RobRas Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 As a couple of posters noted in the Hexes/Tiles thread this discussion has been mixed up in the Isometric/Top-Down discussion. Or the other way around. I've been a part of this mixup myself and I therfore start this thread focusing on the isometric view. I've stated my position in other threads but in short I REALLY would like to have the option og a Top-Down look with simplified graphics (i.e. symbols for Cities, Ports etc. instead of the current icons) and NATO symbols. This has been done in earlier games (eg. Talonsoft's Eastern Front) so I suppose it could be done in SC2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 I definitely prefer a top-down view. It beats isometric 10-0 in clarity. Isometric view is already done, so no reason to remove it, but I'd hope for an option to switch to a top-down view, as in SC1. [ April 21, 2004, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Exel ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Does it REALLY make a difference? You could go back to some of MY old posts during the SC pre-release period about two years ago and read my gripes about the SC map and icons, etc. Being an old grognard boardgamer and believing that 3R/A3R was THE standard for WWII grand strategy, this new SC game just didn't look right. Blah, blah, blah. Well, I changed my tune after getting into the game and learning to appreciate everything else the game offered. And the graphics seemed to not matter as much and actually began to appeal to me. Like everyone else here, when I first saw the new SC2 I questioned a few things. After a couple of months now, it doesn't bother me at all and I'm looking forward to PLAYING the game. And remember what it is that we will have to play with. Bigger map. Improved economics model. More research options. More politics. Diplomacy. New unit types. FoW. AI. Multiplayer. New editor for creating custom games. The list goes on and on. The new 2-D isometric tile map may not be everyone's #1 preference, but it will not detract from all of the other great features being provided. And isn't that what we are all more interested in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRas Posted April 21, 2004 Author Share Posted April 21, 2004 pzgndr - yep, to me it makes a huge difference. And I frankly still haven't heard an argument as to WHY Top-Down simple graphics isn't an option. I understand that they want to sell more games and a way to do this is to make the graphics all fancy and stuff. But why not at least making the Top-Down an option. Please. I'm all for all of the other changes - they sound great. It's too bad we have to use a lot of time on this debate. But the developers must have anticipated this. And as mentioned in another thread: When checking posts concerning what people wanted for SC2 little mention of isometric/tiles came up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1 Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 I will say this. I hated no stacking the day I saw SC and it is likely I will remain firmly convinced that I will continue to want it. But that is just a preconceived prejudice I can't seem to let go. It's a game, and it is a well made game, even if it isn't perfect. I would not enjoy being given a request to line up a list of "perfect games". I wouldn't be likely able to find one. There is always going to be "something wrong" with a game and how we see it. This is likely because we were not totally responsible for making it so. No that wasn't meant to sound arrogant, but it is a simple truth. We always think we could have done it better than "the other guy". To give an example of even how our veteran icons of perfection have been marred by something seemingly so petty, remember how before Advanced Third Reich, the Third Reich game had an annoyingly finite sum of counters for the Minors forces? It always so completely pissed me off. And my friend so often was the Axis, so I was the one that got to be left holding the bag when he orchestrated the perfect set up where upon he would carefully declare war on Minor after Minor so that the ones he needed depleted would be sans counters. It wasn't even remotely anything other than shameless exploitation of a limited counter mix. And no. this was not "fixed" by logical players either. It was oft cited as an exploitable strategy. Wargamers NEVER give up an edge ever. The game was only fixed when they release A3R and gave the Minors there own forces per nation. And this problem arose simply because the original game was partially crafted on the size of a die cut countersheet eh. There was nothign more complicated than that. It was just a concession to how many counters could the manufacturer actually make. Nothing more. Wargamers rail against many things, but occasionally there is no magical mystery behind why some games are made the way they are. Often it is a very bland physical limit the designer has elected to use, without being able to see in advance the repercutions. The actual dimensions of the board are often set in a game like SC. If HC decides the map will be X squares by X squares, then that is ALL it will ever be too. We might rally and ask for a specific detail change on the map, but the map won't likely ever magically stretch. That's why I refrained from wanting more desert or a bigger Atlantic. Not going to happen, you just can't always make something bigger than it is. If you give to the desert, where do you take it from? I personally think there is NO merit to having North America physically represented on the map. Aside from fairy tell invasions that ruin a games capacity to make you feel you are recreating WW2. And lets get one thing clear, in 1939 some what ifs would only make incredible flaky scifi. And it doesn't get less flaky no matter what the Germans succeed in designing in the lab. Forcing North America onto the map, really only serves to steal credibility from the map, and take away map capacity from where it might be more useful. Having the US and Canada present, and forced to accept a pointless sliver of desert that fails to recreate the Western Desert really only causes you to lose both as any value. I for one have yet to ever fight a single battle in North Africa that looked even vaguely like history. So on tiles or hexes, it really is just a manner of drawing the map. I personally don't care if either is used if the actual drawing on the grid is well done. HC could have chosen area movement, or point to point movement or simple squares if his map was well rendered for simulation. Its the simulation that counts. The grid just gives the man a constant framework to design on. When is why stacking was so odd for me to get used to. I still haven't fully mastered the SC designs pace, simply because I can't get my head fully out of stacking, breakthrough attacks, exploitation, ZOCs. In SC you muster your forces totally different. Playing the other guy's game while playing SC only makes you lose a lot more games in the end. Everything I have seen of SC2 makes me think HC has taken the game up a notch. I won't hate him if the game looks graphically more pleasing, but ends up sitting on much the same board with much the same oddities. I think he will have designed out a few errors in original thinking in the process. It will make the next game, SC2 well worth the purchase, just like A3R was definitely easy to pick up after years of playing basic original Third Reich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holyman Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Top-down