough to read in one sitting easily.

[Gen.Vader]

Hey Bigedmont, your right about that. A scary number of theold Westwood team are in petroglyph now, and Mark Skaggs quit I think, and another member of the old westwood team recently quit and joined blizzard (so we may be seeing starcraft 2 soon. Blizzard has also recently had a break-off in the form of Flagship studios, who are currently working on a new Warhammer fantasy rts as well as their rpg Hellgate London.)

scary number of...westwood? the more the merrier, or in this case the better my dear indum!

[Cain]

Interesting - here is what I think now :

 

Quote Bigedmond

1.a. A game free of bugs, That is a dream unfortenatly.

 

That's becouse the testing procces in some companies sucks....really. They force you to play to much time the same level so you get quite bored and all the testers start to look like an army of zombies and as usual the final version never gets fully "beta tested". I mean the product as a hole.

 

It is true that you can't find all the bugs but at least there are better ways to find all the fat ones.

 

I think the testers should make their own program of testing and they should be judged by results not by their own time management or work style/methods. They are as important to the developing procces as the gamedesigners.

 

Also the tester's feedback should even affect the design a little more. A game designer can always become prisoner of the "big picture".

 

1. A good initial first vision. This is how the designers think the game should look.

 

Here we may have a problem if that vision is to rigid. If it is not flexible enough I mean. This days designers get all sorts of creazy ideeas about balance and interactivity and totally ignore other aspects that may interest the hardcore player. Its all about "fun" this days and everyone things he knows whats good for the other guy. "Fun" its quite a relative term and personally I will never design my games useing this term.

 

I will design games that addictive, games that you reinstal them year after year, like EAW for example.I never think that a RTS should be designed starting from "fun". For me it is the challenge, the pleasure, the desire to conquer and get rewards, the desire to upgrade and evolve, the desire to transform units in veterans, the need to get attached to some particular units, the need to see my emipre's borders and see how they expand, and the ability to find new wais of combat in the same game.

 

2,3 - I agree.

 

4. - Bingo ! Thats an excellent answer

 

5 What we want the most. UNIT BALANCE. make sure that there is not 1 single unit that will decimate all the others. That hurts game play.

 

Take EAW for example .... I bet the Death Star has really upset the gameplay philosophy

 

Even if it will fire once per battle it is still affecting to much the "Gameplay" in a single. So if you can integrate the DS why not give steroids to other units ?! Rancors surly get alot of it ... it seems. So you see UNIT BALANCE can't be always perfect but if you can contrabalance the hole "a little unbalanced" thing by useing the Tactical Balance betewn factions.

 

You can even let a game unbalanced if it is based on realism and you supply in the same package also a balanced version.

 

6. A great Multiplayer. Games today live and die by there multiplayer. If it sucks, you game will not sell. Plain and simple.

 

I dont think so ... a great singleplayer is required too.

 

MP only counts in the sales for ... let's say 20% ?! and the sale aspect always counts in the eyes of the producer.

 

A MP needs alot more balance betwen units than the SP. So why not make the MP more balanced than the SP ?! and the SP more "real". Just a little will do fine.

 

 

This ideeas are not fully the ideeas of Cain but have been found into the Rain Forest and then asimilated true Borg tehnology - Loll ! Got'ch ya !

[Ismael]

Hello Bigedmond its nice to see you here I see Cain gived you moderator powers cool / make your self at home I will give you the same avatar that we give to all the friends form Las Vegas

[Bigedmond]

1. A good initial first vision. This is how the designers think the game should look.

 

Here we may have a problem if that vision is to rigid. If it is not flexible enough I mean. This days designers get all sorts of creazy ideeas about balance and interactivity and totally ignore other aspects that may interest the hardcore player. Its all about "fun" this days and everyone things he knows whats good for the other guy. "Fun" its quite a relative term and personally I will never design my games useing this term.

 

I will design games that addictive, games that you reinstal them year after year, like EAW for example.I never think that a RTS should be designed starting from "fun". For me it is the challenge, the pleasure, the desire to conquer and get rewards, the desire to upgrade and evolve, the desire to transform units in veterans, the need to get attached to some particular units, the need to see my emipre's borders and see how they expand, and the ability to find new wais of combat in the same game.

 

This is where the comment "good initial first vision" comes to play. The initial vision is just an idea where the game will go. Games always change, so from there, it is up to the designers.

 

Ismael, thanks for the avatar. I have actually been reading the forum for a long time, just never commented. I have to be careful what say, and its normally easier for me not to say anything then say something that might get me in trouble. But this thread, had to pitch in. I guess its because i dislike EA. they destroyed a good company.

[Foshjedi2004]

Yeah. Poor Westwood Studios. Is it still active or has it been completely ingested?