It's certainly sold bucketloads, anyway.
It is about time Lucasarts went back and did a new X-Wing/TIE Fighter game. Other than being great games (missile abuse aside) they were some of the best co-op experiences I ever had. They could do a game spanning the whole saga now.
Rogue Leader had the graphics and a good fun factor but it was fairly mindless shooting in the end. I guess space sims are out of vogue these days but... damn it, they really should do this.
Yeah, I basically ignored the plot, since it really isn't that great, and it goes from being mildly contradictory to "what the **** are they talking about?!" Though thankfully the biggest example of poor plot is the Dark Side ending which is non-canon to the game (and would completely break the movies).
Which we were discussing at work today, in fact...
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's certainly sold bucketloads, anyway.It is about time Lucasarts went back and did a new X-Wing/TIE Fighter game. Other than being great games (missile abuse aside) they were some of the best co-op experiences I ever had. They could do a game spanning the whole saga now.
Rogue Leader had the graphics and a good fun factor but it was fairly mindless shooting in the end. I guess space sims are out of vogue these days but... damn it, they really should do this.
I seem to recall you and I playing TIE Fighter together once...
Just beat tfu on hard. I'm gonna play it again. This time on sith master. I wanna see how fast I can get through it with what I now know about how to (really) play.
Overall it was a cool game. A fun game. I liked the story. It has high replay value and crazy action in it. Balance and clipping were issues but not enough to make the game suck. the game itself is a bit short (but what game isn't nowadays) -not that it should be an ezcuse- But all in all, I'm not upset I got the game..
8/10
A bit short? It's incredibly short. Even with my constant playing and messing about I'm only at about 10 hours of play, and I'm at the end. You can run through it in under 6 if you know what you're doing.
I disagree on the high replay value. It's fun, but there's no point in playing it multiple times, really, unless you want the achievements, since you only have to replay the last level for the second ending.
Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
But it's not.SC, Tekken, Mortal Kombat, Streetfighter, they are all different.
You're not really getting that this is my opinion and I don't like the games in general and as I said, none of them have stood out enough to differentiate themselves from anything other than "just another button-masher".
Originally posted by Peach
A bit short? It's incredibly short. Even with my constant playing and messing about I'm only at about 10 hours of play, and I'm at the end. You can run through it in under 6 if you know what you're doing.I disagree on the high replay value. It's fun, but there's no point in playing it multiple times, really, unless you want the achievements, since you only have to replay the last level for the second ending.
You're not really getting that this is my opinion and I don't like the games in general and as I said, none of them have stood out enough to differentiate themselves from anything other than "just another button-masher".
It's not incredibly short. (not if you put it on hard, at least.) On easy it may be incredibly short.
And i say it has high replay value, to me. I want to try to beat the game again on "sith master" but i want to see how good and how fast i can beat the game this time. I just wanna challenge myself on a more difficult level. And this game fairly offers that opportunity. It's not entirely about seeing the ending either. If so I'd save the time and watch it on YouTube. Which i won't do, (for no reason at all) i just wanna to beat the game all the way through on that level cause my skill in the game has vastly increased.
After i beat the game it gave me the option to continue and i did. (which was the 1st stage obviously) and i just ripped through everyone/the stage as if it were nothing. Parts and the enemies on the stage that i struggled prior with were handled with a breeze, it was amazing. i'll admit that the force powers ive never had before helped me zoom though faster but there were some moments where i wasn't using force powers at all and i still dominated overall.
But i know that "sith master" will have me start with no Force powers so it'll be quite the challenge but i think i"ll be able to mop everyone in the game faster than before.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
It shouldn't be.
I agree.
I think games've become shorter because game tech's become too powerful to fully process appropriately, for consoles, without consoles having to raise prices that would be undesirable to the majority of people whom purchase these consoles due to the high costs of manufacturing and installing the state of the art equipment needed to run these games flawlessly.
Nowadays games look really great and do really great things that require alot of processing power to manage and maintain. Maybe games have to be short because extending a game lengthwise would either strain current hardware capabilities that would compromise game and console performance hence really ruining the whole experience for a gamer and that'll equate to an unhappy customer/mag editor, negative word of mouth, and low sales. And you gotta keep those company shareholders happy.
So it's purely business, if you get to the bottom of it. Until the market demonstrates that the majority gamers are willing to spend handsomely for an outrageous, state of he art, ahead-of-it's-time, console, which'll be highly unlikely, then we'll still be in the same spot, (with most games lasting at most 10hrs., with bugs included) for as long as it takes, unfortunately.
And i think players would rather get a $2-300 console with the majority it's $50-$60 games lasting, at most, 10hrs. rather than get a $1000 super advanced console that has $80 premium games lasting, at most, 20 to 50hrs.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I agree.I think games've become shorter because game tech's become too powerful to fully process appropriately, for consoles, without consoles having to raise prices that would be undesirable to the majority of people whom purchase these consoles due to the high costs of manufacturing and installing the state of the art equipment needed to run these games flawlessly.
Nowadays games look really great and do really great things that require alot of processing power to manage and maintain. Maybe games have to be short because extending a game lengthwise would either strain current hardware capabilities that would compromise game and console performance hence really ruining the whole experience for a gamer and that'll equate to an unhappy customer/mag editor, negative word of mouth, and low sales. And you gotta keep those company shareholders happy.
So it's purely business, if you get to the bottom of it. Until the market demonstrates that the majority gamers are willing to spend handsomely for an outrageous, state of he art, ahead-of-it's-time, console, which'll be highly unlikely, then we'll still be in the same spot, (with most games lasting at most 10hrs., with bugs included) for as long as it takes, unfortunately.
And i think players would rather get a $2-300 console with the majority it's $50-$60 games lasting, at most, 10hrs. rather than get a $1000 super advanced console that has $80 premium games lasting, at most, 20 to 50hrs.
I can't even sugarcoat this. I am simply blown away by pretty much everything you just said.
Game length cannot, cannot be limited by hardware capabilities. At any point, the console loads relevant data from the game disc. Not the whole thing. It's limited to one level, or even just one or two areas of a level at any one time.
The reason games are shorter is because developers are getting lazy and using graphics as a crutch.
Originally posted by Peach
I can't even begin to pick at how wrong you are there.It requires more work and effort to make a longer game. That is all. That is why they are fewer and more far between - it takes years to make a 60 hour game.
I'd rather buy a $60 game that's actually worth, you know, $60.
But how do you know what a $60 game's worth. According to the video games market, our most reliable barometer we can go by, (the short) games we're playing now are worth $60.
The games you want would probably cost more. Sure there's the obvious demand for longer, high quality games but you think they'll make those games and sell 'em @ $60 a pop, when they're already selling @ $60 a pop, subpar to that. Just like Ush said, tfu has sold bucketloads so far. Why fix (in this case adjust) if it ain't broke.
I agree, it's too bad but it's mostly business that's behind your problem.