LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Galactic Discussion (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=586)
-   -   SWGB VS .EaW (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=159143)

Jmaster3265 01-22-2006 08:40 PM

SWGB VS .EaW
 
Hello everyone,

Here is something I just noticed after playing SWGB, and the EaW demo. Some of you may think i'm crazy but i beleieve this. Here goes, I think although EaW may have better graphics I think that SWGB has ok graphics BUT better detail. Keep in mind i'm only relating the two towards detail, not gameplay. I have heard many people on forums say how the detail could be better. I personally think in SWGB the vehicles and buildings have the best detail. Just take a look at some of the screenies (check eb or gamespot) on the buildings, and vehicles, and compare it to EaW. Hopefully this is just in the demo and the full version will be a lot better paying attention to detail. Thoughts? comments?

Jeff 01-22-2006 08:42 PM

I don't think the texture resolution in the demo is as high as it will be in the full game.

popcorn2008 01-22-2006 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Moeller
I don't think the texture resolution in the demo is as high as it will be in the full game.

Exactly, they have to leave the resolution low, or else you would have to download a huge file, instead of 700 MB it could get up to 2 GB with every high res texture for everything.

I never played swGB too much, not enough to tell the detail anyway.

swphreak 01-22-2006 09:35 PM

Empire at War has far superior graphics than SWGB ever had.

Jmaster3265 01-22-2006 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarWarsPhreak
Empire at War has far superior graphics than SWGB ever had.

Eh, you don't get what i am saying....re-read my post...

darthfergie 01-22-2006 09:43 PM

1. GB is a 2D game that "looks 3D", EAW is true 3D. (how close can you zoom in to GB? Not nearly as close as EAW)
2. Look at the environment textures for a few minutes...just compare them and see how plastic GB's look. Also some units in GB just look like red and white blurs.
3. Blaster fire looked pathetic in GB.
4. I would argue that detail is also less because the units are horribly portrayed in GB. Each side is the same except for a bonus or two and a happy little unique unit that for the most part makes little to no difference.
5. And finally, AOK was a better game than GB. GB was a canned game, prepackaged and wrapped, a present I'd already opened many times before and was tired of. EAW has a very fresh feel and has innovation throughout. Doesn't really relate to detail, but worth noting just the same. :halo2:

EAW gets the details right where they count.

Jmaster3265 01-22-2006 10:24 PM

*sigh* never mind you people obviosuly don't get what i'm saying, theres a difference between graphics and details. I'm just saying afew things in SWGB has better detail (not graphics wise) then EaW. But nevermind, can someone delete this topic?

swaaye 01-22-2006 10:59 PM

Anyone remember how Force Commander was originally going to look? It was top down.

BTW, I thought SWGB was awful in general and laughed when I saw Darth running around on the battlefield. I think that will be lame in EAW too, honestly. I find all the "exciting" special feature stuff like this to be childish. I just want a Star Wars military sim, not some action game with dumbass flash. :)

AETOS75 01-23-2006 08:58 AM

You compare here a bike vs. a Ferrari

There lie worlds between

darthfergie 01-23-2006 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jmaster3265
*sigh* never mind you people obviosuly don't get what i'm saying, theres a difference between graphics and details. I'm just saying afew things in SWGB has better detail (not graphics wise) then EaW. But nevermind, can someone delete this topic?

Why don't you explain rather than complain and waste a thread?

If you're talking about the fact that GB had more units and each side was more fleshed out then I still don't think that detail was really detail. As I said, "I would argue that detail is also less because the units are horribly portrayed in GB. Each side is the same except for a bonus or two and a happy little unique unit that for the most part makes little to no difference." Each unit had a mirror, almost exactly alike in Cost, HP, and ATK to the other. Strategies were almost exactly the same with every single side. This is a huge oversight in detail. Many of these units' capabilities had been known for years, but to make that unit fit the formula it had to be butchered.

GB had more units that weren't in the OT, PT, or EU (which had to fit their formula for a "balanced" side) than EAW has.

GB had naval units, massive naval units. Why in the heck are they needed other than to try to balance the gungans? Especially when a great deal of vehicles use repulsor lifts or have transports + escorts to fly over water. Only on one or two occasions will you find actually ships that sit in the water and those only happen in EU (well and PTM, but the Gungans are irrelevant...and I mean that in the nicest way...sorta).

GB had no space units other than fighters for the most part (I believe there were cheats to get a corellian corvette and an ISD, but it's been a while) which ment it lacked a HUGE and very integral detail from star wars.

GB was a star wars mutilating itself trying to fit into a medieval game. Instead of the other way around and because of that, vast amounts of detail were sheered off leaving the mess that we know of as GB.

aggie_john 01-23-2006 02:30 PM

I have to agree with darthfergie there, I have been vocal about the number of units in EaW but I would rather see a few units used right then see another SWBG. I hope the detail that has been eluded to was not the massive amount of units in the SWBG, because they did not help, they made the game to cookie cut. Each faction had a special thing, ie AT-AT's could shot fighters. Other than that there was nothing different, not to mention you could disable the unique factions and play with identical factions which really sucked. The demo has already proved that this game will be 100% star wars not a mod of another game that was set in the medieval period.

Vyraeth 01-23-2006 02:35 PM

I see what you're trying to say, but I hardly think that SWGB had a comparable level of detail to EaW.

Detail, when used so generally, can refer to several different things, so I've ran through a short list.

Graphically EaW is superior, so you can't really make the arguement that SWGB had more detailed graphics (the laser blasts in SWGB for instance, were hand drawn, whereas in EaW it's quite clear that an in-game particle effects engine generates them). The polygon counts on ships, facilities, and troops are incredibly higher then what SWGB could offer, and the explosions and effects are several levels beyond the best that SWGB could bring to bear.

What about the attention to detail aspect of both games? SWGB did a fairly good job of portraying each side's EU units accurately, there were some inconsistencies, sure, but for a game based solely on land combat, it did a pretty good job of adhering to strict canon standards -- but it was nowhere as encompassing as Empire at War is in the whole.

For one, Empire at War incorporates both land and space, and space is a huge element to Star Wars (hence the title). There's nothing quite like the feeling of commanding a fleet of Star Destroyers and watching them enter a system, foreshadowing the ensuing destruction to come. And unfortunately, SWGB doesn't offer that (the ISD hack simply put a cruiser on the game with an ISD model, not that impressive). There are tons of different unit types for each side (although certain ships like the Loronar-class Strike Cruiser, and Lancer frigate are missing from the Empire), and in-general, there's a good deal of attention paid to canon detail. I mean, Mon Calamari cruisers are able to boost their shields, and in the EU, they are notorious for powerful shielding.

But again, that's mildly off subject, because SWGB really didn't have a space game to compare to, so one has to look at the ground game. Well, the ground game is phenomenally better in EaW. I don't recall any maps on SWGB were the terrain actually affected your troops (save mountains and water), on EaW, fighting in the midst of a sandstorm on Tatooine actually kills your accuracy. Additionally, SWGB hardly accounted for the various lifeforms inhabiting each planet -- sure they had Jawas, and the occasional wild beast, but have you seen Rancors in EaW? There's just a bigger sense of detail.

Additionally, each unit is fleshed out more, you can take cover, you can deploy troops from an AT-AT, you can call in powerful airstrikes. You can call in for reinforcements from your space based forces, you can build structures if you have access to building pads, there's just a ton to do and it's all grounded in Star Wars.

I mean really, ask yourself, what game is the most detailed? I'd say quite easily it's Empire at War.

Athanasios 01-23-2006 03:07 PM

I think, in very few lines, that Jmaster refers to the textures each units/building has in both games (correct me if wrong). As Moeller and Pop said from the very first posts, the demo might has limited texture details. I don't know if this is true, i would add the word might have, just to be within the odds. Besides, switch all graphic rosters to full (antialising especially) and you'll see very good images (i've posted 2 of them). Yet, i have not seen an Anisotropic filter roster in the option, and since Antialising and Anisotropic filter go together in the latest games, Moeller and Pop might be right.

Anyway, SWGB was 2D as mentioned. It's always easier to model a 2D model than a 3D; all 2D models have 6 possible sides -so, load them with as many textures as you can and you're done. A 3D model has all aspects that must be modeled and so, it might take more time to model it as you should with a 2D one, but this doesn't mean that the 3D model will be less detailed than the 2D.

Now, i think the buildings in SWGB had some lights, windows, doors, and they looked "heavily detailed". In EaW, buildings look a bit more simplified. In this way, SWGB did had more detailed buldings, but mind that they buldings had only one aspect, so, what "thanks a lot for the textures".

I don't think this applies to the units, where EaW has way more good-looking and actually textured ("good-looking" is a very biased word) units; both ground and space. Just zoom in. I think, for ground units, Force Commander can go toe-to-toe with EaW, taking of course in account when it was made. In few words, FC has about the same modeled units (they don't have the same number of course, im referring to the common ones), but due to the technological disadvantages of that time, the units where too "polygon-looking" (i think antialising was not a broad tech by then), which was obvious if you zoomed in.

Yet, do not forget that we played a demo, and as moeller and pop said, the final game may surprise you, if you can play it at max graphic specs.

admiralmark 06-03-2006 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swaaye
Anyone remember how Force Commander was originally going to look? It was top down.

BTW, I thought SWGB was awful in general and laughed when I saw Darth running around on the battlefield. I think that will be lame in EAW too, honestly. I find all the "exciting" special feature stuff like this to be childish. I just want a Star Wars military sim, not some action game with dumbass flash. :)

I remember Force Commander, and have it, it in some ways is better than eaw.

popcorn2008 06-03-2006 09:01 AM

Did you just bump a 5 month old thread?

:lock:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.