Why doesn't a game like this exist?

Adagio · May 19, 2003, 15:16

I was just thinking about a game, that's kinda a mix between RoN and BattleField:

From RoN, you take the "Conquer the World" idea, from BattleField, you take the... ehmm... BattleField...

The idea is: Each clan in the tournament, has some land (Like in RoN: CtW), and for each turn, the different clans makes their "move" (read: attack). When all attacks has been settled, the fight(s) will soon start. And it should be like in RoN: CtW, where all lands are unique, so on one World Map, there's not two BattleFields that looks alike... (this makes the game more interesting)... The Battle works as in normal BattleField.

If a new clan starts, that clan may choose whatever land this clan wants to attack, in hope to get a foothold in the game...

I don't play BF myself, because it's always the same (playing the same maps over and over again...), and I'm not interested in stats (e.g. 23 won battles, 14 lost battles, rang: 15621516)... I prefer something more visual, and some differences... and some strategy, in choosing where to attack...

Alex · May 19, 2003, 16:09

what is battlefield?

bullen · May 19, 2003, 16:26

a game like that would be huge

i play DoD myself and prefer the haflife motor befor bf.
but otherwise its not a bad idée.

It would be cool if u could play like mercenaries or some sort of special troops. why not a litle RPG too....hell why not take all existing games and mix them upp into one big pudding. Not including "Black or white"…it sucks...big time

Behold the new supergame
it will rule u

VJ · May 19, 2003, 16:49

Erm, I think I've read about a MP like this, it was huge, and had relatively crappy graphics. WW2, in western front, IIRC.

I'll try to find the name of this game.

VJ · May 19, 2003, 17:00

Never mind, I can't find it with the help of Google. Oh well.

Quote:

what is battlefield?

I think he means Battlefield 1942, aka BF1942, a FPS with huge maps compared to traditional MP FPS' (such as CS and MOHAA).

General Ludd · May 19, 2003, 17:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuomerehu
Erm, I think I've read about a MP like this, it was huge, and had relatively crappy graphics. WW2, in western front, IIRC.

I'll try to find the name of this game.

You mean, it was about World War II, and was an Online game? Hmm... can't think of what it might be called.

Alex · May 19, 2003, 18:24

oh, yes, battlefield 1942. I'm not too much into FPS.

Skanky Burns · May 19, 2003, 18:48

War of the Worlds sort of had this idea. The top map was turn-based where you could build stuff, then move them into an enemy territory to attack. Once you attacked, you were then taken to the battle field where a RTS segment would play out (you in control of course). Once you defeated the enemies in the sector, it was yours.

The real reason a game like this isn't available, is that it would take twice the budget to produce the one product with similar quality to the two games it took parts from. As evidenced by WoW, which was sorely lacking in quality.

War4ever · May 19, 2003, 18:54

b/c its easier in principle than it is in reality...... that is why

Adagio · May 20, 2003, 05:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
The real reason a game like this isn't available, is that it would take twice the budget to produce the one product with similar quality to the two games it took parts from. As evidenced by WoW, which was sorely lacking in quality.

It can be done cheaper... it only needs a game like BF and a good map editor... and then try to make the fans do the rest. No need to be programmed in the game itself... could easily be done like normal clan games, where certain people keeps control on who attacks who, and when... and who has which lands...

Skanky Burns · May 20, 2003, 06:23

I get you now. It could be done, but someone would have to bother with all the organising.

Urban Ranger · May 20, 2003, 07:24

Years ago, during one summer, some of us decided to resolve Federation and Empire battles with Starfleet Battles. Think of F&E as the strategic level and SFB the tactical level. Our experience was it took several hundred times longer to resolve those engagements than with the abstract rules in F&E. Abstract battles would take a couple of minutes, while tactical ones would take hours, around 6-8. It was fun for awhile, but unless you have very lopsided teams, the difference in results were rather insignificant.

We also found that it was hard to get the teams assembled, dispite the fact that it was a summer vacation. So I reckon you'd had a much tougher time to get all the clan members to resolve all the individual battles.

End result? Forget it.

Space05us · May 22, 2003, 20:49

Quote:

Erm, I think I've read about a MP like this, it was huge, and had relatively crappy graphics. WW2, in western front, IIRC.

WWIIonline

and the graphics are crappy because its huge, the game has to draw areas dozens of times larger than BF42 battlefields, the cool part about it though is that instead of being a crappy little arena youre on a battlefield 1/2 the size of real life europe.

the graphics really arent so bad anymore though http://www.wwiionline.com go there and look at the screenshots gallery.

Zero · May 24, 2003, 23:09

WWIIonline was a flawed game.

Pros - It was so friggin real.

You choose 3 careers (army, navy, air) and fight along hundreds of online players with all the real world war enviornment and equipment. Only thing missing from real life would be the VR component.

Cons - It was so friggin real. Its a ****in hassle to get to the battlefield from spawning point. Especially if u missed the convoy and you end up walking all the way. And its also ****in annoying being at a real world war enviornment with bunch of computer geeks that dont know how to work together as a team and get slaughtered. You would only enjoy real team work if u were only in a serious clan and spend great deal of time playing

This game is a perfect example of why realism sucks in video game if ur looking for one.

and finally... it was bug heaven. and they never resolved all the bugs and crashes to this day.. i believe.

Adagio · May 25, 2003, 05:23

Well... I didn't say the game had to be realistic...

The most important things in the game, is the team-work... without it, you wont have a chance...

Space05us · May 25, 2003, 05:52

Quote:

and finally... it was bug heaven. and they never resolved all the bugs and crashes to this day.. i believe.

no one to my knowledge has been having problems with crashes since the about two patches ago. Its still a little buggy and theres been a lot problems with clippers and greifers letely. most blame it on the free trial thats going on, since theres been a lot of noobs in game.

Quote:

Cons - It was so friggin real. Its a ****in hassle to get to the battlefield from spawning point. Especially if u missed the convoy and you end up walking all the way.

you just dont have enough patience, from most fbs it takes about 8 minutes to walk into town. Or theres always the alternative of spawning armor and driving in.

Quote:

And its also ****in annoying being at a real world war enviornment with bunch of computer geeks that dont know how to work together as a team and get slaughtered.

you must not have played with anyone. everyone I run into in game is willing to work as a team.

its one of those games you have to play to see if you like it, and you either love it or hate it.

Space05us · May 25, 2003, 05:56

another game similar to WWIIOL (from what Ive heard) is Plantetside. I havent played it yet, but a lot of people from my WWIIOL squad (clan) play it when theyre not playing WWIIOL or working.

http://www.planetside.com

General Ludd · May 25, 2003, 07:55

I was thinking about giving Planetside a go after I get tired of Shadowbane, or just want to take a break.