🚀 go-pugleaf

"Zealot The Crazy Lui" <yahooNOk...@jeemaledotcom.com> wrote in message 
news:0hm953t1dr70mu7v024pj10dqe56ql7t9p@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:13:24 +0100, The Arcane Chas
> <Ch...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>For RTS games, top-down 2D provides a superior method of selecting and
>>>>controlling the units.
>>>
>>>Why would it be superior if the exact same effect can be achived in
>>>3d?
>>It wouldn't - but (so far) it can't.
>>
>>The last few pitiful attempts to make RTS graphics 3D and "zoom in-able"
>>have best been countered by zooming out as far as possible and changing
>>the viewing angle to as close to top-down as possible.
>>
>>IMNSHO (of course). ;-}
>
> Supreme Commander is the best example I can think of zooming done
> right... but unless you have a craptastical computer or terrible
> eyesight, there's nothing difficult about selecting units in 3d. And
> what's so great about top-down? Starcraft was at a sort of isometric
> angle with all the sprites and crap, not close to (90 degree parallel
> to the surface) top down. I'll agree that zooming in all the way to
> ground level is pretty pointless aside from looking sorta pretty, but
> who plays like that anyway?

I do think it is silly that they spent so muh time making War III 3D - and 
then people play it from the default view angle just like SC anyway - but it 
was nice for the non cinematic "talking scenes" throughout the mission - and 
I guess they needed practice making 3D game to get SC 2 right

--
LTP

:)