Tweet
I really thought I should wait on this to gain acceptance in this crowd, but I can't help it. I feel like a kid in a chocolate factory. The possibilities this project offers are too enticing.
I know it might present far too many problems at this stage of development. I know it seems extremely difficult, but...
a 3d graphics engine isn't such a big thing.
Imagine this. Picture the map view, with your tiled mountains and grasslands and ocean. Now imagine, instead a simple 2d engine, you're using a 3d engine, but the 3d model is a flat plane (or sphere, or whatever the global model is), and the tiles are skinned on. It would look much the same, except for that subtle distinction between 2d and 3d-rendered graphics. Now imagine that the terrain has height, and the skins adjusted accordingly. Now imagine the terrain itself has height (that would be optional, but realistic). Now imagine how incredibly easier it would be to zoom, scroll, and rotate the map. If you will, imagine how much more you could do, once the 3d engine was established. Animation, in subtle ways, of course, would become a possibility.
Perhaps, being strategy gamers, the clash team doesn't play many modern 3d games. But the simple matter is that 3d has surpassed 2d. The average joe who plays any computer games at all has got a 3d accelerator. 2d performance is in the video card electronics, not the chipset. Even so, cards with nvidia graphics chipsets are very common, and notoriously bad at 2d. While this factor is being addressed, many (I'd venture most) gaming pc's are actually better at 3d than 2d. Modern 3d accelerators could handle such a low-impact engine without breaking a sweat, and would require almost no cpu cycles.
Compare this with civ3, where a single mountain tile requires god knows how many variations, for bordering hills on the north, the south and north, etc etc. 3d-modeled terrain could utilize far more sophisticated code to tile together.
This may be more than just a neat idea. I know some people who work with 3d engines. Even generations-old engines, like that used in Quake (the first one), could easily handle a simple map with units. The units themselves need not even be modeled, since you don't have to worry much about animation and not at all about tiling. It may or may not be possible to adapt an old, abandoned 3d engine, or even make a new one, to model the map graphics.
I felt the need to address this point. To release a game in 2003 or later, you'll need to make up for this apparent lack in "quality". Sure, we know how amazing the game is, but does the average joe? Or indeed, game publishers and reviewers?
Keep it under advisement, if you would, please.
Thank you.
I know it might present far too many problems at this stage of development. I know it seems extremely difficult, but...
a 3d graphics engine isn't such a big thing.
Imagine this. Picture the map view, with your tiled mountains and grasslands and ocean. Now imagine, instead a simple 2d engine, you're using a 3d engine, but the 3d model is a flat plane (or sphere, or whatever the global model is), and the tiles are skinned on. It would look much the same, except for that subtle distinction between 2d and 3d-rendered graphics. Now imagine that the terrain has height, and the skins adjusted accordingly. Now imagine the terrain itself has height (that would be optional, but realistic). Now imagine how incredibly easier it would be to zoom, scroll, and rotate the map. If you will, imagine how much more you could do, once the 3d engine was established. Animation, in subtle ways, of course, would become a possibility.
Perhaps, being strategy gamers, the clash team doesn't play many modern 3d games. But the simple matter is that 3d has surpassed 2d. The average joe who plays any computer games at all has got a 3d accelerator. 2d performance is in the video card electronics, not the chipset. Even so, cards with nvidia graphics chipsets are very common, and notoriously bad at 2d. While this factor is being addressed, many (I'd venture most) gaming pc's are actually better at 3d than 2d. Modern 3d accelerators could handle such a low-impact engine without breaking a sweat, and would require almost no cpu cycles.
Compare this with civ3, where a single mountain tile requires god knows how many variations, for bordering hills on the north, the south and north, etc etc. 3d-modeled terrain could utilize far more sophisticated code to tile together.
This may be more than just a neat idea. I know some people who work with 3d engines. Even generations-old engines, like that used in Quake (the first one), could easily handle a simple map with units. The units themselves need not even be modeled, since you don't have to worry much about animation and not at all about tiling. It may or may not be possible to adapt an old, abandoned 3d engine, or even make a new one, to model the map graphics.
I felt the need to address this point. To release a game in 2003 or later, you'll need to make up for this apparent lack in "quality". Sure, we know how amazing the game is, but does the average joe? Or indeed, game publishers and reviewers?
Keep it under advisement, if you would, please.
Thank you.
Comment