[Drew]

those arnt screens; its not even hard to tell. THey look like the artwork on an old batteltech box or somthing

[an0n]

I'd say they're one of those 'artists impressions' versions of the in-game stuff.

Change a few angles, increase the poly-count, position the units  perfectly....etc etc.

[Lightspeed]

Well, I don't like the 3D RTS type of games for a lot of reasons:

1) While you can get some pretty detailed graphics today, you can never rival pre-rendered and edited 2D images/animations. As an example have a look at the really detailed buildings and units from StarCraft - just try thinking how much polygons they'd need to be realized in a decent scale. Also look at the landscape. You'd quite simply never get anything looking like that in 3D.

2) Now, we have worse (or AT BEST nearly the same quality) images in a 3D game. The system drain will be insanely higher though. Whereas the 2D variant (which would look better) could be played on a P-2-200 with a Geforce 2, you're going to need at least a 2 GHz processor with a 128 MB video card. The game will STILL not run as smooth and fast as the 2D version. Additionally, the huge drain from processor time prevents advanced AI scripts or events to be calculated properly.

3) Now, you could argue that you have a better view on 3D games (turning camera etc). This is, sorry to say, complete BS. An isometric view is DESIGNED to display large areas (or battle plans for that matter), whereas the 3D view will limit you to a much smaller area, or, the scale will get terribly tiny at the far away objects. On isometric view, you can see all objects at a reasonable size, and you have a relatively big part of the map visible on screen. It looks a lot less messy, to say the least.

4) As commanding fleets is practically impossible on a 3D view, most of the games incorporate odd RTS-unfriendly elements like roleplaying aspects or economy simulations. While this might be useful in other genres, it quite often destroys the playability of a good RTS. Imagine how really confusing it would have been with custom 'levels and skills' and individual crap like that on the different StarCraft units.

5) Game effects, something that's quite an important part of a game. Some people still are naive enough to think effects are more easily realized when rendered in full 3D. This is complete nonsense. While it's amazingly easy to make a good looking 2D fire effect, try to do the same with a 3D engine and the problems will start. You will have to resort to volumetrics and other ressource hogs to achieve the same good-looking quality as the 2D fire effect. This includes beams, laser shots, explosions, special abilities (just think of all the Zerg mutations in 3D - they'd either be ugly as hell or kill even the most modern computers available)

6) Individuality. While a 2D game will have to be made by a team that actually knows how to create a good game, 3D games always were an 'invitation' for those game companies that simply buy some engine, put in  a few crappy models and sell their 'cool new game' - of course I won't have to mention that the quality thus is really low, most of it looks like amateur work. Now while certainly not every 3D game is made like that (thank god) the sad thing is, a lot of them are. Its is so insanely more difficult to get a 3D game looking as good as a 2D one that most game developers simply don't worry, as the people still buy it "1337! full 3Dzore! coooool :jawdrop"

So you see why IMHO isometric RTS are the only way to go.

Heck, Starcraft with its 640x480, 8-bit graphics looks better than the '1337 3D RTS' - imagine how an up-to-date one would look.

[Fineus]

I've got one word for you: Homeworld

[aldo_14]

Right, well i disagree.  i've not played Starcraft, so I can;t argue with any comments RE: that, but  - IMO -

Originally posted by Lightspeed
Well, I don't like the 3D RTS type of games for a lot of reasons:

1) While you can get some pretty detailed graphics today, you can never rival pre-rendered and edited 2D images/animations. As an example have a look at the really detailed buildings and units from StarCraft - just try thinking how much polygons they'd need to be realized in a decent scale. Also look at the landscape. You'd quite simply never get anything looking like that in 3D.

I think many 3d rts' do look much better than old and even current 2d ones.  An obvious area is the ability to realistically light and shadow regions.  

Originally posted by Lightspeed

2) Now, we have worse (or AT BEST nearly the same quality) images in a 3D game. The system drain will be insanely higher though. Whereas the 2D variant (which would look better) could be played on a P-2-200 with a Geforce 2, you're going to need at least a 2 GHz processor with a 128 MB video card. The game will STILL not run as smooth and fast as the 2D version. Additionally, the huge drain from processor time prevents advanced AI scripts or events to be calculated properly.

Well, firstly I don;t agree with your statement on the 2d graphics being equal or better.  Secondly, a good 3d rts would make use of the free camera to open up opportunities to the player (i.e. tactical use of higher ground and the ability to better judge things like the terrain), so that would alreayd be adding a secondary benefit.  Finally, any improvement needs specs to be higher.

Also, i think the processor drain is not as high as you think, because stuff can be offset to the GPU.

