Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Dear Diary with Paradox

Avé

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
468
Mefi said:
What the fuck are you whittering on about? Yes, Paradox had a 2d engine for their first games. EU3 is their first 3d game and *shock horror* it will be reused for future titles
Let's get this right.

You say
"They changed to 3d because they can only afford to have one engine. A move to 3d will mean that they can build on it for future releases."

That doesnt EXPLAIN WHY THEY CHANGED TO 3D YOU IDIOT, AS THEY DID THE SAME THING WITH A 2D ENGINE FOR 5 GAMES.


Bingo. We're getting somewhere. And paradox is notoriously bad for those things. And a screenshot in alpha is going to look like the red-headed stepchild. So what is the problem? "OMG! Paradox graphics sux!" ? :roll:
Sarcasm > you.

You mean the bit where the paradox map shows one of several screen views but somehow it's perfectly logical to compare it to the rome:tw map? Ah ok.
Yes, because in screen view #2 the map, terrain, cities, trees, water, grass, aliasing is 100x better.

Because that would make sense.

Of course.


Really? Do tell. As usual, your dribbling arsegravy again.

You know when they release screenshots for a game before it hits beta? Those are generally called "alpha" screenshots.

No, but then you are trying to make a very shite comparison again. Most small filmakers don't have the gloss and camerawork of the big studios - but does that make them shit films by default? Or are there other things that count? You don't get to see many films do you? I hear Pearl Harbour has pretty pictures. Might be up your street.
Ah, changed the point again. Is it gloss and camerawork that make Uwe Bolls movies shitty? Or lack of money? Or perhaps the fact the guy's an egomaniac who cant direct to save his life?


Thanks for the reminder. As I was saying, trying to compare anything about rome:tw with a Paradox game is the sign of a fuckwit.
Of course it is, you tried explain it one way, got shown as an idiot, tried it a second way - shown up as an idiot again, and now give up.

No. My point stands. You are comparing a single map view (out of several, as I presume that the map will also have to show economic/cultural stuff too) which is meant to show terrain with a highly polished effort where such details do not have to be taking into account. On top of that, you've got the financial issues. I'm sorry you're not keeping up. I'll try to talk spastic so you get the concepts in future.
Financial issues you only brought up when you had to do a Rexitium.


shitwits said:
Thats what EU3 looks like right now. It's certainly now Rome:Total War, which sold bucket loads despite having a nice strategical map.
Where did I compare the series?

It's generally read > comprehend > reply, in your case it seems to be read > reply.

Well, you can. But you end up looking like someone who think RTS is cutting edge strategic planning. Might as well compare the graphics with Lords of the Realm. OMG! They both show land. And look - there's a tree! They must be the same! You must have a bastard of a time finding an attractive girlfriend - they all have two breasts and a cunt.
Ah, so now I wasnt comparing the graphics, I was comparing the strategic planning in R:TW to EU3?


It's three times for emphasis tard. Can't even get that right. Are you sure you've played paradox games? I've got a feeling that I've probably answered your questions before like how to install the fucking game.

gg no re

I havent had this much fun with a forumretard since I embarassed rex badly enough to start him editing my posts and Pm'ing me goatse and tubgirl.
 

Mefi

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,364
Location
waiting for a train at Perdido Street Station
Avè said:
Let's get this right.

You say
"They changed to 3d because they can only afford to have one engine. A move to 3d will mean that they can build on it for future releases."

That doesnt EXPLAIN WHY THEY CHANGED TO 3D YOU IDIOT, AS THEY DID THE SAME THING WITH A 2D ENGINE FOR 5 GAMES.

Let's start from the beginning. Old engine. 2d. Lots of games. Very tired. Reached end of usability. Stretched as far as it can go. New engine needed. Can only afford 1 engine. 3d preferable. More options later on for future games.

I congratulate you on your total lack of knowledge of Paradox games. I'd sort of assumed that you were aware of the limitations on the current EU engine as you presented yourself as some sort of Paradox games guru.


Sarcasm > you.

No answer? Thought not.

Wow, you just did ANOTHER rex!
Congrats

Sadly not. That's called being consistent and expanding the argument. You clearly think out of your arse. Try the brain sometime.


You know when they release screenshots for a game before it hits beta? Those are generally called "alpha" screenshots.

Yeah, you might want to try looking at some.

Ah, changed the point again. Is it gloss and camerawork that make Uwe Bolls movies shitty? Or lack of money?

Try reading what I typed again. Your second attempt at a comeback might be better than the first.


Of course it is, you tried explain it one way, got shown as an idiot, tried it a second way - shown up as an idiot again, and now give up.

I must have missed that part. I just saw some fuckwit phrases along the lines of "this looks not very nice". Gee. Silly me.

Financial issues you only brought up when you had to do a Rexitium.

Financial issues are part of the whole bloody problem mong. Paradox is shit on graphics. End of story. An alpha screenshot will look awful. But you do not play Paradox games for the graphics. So I ask you again - what is the issue?


shitwits said:
Thats what EU3 looks like right now. It's certainly now Rome:Total War, which sold bucket loads despite having a nice strategical map.
Where did I compare the series?

It's generally read > comprehend > reply, in your case it seems to be read > reply.

You are aware of the meaning of the word comparison? It's in the dictionary. Begins with C.

Ah, so now I wasnt comparing the graphics, I was comparing the strategic planning in R:TW to EU3?

Reading is teh bestest. Try it sometime. You never know it may wean you off this fascination with graphics in an alpha screenshot somehow representing design flaws.

I havent had this much fun with a forumretard since I embarassed rex badly enough to start him editing my posts and Pm'ing me goatse and tubgirl.

You should try playing a game. Could I recommend a Paradox title? Then you can post about something you know about :)

edit: oh look a new diary saying how there are different map-modes and how they are still being worked on.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/sho ... ge=1&pp=25
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom