Conquest: Frontier Wars Interview - interview
(hx) 04:57 AM CEST - Jul,11 2001
- Post a comment
PC.IGN has conducted an interview with the producer on Conquest: Frontier Wars. Conquest: Frontier Wars. The name alone is enough to get me irritated. As an RTS it was a big departure for Digital Anvil but with the support of Microsoft, we all assumed that the title would get all the backing it needed. Then, last November after three years of development, Microsoft cancelled the project. Then they bought Digital Anvil, told us the Conquest was "basically done" and let the developers know they should start looking for a new publisher. Then five months later, the project seemed to be back on track under the Ubi Soft banner. Now it finally looks like the game will be hitting store shelves next month. No, really. We promise.
IGNPC: Well, it sounds like the game has changed quite a bit since its conception, and then changed back. Maybe you could give us and idea of some of the things that weren't working at the beginning and why you redesigned it?
Eric Peterson: Well, we saw Homeworld, and initially we had sort of a desire of doing something like that, but we wanted to make it more user friendly in order to get the game out to a broader audience. We're all C&C, StarCraft, and Age of Kings players, and we all like those games, but we thought a lot of things were missing from them -- stuff like supplies, for instance. An army travels on its stomach. You can build as many tanks as you want and run them across the map and never run out of bullets. The "S" in RTS is for strategy and in this regard we thought RTSs really didn't have all that much strategy at this point, so we decided that some of the things that were missing and needed work were areas like supplies and AI. Our AI is pretty good; there's an impossible setting that beats me five out of six times on one on one play.
[more] |
Updated:12:00 PM CEST Sep,21
(new)