Originally posted by Lightspeed

3) Now, you could argue that you have a better view on 3D games (turning camera etc). This is, sorry to say, complete BS. An isometric view is DESIGNED to display large areas (or battle plans for that matter), whereas the 3D view will limit you to a much smaller area, or, the scale will get terribly tiny at the far away objects. On isometric view, you can see all objects at a reasonable size, and you have a relatively big part of the map visible on screen. It looks a lot less messy, to say the least.

Well, the fundamental problems with isometric screens are IMO - lack of rotation & lack of zoom; both solved by 3d engines.  Also, 3d views offers a massively improved amount of control to the player - it alows them to choose what to see, rather than being hamstrung by some developers idea of what the perfect view distance is.

Originally posted by Lightspeed

4) As commanding fleets is practically impossible on a 3D view, most of the games incorporate odd RTS-unfriendly elements like roleplaying aspects or economy simulations. While this might be useful in other genres, it quite often destroys the playability of a good RTS. Imagine how really confusing it would have been with custom 'levels and skills' and individual crap like that on the different StarCraft units.

Commanding fleets - if you mean space type - should be much easier and at least offer more tactical options, because you can utilise the y axis as well as xz (or is it z as well as xy?).  

Originally posted by Lightspeed

5) Game effects, something that's quite an important part of a game. Some people still are naive enough to think effects are more easily realized when rendered in full 3D. This is complete nonsense. While it's amazingly easy to make a good looking 2D fire effect, try to do the same with a 3D engine and the problems will start. You will have to resort to volumetrics and other ressource hogs to achieve the same good-looking quality as the 2D fire effect. This includes beams, laser shots, explosions, special abilities (just think of all the Zerg mutations in 3D - they'd either be ugly as hell or kill even the most modern computers available)

You don't need volumetrics for fires,etc - you can simply use a 2d rendered effect (i.e. on a flat plane) - ala freespace.

Originally posted by Lightspeed

6) Individuality. While a 2D game will have to be made by a team that actually knows how to create a good game, 3D games always were an 'invitation' for those game companies that simply buy some engine, put in  a few crappy models and sell their 'cool new game' - of course I won't have to mention that the quality thus is really low, most of it looks like amateur work. Now while certainly not every 3D game is made like that (thank god) the sad thing is, a lot of them are. Its is so insanely more difficult to get a 3D game looking as good as a 2D one that most game developers simply don't worry, as the people still buy it "1337! full 3Dzore! coooool :jawdrop"

There's no shortage of utter gash 2D RTS' either - they're just lower profile - and probably more plentiful as they're easier to make.  So it's not really a fair point IMO.


'tis my opinion.  I think 2d rts' are out of date, in the same way most 2d games are.  3d allows more freedom (options and in view) to the player, and thus more gameplay.

[an0n]

RTS games reached perfection with Starcraft.....and maybe Z2.

[.::Tin Can::.]

That guy probably never played Earth: 2150 then, huh?

The terrain was the BEST PART of the game. Dont tell me it wasnt folks, because when you picked up that editor and made that continent to whatever you chose, it looked like god stepped out of the sky and shaped it himself. It is so flexible as well! The game made 3D RTS perfect in every way, as well as introducing tunnels into the game world. The 3D effects were BEAUTIFUL on that game, as well as many other aspects that made commandinig the battle from the RIGHT angle something to cherish, as well as added to its simplicity.

All in all, I think Earth: 2150 made 3D RTS perfect...

[Petrarch of the VBB]

Yes, 2D RTSs look SO much better


ACTUAL SCREENSHOT!

[Gloriano]

nice 3d RTS game

[.::Tin Can::.]

WHAT a COMEBACK!

[SadisticSid]

Total Annihilation is still the best RTS out there. Warcraft/Starcraft are more like small scale squad simulators. AoE and its clones are Warcraft with a higher unit limit.

And E2150 qualifies as one of the worst games I've ever bought (and taken back, god bless EB).

[Lightspeed]

Originally posted by aldo_14
I think many 3d rts' do look much better than old and even current 2d ones.  An obvious area is the ability to realistically light and shadow regions.

Just as realistically as in  2D isometrical ones. On a sidenote, there are no current 2D ones. 'tis a sad thing, but true.

Well, firstly I don;t agree with your statement on the 2d graphics being equal or better.  Secondly, a good 3d rts would make use of the free camera to open up opportunities to the player (i.e. tactical use of higher ground and the ability to better judge things like the terrain), so that would alreayd be adding a secondary benefit.  Finally, any improvement needs specs to be higher.

A realistic tree. VERY easy to get into your 2D RTS, it will look just like the real thing. Same thing into a 3D one will look WORSE and will really be a challenge to make. I haven't seen any really really convining tree models ever.
"Make use of the free camera" - exactly the thing I think completely out of place for a RTS. You're supposed to be an omniscient observer of your fleet and the surrounding terrain - it's a battle plan, not some RPG where you look from the eyes of a soldier. Besides, tactical use of higher ground is also perfectly possible with 2D games (see starcraft).

 

Well, the fundamental problems with isometric screens are IMO - lack of rotation & lack of zoom; both solved by 3d engines.  Also, 3d views offers a massively improved amount of control to the player - it alows them to choose what to see, rather than being hamstrung by some developers idea of what the perfect view distance is.

It prevents them from seeing anything worthwhile. Either the near objects are too big, or the far off ones are too small. Isometric view prevents all the perspective problems from occurring. For large areas you NEED to have a view where you can spatter units all over the screen while having them all perfectly visible (instead of having to zoom and turn and change the view every instant). Isometric view can NOT be simulated by 3D view (it's not just a matter of 'view distance'). It is something completely different altogether.

 

Commanding fleets - if you mean space type - should be much easier and at least offer more tactical options, because you can utilise the y axis as well as xz (or is it z as well as xy?).

... will get much more confusing. And i dont really see the point of marines walking up into the sky.

You don't need volumetrics for fires,etc - you can simply use a 2d rendered effect (i.e. on a flat plane) - ala freespace.

exactly. But that's nothing different than resorting to 2D

Get the point?

 

'tis my opinion.  I think 2d rts' are out of date, in the same way most 2d games are.  3d allows more freedom (options and in view) to the player, and thus more gameplay.

It is a very sad fact that a lot of people think exactly like you on this.

This is just my opinion though, so I guess i'll just shut up

[Ghostavo]

I hate to agree with .::Tin Can::. but he is right.

3) Now, you could argue that you have a better view on 3D games (turning camera etc). This is, sorry to say, complete BS. An isometric view is DESIGNED to display large areas (or battle plans for that matter), whereas the 3D view will limit you to a much smaller area, or, the scale will get terribly tiny at the far away objects. On isometric view, you can see all objects at a reasonable size, and you have a relatively big part of the map visible on screen. It looks a lot less messy, to say the least.

If you had played Earth 2150: Lost Souls, you wouldn't say that, hell I've never seen a game with more units and terrain on view than Earth 2150. Both 3D and 2D are fine if they have good gameplay.

For large areas you NEED to have a view where you can spatter units all over the screen while having them all perfectly visible (instead of having to zoom and turn and change the view every instant). Isometric view can NOT be simulated by 3D view (it's not just a matter of 'view distance'). It is something completely different altogether.

Except you forgot that in Isometric view units can be off screen in large areas. In 3D game you can still use always the same view, you are not obliged to change it, although you are encoraged to do so. In most 3D game they offer you a good view of the terrain and the units in them, and good example is Homeworld and O.R.B. where if a certain option is selected when you zoom out they put an icon on the area where a small ship like a fighter is, representing it. Earth 2150 you could always view distant units with no problem, even with max zoom out (unless it was night and they had the lights off... but that is what that option is supposed to do )

[Fineus]

The trouble is I've yet to see a quality isometric game in recent years, I know everything has switched to 3D - but that doesn't alter the fact that the last one I can remember is C&C: RA2 which looks pants. I mean granted everything was bright and pretty - but these days people expect a lot more. There really shouldn't be any excuse for RTS games to feature full weather, day and night cycles, deformable terrain, tunnels and so on in game - it's the logical step to take when considering you're pitting two sides against eachother in a contest of strategy.

If I want to hide people in that house - I should be able to. If I want a guy to climb a tree and sniper - he should be able to. If I want to take out that bridge / tower / fence / whatever - I should be able to. If I want to mine roads, place claymores and so forth in buildings as a trap for enemy units - I should be able to. There's so much scope for tactics in war games, but things have barely been tapped.

[aldo_14]

Right...well, I won;t argue any more on this (we both have our own opinions anyways, no harm in that), but just to reply on a few issues;

1/ I don;t think I've ever seen a photo-realistic tree in a 2D game.  And IMO the likes of tress in Far Cry, etc (and this is the level which RTS' will reach) aremore than good enough.
2/ Vertical movement is extremely useful for more realistic line of sight, as well  as stuff like (obviously) aircraft.  for example, being able to launch low-level bombing raids (improved accuracy, greater risk) vs high level (lower accuracy, less risk).  This would be very hard to portray in  2D IM
3/Isometric view can easily be done by a 3d engine.  It's a simple process of translating abstract 3d points to 2d screen pixels.  
4/Free camera is vital IMO in 2 ways.  firstly, immersion - it allows you to get visually involved with the battle.  Even though it's cosmetic, it's still useful.  Secondly, it makes it far easier to judge subtle terrain differences, like slopes.  and thus to implement and use them as part of the game mechanics.
5/ (finally)  any 2D game will be based on flat images.  Thus, there's no natural way to calculate the lighting - to diffentiate between an arm and a leg, for example.  On 3d models, each facet's lighting can be naturally calculated- meaning realistic shadows and light casting.

If I felt 2D RTS games had any advantage over 3d, I'd expect someone to still be making them.  As it is, they are becoming fewer and fewer, and the likes of Medieval are forging forward.  I think  this is simply because 3d is more realistic - you can have proper slopes and terrain features which are clearly visible to the player, and which have built in properties (angle, surface type, etc) as part of the geometry.  In 2D, this is less implicit and has to be added in and conveyed through some other means.

Originally posted by Kalfireth
The trouble is I've yet to see a quality isometric game in recent years, I know everything has switched to 3D - but that doesn't alter the fact that the last one I can remember is C&C: RA2 which looks pants. I mean granted everything was bright and pretty - but these days people expect a lot more. There really shouldn't be any excuse for RTS games to feature full weather, day and night cycles, deformable terrain, tunnels and so on in game - it's the logical step to take when considering you're pitting two sides against eachother in a contest of strategy.

If I want to hide people in that house - I should be able to. If I want a guy to climb a tree and sniper - he should be able to. If I want to take out that bridge / tower / fence / whatever - I should be able to. If I want to mine roads, place claymores and so forth in buildings as a trap for enemy units - I should be able to. There's so much scope for tactics in war games, but things have barely been tapped.

I think the closer you get simulating the real world - not just the AI, but also the environment (0which is arguably more crucial), the closer this sort of thing becomes.  That's why I prefer 3d - it's just better at that sort of thing.  The real world is 3d too - it translates well.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
The trouble is I've yet to see a quality isometric game in recent years, I know everything has switched to 3D - but that doesn't alter the fact that the last one I can remember is C&C: RA2 which looks pants. I mean granted everything was bright and pretty - but these days people expect a lot more. There really shouldn't be any excuse for RTS games to feature full weather, day and night cycles, deformable terrain, tunnels and so on in game - it's the logical step to take when considering you're pitting two sides against eachother in a contest of strategy.

If I want to hide people in that house - I should be able to. If I want a guy to climb a tree and sniper - he should be able to. If I want to take out that bridge / tower / fence / whatever - I should be able to. If I want to mine roads, place claymores and so forth in buildings as a trap for enemy units - I should be able to. There's so much scope for tactics in war games, but things have barely been tapped.

I love the way Kalifreth is thinking. He is right: there is a large majority of games that have only tapped on the basis of strategy. For instance, I think that Earth 2150 at LEAST did a good job on that. You CAN destroy bridges, lay mines, use terrain to hide units, etc. However there was no infantry.

Maybe someone SHOULD design an RTS to accomodate ALL the aspects of war, but unfortuantely they dont. There may be some games that come close, but then again, life is life and in life there are no rules in war, it's just about who wins...

[Ghostavo]

http://forums.avault.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000011;p=1

I thought everyone interested in this game would like to know about the thread above mentioned.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
The trouble is I've yet to see a quality isometric game in recent years, I know everything has switched to 3D - but that doesn't alter the fact that the last one I can remember is C&C: RA2 which looks pants. I mean granted everything was bright and pretty - but these days people expect a lot more. There really shouldn't be any excuse for RTS games to feature full weather, day and night cycles, deformable terrain, tunnels and so on in game - it's the logical step to take when considering you're pitting two sides against eachother in a contest of strategy.

If I want to hide people in that house - I should be able to. If I want a guy to climb a tree and sniper - he should be able to. If I want to take out that bridge / tower / fence / whatever - I should be able to. If I want to mine roads, place claymores and so forth in buildings as a trap for enemy units - I should be able to. There's so much scope for tactics in war games, but things have barely been tapped.

If you can do all that and make it as quick to pick up as C&C you'll make a mint.  

The problem is publishers are unwilling to put money down on unsafe bets.  That's why everything is a sequel.

Add to that, consumers are unwilling to buy something they don't like. gamers especially, just look at the furor that erupts when somebody compares ATI and Nvidia.

Gamers want games that are engaging and are good enough that they can burn away the hours playing it.  They also want a simple interface with as few a controls as possible to memorize, that's why C&C is so popular, it's entertaining without being complicated.

[Ulala]

I still say they revamp the old original C&C. Keep the real live action videos, but add better multiplayer capability, new maps, fix the graphics, and maybe add some new *optional* stuff (units, etc..). I'd buy it for $50 any day.

[Thorn]

What? Another one? But I havent even finished the first! God damn!