View Full Version : 2D or 3D?
Jarlabanke
30-08-2004, 18:50
http://media.pc.gamespy.com/media/498/498739/img_2308840.html?fromint=1
I'd like to see a screen from KoH that shows this kind of detail.
Well at least, to make it more beatiful, make a 3D campaign map :)
We've had this discussion before with the same results! Why scrape the scab off the sore and fester it up again?
Ah, how should I know there was another discussion before?
DoS_GadO
31-08-2004, 13:30
I like 2d for rts ...R:tw has a good effect but bad units resolution, dudes Good Look & Have Fun :)
Anguille2
31-08-2004, 13:43
I have to say that it's a difficult discussion, 2D and 3D have each something going on for them, here's what i think using Celtic Kings (2D) and R:TW (3D):
- 2D Gives a better overview than 3D. With games like R:TW you can quickly loose control of what's happening on the field. It's difficult to keep the "general plan" in mind. Having played Celtic Kings for some months now, i have to say that it's (on the control aspect) one of best games.
- Details in 2D or 3D can be equally detailled (2D -> maps, buildings 3D -> figures, weapons). However, 3D still needs a lot of polishing. I found 3D games too often with bad graphics (not bad per se, but still 2D games look better most of the time to me).
- 3D gives a more realistic environment and you're immerged in that world...battles feel "real".
- 3D requires a lot of memory to work...while i can easely play with thousands of units in Celtic Kings, i think i'll need a new computer to play R:TW. It's not bad per se but 3D requires you to keep your computer very up to date.
- 3D requires a lot of work. People who work on the 3D engine and the graphics don't work on the gameplay. While i am pretty sure that R:TW is a great game, i don't believe it will be 1/2 as deep as KoH.
All in all i voted for 2D. While i am sure i will play and enjoy R:TW, 2D has still more to offer to me (especially strategy games)
http://media.pc.gamespy.com/media/498/498739/img_2308840.html?fromint=1
I'd like to see a screen from KoH that shows this kind of detail.
alright here
http://www.knights-of-honor.net//gfx/screenshots/scr_koh_0170.jpg
http://www.knights-of-honor.net//gfx/screenshots/scr_koh_0169.jpg
http://www.knights-of-honor.net//gfx/screenshots/scr_koh_0163.jpg
http://www.knights-of-honor.net//gfx/screenshots/scr_koh_0161.jpg
http://www.knights-of-honor.net//gfx/screenshots/scr_koh_0152.jpg
http://www.knights-of-honor.net//gfx/screenshots/scr_koh_0150.jpg
http://www.knights-of-honor.net//gfx/screenshots/scr_koh_0149.jpg
http://www.knights-of-honor.net//gfx/screenshots/scr_koh_0148.jpg
those pictures are full of awsome details. more then the pic you have shown.
Ah, how should I know there was another discussion before?
By using the search function to check if there has been.
Im not doing that every time i post a thread. I have searched, but I havnt found anything. plz gimme a link. Tell me at the beginning there was one before and Ill delete the thread. Im not going to delete the thread now.
@Cork2:
Im not going to say anything regarding the sreens because perhaps itll endup in a RTW vs KOH and the outcome is obvious.
Jarlabanke
01-09-2004, 13:27
We must have very different concepts of detail...
Anguille2
01-09-2004, 14:02
We must have very different concepts of detail...
There is no doubt that you can see more details of the men in R:TW. It looks amazing (arms are still not so well done yet). On the other hand, if you check the other screenshots, you'll see that ground, forests and buildings are much more detailed in KoH. I am not saying that they are not paying attention to those details in R:TW but it still is easier to draw a building in detail than to program it in 3D. :cool:
In that sense both games are very detailled but on different aspects.
As i have stated before i'm a ****er for games in 3D - the reason is that i feel that it gives the user so much "freedom" i.e. like zooming and rotation of the battlefield and it also solves the problem with units getting "lost" behind objects like building, trees and other structures.
:) I got that problem with ANNO 1503. Sometimes, units are lost forever between the town buildings!
Anguille2
01-09-2004, 15:48
As i have stated before i'm a ****er for games in 3D - the reason is that i feel that it gives the user so much "freedom" i.e. like zooming and rotation of the battlefield and it also solves the problem with units getting "lost" behind objects like building, trees and other structures.
I'd say that lost units are a problem of design, not 2D/3D. I haven't played Rome: total war, but IF the design wasn't well done (i suppose it is), you could spend hours looking for a soldier considering the scope of the game.
Nothing to say about the visual freedom...that's clearly a bonus of 3D (i enjoy the battles in LOR3).
Im not doing that every time i post a thread. I have searched, but I havnt found anything. plz gimme a link. Tell me at the beginning there was one before and Ill delete the thread. Im not going to delete the thread now.
@Cork2:
Im not going to say anything regarding the sreens because perhaps itll endup in a RTW vs KOH and the outcome is obvious.
Here is the former discussion (http://forum.sunflowers.de/showthread.php?t=278)
In that discussion there was no outcome yet, so see this as a "follow-up".
I see nothing wrong with 3D, except the fact that 3D games take linger to produce and ask higher requirements. If the camera angle is right, you can have an overview that is just as good as in 2D, perhaps even better. It is when you zoom in, when you loose control. BTW, to have better overview, you must have an ability to zoom OUT.
To set things straight, here are all the used arguments for 3D and 2D:
3D:
- rotating and zooming in/out
- more realism
- limits risk of units disappearing behind buildings
- gives more detail
- gives more freedom
2D:
- easy to handle
- gives more detail
- requires less system capacity
- takes less time to produce
- gives better overview
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.