On the topic of Lego Battles
Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:12 AM
And your thoughts?
Posted 21 January 2013 - 01:58 AM
I've played both games, and yeah, they're pretty awesome. I've played through most of LEGO Battles (still have yet to finish the Imperials story arc), and I also played through the first act of the Ninja story in LEGO Battles: Ninjago. I love the LEGO Battles games mostly for the sheer awesomeness of the concept: An RTS game involving tons of LEGO characters and themes, from the 70s to present day, duking it out in a bunch of different environments.
Another thing I love is that the series is chock-full of classic LEGO stuff - Islanders, including King Kahuka? Classic Ninja? Governor Broadside from the 80s/90s Pirates theme? 90s Space androids working alongside Mars Mission astronauts? Forestmen/Dark Forest? Imperial Armada? Western? CLASSIC SPACE? YES. And while LEGO Battles: Ninjago doesn't quite have the roster of classic themes as the first game, it did sure pack in a ton of non-Ninjago stuff, like Atlantis, Power Miners, Agents, Collectible Minifigures, the main heroes and villains from the first game... Oh yeah, and it still had classic space. YES.
And while the games were published by TT, they were developed by Hellbent Games, and aside from a couple concepts for collectibles being carried over from TT's licensed titles, the games are pretty unique compared to the other modern LEGO games. That combined with the mish-mashing of various LEGO themes, plus appearances of several classic characters, really makes the series feel like something out of the pre-TT days of LEGO games. And despite using the same engine, LEGO Battles: Ninjago introduced a lot of new stuff that made the gameplay quite different from the original game, almost feeling like an RPG-RTS hybrid at points.
I really only have two big gripes with the series:
1, why the heck is it DS exclusive? The games would be a hundred times better on PC.
2, the pathfinding AI is terrible, at least in the first game. The Rock Raiders units had rather stupid AI, but at least they could move across the map without trouble.
Oh, and the music. Even though the composer seems to be quite copyright-obsessed as far as YouTube uploads of it go, and the DS doesn't have amazing sound quality, there's some really good music throughout the series.
Some other odds and ends as long as we're discussing this series... A LEGO Battles artist put some pretty darn awesome stuff on dA:
Also, a while back I ripped apart the ROM for LEGO Battles (mainly to get at the original music files, which I successfully converted to a usable format thanks to some tools found on the 'net), and along the way I noticed there seems to be an unused test map in the game. I haven't tried it yet, but I imagine playing it could be as simple as swapping it around with a level normally playable in the game, then packing up the ROM again, loading it into an emulator, and loading the level you swapped it with.
Posted 21 January 2013 - 02:20 AM
Posted 21 January 2013 - 02:24 AM
Posted 21 January 2013 - 02:30 AM
Posted 21 January 2013 - 02:33 AM
Posted 21 January 2013 - 02:44 AM
Posted 21 January 2013 - 03:21 AM
Posted 21 January 2013 - 04:00 AM
I'd love to see a video of this. Seriously.
That mission took me 11 minutes.
Also, would anybody with LB:N happen to have all the cutscene codes? If so, could you please post them? Last I looked, I couldn't find them online, and I'd like to see the rest of the cutscenes in high quality on LEGO.com.
Posted 21 January 2013 - 05:54 AM
Posted 21 January 2013 - 06:11 AM
Posted 21 January 2013 - 06:40 AM
Posted 21 January 2013 - 07:10 AM
Posted 21 January 2013 - 07:36 AM
Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:19 AM
I'm not enjoying it. Got it as a gift, and after a little bit I traded it in for some Mario Mushroom candy and a Pacman Arcade Machine candy. True, it is different, and different can be good, but I simply don't enjoy playing this. I get bored too quickly. Something like Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, however, was pretty close to getting me attached to the RTS genre (until it pulled a mission involving destroying an entire army and two nigh invulnerable fences out of its arse...), and much better IMO.
Posted 21 January 2013 - 06:55 PM
Finally got it to work. Also, jamesster, have you played skeleton act 1 yet? If this mission was a pain, "what's that rumbling?" will make you wanna jump out a window. Here's a hint: BLEAHBLEAHLEAHBLEAH ROOOOOOAR and suddenly everyone's insta-killed. Have fun.
And to extreme: I understand. I don't expect everyone to like the same kinds of games as me. In fact, that'd be pretty boring. I'm not saying Lego Battles is a great game, just a fun one, and one that at least I personally enjoy.
Posted 21 January 2013 - 09:16 PM
WELL THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD TO KNOW EARLIER
Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:53 AM
And really, this game would be freaking AWESOME on a PC with real 3D graphics.
Posted 27 February 2013 - 03:00 AM
Posted 27 February 2013 - 02:28 PM
I was thinking about jamesster's story today, as anyone who watched the (terrible) stream I held tonight will know, I was having trouble with a LB1 mission of similar difficulty, Bridge the Gap, because I tried to mess around and go after the relatively wimpy upper base first. This meant that by the time I got to it, the bottom base had a chance to build its more threatening units, to which I stood no chance. It turns out, planting some towers to deal with the upper attackers and bum-rushing the lower base while they're still preparing gets the mission wins it easily. Well, it just goes to show, never take your time or the CPUs will slaughter you. Mercilessly. That is LB LAW.
I don't have the game, but I think this applies to a lot of RTS games. I used to play Dawn of War all the time (the original series, not the newer one which is less RTS in a way), and when you set the computer to higher difficulty levels, you have no time to dilly-dally - you have to be armed and prepared for invasion within minutes. For this reason I developed two strategies in the game, a defensive one for quick-building armies, and an offensive one for the slower, more powerful armies (who as in your example could be destroyed before their strong units were built), rarely would an inbetween method work.
That may be a little O.T. but still related strategy-wise