RTS best served in 2d?

hifriend

China7935 Posts

March 11 2010 00:14 GMT

I've been feeling a little bit bummed out over sc2 after playing a bunch of games against the worthless AI's. The thing is I can't quite put my finger on what exactly it is that I don't like about it. It's obviously a well made game, probably with decent competitive qualities and many remaining characteristics of my all time favourite game scbw.

I'm really starting to think I just don't enjoy modern 3d RTS's as much as the older 2d ones. Wc2, SC, AoE, C&C etc. I also had tons of fun with Total Annahilation, but got disappointed by supreme commander because it just didn't have the same feel to it. Movement and commands just feel kind of clumsy.

Pretty obvious pattern.

Will I ever be able to appreciate a brand new rts again?

RoieTRS

United States2569 Posts

March 11 2010 00:20 GMT

I felt that I couldn't love a 3d rts because there was always just one thing that ruined it

cnc games are pretty much just awful in every way.
War3 had that silly turning system or whatever
Dawn of war.. units had a hard time moving through eachother.

But sc2 feels just fine to me. My only problem with the 3d now is that I keep missing collosi when I want to neural parasite them. I click on their legs, i click on their head, but their area or whatever is somewhere in the middle.

Thrill

2599 Posts

March 11 2010 00:22 GMT

I think you'll disagree once you've started fighting real opponents.

Beside that, you should try some _actual_ 3D RTS games. It started with good 'ol Ground Control and has evolved into World in Conflict.

They're really fun single player games to keep you occupied 'til you've gotten into beta.

Jonoman92

United States9104 Posts

March 11 2010 00:23 GMT

Despite the fact that 3D is new technology or w/e it does seem to be inferior so far in terms of one's ability to see what exactly is going on.

It's too bad that newer is equated with better. But I guess some noobs who aren't hardcore sc1 fans would be put off by reviews that blizz is using "old" 2d graphics.

Butigroove

Seychelles2061 Posts

March 11 2010 00:25 GMT

I have been playing beta for 3 days, and havent had a situation that is hard to tell units apart besides roach vs roach battles... and really how is that different than mirrors/similar colors in sc1?

Misrah

United States1695 Posts

March 11 2010 00:28 GMT

I agree 3d rts just leads me to stare at the screen and try and decifer the cluster fuck of polygons lol 2d iso is superior in every way. Simply because I can understand what the heck is going on

Aurra

United States469 Posts

March 11 2010 00:29 GMT

I've always felt as though if a game sticks to two dimensional gameplay then the graphics should be in 2D.

1080P sprites can be visually amazing and I wish more games would utilize them rather than automatically going for 3D graphics even if the gameplay is 2 dimensional.

renchak

209 Posts

March 11 2010 00:33 GMT

On March 11 2010 09:29 Aurra wrote:
I've always felt as though if a game sticks to two dimensional gameplay then the graphics should be in 2D.

1080P sprites can be visually amazing and I wish more games would utilize them rather than automatically going for 3D graphics even if the gameplay is 2 dimensional.

This is exactly what i've been thinking for a long time. 3D does not automatically make a game better looking!

RoieTRS

United States2569 Posts

March 11 2010 00:36 GMT

I dont think scbw was isometric. The building's and unit's graphics look as though you are looking down from an angle, but you are, in fact, looking from a bird's eye view directly above.

synapse

China13814 Posts

March 11 2010 00:38 GMT

#10

I played SCII and thought: wow better than expected. Then I went back on ICCup.

BW >>>>>>>>>>>> SCII, for now at least.

Djabanete

United States2786 Posts

March 11 2010 00:40 GMT

#11

I've always been partial to 2d graphics --- but then again, my favorites games are roguelikes.

lac29

United States1485 Posts

March 11 2010 00:43 GMT

#12

There is something intrinsically beautiful about 2D that 3D can't recreate =/.

intrigue

Washington, D.C9934 Posts

March 11 2010 01:30 GMT

#13

could it be nostalgia? i find starcraft 2 to be really aesthetically pleasing when i go back to bw to play bgh and i actually miss it, though there are obvious issues. the good news is that all complaints about 3d pertain really to just clarity and control, which competitive players everywhere are already bringing up as big issues to blizzard. have faith! i think a lot of people have been very pleasantly surprised so far =]

MamiyaOtaru

United States1687 Posts

March 11 2010 02:52 GMT

#14

I'm in the 2d camp for games where it's appropriate. I think a lot of that stems from having lived through that period of time when 3d was new and everything had to be 3d. For FPS games it made sense (I'm talking real 3d here not sprite based) and flight sims and such were always 3d, but it got shoehorned into a lot of genres where it never really belonged. RTSs like Force Commander came and were terrible. Platformers died (for ever Mario 64 there was a Croc that was largely forgettable or a Jazz Jackrabbit 3d that died or a Worms 3d that never matched the original). Fighters took a long mediocre detour into 3d.

