You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussion
Moderated by alincarpetman, Aurilux

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.24 replies
Rise of Legends Heaven » Forums » General Discussion » I want it, but i'm skaaaaed...
Bottom
Topic Subject:I want it, but i'm skaaaaed...
dimension
Zekeling
posted 06-06-06 01:41 AM EDT (US)         
Reason being...the demo..i wasn't impressed.

I love SC and WC3, those are my all time favorite RTS game. The closest thing i have found to them as been Dawn Of War.

So i was hoping this would be the one. Downloaded the demo, started it up and first thing that hit me were what i considered horrible graphics for a game like this. One glaring example were the shadows..the were choppy and "pixelly".

I don't think it could have been my system, could it? I have a Dell Dimension XPS Gen 4, P4 3.6GHZ, 1G Ram, Radeon 850XT (which is suppose to still be a decent card), Sound Blaster Audigy.

Anyone else disappointed by the demo (in particular the graphics), but love the actual retailg game? Anyone else a Starcraft and Warcraft fan and thinks this game compares well with those old skoolers?

thanks

AuthorReplies:
xxFlukexx
Zekeling
posted 06-06-06 03:32 AM EDT (US)     1 / 24       
Graphics are really good these days. If you play a lot of Oblivion, BF2, FEAR, CoD2, then you will play a RTS and go wtf, these graphics suck.

For an RTS, the graphics are good.

If you only want shiny graphics, then yeah go with DoW, if you want strategy then go with RoL, but really by playing the demo you should already know if you want to play the 3rd race (coutl) and play online by now.

I believe this is the closest thing we will ever get to SC2.

code255
Zekeling
posted 06-06-06 04:52 AM EDT (US)     2 / 24       
Turn off Hardware Shadows. They're ugly and lower framerates. Without them, the graphics look quite nice in fact.

Also, did you play the 2nd demo? The first one which was released was based on beta-quality code and therefore kinda sucked.

GRUNT
Zekeling
posted 06-06-06 06:36 AM EDT (US)     3 / 24       
I wasn't impressed by the demo, either, Dimension. But like you, I'm also a Blizzard fanboy- I love Starcraft (I still think its the best RTS ever), and I also love Warcraft 3. So trust me when I say that Rise of Legends is an excellent RTS. It's a different kind of RTS to be sure- it takes more time to learn, but if you're willing to take the time, you will find that the depth is all there. RoL has TONS of it.....

GRUNT'S UBER COMICS OF DOOM! READ!
http://rol.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=st&fn=4&tn=91&st=recent&f=4,91,0,10]z00t[/url]
RoL Online Nick:
ESO name:[/b][url=http://www.agecommunity.com/stats/EntityStats.aspx?loc=en-US&EntityName=z00t&md=ZS_Supremacy]z00t
storm legion
Zekeling
posted 06-06-06 08:28 AM EDT (US)     4 / 24       
i havn't played starcraft, but in comparison to warcraft RoL pwns strategically

and i think the graphics are fine, i play without shadows on low shader level even most of the time and the game runs ultra-smooth and still looks good (just put building detail on highest though)

also you have to see a glass map on full settings, it looks downright awesome and easily is better in graphics than wc3

graphics-wise i'd say DoW is prolly *slightly* better since i could play on max settings on that without lag


_______________________________
...////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\...

...|\/\////<_/\==/\====/\==/\_>\\\\/\/|...
.../<Storm]]>Storm-legion<[[Winds>\...
...\__/\\\\<_\/==\/====\/==\/_>////\__/...
...\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////...
Taufiq Khan
Zekeling
(id: Shala_T)
posted 06-06-06 10:47 AM EDT (US)     5 / 24       
Doesn't that mean it's slightly worse?

★★★★★
Timeless_OmO
Zekeling
posted 06-06-06 10:56 AM EDT (US)     6 / 24       
The shadows look great on my card. I recommend to anyone that thinks the game looks bad to get a new vid card, because to me, this game looks better than DoW. And it sure in the heck plays better.
storm legion
Zekeling
posted 06-06-06 11:26 AM EDT (US)     7 / 24       
on max settings, yeah the graphics pwn any rts out there imo

_______________________________
...////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\...

...|\/\////<_/\==/\====/\==/\_>\\\\/\/|...
.../<Storm]]>Storm-legion<[[Winds>\...
...\__/\\\\<_\/==\/====\/==\/_>////\__/...
...\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////...
dimension
Zekeling
posted 06-06-06 02:41 PM EDT (US)     8 / 24       
thanks for all the reply. graphics isn't everything to me, but i though it was a bit choppy on my system. so guess what, went out and paid for a Radeon 1600 Pro. We'll see how this does. It probably was about time to upgrade from the 850XT anyway, considering i play Oblivion.

Appreciated everyone's comment, esp Grunt's..a fellow Blizzard fanboy of SC and WC3...if you are a true fan and say this holds up well against those games, then i'm excited about it.

[This message has been edited by dimension (edited 06-06-2006 @ 02:42 PM).]

GreyPawn
Hero
posted 06-06-06 03:10 PM EDT (US)     9 / 24       

Quote:

on max settings, yeah the graphics pwn any rts out there imo

This is especially true if you've got a higher end machine and turn Anti-Aliasing on under the User Options>Graphics tab. Just thought I'd throw that tip in the mix there.


Evolved
Zekeling
posted 06-06-06 03:20 PM EDT (US)     10 / 24       
Greypawn, can you please check out the new thread about missing maps in the Tech Support Section? Sounds pretty serious.

http://rol.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=2,482,0,365

dimension
Zekeling
posted 06-06-06 04:33 PM EDT (US)     11 / 24       
well, i just installed the Radeon 1600 XT Pro, downloaded the latest 6.5 drivers , and started the campaign again...and to be honest, it looks the same and feels sluggish. This is with the settings at 1600 x 1200 and high sampling.
I then took it back down to 1200 x1024 with low sampling and no shadows. here it did look a bit better without the hardware shadows enabled, but response still felt a bit "delayed".
For a card like this and a P4 3.6 GHZ system, shouldn't it be able to handle the hardware shadows?

Questions
-is it possible to record some of the game to a WMV or other format file so that i can show what i am seeing on my device? i'd prefer to save as non-ROL format, just to be sure you are seeing what i am seeing.
-anyone else with a Radeon 1600 XT Pro? if so, can i get an honest opinion on how this game looks and performs from your point of view? What is the remaining spec for your system also? any particular settings you changed on your card or game?
-do i need to get the Radeon 1900XT, which is suppose to be the top of the line card?

WH_demoneyekyo
Zekeling
posted 06-06-06 05:14 PM EDT (US)     12 / 24       
how about uploading pic? caz i sense some bs going around here......

if u upload a pic then we can compare the graphic.


Stop spamming! No one care about ur damn post count!
HippoInTheHouse
Zekeling
posted 06-06-06 07:19 PM EDT (US)     13 / 24       
I'm not a technical expert, nor do I care about graphics, so I won't talk about that.

As for gameplay, if you WC3 is the best RTS yet, RoL probably isn't your cup of tea. Whereas WC3 has a very rigid economic aspect that barely even existed, RoL is pretty much completely dominated by the economic aspect of the game. It's a whole different ballpark, in my opinion.


I AM NOT HIPPO. I am Monocular (Vinci), ManWithThreeKidneys (Alin), and Thunderstick (Cuotl).
dimension
Zekeling
posted 06-06-06 11:37 PM EDT (US)     14 / 24       
Ok, you guys are going to think i'm nuts...but i now own the X1900 XTX. Returned the X1600 after it did not yield much better performance than the X850XT on either this game or Oblivion.

i've only been tinkering with the X1900 for about an hour now ( for some reason it messed with my sound when i installed it, so took me a while to figure it out ), but man, what an unbelievable difference this card makes with Oblivion...just incredible...both video and responsiveness. But this is not an Oblivion forum....

so then i loaded up ROL...and i finally figured out why i wrongly felt i hated the graphics and consequently, felt disappointed by the demo. The problem is the very first battle in the campaign just does not look good with shadows turned on. period. Even with the X1900 this was the case. BUT!!! after getting past that first screen, the graphics were not so bad when maxed out. The best thing though that the x1900 bought me, was RESPONSIVENESS. Before, there seemed to be a lot of lag when i selected units and moved them. That is pretty much gone. There still seems to be an odd disconnect between sound and the clicks, but that may be because the sound just doesn't seem to fit certain action. Graphics now look good, but i wouldn't say great. That's ok, good is good enough because with games like these, playability is what i care about first. Besides, i stepped way back a bit and remembered that when i moved from WC2 to WC3, i hated the cartoon like graphichs of WC3...but yet i grew to love it and it became on of the all time best games in my opinion. I hope that ROL will be the same...

So overall now, i think i need to play a bit more before making a finaly judgement. A quick run through so far and i like what i'm seeing as far as playability...lots of WC3 type controls and functions. Little things that i complained about to the BFME crew during their beta tests were not missed in ROL...that attention to detail tells me these guys really studied how to make a good RTS...

[This message has been edited by dimension (edited 06-06-2006 @ 11:40 PM).]

Timeless_OmO
Zekeling
posted 06-07-06 00:10 AM EDT (US)     15 / 24       
The only rts game that looks better than this one, imo, is GC2. IN that game, you can see the sky, the stars, planets, aircraft blasting by...when you zoom in on one of your infantry, a sniper for example, you can see him blinking behind his glass visor as he aims in on the shot. Amazing stuff. Too bad the game had a non functional record game feature upon release and was a joke in the balance department - spam city. Not to mention the fact that it had only two races and was not fully supported after release.

Rts games have zero to do with graphics, imo. If they look good, fantastic. RoL, having spent less than $1000.00 on my system, video card included, looks great and plays fast. I can't honestly point at anything better in this genre for at least half a decade.

[This message has been edited by Timeless_OmO (edited 06-07-2006 @ 00:11 AM).]

dimension
Zekeling
posted 06-07-06 00:32 AM EDT (US)     16 / 24       
>>Rts games have zero to do with graphics, imo

ok, let's not get ridiculous now...

HippoInTheHouse
Zekeling
posted 06-07-06 00:49 AM EDT (US)     17 / 24       
Needing graphics in a strategy game is like enjoying Wishbone. We all know it's a little stupid, or immature, perhaps, and we would be really embarassed if everybody found out, but deep down in the darkest pits of our hearts of hearts... we all do.

I AM NOT HIPPO. I am Monocular (Vinci), ManWithThreeKidneys (Alin), and Thunderstick (Cuotl).
Timeless_OmO
Zekeling
posted 06-07-06 01:18 AM EDT (US)     18 / 24       
Ridiculous? Wtf are you talking about? You seem rather hung up about the perty graphics and all that jazz. SC looks horrible (my all time favorite), WC3 is decent and cartoonish but hardly OMFG AMAZING, far from it. You get the picture, I hope. RTS is about gameplay and depth first and foremost. If it looks good, that's great. I love it. But that's the LAST thing I look for in an RTS game.

Though, it just so happens that RoL looks amazing on my rig - $700.00 system + $250.00 vid card. But I would enjoy it nonetheless if I had to run it on the lowest settings, that's what I'm trying to say.

dimension
Zekeling
posted 06-07-06 02:24 AM EDT (US)     19 / 24       
well, you can go play Zork all over again...but me, i gotta have some decent graphics...otherwise i'd still be playing some of the older games still.

i thought WC3 graphics were pretty good, cartoonish yes, but good for their time. In addition, the graphics were done in such away that it enhanced and added to the feel of the game. Each unit actually felt like they had "significance". they weren't drawn in such a way that they felt like they were expendable units of a larger army...in fact, in battle, boy...you micro'd like heck to pull those grunts out of the early battles, didn't you?

again, i've played some of the best RTS..SC, WC, WC2, WC3, DOW....so i'm not a newb to the genre that doesn't know what he's talking about. In this day an age, graphics sets a mood and environment that makes gameplay more involving and fun.

