Avé
Liturgist
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2004
- Messages
- 468
Let's get this right.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
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.
Sarcasm > you.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!" ?
Yes, because in screen view #2 the map, terrain, cities, trees, water, grass, aliasing is 100x better.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.
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.
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?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.
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.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.
Financial issues you only brought up when you had to do a Rexitium.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.
Where did I compare the series?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.
It's generally read > comprehend > reply, in your case it seems to be read > reply.
Ah, so now I wasnt comparing the graphics, I was comparing the strategic planning in R:TW to EU3?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.
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.