Delphi's Clone Posted November 1, 2001 Posted November 1, 2001 the Red alert2 engine or the AOE/GB engine
Delphi's Clone Posted November 1, 2001 Author Posted November 1, 2001 i think the RA2 engine is better
JEDI_MASTA Posted November 1, 2001 Posted November 1, 2001 well if your who u say u are(which hes not) ud b a little biased wouldnt you?
Guest xwing guy Posted November 1, 2001 Posted November 1, 2001 Its a tough choice, but I'll go with GB since this is a GB site.
Zygomaticus Posted November 1, 2001 Posted November 1, 2001 i honestly think the gb/aoe2 engine is better cuz the ra2 has a lot of flaws and stuff according to me i think its silly to be able to build a building without sending someone there and also putting 4 collectible resources as in aoe2 or gb makes the game complicated and tests your strategic decision making
Guest Tie Guy Posted November 1, 2001 Posted November 1, 2001 Originally posted by krkode i honestly think the gb/aoe2 engine is better cuz the ra2 has a lot of flaws and stuff according to me i think its silly to be able to build a building without sending someone there and also putting 4 collectible resources as in aoe2 or gb makes the game complicated and tests your strategic decision making Don't you get it? The buildings are made at the construction yard, and then moved on to the battlefield where you want it. Also, i see the 4 resources of AOK to be serious turnoff. I mean, if i wanna spend time building up an economy, i'll play Sim Farm. If i wanna fight, i'll play RA2 or YR. Get the picture? Another thing is that the RA2 engine includes Veterancy, and you can also garrison buildings. Things like superweapons are also included, and air units are there as well, and they don't just sit there and drop an unlimited amount of bombs. (well, except for the Kirov, but that makes sense) RA2 is far superior IMO, but GB will still be fun anyways.
darthfergie Posted November 1, 2001 Posted November 1, 2001 Jedi Outcast... But seriously I would have to say GB...because it looks realistic-ish...RA2 has crtoony units, etc...while it makes for a better game it doesn't improve the engine...
Guest Kudar Posted November 1, 2001 Posted November 1, 2001 Originally posted by darthfergie ...RA2 has crtoony units, etc...while it makes for a better game it doesn't improve the engine... That's my beef with those games too, I hate the cartoon like graphics, I can't take those armies seriously when they waddle across the screen
Wraith 8 Posted November 1, 2001 Posted November 1, 2001 I would have to say RA2.... i mean i like AOE very much and i play it lots of times..... but euh... i find the RA2 better. But that is my opinion
Paragon_Leon Posted November 1, 2001 Posted November 1, 2001 The AOE-engine without a doubt.. it handles massive battles without any fuss. The RA2 engine has a tendency to slow dooownnnnn....
darthfergie Posted November 1, 2001 Posted November 1, 2001 The game might be better but not the engine...this thread is about the engine...
Guest Tie Guy Posted November 1, 2001 Posted November 1, 2001 Originally posted by darthfergie The game might be better but not the engine...this thread is about the engine... Exactly, we are saying that RA2 is better because of the engine. The engine is what effects the air units, and veterancy, and garissioning. Besides, if you want to look at it that way, the supposedly "cartoony" graphics of RA2 are not because of the engine, but because of the artwork done.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.