Guest ICP Ringmaster Posted September 25, 2001 Posted September 25, 2001 why are the galactic battlegrounds makers create this game in the original command and conquer 2d battlefrield. why dont they use the 3d battlefield like they used in Force Commander.
Guest Hannibal Posted September 25, 2001 Posted September 25, 2001 Which sold more games AOE2 or Force Commander? I rest my case. Anyone else tired of this question?
Guest ICP Ringmaster Posted September 25, 2001 Posted September 25, 2001 well i kinda like force commander...BETTER!!!!
Guest xwing guy Posted September 25, 2001 Posted September 25, 2001 Actully its not the C&C engine its the AOK engine. 2d runs smoother than 3d is one reason.
darthfergie Posted September 25, 2001 Posted September 25, 2001 Originally posted by xwing guy Actully its not the C&C engine its the AOK engine. 2d runs smoother than 3d is one reason. And It has much lower system requirements than a 3d game so they can have a lot more people buy the game.
EndSub Posted September 28, 2001 Posted September 28, 2001 which means more people to lay waste to in multiplayer
Guest Kvan Posted September 28, 2001 Posted September 28, 2001 Originally posted by EndSub which means more people to lay waste to in multiplayer ...or more ways to get wasted 3D games or ok, but like people said, It requires more and (IMO) camera angles can suck!
Dagobahn Eagle Posted September 28, 2001 Posted September 28, 2001 If you ever tried the Swedish Ground Control game.. well, it was in 3D, and in addition to your maximum number of 12 squads, with up to 6 units (I think) in each squad (6x12) plus the command APC (6x12+1), there was a horde of enemy vehicles and the map was revealed at all times (besides from fog). The game won several prices for its superb graphics. And not once did I have a problem with it. It's the designers of FoCom's fault, not the 3D engine's fault. GC rocks, you know (so does AoE, but I hate the Red Alert game engine (My humble opinion ). ). Dagobahn Eagle
EndSub Posted September 29, 2001 Posted September 29, 2001 there are only 2 true 3D games where the 3D actully added to the game......Ground Control and Homeworld......all the rest suffered from terrable game play (because so much time was spent on the engine and graphics....) or horrible camera control........
Kobi Duran Posted September 30, 2001 Posted September 30, 2001 I liked the way the starfighters moved on Force Commander. They should move similiarly in Battlegrounds. Did someone mention that Homeworld is a good 3d game. Lucasarts should make a space strategy game for SW with an engine similiar to homeworld.
jesseg88 Posted October 19, 2001 Posted October 19, 2001 With 2D you can lead huge armies of up to 200 units in GB but in FC you can only have like 60 because of memory reqs.
LordQuiGonJinn Posted October 20, 2001 Posted October 20, 2001 Fore Commander Sucks but the only 3D RTS Engine they should use in the case of GB 2 would be the Empire Earth Engine, from the Demo it plays quite well for 3D
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.