Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

[deleted]

DemonKing

Arcane
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
6,008
I've played and got some enjoyment from:

* Xwing/Tie Fighter
* Dark Forces/Jedi Knight games
* Lego SW 2 & 3
* Republic Commando
* Empire at War (expansion is probably better than the base game)
* Galactic Battlegrounds
* Knights of the Old Republic 1&2
* Force Unleashed I
* Battlefront

I wouldn't recommend Force Commander or Force Unleashed 2.
 

Fowyr

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
7,671
Dark Forces.
The only thing that I don't liked in it - inability to save game.
 

A user named cat

Guest
Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast

Nothing else really comes close. Probably the single best multiplayer game ever made, eons better than lame CS and UT. The combination of light sabers, force usage, movement, kicking and weapons were perfect. 13 years later and I've yet to play anything that can compare.

I'm in this old highlight vid, good times:
 

Cadmus

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
4,264
Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast

Nothing else really comes close. Probably the single best multiplayer game ever made, eons better than lame CS and UT. The combination of light sabers, force usage, movement, kicking and weapons were perfect. 13 years later and I've yet to play anything that can compare.

I'm in this old highlight vid, good times:

 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
Jedi Knight Series (but especially Dark Forces II and Jedi Outcast)
KOTOR I+II

From the less known shit, I remember these to be somewhat enjoyable:



 

sqeecoo

Arcane
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
2,618
The Jedi Knight series were fun action games with good atmosphere and good use of physics and lightsaber combat. KOTOR 1 was a simplistic RPG that is not amazing but stands on equal ground with well-realized but unspectacular games like Baldur's gate. KOTOR 2 was an amazing game from a storytelling perspective and one of my favorite games in general, especially due to the deconstruction of the good vs. evil mentality and the character of Kreia, mentor/mother figure done well. Sadly unfinished, but still very enjoyable especially with the restoration mod.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,231
Not sure if I would call it good and recommend it unreservedly, but Rebellion was different to say the least. This may be nostalgia speaking just a little bit. I played it when I was just getting into the Original Trilogy, and I thought the game was rather atmospheric with the music, the droid advisors, the intro, etc. I felt that it just had that Star Wars atmosphere, without any Gungans in sight. Too bad that the space battles were very unwieldy. In any case, SW strategy games are few and far between. I never played Force Commander or Empire at War, mind. Anyone know if they're any good? I did play Galactic Battlegrounds quite a bit, but it was really just an AoE2 clone, made by Ensemble even. So you would have soldiers just lining up and shooting at each other, fighters and bombers just hovering in front of their targets, etc. Not as bad as mentioned above, but quite unsatisfying in the end.

Rebellion is a good game, if its the kind of game you like. I gave it a quick replay a while back and it definitely still holds up decently. Force Commander and Empire at War are both pretty mediocre.

Force Commander has lots of problems. First, incredibly ugly early 3d. Second, the game is really, really slow. Maps are huge and units move at a glacial pace. Third, horrible feedback in combat. Laser shots and stuff are so small that you need to zoom in to ground level to see them, most of the time you'll just be watching units fall over randomly when enemies are near them. Also IIRC the resource system gave you resources only for killing enemy units, which meant that the optimal strategy for almost all maps was to turtle hard since that's what let you build up.

Empire at War is more like a Total war game (50/50 tactical/strategic as opposed to 90/10 that Rebellion is), and its just plain bad. Tactics boil down to attack-moving your whole group towards the enemy, strategy boils down to building move of those units.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
13
TIE Fighter, Jedi Knights, Kotors,
but most of all i would love a new game similar to rebellion, liked it so much, too bad i found it really hard to get big battles going. and they had to go out of their way to fill up Empire ranks with personel to recruit:D (that shitty alien that rats out the falcon dockingbay in A new Hope, really?)
 

rohand

Cipher
Joined
Aug 20, 2014
Messages
592
Location
Planet Escape
The N64 one Shadows of the Empire had a special charm back then. I don't know if I'd play it today though. AFAIK there's a Windows version.
Best was the Kyle Katarn knock-off Dash Rendar.



hqdefault.jpg
 

pippin

Guest
Yes, there was a pc port. I had it but when I moved from win98 to xp it wouldn't work anymore.
I remember at the time the pc port was received very well. Like gaming journos couldn't believe a game from the nintendo 64 could really translate into pcs without compromising its quality, but it was just as good as it was on the console.
 

Ninjerk

Arcane
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
14,323
I spent more time in the debug mode on the n64 version than playing the actual game
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
254
Location
Norfolk
Rebellion was a good real time strategy game. The combat itself sucked but going on missions with heroes and special forces was a blast. GOG's version works pretty well. If someone merged this with Sins of a Solar Empire galaxy map and combat you'd have a 10/10 GOAT.

Empire at War and expansion are both good, more or less expanded version of Rebellion but ground combat is a chore.
 

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
8,059
Shadows of the Empire for N64... well, half of it, the other half is levels that make you want to smash your TV.

Jedi Knight Series (but especially Dark Forces II and Jedi Outcast)
KOTOR I+II

From the less known shit, I remember these to be somewhat enjoyable:


Appreciated that game for allowing you to kill everyone. Made it cathartic when I couldn't get a part of advance the plot without killing someone, which resulted in Anakin calling me a monster for returning it with blood on my hands. He died right after as did anything else living before I turned it off.

I spent more time in the debug mode on the n64 version than playing the actual game

I spent most of my time replaying the first level and the last one for the dogfighting.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Rivmusique

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
3,489
Location
Kangarooland
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire

It's not very good, but watched some walkthroughs to remind myself what it was like. My god: non-corridor levels, predictable input > action/animation, no objective markers, no gameplay interrupting "you're-a-badass" cutscene kill cam. It would almost be an incline action game.
 

mediocrepoet

Philosoraptor in Residence
Patron
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
11,757
Location
Combatfag: Gold box / Pathfinder
Codex 2012 Codex+ Now Streaming! MCA Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
Teras Kasi was first by a year or so. Though "playable" may not be the best word to describe anything about that game.

I played the crap out of that and got all the unlocks. Mostly because I love Star Wars and fighting games. You're right though, even I couldn't call it "good". More like a guilty pleasure and wishing it had the polish of say, Street Fighter II instead of being like one of those cheap ass ripoffs you'd see out of Korea or whatever.
 

Cadmus

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
4,264
This thread reminded me how many fucking SW games there are. What a huge franchise, no wonder George can afford to keep growing more and more chins.
I really don't like the depiction of the Force with blue magical lights everywhere, I always thought it was more like a physical thing. In Movie Battles 2, there are no effects for push, jump, speed, etc which is really cool.
 

Endemic

Arcane
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
4,326
Rebellion was a good real time strategy game. The combat itself sucked but going on missions with heroes and special forces was a blast. GOG's version works pretty well. If someone merged this with Sins of a Solar Empire galaxy map and combat you'd have a 10/10 GOAT.

Yeah, I really like the covert ops\Jedi training side of Rebellion. It's a little too easy to exploit infinite bombardments per turn though, and the scale was a bit off (though PCs weren't powerful enough back then).

XWing Alliance mothafuckas.

Yup. If you get bored of stock missions\skirmishes, the freeware mission editor is a very powerful tool, even with the engine limit of 96 ships per region.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,231
Yeah, I really like the covert ops\Jedi training side of Rebellion. It's a little too easy to exploit infinite bombardments per turn though, and the scale was a bit off (though PCs weren't powerful enough back then).

Bombardments in Rebellion had a decent chance of destroying civilian infrastructure, which meant the whole sector's loyalty went down by 10%. Plus even a single shield generator could stand up to like 30 star destroyers.

