Its 2002....C'mon...The 3D PC Gaming World has past this game in its dust...For example...Warcraft 3...How good would this game look on that engine??...Maybe in 2005 ..Gaber and Lucas arts will borrow that engine and we will have Episode 3...sheeeesh!!!
I like it. It's actually a beautiful game....
I dont care much for 3d rts games, tho as they get better, I'm sure they'll figure it out.
I'm very impressed with all the changes they made with the xpac.
Very fun!
I have to agree with Ready Wan on this one. I have seen very few 3d RTS's that I have been impressed with(Earth 2150 and its exapnsion being the exception). They seem to rely too much on eye candy and not enough on gameplay. I also think that this game looks great.
As for Warcraft 3, from everything I have read from people that have beta tested it, they say that it is severely lacking although I will reserve my judgement on that one until I try it for myself.
I Happen to like Sevral 3d RTS games thou Id call the RTT real time tactics. Since many have no gathering and a few no renforcements. HW and its X-pack are good I liked GC and mechcommander 2. Graphics In a FPS are imporant their not that important in a RTS game their where few leaps in the grahpics of RTS until they went 3D some would say for the better others wouldn't but that a whole another can of worms. In anycase its hard to deny that the most popualr RTS games out their are 2D and look "bad". Starcraft, Red alert 2, AOE, AOK, EE, SW:GB now onto games that are 3D and have more then 30 players on at any piont well frankly I've yet to play one. This holds up in FPS as well CS looks like crap compared to wolfstein, JK2, or even quake but still hands them their asses in number of players. Graphics are a nice add on but should NEVER be selling piont for a game many games that get attacked for their graphics would suck anyway its just that a bad game + bad grahpics equals REALLY bad game.
In short if your a mindless drone that belives graphics=game then go buy and X-box all those games look great.
Really, a 3D engine just wouldnt work for games such as GBG. Besides, the one 3D engine game i have played, Star Trek: Armada 2, is terrible.
OH you poor poor man Star trek armada is a horrid game made only minorly better by the second game. 3D Is acutlly only abused not used (guys fly like 100 ships up at the top to block your veiw) since you can't acutlly changes the angle just depth its a big ****ing fish tank.
Originally posted by Ten-Forward
Its 2002....C'mon...The 3D PC Gaming World has past this game in its dust...For example...Warcraft 3...How good would this game look on that engine??...Maybe in 2005 ..Gaber and Lucas arts will borrow that engine and we will have Episode 3...sheeeesh!!!
Warcraft 3 sucks!
2D RTS Games:
Red alert 2 : Good
AOE: Good ( Never Playded it)
Sw GB: Perfect
Star craft : Good
3D RTS Games
Force commander:Bad
Emperor: Not that good
Populos:Nice But...
Black and white: good
I dont give a damm about graphics
its about gameplay
and 2d rts is still playbel on low systems
3d Rts Games may be good in about 10 years
before that i whil play Clone Camp
Yeah I don't know why everyone just looks at graphics as a selling point to vidoe game. Look at street fighter 2 and it's many incantations. I still play the series all the time. Although tekken and soul caliber are very impressive visually, the game play seems sub-par to the street fighter series and knig of the fighter's.
Now onto SWGB. It is the supperior game right. SC is ancient to me at least. I know SWGB plays alot like AOK with extra gameplay tweaks but who cares. EE I wasn't very impressed. It really played too much like AOK. The counter system was too confusing. I wasn't sure what elephant was an archer and what one was a mellee fighter. STA2 was ok but I don't think yopu can classify that as a 3d rts. Emperor battle for dune was absolutley horse**** It was RA2 in 3d that was it. I haven't played that EArth 2150 game or it's demo I wasn't interested at all considering the trend of 3d RTS games. Homeworld was probably the only game I enjoyed and had some nice gameplay.
And Warcraft 3 well I must say regardless of how I love AOK, and SWGB, Blizzard has a good reputation of developing great games. And I am definatly interested because of the fantasy theme. From what I read people seem to be complaining about the gameplay right now. It seems too restrictive and not much diversity in races. (This is from what I am reading on the forums on Battle net.) Not alot is mentioned about the graphics. They say it looks great but other than that it is your basic rts game with a graphic facelift. Granted it isn't a true rts game because its emphasis on heros and you don't seem to have to focus too much on your economy (though its still there). I'll have to see. Hey I don't like I can alway strade it in for another game.
2-D is still the best choice for RTS.
Force Commander was a SW 3D RTS. :D :D :D :atat:
AOM is a 3d RTS that looks great from a gameplay perspective wait until the beta to find out how good it really is
I hurt my hand playing games like Black and White. Force Commander had better graphics then SWGB but the gameplay sucked. I was also not impressed by EE. I bought that game the same day I did GB, and look what I still play. LOL Homeworld is an ok game, but it was too limited in gameplay. Ok, all you do is collect astroid material and build ships.
3D GAMING. Imagine getting attacked by enemy forces while you fight to get the right damn camera angle to respond to the attack. After a few days of play you have to stop for two weeks because you hurt your hand playing the game...Hint, Hint. (Zoom in, Zoom out, Zoom in, Zoom out.) Black and White for example. Don't get me wrong, I love B&W, but it annoys the H*** out of me when my creature does something bad and I can't get the right camera angle in time.
For now lets leave the 3D graphics to the first person shooters like Unreal Tournament and Quake.
OK....lets take E3 for example...how many 2d isometric games were showcased there???.......*Crickets chirping*......
Thats not the piont dim wit.
How many 3D RTS where showcased like 2 or 3 wow great showing for you also I thnk WC:3 falls under 2D their no camrea angel I can see ot zoom.
We ahvea ll pionted out that graphic don't really matter in a RTS and you have done nothing to dispute that if you can't dispute it then go away.
Thats not the piont dim wit.
How many 3D RTS where showcased like 2 or 3 wow great showing for you also I thnk WC:3 falls under 2D their no camrea angel I can't see a zoom.
We ahvea ll pionted out that graphic don't really matter in a RTS and you have done nothing to dispute that if you can't dispute it then go away.
Of course they're going to showcase the 3D RTS's since the graphical interface is "newer." Personally I'm much more interested in gameplay myself. I'll be buying Age of Mythology before I buy any of the new 3D RTS's...
Kryllith
AOM is definately on my buy list. It is basicly a 2d RTS with better graphics.
Hey Ten-Forward u know Half-Life and how it's grafix look dated now? Well look at it's still- going fanbase.
CS has bad graphics too, but lots of people still play it.
EE has poor graphic in my opinion, although I haven't played, I will certainly try it after it's X-Pack.
EE looks pertty good at a distance hell the units themsleves ARE very deatiled up close you jsut can't comannd from that POV. The main reason that EE dosen't look great is that normal run of the mill battles invole HUNDEREDS of units.
2D is better but there are a few 3D ones that I like also.
Ground Control
Black and White
Black and White: Creature Isle
Empire Earth
The zoom/rotate option in AOM isn't made to enhance gameplay its just for fun.
Gaming Nut.....Your spelling displays an IQ of a tool-shed...please if your going to debate a subject...please do it with something I can read.....
so what if it's not 3D it's still a hell of good game.
i agree that Gameplay makes the game not the graphics