Wikoogle
08-20-2007, 08:58 PM
First, it says on ign that currently, it's not possible for all three factions to be involved in a battle.
I feel that's a mistake. I think in those areas where all three factions borders intersect, they should be able to fight each other for control. How awesome would it be if you had to strategically fight against and defeat not just one faction but both?
That one thing itself I don't think has ever been done before, having to take on two different factions in multiplayer. It would be a whole new dimension of gameplay.
Second, in single player, it would be awesome if the game felt real time. For example, by the time you finish fighting a battle at one frontier, the borders should shift at random. This way, it would create the illusion that while you're fighting, there were also fights going on in all the borders. This would make the game feel like a real war.
Also, it would be awesome if there was a mode where your objective is to get to and take over a certain area by whatever means neccesary. One example would be a Capital mode. You pick a capital. So does the AI. The object is to capture your AI's capital while protecting yours.
You have the full freedom to take any route you want, to approach from any country to get to that capital. You can locate your capital at a choke point etc.
You could even set it not as a capital but a secret weapons project. That way, you don't know where your opponents weapons project is being developed, ie. which area you have to capture.
You must first gather intelligence by capturing key intelligence areas to figure out where the weapons project is being developed, and then capture that, before your opponent does the same thing.
In short, I want single player in EndWar to feel like a game of risk, but with the battles outcomes decided not by a dice roll but by actual strategy.
And as a last note. I think that if Ubisoft pulls this game off so that the combat/gameplay is fun, as fun as Halo for example. This has a great chance to be THE game of the generation.
It's so revolutionary, and it appeals to so many different people. It appeals to RTS players, RPG players who like to power up their characters and teams, FPS players in the games combat mode, and players of games like Brothers in Arms and such too.
So I don't want Ubisoft to get bogged down by a release date. The greatest games of all time were games where the developer worked for years to perfect it. Starcraft, Halo, every blizzard game ever made, Bioshock, these were all games that were delayed many many times and turned out to be masterpieces because the developer took as much time as they need to create their vision of the game.
Ubisoft should give this game the same treatment. It's concept is so incredible that if Ubisoft gets it perfect the first time, not only will they have created a hit just as profitable as Halo or Starcraft, but they will have created an incredibly profitable franchise too and change gaming and RTS games forever.
Post in this thread, your ideas on how to make the game perfect.
I feel that's a mistake. I think in those areas where all three factions borders intersect, they should be able to fight each other for control. How awesome would it be if you had to strategically fight against and defeat not just one faction but both?
That one thing itself I don't think has ever been done before, having to take on two different factions in multiplayer. It would be a whole new dimension of gameplay.
Second, in single player, it would be awesome if the game felt real time. For example, by the time you finish fighting a battle at one frontier, the borders should shift at random. This way, it would create the illusion that while you're fighting, there were also fights going on in all the borders. This would make the game feel like a real war.
Also, it would be awesome if there was a mode where your objective is to get to and take over a certain area by whatever means neccesary. One example would be a Capital mode. You pick a capital. So does the AI. The object is to capture your AI's capital while protecting yours.
You have the full freedom to take any route you want, to approach from any country to get to that capital. You can locate your capital at a choke point etc.
You could even set it not as a capital but a secret weapons project. That way, you don't know where your opponents weapons project is being developed, ie. which area you have to capture.
You must first gather intelligence by capturing key intelligence areas to figure out where the weapons project is being developed, and then capture that, before your opponent does the same thing.
In short, I want single player in EndWar to feel like a game of risk, but with the battles outcomes decided not by a dice roll but by actual strategy.
And as a last note. I think that if Ubisoft pulls this game off so that the combat/gameplay is fun, as fun as Halo for example. This has a great chance to be THE game of the generation.
It's so revolutionary, and it appeals to so many different people. It appeals to RTS players, RPG players who like to power up their characters and teams, FPS players in the games combat mode, and players of games like Brothers in Arms and such too.
So I don't want Ubisoft to get bogged down by a release date. The greatest games of all time were games where the developer worked for years to perfect it. Starcraft, Halo, every blizzard game ever made, Bioshock, these were all games that were delayed many many times and turned out to be masterpieces because the developer took as much time as they need to create their vision of the game.
Ubisoft should give this game the same treatment. It's concept is so incredible that if Ubisoft gets it perfect the first time, not only will they have created a hit just as profitable as Halo or Starcraft, but they will have created an incredibly profitable franchise too and change gaming and RTS games forever.
Post in this thread, your ideas on how to make the game perfect.