Re: Space battles not as good as I expected them to be....

[Baron_Fel]

3D space sims have more depth than EAW space battles. You just cant say that there are more tactics involved on a 2D plane than 3D.

Dont get me wrong, I love how EAW is now and I wouldnt like it if it was 3D, as 2 things would happen.

1. The game would suffer the same fate as other hardcore sims like Nexus the Jupiter Incident.

2. If the Space was that in-depth, there would most likely be no ground combat.

3D is better if you are looking for a hardcore, space sim stratagy game, but that is not what EAW is.

[Saracen]

2D Rocks! 2.5D is cool and 3D is overrated. That's the end of that  ;D

 

I have to agree that the narrow-mindedness of some people is disturbing. I'm 23 next Month, I see no reason to give up gaming at all. After a hard days work, I won't sit in front of the TV, I'll jump on the PC or grab my PSP and put up my feet before playing some intensive gaming, while the wife watches the TV.

 

I know that my father who is almost 51 will do the same thing when at his home. He'll pull up a chair, load up C&C or BfME and play a good old fashioned comp stomp. Lion of the CnC Den, is in his 40's, and he does what I do, get in from work and play a few games on the PC... It's a perfectly normal thing.

 

The gaming industry is the biggest entertainment industry in the world pulling in almost four times as much money as the movie industry. It's a business that continues to grow and forever will do. An Interesting Statistic is what raydude mentioned... Developers are way above the age of 20... Most are in their late thirties to even early 50's. The people who have the talent to code and create games will put it to good use regardless of their age.

 

I can see Mike Legg, Delphi and the whole team at Petroglyph saying that their PC's will have to be ripped from their graves before they stop developing. These guys love their careers so much, that they will never want to retire from what they love most and what they do best.

 

Moving on....; The only thing that changes when you hit your 20's is that you learn to distinguish between the good games, and those games that are of your own exceptional taste for quality. You don't buy for the fact that a game rocks, you buy for a personal taste regardless of the score and what you deem to be the qualities within those games.

 

I've had 20 long years experience with games. Ever since I sat on a stool and played the space invaders arcade Machine in a hotel my parents used to run, I've been doing the same thing day in, day out. I know a good game when I see one.. So when you complain about the space battles being a terrible feature... You are far from correct. This "2.5D" element is without a doubt comprised of some of the best RTS features in history. 2D has worked so well, it is where most of the gameplay lies and this view are the roots of all games! 3D allows you to improve the playing experience and nothing more!

 

To compare this to Homeworld or Nexus is not the correct thing to do. This game has some elements, but is far from based upon these game. EaW is in a specific league of it's own. It's innovation and atempts to be anything but a clone has to be appriciated deeply.

 

The amount of work that has gone into this game is certainly something to admire. The research that has been done before this game even started to be coded is immense. The only thing in my opinion that made this game somewhat easier to make, was the Petroglyph Team's own fanbase for Star Wars itself. You just need to look at C&C units such as the Mammoth Mk II in Tiberian Sun and other C&C's to see this.

 

At the end of the day, if you are sorely disappointed by this game so far, then why continue to be here?

[NOT Hadoken13]

omg...i just decided to forgive the whole no complaining or else thing and now the bickering? Jesus tap-dancing Christ peoples controll your urges  >

ya and if anyone else has a problem w/ 30 some year old gamers then you'll have to take that up with my mother father 2 uncles AND my grandmother.

beotch

[Jmaster3265]

when I'm flamed, I flame back

 

two wrongs don't make a right.... :

[SirNuke]

"Can we get along here? Can we all get along?"

 

Would 3D mode be desirable if it was created simply because it was more realistic than 2D?  Petroglyph has lots of experience doing 2D RTSes, and I don't think a studio would want to deviate from that for their first game (especially when they have so much experience with 2d).

 

 

I was joking about the movie thing, but I do have a point.

 

Simulations create experiences and environments (and situations, and etc), that for various reasons (physics for one) cannot exist in real life.

Star Wars movies show the user a universe that cannot exist in real life.

Therefore Star wars movies are simulations   Whether or not they can be controlled by the end user is irrelevant, though it may [and does in the case of computer games] have a positive effect on the desirability of the simulations.

[Cain]

when I'm flamed, I flame back

 

Beowulf, Jmaster3265 and GIR - you have all 3 or 2 a notification. We do not tolerate flaming - think before you post pls. Thanks.