storm legion
Zekeling
posted 06-07-06 08:39 AM EDT (US)     20 / 24       
graphics arn't the most important thing in an rts...
...but to say they have no signifigance is a bit much

personally i'd rather play RoL and WC3 as they are than with cubes for footmen, cones for knights and floating pentagons for gryphon riders


_______________________________
...////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\...

...|\/\////<_/\==/\====/\==/\_>\\\\/\/|...
.../<Storm]]>Storm-legion<[[Winds>\...
...\__/\\\\<_\/==\/====\/==\/_>////\__/...
...\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////...
jpinard
Zekeling
posted 06-11-06 03:55 PM EDT (US)     21 / 24       
It took me a bit to understand the art direction and graphic design because it's different than almost any game out there. So my first impression was kind of negative. But as I started going through the campaign I found myself in awe of how good the consitency the design of the terrain and units was.

VERY few games hold my interest for 40+ hours like RoL has.

WarPig
Zekeling
posted 06-13-06 09:50 AM EDT (US)     22 / 24       
Speaking purely about gameplay and disregarding graphics, if you like WC3 and SC you should love ROL. If you think RON is waaaaaaay better than WC3 or SC (like me), then you might reconsider. I personally was dissapointed just I was with the RON expansion. I mainly just dislike heroes, especially 3 of them at once. Not much room left for unit tactics when you are constantly using special abilities. Also pretty much impossible to micro you troops 100% while building your economy. (which was great about RON) Also if you are looking to play competetively, mastery of control groups is required as it is impossible to micro enough without them. So if you couldnt master them for WC3, your not gonna become an expert with ROL. On the other hand, if you are already a great RTS player, heroes can be used to your advantage, (think about letting them focus fire on your hero and them running him back while your army dessimates thiers. (old wc3 tactic) While the Unit structure is better in ROL than in WC3, the campaign mode is seriously lacking in comparison. So to be honest, ROL is lacking in both respects, Heroes ruin the hardcore RON feel, and a 2nd rate story mode ruins the WC3 feel. For me, I will not get thousands of hours worth of enjoyment out of ROL like I did with RON. My opinion is tainted because I think RON is the best game ever made period. Another thing if you are planning competetive play, ROL should have a following of RTS veterans who are gonna smoke any WC3 fanatics with ease. All I can say is this: good luck microing your 3 heroes, unit abilities, selective targeting (like in RON) with couters and such, and systematically building a top notch econ. This could be accomplished after logging a few hundred ours of competetive play, but I am not sure its worth the time investment like it was with RON.(3 civs as opposed to like 18 or whatever RON had. So to sum it up: If you are a hardcore RTS man, you may be dissapointed. If you are a WC3, storyline type of player, you should like it allot.

wp

[This message has been edited by WarPig (edited 06-13-2006 @ 10:03 AM).]

Timeless_OmO
Zekeling
posted 06-13-06 10:54 AM EDT (US)     23 / 24       
Microing your three heros? It's a blue moon if a person ever gets more than one hero in RoL. In WC3, it's common to get two and even three heros.

And I'll say it again. Graphics are low on the totem pole of importance when it comes to RTS games. I never said they weren't nice, but I have a shelf full of rts games that looked great for their time but had lacking game play. In fact, I still played games like SC and Shattered Galaxy (ugh, one of the world's worst graphically) over many eye candy treats. Besides, RoL looks fantastic, much better than WC3 or SC, but I find it a bit funny to read "I'm Scared about the graphics just not being top notch enough so I might not get the game.".

WarPig
Zekeling
posted 06-15-06 04:24 AM EDT (US)     24 / 24       
"Microing your three heros? It's a blue moon if a person ever gets more than one hero in RoL. In WC3, it's common to get two and even three heros."

That is good news. I havent hit up gamespy yet so I was just speculating. Not gonna mess around online until I get my hotkeys and control groups memorized and finish campaign mode.


wp
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Rise of Legends Heaven | HeavenGames