Slyguy3129 wrote (View Post):
|
TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):
|
Slyguy3129 wrote (View Post):
|
They are taking away the strategic map and adding 3d graphics?
This will kill the series, CC3 system worked because we had never had the map before. Now that we have it CC3/COI are nice little games, but nothing compared to CC4/5/WaR/TLD/LSA.
|
I don't think it would. Then again, I'm probably the only guy on these forums that doesn't like the current strategic map system. My preference is for a much more fluid system like they had in Achtung Panzer, or just doing it the way they did it in Panzer Corps (which didn't have a strat map, but did allow you to change the flow of the campaign).
Either way, we've had static strategic map and 2d graphics. Now it's time to move into the 21st millenium.
Slyguy3129 wrote:
|
And for the love of all that is good and mighty if they do in fact go to a "3D" engine ala CoH Combat Mission ect, I won't buy it, and it will be the death of the CC series. Anything from that point on will just be CC in name, and nothing else. I can't believe they would even think about it after the FPS CC in the early 2000s.
|
Again, the game needs updating. The reason few people play this game is because it's been out-performed by competitors. 3d graphics, better AI, better UI, more engaging gameplay etc...
platoon_michael wrote:
|
I just always assumed that if one game can do it any of the others should be able to do it.
But I'm not a programmer.
|
A big developer probably could do a lot of things - but Matrix/BlackHandStudios aren't big developers. They have to work on one or two things at a time. For example, PitF only really gave us 3d graphics and a new force pool system.
mooxe wrote:
|
Close Combat is such a mess now, so many versions with different features spread through all of them. Bugs that have been around for years. No real progression after 13 years.......
|
Exactly. Agree 100%.
This was my point a few posts back. We haven't seen the Series progress - that's why every one of us has a different CC game that's their favourite. Every CC game has its pros and cons - but none are truly "superior" to the others. It's preference as to which ones are better than others.
Whereas, we should be seeing a gradual improvement in the games. We should be able to say "CC3 was good back in the day, but the latest game is clearly superior", but you can't. You can't say any game in the Series is better than the others, because they're not. And that's proof that the Close Combat Series hasn't been improving. It's just remained pretty much the same as it was in the 90's.
|
Yes, you are the only person to not like the biggest improvement to the series since selecting the troops you can take into battle, simple as that.
If you are picking up CC at any point in time ever, and I do mean ever, and you are expecting to be wowed by the graphics, you clearly do not know CC, nor would you be the type of people that CC appeals to. Saying they need better graphics is the same argument that console users use for their kiddy video games. Its why movies suck now, all graphics and no substance. You, and people who think like you, are going to ruin a game series that has stood for almost twenty years now. CC will be nothing more than CoD, all graphics and no substance, and it took a big leap in that direct with PiTF. It will continue to make leaps everytime someone suggest they should drop the Top-Down and go full 3-D. Lose that, and you lose CC. Period. It would kill the series, and I would much rather it died in Top-Down, than in 3-D bastardizing the name Close Combat.
|