Quake3World

Nightshade wrote:

SOAPboy wrote:

Nightshade wrote: Both of these look to be fucking awesome.
Anyone tried Act of War? I'm playing it a bit now, and it's nice-looking, but nothing really impressive gameplay-wise as of yet.

Never gets any better either..

I think I'll just ditch it.

Played Ground Control II?

Nightshade wrote:
Played Ground Control II?

Grudge wrote:RTS games are always tricky though - the AI is always predictable and not much of a challenge, and playing against random people on the internet is about as enjoyable as pounding your head repeatedly into a concrete wall. Playing against people you know is a fucking blast though.

Mr.Magnetichead wrote:

Nightshade wrote:
Played Ground Control II?

Yeah. It's not very good. Looks really nice though.

Eraser wrote:I don't think either one has anything to do with each other.

An RTS can have great gameplay with great graphics. If a FPS focuses only on graphics and neglets gameplay, then that game will be no fun to play either.

The transition to 3D in RTSes is not a bad thing IMO, as long as the camera isn't free roaming and all you can do is rotate the battlefield and zoom in/out.

Saying that RTSes aren't meant for 3D is nonsense. If you coded a 3D engine but made it so that the camera is always fixed in the same position, the feeling of it would be identical to a 2D sprite based engine.

Foo wrote:

Eraser wrote:I don't think either one has anything to do with each other.

An RTS can have great gameplay with great graphics. If a FPS focuses only on graphics and neglets gameplay, then that game will be no fun to play either.

The transition to 3D in RTSes is not a bad thing IMO, as long as the camera isn't free roaming and all you can do is rotate the battlefield and zoom in/out.

Saying that RTSes aren't meant for 3D is nonsense. If you coded a 3D engine but made it so that the camera is always fixed in the same position, the feeling of it would be identical to a 2D sprite based engine.

Strogg War? Because that was Q3. Was there one for Q1 aswell? Do you remember the name?
again, agree.

Back in the days of Q1 some guys I knew converted the game to an RTS... they fixed the camera to a height above the level, and had bases and units and buildings and everything.

It was practically what generals is today, and didn't look half bad in openGL.

Talk about pioneers. Sadly, they never finished it up beyond an early alpha type thing.

Eraser wrote:

glossy wrote:

Eraser wrote: I don't think either one has anything to do with each other.

An RTS can have great gameplay with great graphics. If a FPS focuses only on graphics and neglets gameplay, then that game will be no fun to play either.

The transition to 3D in RTSes is not a bad thing IMO, as long as the camera isn't free roaming and all you can do is rotate the battlefield and zoom in/out.

Saying that RTSes aren't meant for 3D is nonsense. If you coded a 3D engine but made it so that the camera is always fixed in the same position, the feeling of it would be identical to a 2D sprite based engine.

Technically, RA2 was in 3d because it incorporated sloped surfaces (and rendered these sloped surfaces as three dimentional quads), but I'm more referring to the fact that if you are going to do a 'classical RTS', there are only two dimentions involved.

Every true-3d RTS game i've seen with 3d models as units, etc., looks worse than sprite-based RA2 units, it runs considerably worse, the camera rotation and control is often ridiculous... I'm not even sure how to word this. Once developers fully immerse the game in the extra dimensions, they want to add all kinds of fancy stuff, which ruins the game with overcomplication, i think.

Simplicity is key. When you want unit A (or squad A, for that matter) to go from one place to another, you don't want to manouver a camera, select, move camera, rotate, zoom, order the move.

I'm not really saying that "3d RTS games could never happen well", more that every implementation of them so far has been rubbish.

You should try Dawn of War. It's fully 3D but you can leave the camera in the default spot and you won't miss out on anything. The grahpics are fantastic, the units look brutal and if something explodes... well, the sight of those explosions make you feel them in your stomach, they're that intense.

Gameplay is brought back to simple basics. You can really focus on the action.

The single player campaign is a bit pants and very short, but skirmishes against the AI are great, but it truely shines when you play with or against friends.

CrinklyArse wrote:Red Alert 2 :icon14::icon14::icon14:

Memphis wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:

CrinklyArse wrote:Red Alert 2 :icon14::icon14::icon14:

hows it look now ? i put resi evil 2 back on over memphs house the other week and just looking at it ruined all my memories of that game

i liked that game alot and like RA2 more, so dont want to fire it up again and realise it looks about the same as my ass after a curry

RA2 looks fine as it's pixels
Ramp up the res and it's all good

And it's really great to have 200 teeny tiny little soldiers in oldskool RTSs

Mr.Magnetichead wrote:If you want a true 3d rts try homeworld.

axbaby wrote:i play RA2 sqirmishes every single day .. i've been trying to win on the hardest setting without getting a single unit killed.
my best game was 3 deaths 740 kills.

i play as france