A lot of things could be better today, but the newness of the tech and the slowness of the cards meant 3d looked terrible, and lot of games that were 3d were awful. Some benefited sure, but so many franchises just died (like Duke Nukem lol). I've just never been of the opinion that everything needed to be 3d and that feeling never left after the late 90s screwed everything up

alffla

Hong Kong20321 Posts

March 11 2010 06:15 GMT

#15

On March 11 2010 09:36 RoieTRS wrote:
I dont think scbw was isometric. The building's and unit's graphics look as though you are looking down from an angle, but you are, in fact, looking from a bird's eye view directly above.

if it was directly above then we wouldn't be able to see the sides of buildings and units and it would look more like SimCity classic lol -. - haha

mykyoyo

United States33 Posts

March 11 2010 11:13 GMT

#16

I feel that video games have been pressing way too hard on trying to advance on graphics and 3D rendering to the point where they've sort of lost track of what they were supposed to be in the first place: God damn fun video games. If they're made to be anything else (lol, Crysis) nobody will actually play them before going back to one of the most popular video games ever.

Starcraft, Doom, The Sims and Half Life are among the most popular PC video games (Just check any Best Of or Most Selling list and you'll see these) ever made, played and had *fun* with.
That's what I want, I want to have fun.

Did RTS need 3d to make fun happen? Not at all.
Does better graphics make fun happen? Nope.

So, then, you are totally correct to look at SC II, Blizzard's offering for the next generation of RTS and plainly ask, "Why 3D?"

So far the beta has looked dark and hard to decipher what's going on.
A typical SC1 screen let's you know exactly which units are there. They're all a bright color that stands out from everything else. How are you going to watch a televised match between the best SC2 players when you can't even tell what's going on?

keNn)

Philippines297 Posts

March 11 2010 15:05 GMT

#17

Just wait for your eyes to get used to sc2 graphics. After many games I'm sure you'll adjust to it and wont be confuse anymore during battles.

You all had played sc1 for many years of course you will not be confuse anymore in large army fighting. Its not just because its in 2d it is because you are so used to sc1 graphics.

Just give sc2 some time.

On March 11 2010 09:43 lac29 wrote:
There is something intrinsically beautiful about 2D that 3D can't recreate =/.

there are also in 3d that can't be done in 2D. one is, in sc2 you can make an fps games using the editor. who knows what kind of games will be made by some hardcore map editors out there.

Xenocide_Knight

Korea (South)2625 Posts

March 11 2010 16:07 GMT

#18

On March 12 2010 00:05 keNn) wrote:
Just wait for your eyes to get used to sc2 graphics. After many games I'm sure you'll adjust to it and wont be confuse anymore during battles.

You all had played sc1 for many years of course you will not be confuse anymore in large army fighting. Its not just because its in 2d it is because you are so used to sc1 graphics.

Just give sc2 some time.

Show nested quote +

there are also in 3d that can't be done in 2D. one is, in sc2 you can make an fps games using the editor. who knows what kind of games will be made by some hardcore map editors out there.

But I don't agree that a game should require "time to adjust"
An RTS game should be instantly decipherable
Like I never had to give BW time for me to be able to decipher a battle.

Boblion

France8043 Posts

March 11 2010 17:56 GMT

#19

I feel exactly the same i prefer good old 2d / 3d iso RTS.
Same for RPGs ( infinty engine <3 )

My main problem with real 3D is that it is not only clumsy but also not even more beautiful than old games.

I mean if you think that bw makes Sc2 look bad just try to make a comparison between the BG and
the never NwN 2 ( terrible laggy, clumsy and ugly engine ).

I think that 3D only really shines for FPS, simulation, sport games and hybrids. Also even if i'm just a terrible casual fighting game player i prefer SFII / SFIII to SFIV.
Hand made sprites have just more personality than polygons.

JohannesH

Finland1364 Posts

March 11 2010 18:23 GMT

#20

On March 11 2010 09:14 hifriend wrote:I'm really starting to think I just don't enjoy modern 3d RTS's as much as the older 2d ones. Wc2, SC, AoE, C&C etc. I also had tons of fun with Total Annahilation, but got disappointed by supreme commander because it just didn't have the same feel to it. Movement and commands just feel kind of clumsy.

Total Annihilation is 3D though :D

1 2 Next All

Please or register to reply.

RTS best served in 2d?

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming