Compa_Mighty Posted December 27, 2001 Share Posted December 27, 2001 I know I should have answered inside the thread, but I think this is important for everyone to read. First of all, I'd like to say this game has one of the best graphics in the market. 3-D engines haven't been able to achieve smooth running, good looking, fun games. Take Empire Earth for example, the textures are awful, and you got to have a great system for it to run smoothly. 3-D RTS games are still a new concept that needs to be improved to reach the standards of great 2-D ones. That is why, from my point of view 2-D is still the best choice, and better yet, if it looks as AoK. AoK, in my opinion is the perfect example of an RTS, great graphics, and a fun game that can run in virtually any system; that's one thing that makes it so popular, everyone can play it. About the zone... well, I don't find it fun to go and play against a guy that will surely beat me in 25 minutes.... I play against my friends through IP, that's better, and I can tell you that it's a great MP game. I think anything can get better, and I would welcome an x-pack, but I don't think it's necessary for the game to be great. I think the developer's did a great job. Thanks for listening to another opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDI_MASTA Posted December 28, 2001 Share Posted December 28, 2001 compa ur probably right the whole point of my post was to get ppl thinking again and maybe spark some decent zone play because im sick of playin newbs and xperts with no in between. Also the graphix are good i admit that now (that was a kvan complaint im passin along). I still think that this game dosent apeal to ur average AOK player because "its starwars" or "Not stupid star wars" and this really makes me mad because this is a great game u dont hafta be the best star wars fan to like it but its just gunna be the concept of getting ppl interested that arent sw fans. thank you for ur opininon compa its nice to know somebody on this forum is thinking masta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfmanNCSU Posted December 28, 2001 Share Posted December 28, 2001 Yeah, 3D RTS are cool, but I like the 2D better simply because there are less problems and much easier to play, and easier on the system. I am sure most of you remeber Force Commander. I loved the game at the time, but I didn't like the interface. Its a little to hard and slugglish, and takes away from the objectives of the game. However, they will most likely get better. I have not tried empire earth yet (I think its in 3D), but I heard its good, and I am looking forward to War Craft 3 when it finally releases, which its suppose to be in 3D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PhantomMenace Posted December 28, 2001 Share Posted December 28, 2001 Well said!! *gives compa mighty a knuckle tap* Its about time somebody recognized the points you just made...i got empire earth. You are totally right...if my system wasnt a good system then i would be having nightmares with that game. The SWGB units still got more detail than the ones in Empire Earht and the only thing that is keepin EE's units ahead of SWGB is frame rate. If they could somehow manage to up the framerate for units movement you would be blown away at how real this game looks! You are absolutely correct...3d games are a work in progress and they still havent been gotten down to an exact science like 2d rts games...and it becoming almost evedent to all game producers...the guys that made empire earth and now blizzard after they chickened out of having a free floating camera angle and went back to ole run-o-the mill top down perspective..that a fixed perspective is the only real way to make a esay to use RTS. Once again, Myth the Fallen lords had a good free floating camera system, but that was because there were no static buildings to to keep checking on and you only were able to get around 50 units at a time adn therefore you would rarely need to leave one area of the battlefield, but the depth of strategy was amazing. So, small scale RTS like Myth work with comlete 3d movement, but massive scale RTS like SWGB and Red alert need fixed movement which then means the only difference between 2d and 3d is who can make the better graphics and i think SWGB has some real good graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gungan_Reble Posted December 29, 2001 Share Posted December 29, 2001 All very good points and well put Compa I agree with you I also have E/E and dont think much of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord Maul Posted December 29, 2001 Share Posted December 29, 2001 I also have EE. I must agree with everyone else that GB is best. I have a high end system but apparently not high enough. I love GB and find myself spending most of my free time playing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzN_ProtocoL Posted December 30, 2001 Share Posted December 30, 2001 Originally posted by Compa_Mighty First of all, I'd like to say this game has one of the best graphics in the market. 3-D engines haven't been able to achieve smooth running, good looking, fun games. have to disagree on that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.