3D engines and strategy games

yeah, many games really don't need a 3d engine but it sure does add a lot of flexibility on the visual end of things

Yeah, me too. A 3D engine is not required for a strategy game to be good, but that doesn't mean it'l ruin the game.

Eye candy is nice to have in a game, but the most important part of a strategy game has to be the A.I. Without a good A.I what would be the point of all pretty graphics?

"Eye candy is nice to have in a game, but the most important part of a strategy game has to be the A.I. Without a good A.I what would be the point of all pretty graphics?"


I couldn't have put it better myself. Good graphics *do* help add to the gaming experience, but in strategy games (and RTS's don't count!) they should never be prioritized over AI and gameplay. I only need the graphics to be servicable--i.e., convey the information that's necessary/helpful to me, the player. Otherwise the other 2 things should take priority. If the developer still has the time and resources to make flashy graphics, then that's all well and good.

Oh yes, I'm also abstaining from this poll; I don't thing either choice is correct! 3D engines can certainly enhance a strategy game, but they're by no means necessary.

It's like J.R.R. Tolkien put it....they are things that promote 'secondary belief', the idea that you are in some weird sort of way 'there'. I think 3d engines will not truly show their use in strategy games until they are built around strategy games with the purpose of promoting that 'secondary belief'. I think perhaps that will come into play when the AI's start promoting dealing with real personalities within and without the government.

I believe eye candy is important. So for me, 3D engines are good if they can legitimately improve the quality of the game and the visual look.

I've not seen too many strategy games that I'd say have definitely benefitted from having a 3D engine. Warcraft III comes to mind. The 3D adds nothing to the strategy aspect and the units aren't quite as nice as they'd been if they were pre-rendered.

In GalCiv where space is displayed as a 2D entity (no hills here) the only point of 3D gameplay wise would be to have the game take place in a 3D map ala Homeworld. But many gamers (myself included) don't enjoy having to mess around with the user interface to play. I just want to move my ships and build my empire. I don't see what a third dimension adds here.

On top of that, given that galciv ships are relatively small, making them rendered on the fly would likely decrease their visual quality.

The one area where a 3D engine would be nice would be in battles and visual effects from lighting. That would be nice to have.

That said, GalCiv's graphics ARE 3D. They are pre-rendered rather than on-the-fly rendered. There's no hand drawn graphics that I know of in the game. So it's purely an issue of whether hvaing the graphics rendered in real time would benefit over having the grpahics pre-rendered. I think it's safe to say that the animated aliens faces would not be nearly as good. Compare say the Drengin animation in the diplomacy screen to say an Orc in Warcraft III's portrait.

I have never seen a real live 3D Chess game (although Star Trek showed them). And all other board games I have seen are 2D. Every war on our planet has been fought in a 2D environment. Every scrimmage, battle, and war has been for territory on this planet. Even though air to air "dog fights" require some limited 3D approach, they are still aimed at an ultimate objective that is still 2D in nature, the expansion of 2D terratory.

So, how long will 2D strategic thinking be viable? We are pushing our limits into space. Colonization of our moon and Mars looks possible within the next half century (all it would take is to decide that the resource expenditures are worth it). Further out, we may have to protect the entire Solar system, which becomes our first move into 3D territory (even though our star is only a dot on map, it is on a 3D galactic map instead of the 2D planetary map we are used to).

I think what we need to get into real 3D strategy games is a means of truly presenting (or displaying) the games in 3D before we can have true 3D games. I think this should be the thrust of the future. Perhaps if we were to develop true 3D projectors (not the pseudo-3D that is attempted on our 2D displays), then we could develop true 3D games that would expand our strategic senses to where it will be needed in another century or two.

This is why I think all of those "3D" games fall short. The "eye candy" is nice, but noone can convince me that any of these so called 3D games require 3D strategic thinking. In the mean time, a flat screen is all we have.

Cheers,
Jack

one game....HomeWorld...I know its a game that you either love, or hate, but I loved it. I think if that game where 2D, it would not of survived, and would of lost all its depth and would not make GOTY

I can not name one game on my top ten that is a 3d game.

I personally didn't care for home world. I just don't like having to mess with the interface to play the game. I think it also made homeworld have a lot fewer strategic options (i.e. lot less depth). That doesn't make it a bad game, it was a great game, but I didn't like it as a strategy game.

And as popular as HOmeworld was, you dont' see people talking about it like they do Civilization or Heroes of Might and Magic (well before IV came out anyway).

In the real world we have both 3d and 2d interfaces, and there are obviously places were 2d is more appropriate and 3d is more appropriate. In most strategy, 2d is the more appropriate interface because that is what is used in real life and the one that works the best. Unless the scope of the strategy game is expanded beyond the traditional model, there aren't any uses for it in an effective way.

I would have to say 2D does have a place, for now.. Just looking at this screenshot really shows me what a RTS can be when then engine is used right.

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/products/screens/0,11105,556767,00.html?page=26

www.gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/products/screens/0,11105,556767,00.html?page=26

I agree with Jack. I would love to have a real 3d environment in which to try stratagy. Flanking Manuver would take on a whole new meaning.

I did love homeworld just because it was the first real attempt at making a real 3d game (not just eye candy). But homeworld wasn't much of a stratagy game. More like an RTS game, which I dislike in that I havn't found many that are fun.

One of the things I think of in 3d is just how much more massive it becomes. Instead of a front being just a "line of advance", you now have a "plane of advance".

Hopefully we will as a species decide the resourse expenditure is worth the cost and start to move off of this one tiny little planet. The ability of thinking strategically in 3d is an importand step. The software gaming industry could do much with this, particularly as technology advances into faster computers and more of a 3d display.

Good luck, earthlings;

Rich

I agree with most of you, even though I voted for using 3D graphics. I beleive that a game doesn't have to have flashy graphics to be a good game. It's the programing, replayability, and gameplay that make the game, while the graphics are secondary. I hate all these people who are saying that "if the game don't have graphics, it ain't a game." :VOMIT: Obviously, these people are new gamers. for years, the only types of games were text-based adventures, and then when graphics came out they were simply to help the person playing feel more involved, not to make the games themselves. Think of Civilization . That was one of the best games of all time, (and started one of the best game franchises o all time) yet it's graphics were VERY clunky, and by today's standards, Civ III's graphics aren't top notch either. Way to go, Tytan, Dave0, and all you others out there who know that gaming isn't just about looks!

Don't kid your self, graphics are just as important in today's day and age. You need both IMHO, I for one refuse to play a game with crappy graphics. They graphics don't have to be jaw dropping but they do have to be descent or at least meet today's standards.

Now if the game also has some killer graphics it doesn't hurt the experience, It makes it better more engrossing and of course adds to the overall production value. If a game has great graphics you know the developer spent some serous cash, chances are they also spent it on other aspects of the game as well. (Example: Metal Gear Solid)

Back in the day, we couldn't even do graphics period, so it wasn't even a option. The Gameplay had to be good, but it's different today.. Gameplay doesn't matter as much because if that was the case then why are there so many FPS out there that pretty much play exactly the same, yet the ones with the Q3 engine seem to still sell the best? (Example: Wolfenstien, Medal Of honor, Jedi knight) I mean Delta force may have better gameplay then some of the games I mentioned but I gag when I look at a screen shot.

Anyway my point I guess is I think Graphics are just as important as Gameplay, heck I think sound is just as important as both, if you haven't play a game in 5.1 surround you don't know what your missing, it's when you have to play a game without it is when you will miss it

Alex,

I don't think anyone is trying to pan any of your very good work. We all enjoy how the display of the game is building and improving and I think it adds tremendously to GalCiv. But I think you have to rank the importance of the graphics and playability/replayability based more on what genre the game fits.

A "duke nukem" kind of game would live or die on the quality its graphics (3D or otherwise).

But a strategy game must be one that challenges the mind (which is what those of us interested in GalCiv are primarily interested in) more than the eye/hand coordination. This elevates the importance of gameplay design considerably. Undeniably, the graphics help, alot, but the Galciv will live or die on its gameplay.

Cheers,
Jack

I agree with you Jack, but strategy games should also have great graphics just like every other game, I don't know how important a 3D engine is to STG's but never the less in the end the game should still look as good as it can. A game like Civ 3 for example could have looked much better considering how well it sold.

I admit the graphics in Civ 3 are quite good, but I wonder how many people bought Civ 3 expecting it to play as good as Civ 2 did. I am one, and I am very dissapointed with it. If I had known I would not have bought it. What would the sales look like if all like me had not bought Civ 3?

Cheers,
Jack

I like Civ3. Play it alot. I had to mess with the corruption settings to make it fun for me. The cultural boundaries is something I wish Galactic Civ had.

Graphics don't mean a lot to me in strategy games. They usually just get in the way. IF they don't get in the way then make them as good as you can.

I too played with the settings, corruption, polution, etc. etc. and still could not get an acceptable play from the game. It is DELIBERATELY taylored to the small map players. I like LARGE maps.

Cheers,
Jack

How do good graphics get in the way? If they are done well they will enhance the experience and make the game more intuitive. I think you are talking about bad design with good art there is a major difference. Even if you have the best artist on the planet working on graphics for a game, if they have never actually played a PC game you will see graphics start to "get in the way" As a gamer first and a artist second I tend to look at what I would like as a gamer, then try to come up with graphics.

Where graphics can get in the way is customization and modding. In Civ2, I changed a lot of the unit graphics to suit my own tastes, converted stock units that I didn't like (or didn't want as much as my new ones, given the limited available unit slots) into units that I wanted in the game, etc... When you can do that with "Paint", it is pretty easy even if you are no great artist (cut & paste, changing colors, mirroring, tricks like that). When you need professional 3D animation software, most of us are priced out of the game (can't afford the software, don't have time to learn it, not really an artist to start with). I'd rather have graphics I can get at, even if they don't look as good. Merely servicable & editable beats gorgeous but uneditable, in my book.

I agree with Barnacle bill that 3D Graphic will make it much harder to optical mod the game.