What was more exploitable was having a large covert ops team in a fleet and doing multiple simultaneous covert ops missions from the fleet blockading the planets. Normal missions take like 2-5 days to perform but a week or two of flight time to and from the planet, by doing it in orbit you avoid the latter and just tear through enemy troops/defenses without harming your planet's loyalty. Plus since you are in the ship you can quickly zip around to see where the enemy is weak.

The scale was small starting out, but you could quickly get to the point where you were pumping out star destroyers on a monthly basis in multiple systems. The battle of Endor in RotJ only had like 30-40 star destroyers/mon calamari cruisers on each side which is about the extent of late game Rebellion battles. If you let players build the hundreds of star destroyers that the Empire had universe-wide then players would make a single fleet of hundreds of star destroyers and the scale would be silly the other way.
 

Endemic

Arcane
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
4,326
Bombardments in Rebellion had a decent chance of destroying civilian infrastructure, which meant the whole sector's loyalty went down by 10%. Plus even a single shield generator could stand up to like 30 star destroyers.

It isn't feasible to shield every planet/system, that's using up maintenance points better spent on fleets and troops. Fleets (or even just squadrons of X-wings) are more useful since you can move them. Shield generators without an accompanying ground force and fleet are just begging to be sabotaged.

Assuming two Gencore mk1s, that's 80 points of shield rating. B-wing\TIE bomber\Y-wing squadrons are 2 points each, SDs are worth several points and the best at bombardment. So more like 5-10 ISDs depending on what's loaded in their hangar bays. Not many systems start with 2 generators IIRC, usually it's just Coruscant and a couple of random ones in the core sectors.

Bombarding a 100% enemy controlled sector isn't an issue loyalty-wise, and you can render a planet totally unusable (Base Delta Zero style). There are also a couple of exploits people sometimes use in MP games (HQ colonization and ghost fleeting).

What was more exploitable was having a large covert ops team in a fleet and doing multiple simultaneous covert ops missions from the fleet blockading the planets. Normal missions take like 2-5 days to perform but a week or two of flight time to and from the planet, by doing it in orbit you avoid the latter and just tear through enemy troops/defenses without harming your planet's loyalty. Plus since you are in the ship you can quickly zip around to see where the enemy is weak.

If there are enough troops and a General there, you'll have a very tough time getting through undetected. Though if the planet's blockaded and relief isn't arriving, it's only a matter of time before you take it anyway. The AI isn't great on the strategic level, but it does relentlessly use spies and saboteurs against you, and garrisons pretty well.

The scale was small starting out, but you could quickly get to the point where you were pumping out star destroyers on a monthly basis in multiple systems. The battle of Endor in RotJ only had like 30-40 star destroyers/mon calamari cruisers on each side which is about the extent of late game Rebellion battles. If you let players build the hundreds of star destroyers that the Empire had universe-wide then players would make a single fleet of hundreds of star destroyers and the scale would be silly the other way.

Tarkin in the ANH novel mentions 1 million systems, and at it's height the Empire had millions of starships (with at least 25k being Impstars - 1 of which can slag an unshielded planet). Obviously it's difficult to show this kind of scale on a movie budget, so it's mostly in novelizations\EU and background materials. I don't mean the game needs millions of ships, but the number of structures per planet was a little on the low side. 200 systems is an okay abstraction, but they should be able to support more ships than they do. The travel time between sectors is far too long, resulting in a very slow build-up (even worse if you don't start with a construction yard).
 

Bumvelcrow

Somewhat interesting
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,867,060
Location
Over the hills and far away
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 Make the Codex Great Again! Strap Yourselves In
KOTOR 1 is a pretty good bare-basic RPG. The gameplay is piss-easy and the plot is your pretty standard Star Wars fare with a plot twist you can see coming a mile away, but it nails the tone of the setting pretty well.

I didn't see it coming - I thought it was awesome! :retarded: Perhaps there's a bar you must pass under to enjoy this game properly.

