Warcraft III resources & community, 2003–2006 · archived

Starcraft 2, Diablo 3 or Warcraft 4?

51 posts
#16
Daminon
Ramza
DaminonThe thing is that Blizzard's games are so good that no one want's them to end. We want sequels.


yep :D

i rly want a warcraft 4, i also played diablo 2 for 2-3 years, but i like warcraft 3 much more, the gameplay is so good. i hate it that every game becomes 3d.. i never play them

WHY THE HELL DOES PEOPLE PREFER 2D?! Real life is 3d. Everythinh looks better and faaar more realistic in 3d. Much more posibilitis in 3d. Able to zoom and gives camera freedom in 3d. Ever heard the 3d simulated projectiles in Total Annihilation that was such an awsome thing? Would you prefer if the graphics stoped at 2d? Glad to dissapoint you. Graphics won't stop until you can't see the differece between game and movie.

Realistic is not always good, 3D is different, not better.
#17
olofmoleman
Daminon
Ramza
DaminonThe thing is that Blizzard's games are so good that no one want's them to end. We want sequels.


yep :D

i rly want a warcraft 4, i also played diablo 2 for 2-3 years, but i like warcraft 3 much more, the gameplay is so good. i hate it that every game becomes 3d.. i never play them

WHY THE HELL DOES PEOPLE PREFER 2D?! Real life is 3d. Everythinh looks better and faaar more realistic in 3d. Much more posibilitis in 3d. Able to zoom and gives camera freedom in 3d. Ever heard the 3d simulated projectiles in Total Annihilation that was such an awsome thing? Would you prefer if the graphics stoped at 2d? Glad to dissapoint you. Graphics won't stop until you can't see the differece between game and movie.

Realistic is not always good, 3D is different, not better.


yes, i agree 3D looks better, but u cant have 3D strategic games like warcraft III, which is what i like the most
#18
OlofmolemanRealistic is not always good, 3D is different, not better.

When isn't is it not?

You don't want games to feel closer to reality? Then why should movies look like reality? The only differense between movies and games is that you are a part of the movie and that games doesn't look as real as movies, yet.

Ramza
yes, i agree 3D looks better, but u cant have 3D strategic games like warcraft III, which is what i like the most

Give one argument.

And please understand that all games are not ment to be a simulated reality such as puzzle games and such. So don't mention any such.
#19
Give one argument


well.. have u ever seen a 3D strategic game? u just dont have a good overview on ur units in a 3D world, thats why in all 3D games u play with 1 unit ( + maybe some mercs that follow u or whatever)
#20
That doesn't make any sense. Do you mean that the camera is hard to get right becouse it isn't locked? It gives too much freedom? It makes no difference and what is better than zooming in on your troops and look at their direction when they shoot at the storming enemy?
#21
Technically, any game with models is 3D. I guess Warcraft III is as well.
#22
Ehm what other definiation would there be?
#23
i rly want a warcraft 4, i also played diablo 2 for 2-3 years, but i like warcraft 3 much more, the gameplay is so good. i hate it that every game becomes 3d.. i never play them


I thought Ramza suggested that wc3 wasn't a 3D game. When he said that he never played 3D games, I thought he was referring to MMORPGs. He said the wc3 gameplay is so good, but then said he never plays 3D games. Did I misinterpret?
#24
ok, wc3 has 3D models, but it hasnt got a real height, like buildings woith roofs, or under the ground isnt possible to, the units and doodads r the only 3D objects on the game, the rest 2D
#25
Any real 3D strategic game?

Homeworld (the only game you really can call "3D")
Warzone 2100
Supreme Commander (release in 2007)
Earth 2150/2160
etc.

Although Supreme Commander is the only one you can call a strategic game, all in all WC3 and other games are tactic games (but that's another story).
#26
ok, so there Are 3D strategic and tactical games (i never heard of those games, they look very nice :) ) ill explain different, i just like games from above, not third of first person or following one character
#27
Ramza the roofs and such is not a requirement for something to be classified as 3d. Not is real use of height either. Those things aren't not a required to be used just becouse they are fully possible. It's just that Blizzard didn't want to have it in wc3. It's like saying that every projectile should be 3d-simulated (glory to Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander) just becouse it's possible with 3d. Take gryphos attacking each other for example, if a unit comes in the way it wont be hit unless the units are ordered to cancel their current attack and attack it instead. I wouldn't require big changes, but again Blizzard din't didn't find it neccesary.. Actually roof and house levels can be compared to that a units arm can sitck out from the body. See there is a height level between the ground and his arm so it's nothing but true 3d.
#28
yes there is a height difference between the arms of units and the ground, but i mean, heights so u can walk underneath it. and heights are needed for 3D games cuz 3D without heights its 2D right? but yes i know wc3 is 3D, read my last topic and u c why i like wc3-like games more
#29
This whole debate depends on wiether you mean 3D graphics or 3D gameplay. :?
#30
Gauntlet2021This whole debate depends on wiether you mean 3D graphics or 3D gameplay. :?

Perfect. :D

As long as there is 3d directoions to move in and every point requires 3 coordinates it's fully 3d.