Jump to content

Sup with generals

god2ghz

By god2ghz
in Gaming

 Share

Recommended Posts

thomas

thomas

Posted
Posted

Yes Cyborg, I DO MEAN it has horrible graphics.

Look at it, then look at Empy. Look at it,then look at Empy.

Then look at Generals!

OMFG emp was made in 2001 and starcraft in 1998 heem THREE YEAR DIFFERENCE!!!! OMFG sc had great graphics for its time.

Cyborg

Cyborg

Posted
Posted

Graphic wise, Starcraft is actually still good.

Why?

Because it has very, very detailed sprite animations instead of realtime-rendered polygon 3D.

There were more details in Starcraft than in Emperor, but as 3D gives a depth vision, Emperor had kind of better graphics.

Remember the difference between the release of the two games...

Warcraft II had extreme graphics when it came out. Even better than Red Alert II... That's something to think about ;)

lowzeewee

lowzeewee

Posted
Posted

Now that Westwood is gone,the future of Structures/Aircraft/Vechicles/Infantry/Special Unit RTS is now gone :'(

Cough, cough!

Don't forget that it's Blizzard who always get the Game of the Year with their rts games...

IMO, Blizzard makes the best rts games nowadays and have done it since Dune2 came out.( Although Command and Conquer 1 and Red Alert 1 were great games! )

But......I prefer RTS games with good graphics and a good storyline and just one resource type and........
Cyborg

Cyborg

Posted
Posted

Except the resource types thing, Blizzard's games fulfill all of your demands perfectly(Even better than Westwood's games).

Cyborg

Cyborg

Posted
Posted

Well, Warcraft III had extremely much better graphic that Emperor. Yet you say that 2D graphic is better?

I thought we agreed that Emperor had better graphic that Starcraft...

DukeLeto

DukeLeto

Posted
Posted

StarCraft's graphics suck mainly because they're locked at that hideus 640x480 resolution. My eyes! :O

Haven't Blizzard achieved something for their Wacraft(1/2) games?

Warcraft III will, ofcourse, get one.

Nope, niether WC1 or 2 won anything like that, and since WC3 was released last summer, it's too late for it to win GOTY, awards for 2002 have already been given out. (It didn't win, BTW.)

WC3 graphics are pretty good, but the camera controls are downright awful. >:(

Terror

Terror

Posted
Posted

Yes, but none have the WC games have won from any of them...at least none of the American ones. :-

Well, Gamespot awarded warcraft 3 as best game of 2002 i think, or at least best RTS game. And i know more magazines that awarded wc3 to best RTS game of the year, and some even as best game of the year. But i think that it doesn't deserve the title best game of the year though.

Starcraft had good graphix for its time and yes they are outdated now... WHO CARES? Animations are still great, and infantry looks a lot better than in Generals :) (this is strange, i love the graphix in Generals, but the infantry look plain bad)

Cyborg

Cyborg

Posted
Posted

PC Magazine: Civ3

PCGamer: BattleField 1942

GameSpy: BattleField 1942

PC World Magazine: Not sure, JKII I think. :-

*pukes*

Battlefield?!

Not the best game in my opinion.

But as Flameweaver said, it got quite many rts game of the year prizes :)

*ADDED*

But didn't Unreal Tournament 2003 get any prizes? It would astound me if it idn't get/will get(as it came quite late) something!

Cyborg

Cyborg

Posted
Posted

PCGamer: BattleField 1942

PC Gamer gave the award to Medieval: Total War.

YES!

Battlefield didn't deserve that prize!

Terror

Terror

Posted
Posted

well i think battlefield is pretty neat, UT2003 doesn't deserve one IMO. Great grahix, realy nice music. But the game is uttrly boring.

Cyborg

Cyborg

Posted
Posted

before I upgraded my computer, I didn't think it was so fun.

But the new upgrade gave me sweet fps counts!

That made it one of my favourite games!

(upgrade your computer and see the difference, Flameweaver...)

Terror

Terror

Posted
Posted

before I upgraded my computer, I didn't think it was so fun.

But the new upgrade gave me sweet fps counts!

That made it one of my favourite games!

(upgrade your computer and see the difference, Flameweaver...)

my comp can play it well enough, my geforce 4 ti4200 can maintain a more than decent frame rate. It just don't like the style. And i'm more of a fan to realistic shooters or ones with a good background like Aliens versus predator

Cyborg

Cyborg

Posted
Posted

It was not that my old equipment couldn't handle it...

I had an AMD 1200MHz with a Radeon 9700 PRO card. But of some very strange reason, after a few months, it stated lagging :'(.

It doesn't lag anymore now.

Khan

Khan

Posted
Posted

What/which magazine(s) gave Warcraft III the GOTY title?

I might consider buying a few of their magazines ;D

Warcraft was a class game but it got old kinda fast.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.