The original Dark Forces was great. Kyle Katarn was a Han Solo type no nonsense rogue. Then he found Jesus became Jedified and it was hard to take the sequels seriously. Although I did enjoy Jedi Academy, as he only had a cameo.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,231
It isn't feasible to shield every planet/system, that's using up maintenance points better spent on fleets and troops. Fleets (or even just squadrons of X-wings) are more useful since you can move them. Shield generators without an accompanying ground force and fleet are just begging to be sabotaged.

Totally feasible. You're already garrisoning with troops, adding Gencores ontop of that is only like 15-25% more overall maintenance. Though maintenance isn't usually the problem in MP, its refined material, but they aren't too out of line.

Assuming two Gencore mk1s, that's 80 points of shield rating. B-wing\TIE bomber\Y-wing squadrons are 2 points each, SDs are worth several points and the best at bombardment. So more like 5-10 ISDs depending on what's loaded in their hangar bays. Not many systems start with 2 generators IIRC, usually it's just Coruscant and a couple of random ones in the core sectors.

Yeah but bombers are trash that noone uses unless they want to suicidally throw away a fleet. Attack with 10 ISDs loaded with 60 bombers and 12 x-wing squadrons would probably destroy your whole fleet. So instead you have to take TIE fighters/interceptors at which point ISDs themselves only have 2 bombardment strength.

I mean, sure, you can create a special group of 6 escort carriers with 36 tie bombers (cheapest way to do it). Then you are looking at a total of about 340 maintenance in order to bomb through 24 maintenance worth of buildings (and frankly by the time you are able to throw this many squardrons into a bombing role. the enemy should have gencore 2s which just laugh at your shit). And your fleet is almost useless for anything but bombing. Eventually you can get tie defenders that are actually useful units, but that's a shit ton of the most expensive squadron in the game at only 1 bombardment a piece. Rebels can at least sort of bomb through shields with mass X-wings + B-wings late game, but its still mostly just a theoretical advantage, by the time you can amass such a fleet you can probably win in a dozen other ways.

Bombarding a 100% enemy controlled sector isn't an issue loyalty-wise, and you can render a planet totally unusable (Base Delta Zero style). There are also a couple of exploits people sometimes use in MP games (HQ colonization and ghost fleeting).

Yes, obviously this is the point where you build Gencores. By the time you have 100% control you probably have a construction planet that can crank that shit out.

If there are enough troops and a General there, you'll have a very tough time getting through undetected. Though if the planet's blockaded and relief isn't arriving, it's only a matter of time before you take it anyway. The AI isn't great on the strategic level, but it does relentlessly use spies and saboteurs against you, and garrisons pretty well.

If you throw 3-4 decoys into each mission you can really get through anything just fine. And when you can just sabotage your way through multiple gencores and 10+ regiments in about 15 days its kind of silly.

Tarkin in the ANH novel mentions 1 million systems, and at it's height the Empire had millions of starships (with at least 25k being Impstars - 1 of which can slag an unshielded planet). Obviously it's difficult to show this kind of scale on a movie budget, so it's mostly in novelizations\EU and background materials. I don't mean the game needs millions of ships, but the number of structures per planet was a little on the low side. 200 systems is an okay abstraction, but they should be able to support more ships than they do. The travel time between sectors is far too long, resulting in a very slow build-up (even worse if you don't start with a construction yard).

Structures per planet is just an abstraction, if you made it 10x as many that were 1/10th as strong it wouldn't change anything. Travel time between sectors I like, one of the very unique things about Rebellion that forces a long-term mindset.

How many ships do you want planets to support? Average planet gives around 200 maintenance points. An ISD with fighters and troops only costs around 100 maintenance. Frankly I don't think I've ever actually hit the maintenance cap in a serious game.

Yeah, the not-starting-with-construction-yards thing is totally lame. If I remade Rebellion today I'd do something like make it so each core world planet has a built-in construction yard that can only be used to build things on that planet (i.e. not build structures to be sent elsewhere).
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom