View Full Version : Galactic Battlegrounds 2. Should it be 3D?
08-08-2002, 11:24 AM
It seems that 2002 will herald the end of isometric real-time strategy (RTS) game as it finally goes to its grave.
Although some have tried 3D RTS to no success, with games like Warcraft III, Command & Conquer Generals, Age Of Mythology all making good use of new 3D game engines, do you think that the next Galactic Battlegrounds game should be in a 3D game environment?
Both Age Of Mythology & Generals look superb... WCIII is ok but I find it a boring game. (no comments on this please ;-p)
What's your views? 3D or not?
08-08-2002, 12:02 PM
I think that the 2D RTS is starting to become dated, and that it would be cool to have the new game in 3D. However, most of the other games that have tried this have not worked out so well: Empire Earth gave me system trouble, C&C Renegade wasn't so great, but I like Warcraft III. So, in short, I agree with DMUK that 3D RTS hasn't really been great yet. However, I think we should wait for AOM to see how good it is, and possibly be able to build something using its engine.
08-08-2002, 12:42 PM
In a world where 3D gaming has become a mainstay in FPS and now has successfully converted the RPG genre (Neverwinter Nights, Dungeon Siege, Knights of the Old Republic), it would seem enevitable that they RTS genre was next. Especially given that the isometric RTS has existed virtually unchanged, with the exception of more units, more animation frames and better resolutions, for over 6 years!
It was just a matter of time before the video cards could handle enough polygons to field large armies on large maps. It would seem with the sucess of Warcraft 3, C&C Generals and hype of the soon-to-be released Age of Mythology that they have sucessfully integrated "true" 3D gaming with the RTS genre. I believe we are seeing the beginning of the end of mainstream Isometric RTS game releases.
All I can say is, bring on the next generation of RTS's, I'm ready for a change. :D
08-08-2002, 01:29 PM
I think it's inevitable that the next SW RTS game will use a 3D engine. I'd like to see a game based on the Empire Earth engine. I don't have any system trouble with it and the graphics from way up high look great. Zooming in doesn't do much for me, since all civs units look the same. I wonder how it would look if LA could modify the engine to make the units look unique for each civ. How cool would an up-close view of stormtroopers vs. Rebels be? Or AT-ATs against a base?
I haven't played WC3 yet, and I'm not sure I will. I'm having too much fun with SW: GB. And I just can't get excited about AOM. I've never been a huge fan of that time period or of mythology in general, so they'll have to do something amazing with the game to get me interested in buying it. I guess I'll be playing GB and waiting anxiously for the next SW RTS release, hopefully in a few years.
08-08-2002, 03:13 PM
I don't think we'll have SWGB 2, anyway, if there is, it will be in
3-D, no doubt.
08-08-2002, 09:27 PM
Lucasarts next RTS will be 3d, definately.
08-09-2002, 05:05 AM
they should use the Age of Mythology engine, and stick to a similar gameplay formula as in GB....
08-09-2002, 06:45 AM
Well i really think its a given that a SW:GB 2 would be in 3D, otherwise lucasarts would get left behind. However as for the engine i think we need to wait until the newest start coming out (ie C&C: Generals, AoM, RoN etc) to see which is the best, and which would be best suited to the star wars universe. My money though would be on Rise of Nations.
08-09-2002, 03:46 PM
I seriously doubt that Lucasarts will use another company's engine. The three games you mentioned would never fit the Star Wars universe, and if Lucasarts does use them, i probably wont buy the game. Remember kids, engines arent just graphics, but game structure to. AoK was a rare oppurtunity, its engine was flexible and fit the Star Wars universe somewhat well.
08-10-2002, 01:56 AM
The way i see it, the probability of lucasarts using another company's engine is very high. Apart from having everything already set up, with most art changes and balancing to do, it would represent a more cost-effective solution. Also, they would likely follow with an engine similar to AoK for SW:GB 2 because gamers would already be familiar with that sort of set-up.
08-10-2002, 05:42 AM
I believe that there is no alternative to going 3D. Anything else would, as another poster said, leave Lucas Arts behind in terms of sales and all around gameplay.
Also, I have always been a staunch supporter of greater focus on air units, and if SW:GB 2 does expand the realm of the air, a 3D engine would make more sense, as aircraft can swoop, twist, dive etc, and this is something that is (in my opinion ) poorly shown by the AoK engine and all 2D engines in general.
If it has 'interactive combat' as somebody proposed somewhere else (ie units move in combat, especially aircraft having dogfights), then a 3D engine is a necessity.
I don't think that this is actually an engine debate but is instead purely a graphics debate, so it would be better if we kept this thread on that point only. There are other threads to talk about engines- namely the "community ideas for SW:GB 2" thread.
If I'm wrong, and we are discussing engines, feel free to correct me.
08-10-2002, 04:41 PM
I'd say no. I like it how it is, but maybe add an option to rotate your viewing angle by 90°.
08-10-2002, 06:13 PM
If any RTS made in the near future is not at least partially 3d, few people would buy it. No matter how good the gameplay is, people would still want cool 3d graphics with awesome 3d explosions. I think GB2 should use its own 3d engine. If it absolutely has to use someone else's engine (both unlikely and undesireable) then I think it should use the RoN engine. It won't fit SW very well, but at least there will be a good air unit system, which is more than anyone can say about EE (horrible air system), or AoM (sorry, dragons and phoenixes dont count as aircraft :p ).
08-11-2002, 03:37 AM
Simwiz is right. In simple terms of sales, and the number of people that would play the game, a 3D engine is necessary. If it stays the same it is, or has some changes but remains 2D, few would buy it, considering all games are moving into the realm of 3D.
A sequel is supposed to surpass and improve upon the prequel in all areas, and graphics is a particularily important area, especially in sales terms, where it counts. People who pick up a game box, see a whole bunch of sales spiel about how this game has a fantastic plot, immersive gameplay, a variety of units.. and sees some screenshots of pathetic graphics would most probably not buy the game.
The main thing, the attention-grabbing thing, on all cases, are the pictures. The screenshots. After all, you can't play the game by looking at the box, but you can see the game quite easily.
In a gaming world where everything is going 3D, not only will 3D make GB 2 a great game better and add a new realm to the game, but will be needed for the game to actually sell.
08-11-2002, 07:55 AM
I played Empire Earth the other day, and I think making a Star Wars game similar to that would be cool. However, the engine would probably not be appropriate, as you have to progress through so many Ages, which is not going to work for Star Wars.
I especially like the zooming-in aspect, and I think if GB was to go 3D this is definitely a feature it should have, since we're so used to seeing the battles from a human scale.
Another minor thing - their planes don't come to a stop to attack. I love the way EE's planes continue to fly when dogfighting and running against ground targets. Absolutely something a Star Wars RTS would need, to make it more like the movies.
08-12-2002, 02:58 AM
I've played EE, and thought it was OK as a game, I didn't like every aspect of the graphics/3D stuff.
The zoom might be cool, but would it be especially useful? A viewpoint that could rotate would be helpful, but zoom isn't especially useful UNLESS you wanted to zoom out a long way and see the whole map.
As I've said before, I love the idea of aircraft attacking as they move, and I think this is definitely something that should be in SW:GB 2, and a 3D engine is necessary to make this look good and realistic- on a 2D (AoK) engine it would just look stupid.
08-12-2002, 08:02 AM
Given that most gamers now seem to hate Force Commander, what would a 3D SWGB have to do to be an improvement on FC?
08-12-2002, 08:35 PM
If they use EA's new sage game engine (generals) it would give the following advantages over FC:
1)They would not have to create a new game engine.
2)It is one of the most advanced 3D engines out there. (The jets fly around the building [think what LucasArts could do with this using x-wings) and it is the one of the most real-life engine out there
3)Using triggers, you could make the clone war for nearly every detail.
4)The interface is close to GB already.
5)It can have 700 poly men flooding the map (it was tested)
6)everything is 3D, even the explosions
7)the glass can fall out of buldings
8)the units leave tracks that will stay awhile and so will destoryed units.
9)LucasArts might beable to get it right now.
10) it can allow large maps without slowdown with many units and building can rotate however the player may wish.
11)the nuke(could be made into a light- orbital bombardment [with the daisy bomb be heavy] shock wave shacks the trees when it hits them (not when it lands but the actual shock-wave).
This is the best I can thank of right now and would be better then FC.
08-12-2002, 10:37 PM
I maintain that the zooming is important. It may not add any functionality to the game, it may not prove strategically useful, but Star Wars is a story about galaxy-wide battles told from a human-scaled perspective. Imagine scaling down to a stormtrooper's height and running with him underneath the belly of an AT-AT? In my opinion this would be a great - if not particularly useful - feature.
And I'd like to once again note the need for moving aircraft.
08-13-2002, 04:34 AM
Anakin- This generals engine sounds very good. Almost too good to be true ;) Are there any big flaws in this game, do the polygon people look fake, or something?
Vostok- I agree with you about aircraft. This is one of the most essential parts that SW:GB 2 must include.
Zooming would make things odd. Though what you are suggesting might be cool, is there an existing engine that could implement it? ie, an incredibly close up zoom (which means extremely detailed units etc. when up close), camera that moves with the unit/is in the unit's view (aka first person shooter cam,) AND rotating/tilting/panning/etc. the camera?
08-13-2002, 11:07 AM
......IF there is an SWGB 2 it can't be in 2-D.... by now, SWGB is not a great success (probably cuz Lucasarts took the damn AoK engine!!!)
The camera should not be as dynamic as in Force Commander. It should be more like in WC3. So you could have a ground view and the ability to rotate.
08-13-2002, 08:31 PM
No it doesn't have any known flaws, the game engine, it complete. They are adding the game files, but they have movies if you wan to see them. Fallow this link and it looks almost real btw!
Generals Bunker website (http://www.cncbunker.com/)
and they used the game engine of AoK because:
1)Garry's team built it fo MS
2)Garry have created FC and that was a hit a while back.
08-14-2002, 04:20 AM
The problem with Generals - it only has three sides. Even westwood (C&C series) found it quite difficult to add another for Yuri's Revenge. Also, the way of balancing is WAY different to games such as AoK, AoM, RoN etc, and i really do not think that a follow on to GB would be possible with the Generals engine, unless it was, for example, only rebels vs empire.
I would go for the Rise of Nations engine because
-it has a similar interface to AoK
-controls are similar
-larger pop cap than AoK
-very good graphics
-more realistic tactical gameplay (ie high ground, flanking)
-about 18 civs with 7-8 unique units each
-anti-rushing settings if you want to use them
-a larger scale for huge battles
-you can only build within your borders - expand or die
-unlimited resources, but a limitied number of workers on each
-capturing enemy cities
-aircraft build into the game
im sure i could think of more, but you get the idea
08-14-2002, 09:28 PM
or they should create their own, not make it balance. Making it more trial and error and causing for more strategies to be used but have an internet patch that puts the balance in
08-15-2002, 12:50 AM
SWGB 2 should be 3D, and if they can they should try to use AoM's engine.
Age of Mythology will be one of the top selling 3D RTS in history. IN about 4-7 days I will receive my alpha version in the mail for testing purposes, yes there is a NDA or no Disclosure agreement, but I can tell you if I liked the game or not:)
Age of Mythology looks awesome. Everyone thats got there alpha version is in awe because the graphics and gameplay are excellent. I haven't seen one single complain about the alpha version so far.
I bought Warcraft III and I wasn't as impressed as some people were. Single player was fun although not very challenging. The movies in the game were probably the best part of Warcraft III. Online play isn't very fun anymore because you end up playing against Night Elves and there famous Huntress rush. Blizzard did a horrible job of balance testing. The Night Elves first unit, the Archers, is the weakest damn unit in the game. Everything can kill the Archer, so to over compensate they gave NE the huntress. They should have given NE a Melee unit for their first tier unit. Huntress can kill everything at its tier level and below, which sucks for balance.
08-15-2002, 06:47 AM
It could be the best or worst selling RTS of all-time, which is a moot point anyway since it makes no difference to gameplay. AoM shouldn't be used because it doesnt have aircraft, and we will have the same problems with aircraft as we do now. Also, lucasarts arent going to build their own engine because of time and cost. Really, why build your own engine when you can go and licence a perfectly good one?
08-15-2002, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
(1) It could be the best or worst selling RTS of all-time, which is a moot point anyway since it makes no difference to gameplay. AoM shouldn't be used because it doesnt have aircraft, and we will have the same problems with aircraft as we do now.
(2) Also, lucasarts arent going to build their own engine because of time and cost. Really, why build your own engine when you can go and licence a perfectly good one?
1 - That's why they should build their own 3-d engine, as it will fit the star wars universe perfectly, with flying aircraft, etc.
2 - Are you a moron? Using your logic there would be one game engine and everyone would use it. Why should they use their own engine? Let's see, a lot of people were turned off of GB because it used another engine. In fact, this game's replayability was somewhat reduced for me by the fact that almost every unit with the exception of mechs was an almost exact copy of an AoK unit (though they did balance it better than the not-so-smart ensemble people balanced AoK). Almost every building is a copy of an AoK building. Also, I would assume that they have to pay for the use of the engine, you can't expect someone to just give them a free engine. So any money they save will be lost paying royalties or whatever for the use of the engine. And LucasArts would not be stupid enough to use someone else's engine for a major game. GB was just a small RTS they made to gain experience, since their other RTS's had been horrible. GB also wasn't incredibly successful, despite some members' illusions. Probably the biggest reason was because many people consider it a ripoff of AoK - which it is, though it is still a fun game.
08-16-2002, 10:43 AM
lucasarts have already said that they are cutting back on star wars projects, and that a lot of the stuff they do will be out-sourced. Sure, an engine made for star wars would be nice, i just cant see it happening.
08-20-2002, 01:40 PM
Have u played emperor battle for dune that's 3d and it's pretty cool,i also ,if they made gb2 it should be 3d:)
08-27-2002, 04:08 PM
Because of the huge sucess of SWGB I am hoping that Lucasarts will be willing to spend more time and money on the sequel. They will most likely be buying the Age of Mythology engine and with a larger budget they can make the game stand out more from Age of Mythology.
08-27-2002, 04:41 PM
Hmmm. I think space combat should be 3D, but ground combat based on RoN (http://www.bighugegames.com) , and a Rebellion-type command center.
08-29-2002, 01:38 PM
I agree with you Crazyus Dogus
but I never liked 3D rts just because i never saw a utility in zooms and rotation because it can confuse you. And besides, it's better having a sky camera where you can see all of your units and control them better but zoom can be fun if you can use it in recorded games.
08-29-2002, 02:16 PM
I prefer 2-D because if they go to 3-d my video card might be outdated for that. I love strategy games. I first got hooked on command and conquer and now i am stuck on galactic battlegrounds. All I care about in a sequel or expansion pack is the addition of all the capital ships or big ships and increase in civilation population to 500 units. I would also like to see the Tie defender, Tie interceptor and Tie Fighter in the empire airbase at the same time. I am tired of making tie defenders after i upgrade to them. I can't go back and make tie interceptors or tie fighters. I want to make Tie advanced and imperial lamda shuttles at the airbase too. Imperial lamda shuttles are not the same as Imperial Landers. Some people think they are. I would like to see B-wings, V-wings and Millenium Falcon added to the rebel airbase.
09-05-2002, 06:13 PM
i think that Lucasarts will most likely follow with Age of Mythology and CnC Generals. Most people out there are looking for a game with good graphics and a good game play interface. The Age of Empires engine was a great engine but, like the saying, out with the old, in with the new. I agree with anyone that says that Galactic Battlegrounds will probably become a 3d game. Besides, it will look better i think...not saying it doesn't already but aren't we going ahead of ourselves? it hasn't been ewven a year and people are yelling for Galactic Battlegrounds II. Does it seem right?
09-05-2002, 06:25 PM
1-It's almost a year.
2-AoM is a good engine but was not made for aircraft. It might get the same problem with SWGB's AoK engine....
vBulletin®, Copyright ©2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.