AND hexes is what i want! See... now i have mixed it up again... sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRas Posted April 21, 2004 Author Share Posted April 21, 2004 Les - I fully agree. No need for the US on the map. A couple of boxes keeping their units in would be fine. The Atlantic could've been represented by sea zones like in the old Clash of Steel. More realistic and more interesting giving naval warfare it's own flavor. An freeing a lot of hexes for land. But I certainly would like this Top-Down look and simple grahics as an option anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Originally posted by RobRas: ... But I certainly would like this Top-Down look and simple grahics as an option anyway There you go again Rob, with your "reactionary" "anti-change" attitude. Stop being part of the "highly vocal minority" and get with the SC2 program. Resistance is futile... Edit - quotes added. [ April 21, 2004, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Elmo ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigRS Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 I second Holyman "Top-down AND hexes is what i want!" Is the map even that much bigger either? A lot of people mention how much bigger it is but it doesn't look that much bigger. It looks zoomed in but to me it doesn't look that much bigger. Sorry didn't menan to get off topic.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRas Posted April 21, 2004 Author Share Posted April 21, 2004 Elmo wrote: "There you go again Rob, with your "reactionary" "anti-change" attitude. Stop being part of the "highly vocal minority" and get with the SC2 program. Resistance is futile..." Sorry, Elmo. I just can't help being reactionary, anti-change and highly vocal. It's part of my nature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigRS Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Change for the sake of change is not good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holyman Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Elmo, Have you even notised that the ones PRO tiles/isometric are even fewer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Originally posted by Holyman: Elmo, Have you even notised that the ones PRO tiles/isometric are even fewer? Nope, think "silent majority" In the end the proof will be in the pudding, ie sales. SC has never been a 'wargamer's' wargame; HC has created something much more broadly appealing IMO, while still satisfying, to me anyways, the wargamer in me. As an aside my background also goes back to boardgames and the early 70's. As Elmo said 'resitance is futile', get with the program, kicking and screaming if need be, or fall by the wayside. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRas Posted April 21, 2004 Author Share Posted April 21, 2004 They wayside sounds kinda nice. Just sitting there with a sixpack and some smokes. Thinking of what kind of game SC2 could have been Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yohan Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Originally posted by pzgndr: Does it REALLY make a difference? You could go back to some of MY old posts during the SC pre-release period about two years ago and read my gripes about the SC map and icons, etc. Being an old grognard boardgamer and believing that 3R/A3R was THE standard for WWII grand strategy, this new SC game just didn't look right. Blah, blah, blah. Well, I changed my tune after getting into the game and learning to appreciate everything else the game offered. And the graphics seemed to not matter as much and actually began to appeal to me. ... And isn't that what we are all more interested in? To quote Faith Hill "It matters to me" Sorry, but if the market wants 2D/top down why wouldn't you offer it? Hex vs. Tile is a game mechanics issue and I understand Hubert has decided to move to this. Not offering wargamers their preferred view of a map is much different. For example, while I loved the old Talonsoft ACW games and the 3D units looked great, I never moved/fought in that mode, always 2D. Having the option was the key to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 RobRas Originally we figured that the military style unit graphics (as opposed to the 3-D looking units) would be enough, but point taken as top down is still an *option* on the table, of course depending on a few things, but at the same, in a *worst case* scenario don't be too surprised if that particular community created mod is readily available even when the demo is released When checking posts concerning what people wanted for SC2 little mention of isometric/tiles came up. [/QB]Hehe... true but who said I always listened to the posts on the forum Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRas Posted April 21, 2004 Author Share Posted April 21, 2004 Thanks for weighing in, Hubert I will cross everything that can be crossed (and that's not a pretty sight) hoping for a Top-Down option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 For everyone here who keeps stating that the majority want hexes... Count them. Count the people who want hexes. You may have a majority when it comes to people who post on this forum... but that majority isn't enough to influence a marketing decision. Read what Steve of Battlefront said over in the other topic about the tiles. Its pretty clear that the tiles will stay, and at best, thier may be an option for a different view. But there will be no hexes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 How about a fully rotating camera with zoom so I can go isometric to over the top, as well as zoom in or out....Oh, and allow me to view the map from on of my tank units as well. Actually, I like the isometric view, but I do hope for you guys in this thread that you get the over the top view as well(or maybe as a patch/mod). I would also allow though that eventually its the game play that will influence most of our decisions on if we like this game or not. Now about those tiles I so like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1 Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 "In the end the proof will be in the pudding" God I hate it when you guys mangle that old saying. Repeat after me, the proper quote is..."The proof of the pudding is in the taste". Hence, the proof of SC2 will come in whether anyone plays it, not whether it has say tiles or hexes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1 Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 For my next literary quote, how about.. "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter heaven" Anyone here actually know (other than me that is) what I refer to in the "eye of a needle"? It isn't a sewing needle by the way. Thus, it is easier to sell Les a good real time wargame like Highway to the Reich that doesn't require flashy graphics, than it is to convince me a wargame is any good regardless of the magnificence of it awesomely rendered real time 3d imagery. P.S. Les the Sarge don't do pictures, but I am sure Jersey John will be more than pleased to insert something grand if he is asked nicely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Ken Follet novel of WW2 where a German agent (... played perfectly by Donald Sutherland in the movie by the same name) is sent to assassinate old cigar smoking so and so? [ April 21, 2004, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 I for one have no issues with what I've seen. The tiles are big plus IMHO. Top down or ISO, does not bother me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts