Save Empire Earth

If rebellion is really making this happen, you think they would take into consideration collective suggestions, from Save-EE for instance, regarding specific features for the game? Something about Empire Earth 1 made it better than other RTSs, but I can't really describe. Maybe the gameplay was smoother/easier to conduct? I thought the unit grouping and hotkey functions were big pluses for the game. Starcraft was annoying cause you could only gather 12 units or 1 building into a team. EE lobby was great too. Many other games have no global chat room, so you never get to know the entire player community. Always having to play with random people kind of sucks. There's definitely a lot more, but again I can't describe.

I first started playing online in 2005 and missed the prime multiplaying years when 1000 people would be on at a time. Apparently a lot of people were disgusted with the graphics and turned to other games. By the time I joined, there were only 250 players consistently on. If Empire Earth 4 was just Empire Earth 1 with better graphics and a lot more online players, I'd buy it again.

- Dunder Mifflin Dwight K Schrute
or DIS Serg mmmmmm, when original founders were still in DIS. doubt anyone remembers though

graphics had nothing to do with losing some players, it was mainly cheating and the fact its far to difficult of a game for most people to even play

are you sure? most user reviews i've read on Empire Earth criticize the game for its graphics. i personally wouldn't disagree that it's one of the game's shortcomings in making a good first impression on people. i introduced it to several friends a few years back, but upon seeing it, first thing they said was crappy graphics, and never bothered trying it.

just to emphasize, i don't mean losing long time players. i didn't mind the blocky graphics at all. i mean attracting new players. a similar game with better graphics may do a better job of gathering a large following. Rebellion has its contact information listed on its site. As i'm sure a lot of players were discontented with Empire Earth's 2 and 3, I'm just wondering if they they'll heed suggestions from a community of players if a decision's made to begin development of a #4.

I really hope they don't try to do an EE4, it's like kicking a dying dog.
Now they're just trying to get more money from the franchise.

I wonder what EE/AoC had that the other EEs didn't had, which caused them to fail...and ruin Sierra.

I don't mind the graphics at all, infact, I somewhat like them... I guess because I love N64 and classic games along with the new ones.

X warrior411 wrote:I wonder what EE/AoC had that the other EEs didn't had, which caused them to fail...

Gameplay that didn't suck, along with a multiplayer lobby that didn't suck?

Top 10 Reasons To Make EE4:
1. Money
2. Money
3. Money
4. Money
5. Money
6. Money
7. Money
8. Money
9. Money
10. Money

well, if they make a really good Empire Earth 4 that's worth every penny paid, there isn't anything wrong with making it right? I'd be completely satisfied with the purchase.

i'm going to email them to find out if they have plans to make #4, though i know it's unlikely they'll respond. I just hope they make it similar to #1, cause the gameplay from #1 was so good i think it still has the potential to gain a large fan base today. and lobby must be the same too.

Actuall most (or maybe all) big games companies are only going for money these days. They don't care about the communities wishes anymore so don't expect anything from the new EE..

they bought the rights to the game and i doubt they did it because they had extra money laying around

ee2 and 3 they spent so much time making graphics look better they completely fucked the game play up

ever notice that a game with great graphics only gets played for a short amount of time because they game play is usually always shit and if it isnt shit then its verry repetitive which makes it pretty to look at but just boring as hell

They actually don't give a fuck about how long people keep playing it aslong as they buy it. I don't doubt they even prefer if the game only gets played for short time because then people will have to buy another gamme sooner lol

PeLlE wrote:They actually don't give a fuck about how long people keep playing it aslong as they buy it. I don't doubt they even prefer if the game only gets played for short time because then people will have to buy another gamme sooner lol

Pretty much, actually.

If people buy the game and enjoy it for a short time then get bored because the game has absolutely no depth, they win. They win almost as much if people play for 8+ years, but they have the cost of the servers, et cetera. Let's just assume that regardless of whether or not the game has any depth, about as many players buy the expansion pack/sequels once it's released (Although, I'm sure the industry has some numbers on this too that they've factored in).

Thus, the logical move is to make games without any depth. Why? It's a lot easier to make a bad game than it is to make a good one, and it seems as if people still buy the bad games because they look cool. Then they buy the sequel, despite the original game sucking.

Sexacutioner wrote:ever notice that a game with great graphics only gets played for a short amount of time because they game play is usually always shit and if it isnt shit then its verry repetitive which makes it pretty to look at but just boring as hell

Reminds me of World in Conflict.
Opening month there were upwards of thousands on the servers lol
Many many games full.
A year later, there are a total of 8 servers full when i'm on...
the game has super good graphics though.

peow130 wrote:

Sexacutioner wrote:ever notice that a game with great graphics only gets played for a short amount of time because they game play is usually always shit and if it isnt shit then its verry repetitive which makes it pretty to look at but just boring as hell

Reminds me of World in Conflict.
Opening month there were upwards of thousands on the servers lol
Many many games full.
A year later, there are a total of 8 servers full when i'm on...
the game has super good graphics though.

Graphics only help a game, making the graphics the best thing in the game is just asking for it.
Great gameplay is needed for games to last a long time, EE is a great example, hell it's nearing 7( 8?) years old, and people still play it with the N64ish graphics (which I love).

I'd say EE is the longest surviving RTS game...ever.
Hell, Warcraft can't touch it, infact, I played it, and it's a lot like EE, but with better graphics....meaning it sucked, I'd say they copied EE

If Activision takes the 'Graphics over Gameplay' (or Graphic>Game) style from EE 2 and 3, it's going to suck WORST then EE 2-3.

Activision needs to get off their asses and look back at the classics to learn what's missing, too bad they're probably swimming in 1,000$ bills as I type this message.

rebellion, http://www.rebellion.co.uk/, actually owns rights to the game now. guess activision saw no future in the game.

i get the feeling you're all right and they'll disregard my email. worth a try anyway.