 

Jmaster3265 ... you remember what happened last time ?! Pls. don't forget it - I didn't.

[NOT Hadoken13]

shmae sham eon yooou! hehehe......anyway..i absolutely LOVE

the space combat.......so 

[Guest]

I flamed? oh well.

 

anyway it could be towards the younger people, my brother is 10 and he hates homworld because it's a bit too complex for him, he likes the easy left click right click method of moving so I'm sure EAW will be easy for him

[noian]

Beowulf, Jmaster3265 and GIR - you have all 3 or 2 a notification. We do not tolerate flaming - think before you post pls. Thanks.

 

Jmaster3265 ... you remember what happened last time ?! Pls. don't forget it - I didn't.

 

Wow, what happened?

Anyway, I think space is GREAT!

I flamed? oh well.

 

anyway it could be towards the younger people, my brother is 10 and he hates homworld because it's a bit too complex for him, he likes the easy left click right click method of moving so I'm sure EAW will be easy for him

Yea, I'm 13 but I hate complex moving/attacking systems. I end up spending half of the time memorizing those. (A exception is R:TW where I just ignored the advanced controls and used the simple outflank+outnumber+outrank method)

[Guest JediIgor]

First of all, no more ad hominem attacks. You've been notified by Cain and anything more will just be deleted on the spot.

 

Going on, saying that 2D is good because the current military does not use them is ridiculous. Imagine you're in 1945 and now you're saying that jet engines are useless because the propeller is good enough? Or that cars are stupid because horses are just as good [for cavalry]?

 

The fact of the matter is, our technology is simply not at that point where we can provide an *almost perfect* 3D representation of the battlefield (no holograms, right?), but moreover, you don't really need it because only the air assets can *really* move in the 3rd dimension (and even then, it's very limited as opposed to space... where there is no "sky").

 

So while wars on Earth are naturally limited by 2 dimensions, no such natural limitations exist in space. Artificial limits are created by games such as this -- but even if we consider this game against other 2D space-worthy games, you run into problems such as ships not being able to stack on top of each other (even the old StarCraft lets you do that) and asteroids becoming too annoying because there's far fewer ways to go around them (as opposed to 3D, you can just go "below" them, not around every time). To even say the 2D in EaW can't be better would be a lack of consideration of the presented facts.

[raydude]

Going on, saying that 2D is good because the current military does not use them is ridiculous. Imagine you're in 1945 and now you're saying that jet engines are useless because the propeller is good enough? Or that cars are stupid because horses are just as good [for cavalry]?

 

I'm not the one that first brought up the navy working in 3 dimensions. 

 

The fact of the matter is, our technology is simply not at that point where we can provide an *almost perfect* 3D representation of the battlefield (no holograms, right?), but moreover, you don't really need it because only the air assets can *really* move in the 3rd dimension (and even then, it's very limited as opposed to space... where there is no "sky").

 

The new Battlestar Galactica TV series, where war assets are depicted as being in space, represents the 3D battlespace on a 2D interface - the Draydis contact board.

 

but even if we consider this game against other 2D space-worthy games, you run into problems such as ships not being able to stack on top of each other (even the old StarCraft lets you do that) and asteroids becoming too annoying because there's far fewer ways to go around them (as opposed to 3D, you can just go "below" them, not around every time). To even say the 2D in EaW can't be better would be a lack of consideration of the presented facts.

 

Asteroids are but one example of the obstacles in EAW that exist in real life. Yes, asteroids over time will coalesce into a belt on a given plane, letting one pass over or under the belt. But nebula and other gaseous obstacles do not have to do so. Hence, it could take just as long to go under or over nebula as it does to go around them.

Sure, the 2D interface in EAW could be improved. But, as an educated guess, I don't think it can be improved to a 3D interface before it goes to retail.

[Guest JediIgor]

The new Battlestar Galactica TV series, where war assets are depicted as being in space, represents the 3D battlespace on a 2D interface - the Draydis contact board.

Okay if we're going to be using shows, look at Return of the Jedi, the Death Star II is presented in full 3D, meaning they have the technology to present battles in 3D, meaning when they can afford to do that for their ships, they have the option to do that.

 

BSG is also a poor choice because they use *phones* for communicating ship-to-ship, talk about old technology :.

 

Asteroids are but one example of the obstacles in EAW that exist in real life. Yes, asteroids over time will coalesce into a belt on a given plane, letting one pass over or under the belt. But nebula and other gaseous obstacles do not have to do so. Hence, it could take just as long to go under or over nebula as it does to go around them.

Seeing as how in 3D there are an infinite # of planes, there is also an infinite # of passing an asteroid belt. In 2D there is only one plane, and thus you can only go around one side or the other.

Sure, the 2D interface in EAW could be improved. But, as an educated guess, I don't think it can be improved to a 3D interface before it goes to retail.

I don't think anyone ever said it could do that. People are just saying 3D is the natural evolution of 2D.

[raydude]

Okay if we're going to be using shows, look at Return of the Jedi, the Death Star II is presented in full 3D, meaning they have the technology to present battles in 3D, meaning when they can afford to do that for their ships, they have the option to do that.

 

BSG is also a poor choice because they use *phones* for communicating ship-to-ship, talk about old technology :.

The 3D image of the Death Star II was for planning purposes, to outline the plan of attack for the ground and space force. No holographic display is shown during the actual conduct of the battle.

Meanwhile, Episode IV clearly shows a tactical situation map with the Death Star and its cone of fire vs. Yavin on a 2D map.

Speaking of shows, Firefly also uses a 2D sensor display to show the position of other ships.

 

As for the use of phones, it certainly allows for more secure transmissions between commanders. In a world where the enemy (Cylons) can look like humans, I would certainly prefer to have secure phone conversations a la BSG rather than having the captain talk out loud so all the crew can hear, a la Star Trek.

[Mistrider]

The way I see it, the 2D plane(especially in the asteroid maps) is more to create better flow to a battle than anything. In HW2 you could fly around an asteroid field for quite awhile looking for the enemy in the 3D plane. The 2D plane creates a more predictable playing field, creating choke points and strategic approaches. This can make battle predictable and repetitive, but a good commander will bypass this. Sneaking his bombers through the asteroids and hitting the flank of the enemies ambush, or finding a thin spot in the field where he can get his larger ships through with minimal damage.

 

in conclusion, while a 3D playing field is more realistic, it isn't feasible for a large scale tactical management game. The reason it may work in real life is that all the commanders do is observe, the actual "pieces" move themselves. It becomes far too chaotic when the commander must observe, plan, and coordinate in real-time on a full 3D battlefield.

[raydude]

in conclusion, while a 3D playing field is more realistic, it isn't feasible for a large scale tactical management game. The reason it may work in real life is that all the commanders do is observe, the actual "pieces" move themselves. It becomes far too chaotic when the commander must observe, plan, and coordinate in real-time on a full 3D battlefield.

 

Mistrider I agree with all of your points. However, I just wanted to clarify. There is no 3D Homeworld type of interface in "real life" military operations. They certainly work, fly, cruise, and submerge in three dimensions, like the navy, and the airforce, but all their interfaces look like 2D wargame screens.

[Stellar_Magic]

2d interfaces are fine in an environment where 3d movement is extremely restricted.  On the ground you can only go up so high in an airplane (A couple miles) or down so low (4000 meter crush depth on Submarines) but in space... There are no such limits.  You can go as high as you want or as low as you want.  The reason the military uses a 2d interface is they don't need 3d yet because they're not fighting battles in space!

 

If you're having space combat 3d is the only way to go.

[Teradyn_pff]

Unless you are working with a 2d only interface, like a PC monitor...

Personally, I think that I would rather see more dimensions in the gameplay and data summary than 3d combat in space.  But we have neither.

[raydude]

2d interfaces are fine in an environment where 3d movement is extremely restricted.  On the ground you can only go up so high in an airplane (A couple miles) or down so low (4000 meter crush depth on Submarines) but in space... There are no such limits.  You can go as high as you want or as low as you want.  The reason the military uses a 2d interface is they don't need 3d yet because they're not fighting battles in space!

No, the reason the military uses a 2D interface is because you don't need fancy 3D graphics to give a commander the big picture. AND because 3D graphics present the opportunity for the user to miss something. It doesn't matter that the plane is restricted to ground level or above and the sub is restricted to surface level or below. When you fight a combined arms battle the 2D interface provides the big picture of where EVERYTHING is.

 

Imagine a commander using the Homeworld interface to fight a combined carrier/sub/surface battle against an enemy fleet and hostile harbor. Would you want to be the commander who said "Oops. I missed those enemy subs because my 3D camera was pointed skywards" ?

 

Imagine the same commander with a 2D interface showing all the ships, planes, subs, that were detected, on the same map. Now there's no chance that he misses something because of camera angle. He can still miss something because one of the multiple sensors on the ships/planes/subs missed something but not because his camera angle was pointing at the wrong spot.

[noian]

No, the reason the military uses a 2D interface is because you don't need fancy 3D graphics to give a commander the big picture. AND because 3D graphics present the opportunity for the user to miss something. It doesn't matter that the plane is restricted to ground level or above and the sub is restricted to surface level or below. When you fight a combined arms battle the 2D interface provides the big picture of where EVERYTHING is.

 

Imagine a commander using the Homeworld interface to fight a combined carrier/sub/surface battle against an enemy fleet and hostile harbor. Would you want to be the commander who said "Oops. I missed those enemy subs because my 3D camera was pointed skywards" ?

 

Imagine the same commander with a 2D interface showing all the ships, planes, subs, that were detected, on the same map. Now there's no chance that he misses something because of camera angle. He can still miss something because one of the multiple sensors on the ships/planes/subs missed something but not because his camera angle was pointing at the wrong spot.

 

 

yes, whatever you said ;D

[Baron_Fel]

One thing you people who want 3D have to know...

This is not a space sim. It is a normal rts, like the Aoe series or the EE series.

It just wouldnt be right for a game like this to have fully 3D space battles. Think of games like Nexus.

EAW is not like that at all, and shouldnt be considered to be.

[Guest JediIgor]

No, the reason the military uses a 2D interface is because you don't need fancy 3D graphics to give a commander the big picture. AND because 3D graphics present the opportunity for the user to miss something. It doesn't matter that the plane is restricted to ground level or above and the sub is restricted to surface level or below. When you fight a combined arms battle the 2D interface provides the big picture of where EVERYTHING is.

 

This is probably the worst reason I've seen anyone say about 3D interfaces. Have you thought about the fact that a 3D interface could *come* with a default camera that will have a "top down" view when you press the Home button?

 

But no, let's take the *choice* of camera away. After all, presenting someone with a 2D camera and giving them the option to tilt it is such an absurd notion.

 

Furthermore, I can't see how you are connecting a 2D interface and a 2D world. While the army's interfaces may be 2D, the world definitely isn't. In Empire at War, the interface and the world is 2D. Ships don't automatically descend planes when you tell them to move in the same place. Their Z dimension is essentially locked, preventing them from doing anything 3D even while the interface is 2D.

 

Imagine a commander using the Homeworld interface to fight a combined carrier/sub/surface battle against an enemy fleet and hostile harbor. Would you want to be the commander who said "Oops. I missed those enemy subs because my 3D camera was pointed skywards" ?

 

Imagine the same commander with a 2D interface showing all the ships, planes, subs, that were detected, on the same map. Now there's no chance that he misses something because of camera angle. He can still miss something because one of the multiple sensors on the ships/planes/subs missed something but not because his camera angle was pointing at the wrong spot.

Again, a moot point. There is no reason why in a "good system" the commander can't be presented with the 2D and 3D information simultaneously.

[raydude]

Again, a moot point. There is no reason why in a "good system" the commander can't be presented with the 2D and 3D information simultaneously.

 

And yet, no such system exists. In a country where technological advances are highly prized, and where even the military has gone high tech and digital, information warfare has become a  key part of the military, and where this is considered the "Age of Information" in regards to different military eras - yes, even in this modern age - no such system exists. You don't think the military has tried? I say to you, they've tried it, and found 3D inferior.

[Guest JediIgor]

And yet, no such system exists. In a country where technological advances are highly prized, and where even the military has gone high tech and digital, information warfare has become a  key part of the military, and where this is considered the "Age of Information" in regards to different military eras - yes, even in this modern age - no such system exists. You don't think the military has tried? I say to you, they've tried it, and found 3D inferior.

 

So just because something hasn't been invented yet by our military means it's inferior? I'm sure they felt the same way in the 40s about jet engines.

[raydude]

So just because something hasn't been invented yet by our military means it's inferior? I'm sure they felt the same way in the 40s about jet engines.

 

Read my entire post again. They. Have. Tried. It. And. It. Was. Not. Good. Enough.

[Megajames]

Can't some one lock this topic, it has served it perpose and now people are repeating themselves