Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (
More info?)
Giftzwerg wrote:
> I would argue that if we're going to call 3D an "option," there needs to
> be a 2D "default" somewhere in the picture.
Ok - I was talking about the little 3D tanks vs. Nato symbols. The
isometric view *is* in fact a 2D view or more precisely : it's a 2D map
as seen from an angle to give it some depth perspective. Semantics - I
know.
Anyway I'm not bothered by the "tombstones", they look like Columbia
style blocks to me and I'll soon get used to them.
I even doubt I will ever see the 3D tanks - start SC2, go straight to
config and uncheck box that says "3D units" - back to main menu - start
new game
> I go two ways on "moddable." Sometimes "moddable" means just what you
> propose; enthusiasts can modify it to *enhance* already-sufficient
> realism, gameplay, or accuracy. But sometimes "moddable" means, "It's
> garbage out-of-the-box, so you'll be paying $50 for the bare opportunity
> to try and correct a disastrously-flawed design."
An unmoddable stinker remains a stinker - RTW got modded into a halfway
decent wargame, so I'll take moddable games over unmoddable any day of
the week. Besides, I'm a tinkerer - I spend half my game-time "under
the hood" of moddable wargames.
> ROME: TOTAL WAR was such a game. Pretty much ridiculous as an ancient
> warfare simulation - but proponents tried to deflect the obvious
> criticism by asserting that it could be repaired by "modding" some game
> files.
Don't remind me of that game - for me the biggest disappointment in
recent times, because I expected so much from it based on Medieval
Total War.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram