The BrikWars Forums

My favorite typr of Computergame is Real-Time-Strategy games (like Age of Empires, StarCraft, WarCraft, Empire Earth) ever since I could use a mouse, and there is something that I can't help but notice, all the RTS games that I consider better are not 3D, they're more like Sprites, and pseudo 3D. There are some 3D RTS games out there that I think are good gameplay wise, but they don't feel right. My question to you is, ignoring gamplay, what is the best way to present RTS graphic-wise?

I don't think it matters, as long as there is good gameplay.

Well, I think it doesn't really matter. The only thing you're going to notice in, say, the middle of a battle is the gameplay, not "oh this sprite looks ugly" or "look at the pretty HDR." Enemy Nations is my favorite not because of it's spectacular graphics (which don't exist), but because it's a damn fun game.

Company of heroes is 3D, and would be only a decent game if it wasn't.

it actually *uses* the 3d to it's advantage with facing and trajectories, and even uses the Havok physics engine!

Starcraft is the only RTS for me, and it's 2D. In fact, for some reason I refused to play Warcraft 3 when it came out because it was 3D >_>

seriously why should 3D even matter for rts games. unless it results in some improved gameplay.

now I imagine something where you can command them in 3D space (nah, that would probably get waaay too complicated.

Rody wrote:now I imagine something where you can command them in 3D space (nah, that would probably get waaay too complicated.

Homeworld tried that. It was actually pretty good until they made the second one.

I played Homeworld. Couldn't get past the darn ship graveyard thing though.

Anyways, I think that 3D is nice to have, but not really necessary. Look at Starcraft. It's 2D and it still sells like crazy. The new Starcraft coming out will look more realistic and you'll be able to rotate the camera, but it really doesn't do much else 3D wise. The graphics look a hell of a lot cooler though.

Rody wrote:seriously why should 3D even matter for rts games. unless it results in some improved gameplay.

again, company of heroes. it's a WWII RTS game, where suddenly everything you ignored in old RTS games like facing and vertical direction matter. weapons coming down from above do more damage against certain types of targets, and will avoid certain types of cover (yes, infantry and vehicles can take cover). chunks of blown-up tank serve as a great place for your grenadiers to stand behind while they're getting shot at, but if a grenade lands behind this cover, they're dead.

Hmmm, sounds like my kind of game. Where and when did you but this? IS it old or new? For the details you describe, I would guess that it is new.

But IV, that's still a matter of gameplay. 3D graphics just let you do all those cool things that require three dimensions to work.

it's about a year old.

and blitzen, the 3D effect i feel is what makes company of heroes what it is. not only is there the calculated landing of debris and using as cover etc. etc, but you can still pan the camera around and zoom in, letting you get incredibly attached to your guys. if you're using DirectX 10, the game goes far enough to even make individual blades of grass as individually molded polygons, and don't even get me started on how well the human models look. even on the lowest graphics settings, you can see the whites of their eyes and the stubble on their chins. the camera will even move into places that you normally wouldn't be able to see, such as inside buildings, which you can use to get your riflemen to throw their grenades into just the right window to do maximum damage (or at least take out the MG42).

SWEET!! I need to buy this man!! What company makes it?

The expansion for CoH is about 6months old I wanna say. It's made by relic, the guys who did the dawn of war games and are working on a new one for late this year.

IVhorseman wrote:if you're using DirectX 10, the game goes far enough to even make individual blades of grass as individually molded polygons, and don't even get me started on how well the human models look. even on the lowest graphics settings, you can see the whites of their eyes and the stubble on their chins.

to me, that would probably be useless, that and if that is the lowest setting. my pc wont be able to handle it.