Booya2020 Posted August 26, 2001 Posted August 26, 2001 Im wondering why all the companies are switching to 3D rts? Most of the games that are coming out could have been done just as good with 2D graphics. Warcraft 3 is already sort of between 3D and 2D with its fixed perspective. Also from the looks of it, slowdown will occur on even the fastest comps making a laggy online game. I wouldnt want to play a game online that lagged like hell just because someone couldn't afford a pentium 4.
Guest Tie Guy Posted August 26, 2001 Posted August 26, 2001 They use 3d because that is what all the rts games will be eventually, and if they never do it, they will never learn it. A soon as someone finds a way to make it simple and fun, then everyone will start doing it. And they also need to find a way to make it run smoothly. When those wo factors collide in a game, it will change the genre forever.
darthfergie Posted August 26, 2001 Posted August 26, 2001 Who says 3d games lag??? most take about 500-700mhz processors. Besides Internet connection and ram cause lag more than the processors. And most games play well on the internet with 128mb Ram. And the internet connection...well you might have to dish out some money, but Cable and DSL are well worth the price. T1 and T3...I'd wait on those, but if you have the option you might want to get it as soon as possible
Lord JayVizIon Posted August 26, 2001 Posted August 26, 2001 they've done 3D games before with some success (not rts though unless you consider myth II which i thought was a pretty good game), but you're rite about the lag time, esp if you play online with a bunch of players. that's why WC 3 and AoM aren't coming til probably at least the 2nd trimester of next year. don't worry though booya, looks like swgb will be a heck of a game from a 2D perspective.
Lord JayVizIon Posted August 26, 2001 Posted August 26, 2001 Originally posted by darthfergie And most games play well on the internet with 128mb Ram. And the internet connection...well you might have to dish out some money, but Cable and DSL are well worth the price. T1 and T3...I'd wait on those, but if you have the option you might want to get it as soon as possible hey fergie, aren't T1 and T3 only available to companies/corporations? the reason why i'm asking is because in college the best they had was dsl/cable, while my dad and sister who both work in corporations have T3 and T1 connections, respectively...
Guest Boba Rhett Posted August 26, 2001 Posted August 26, 2001 Individuals can get T1 and T3 lines but unless you live across the street from the phone company it aint worth it.
Lord JayVizIon Posted August 26, 2001 Posted August 26, 2001 wow, so you're telling me that a certain radius around a phone company your connection gets accelerated ?
darthfergie Posted August 26, 2001 Posted August 26, 2001 Originally posted by Lord JayVizIon hey fergie, aren't T1 and T3 only available to companies/corporations? the reason why i'm asking is because in college the best they had was dsl/cable, while my dad and sister who both work in corporations have T3 and T1 connections, respectively... I know about 3 people who have it...maybe 4. He said he would have it soon, but he hasn't told me that he has it yet...I have some very lucky friends, no:D
Guest Tie Guy Posted August 26, 2001 Posted August 26, 2001 My brothers school, UNC, has a t3 line. And my dad's office has a T1, and he isn't a major corporations, just a small business.
Guest Gen.Veers Posted August 26, 2001 Posted August 26, 2001 T1, T3 tend to be available only to businesses, but that doesn't mean you can't start your own business. I'm going to be moving about 10 miles from where I live and DSL and Cable aren't available there (I have DSL now). So my only alternative is a T1.
Guest corranhorn Posted August 26, 2001 Posted August 26, 2001 You gould get the *cough* alternative, if you are in the middle of nowhere, ever heard of satelite broadband, it isn't near DSL or cable, but it is better than 56K modem anyday. Best of all, it doesn't matter where you live, (in the city, just get DSL or cable) you could live in the middle of the pacific for all they care.
Darth_Rommel Posted August 26, 2001 Posted August 26, 2001 Originally posted by Booya2020 Im wondering why all the companies are switching to 3D rts? Most of the games that are coming out could have been done just as good with 2D graphics. Warcraft 3 is already sort of between 3D and 2D with its fixed perspective. Also from the looks of it, slowdown will occur on even the fastest comps making a laggy online game. I wouldnt want to play a game online that lagged like hell just because someone couldn't afford a pentium 4. Because they look better in 3D
Guest Paladin Posted August 26, 2001 Posted August 26, 2001 I HEARD T1 AND T3 ARE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE;)
Guest Gamma732 Posted August 26, 2001 Posted August 26, 2001 I have a feeling theres another reason developers are switching to 3D for RTS games. If a company makes a game in 3D, it has a possibility to 'sound better' to those consumers that don't know the difference between 2D RTS and 3D RTS. In general 3D has the connotation that the graphics will be good..."Its 3D, it must have good graphics..." A company can put that on the box and everything. You don't see many games mainly advertising their 2D perspective on the front of their box. Thats why I think companies would make 3D games even if the technology isn't good enough to make the gameplay really good in addition to the graphics...Anyway, thats my opinion on the 3D thing.
Guest Gen.Veers Posted August 26, 2001 Posted August 26, 2001 I used to work at Radio Shack, Satellite internet is worst than Dial-Up, guaranteed. Especially playing games online. Satellite cannot get below 240 ms lat minimum. Plus, a T1 cost about $750/month and is better than DSL or Cable.
Guest God Posted August 27, 2001 Posted August 27, 2001 i got my dad to borrow a pentium 3 from his work at the virginia institute of marine science:D
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.