🚀 go-pugleaf

"Kevin Scholl" <kscholl@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:suydnQocaPVVgU2i4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>
>
> Ineedmoney wrote:
>
> >>>>Oh, Lord, here we go again. Secret Ops was a stand-alone game, and
> >>>>therefore is not "pt2" of anything.
> >>>
> >>>But it "feels" like an addon. You cant argue with that, can you?
> >>
> >>Why, because it uses a modified version of the WCP engine?  WC4 was a
> >>modified WC3 engine, but most people don't claim the former is an
> >>add-on to the latter.
> >
> >
> > Thats because WC4 is is a LOT different to WC3 in more ways than just
the
> > graphics, but WC Secret Ops just LOOKS like an addon to WCP instead of a
> > whole new game like WC4 was to WC3, or WC3 was to WC2. The following is
my
> > reasoning;
>
> WCSO is different from WCP in many ways as well. Important ways. See my
> list at the end...

see below

> > Basically, WC3 brought more to the Wing Commander Universe because of
the
> > movies and lot of other extras that I shouldnt have to tell you about.
WC4
> > was quite different to Wc3 in its HEAVY use and huge budget for the
movies.
> > Wc4 made you feel like you were choosing missions and your own destiny,
an
> > illusion of course... but still another step up from Wc3. WCProphecy
decided
> > to upgrade the graphics, which was a big step up. However, they didn't
use
> > so much video, which some people can debate as to if this hindered the
game.
> > Nevertheless it was obviously not just an addon for Wc4. -
>
> Nobody is arguing that. :)

good :)

> > As for Secret Ops, it didn't have ANY video, all cinematics were ingame
>
> So? Since when does the amount of video determine whether a game is is
> standalone? And ironically, the fact that the cinematics were ingame and
> not video clips, is one significant difference that could be counted
> against WCSO being an add-on.

Hows that? The way I see it is that if it was an addon, this is the way they
would make it. They couldnt afford to do video and even CGI so they simply
did it in-game. The way Secret Ops appears is exactly the way I would expect
an addon to look!

> > rendered. It didnt have ANY prerendred CGI. I didnt have ANY character
> > models and all the character interaction happened in flight, for example
> > with a in-game graphical sequence showing your ship and the voices of
the
> > characters which you couldn't even see. There was no noticable
improvment on
> > the graphics, except improving and adding some additional weapons. The
ONLY
>
> Minor point...the flight engine was tweaked to allow better detail. But
> we've already determined that the graphics alone do not an add-on make.

I've already said that as well.

> > thing I think Secret Ops innovated was an improvement on character
> > interaction in-game, which was welcomes but not enough for me to
consider it
> > a whole new game like Wc3, Wc4 and WcP are. All WC games, at least since
Wc2
> > have been very innovative, at least in the wing commander series anyway,
but
> > Secret Ops doesnt seem to provide anything additional that we didnt
already
>
> I vehemently disagree.
>
> > see in Prophecy. If anything, it removed much because of their budget.
>
> No, much was removed because WCSO was a different kind of game.

 They removed much becuase they couldnt afford to do anything, and thus to
me it looked like an addon.

> > Therefore I see Secret Ops as an Add-On to Prophecy than a totally new
game
> > that Prophecy was to Wing 4, for example. It was still fun to play, and
it
> > wasnt bad but I still see it as an addon.
>
> By definition, an add-on requires the base engine from a parent game.
> This was not the case with WCSO. That notwithstanding...

Strange, it looked basically the same to me. But its not just the graphics,
like I said. WC4 FELT like a whole new sequel even though they had clearly
used a cannibalized WC3 engine.

> >>As for being able to argue with it, yes someone can.  Like with all
> >>subjective opinions (regardless of my opinion regarding the logic
> >>behind it) though, doing so is an exercise in mental masturbation, at
> >>best.
> >
> >
> > Sure, its subjective. But thats (see above) my reasons for thinking what
I
> > do.
>
> How about the following changes from WCP, besides the aforementioned
> tweaked graphical engine:
>
> - episodic delivery

so? Cut up WCProphecy in the same way and how would that be different?

> - story narrated via news bursts, annoucements, and character e-mails
> instead of video clips

They added some of that, which was welcomed, but I still think it was a
cheap way of not having to spend any money on video. In my mind, it was a a
cheap way to add on to the Prophecy story.

> - different and more detailed storyline (yes, a continuation of Casey's
> story, but an entirely different arc than that of WCP)

Irrelevent.

> - several new ships, including your base of operations

Irrelevant.

> and the primary reason why WCSO was not merely an add-on to WCP --
> because Origin said so.

*shrugs*... ok, but like I said I think it "FEELS" like an addon "TO ME".
And it would make sence that the makers would say it is a 'Stand Alone Full
Game' just to make it sound better.

Im NOT telling you it that it was an addon, just that it FELT like a addon
TO ME.

Ed