2D versus 3D?

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I think the overhead view of Civ is good enough for TBS.

True - i kind of like Civs presenataion/graphics more than Civ2's. But then i like CTP2s graphics over both of these.

And the isometric(2D) look used in the battlescapes of Xcom worked perfectly for its TBS system(although i just never did like the look of the second or third games in comparison).

SMAC looked nice(if you liked red ) as did Lords of Magic, with their psuedo 3D landscapes(its still what i'd call a 2D view).

Empire Earth is a 3D strat game as is Ground Control, both of which lost a lot of the strategic overview(and gameplay) by going to full 3D IMHO.

[Urban Ranger]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Alpha Centauri's colour scheme -- it's supposed to be an alien planet.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Wouldn't that just be great?

If trade-offs needs to be made, what would you prefer to be scaled back: graphics or gameplay?

I think from previous posts I don't need to answer.

[Blake]

One of the nice things about SMAC is that with careful terraforming (mostly forest, limited condensors, boreholes and crawlers - maybe some fungus parks) you can make the map look a lot nicer. This is in contrast to Civ games where terraforming is purely an uglification process - especially with road/rail proliferation. Then again, prehaps I just prefer to create paradise than pave paradise