StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I must have this.

Excellent. I can't stand the whole Age of Mythology thing. More AOE, without forcing us to worship ancient gods, please!

Thats not in game graphics.... right?

They just might be.... good god I want to see how they handle maritime warfare.

*Drools on the Keyboard*

Oh sorry just oh so Happy

Cant wait. I hated AOM It was just so bad. AOE3 is gonna Rock beyond Beleif!!

Holy crap. Now, I didn't mind AOM, but we all know that AOE3 is what they should have been making all along. And now it looks like it may have been worth the wait.

The only thing which would have made that pic cooler is if the caption used 'f's instead of 's's. Crazy fucking eighteenth century.

This looks promising. I couldn't stand the first two AoE games, but with the long divide between 2 and 3, maybe things have changed. I shall have to keep an eye on it.

I can't wait for it. AOE games were some good games, but I never like AOM.

Zac Naloen wrote:Thats not in game graphics.... right?

It is.

Ace Pace wrote:

Zac Naloen wrote:Thats not in game graphics.... right?

It is.

Arghh, you guys have me all excited, and the link is broken!

EDIT: Can see it now... Awesome.

Someone please stop the drool leaking out of my mouth.

Of course it's in game graphics. Anyway, I never liked AoE, but yeah, it looks good. I won't buy it though.

The original Age of Empire game and the expansions like Rise of Rome were awesome. However Age of Empires 2 sucked, it took forever to gather resources and build up a decent fighting force and the AI was stupid. Age of Mythology wasnt too good either. So I hope this time Microsoft would get things right and make a good game.

Definitly in game...has that whole "ULTRA CROWDED" City sprawl RTS usually have.

Looks cool. I know a couple friends who are probably creaming in their pants.

Ace Pace wrote:

Zac Naloen wrote:Thats not in game graphics.... right?

It is.

No possible WAY. It would take a Geforce 6800 Ultra overclocked to render that at 60 fps!

Praxis wrote:

Ace Pace wrote:

Zac Naloen wrote:Thats not in game graphics.... right?

It is.

No possible WAY. It would take a Geforce 6800 Ultra overclocked to render that at 60 fps!

Yeah, that's what I was wondering as well. The graphics look fucking incredible, but am I going to be able to play it on my computer, or even the souped up rig I'm planning to get this summer, without it lagging like a fucking bastard.

Praxis wrote:No possible WAY. It would take a Geforce 6800 Ultra overclocked to render that at 60 fps!

Its a red X so I can't be sure, but have you looked at the models themselves? outside of the nice bloom effect and the water, theres not all thats so high end.
Basicly, and nothing bad with that, a very good effects engine running cover for some basic models.

It looks beautiful, but it may be unnecessary. RTSs and even RPGs don't really require ultra-realistic graphics to be good. You can just as easily go with a cartoonish or otherwise simple graphic as long as sufficient amounts of details are added in other places (AI, economy, combat, etc.). I actually like the 2D graphics in games like AOK for an RTS: good-looking enough, but still runs smoothly on even a simple machine (by today's standards). As far as 3D graphics goes, AOM was pretty good; it made everything look cool without going too far. Empire Earth looked ridiculous, but that game sucked on many levels, so I don't want to make it sound like it was the graphics' fault.
It's only for FPS or other games that are really supposed to make you feel like you're there on the ground that ultra-realistic graphics are necessary.
But I'm sure other people disagree and demand to see every blade of grass on the battlefield.

Definitely. Case in point, compare Neverwinter Nights (2001) to Fallout (1997). NWN looks like crap by today's standards, while Fallout still looks great, even though NWN's graphics seemed amazing when the game first game out and Fallout's didn't. Simple, well drawn art beats whiz bang features.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Definitely. Case in point, compare Neverwinter Nights (2001) to Fallout (1997). NWN looks like crap by today's standards, while Fallout still looks great, even though NWN's graphics seemed amazing when the game first game out and Fallout's didn't. Simple, well drawn art beats whiz bang features.

Amen, brother. I think the key is this: no matter what type of graphics you use, don't break the envelope. That is to say, don't do things that your technology can't do yet. People will forgive you when it comes out (because they don't know any better), but it will look stupid in retrospect. As long as you stick to stuff that your technology level does well, you'll be fine.
For example, look at movies or TV shows that used "computer graphics" when CGI first started coming out. They mostly look like shit (e.g. Lawnmower Man, Reboot) now. But if you work within your technology limits, your work will look timeless. For example, look at Robocop. Where Verhoeven could have really pushed the envelope and gone for all sorts of crazy shit, he reined himself in, and we get a movie that we can watch today and still enjoy.

Although, if we didn't have anybody breaking the envelope and making things that look like shit in retrospect, we'd probably advance a lot slower. So I whole-heartedly encourage people to keep breaking that envelope, and we'll forgive their work in light of their innovations. But it'll still look like shit.