I actually beat the game (Homeworld) but the controls where just unimaginative imho.Tyyr wrote: I could not disagree more. Sure, you have to learn how to use the camera and all but if you can't deal with a 30 minute learning curve you should probably stick to games like Serious Sam.
How old is Homeworld? Well suffice to say it has been awhile since I played it but what I remember is that I always thought....well, would have worked also in 2d. The use you could make (at least in single player) of the 3d enviroment was very limited. Also did I happen to stumble on a touchy subject here?Tyyr wrote:If the 3D element seems pointless then I'd suggest the problem was with you and not the game. Many of the missions didn't make great use of the third dimension, though some did, but where it really shined was in multiplayer.
Excuse me, but when all is said and done it wasn't more than your classical rock, paper, scissor RTS where tactical depth is concerned. Since relative distance between units is basically the same in 2d and 3d I fail to see what difference it would make.Tyyr wrote:If you didn't make use of the third dimension then sucks to be you because the people who did were going to do things to you rarely seen outside of a state prison.
Skillfully maneauvering my ships to surprise an enemy and have numerical advantage at one point is something I don't need 3d for. Sure it works so much better in 3d because most people just won't expect beeing attacked from below or above but against an average RTS player you soon find that rock, paper scissor still is the most important thing here.
Now I liked Homeworld, don't get me wrong but the SP missions didn't make use of the 3rd dimension and multiplayer could have worked with - I don't know, slower ships, more restricting hardpoints etc.... . It was nice, but I was not impressed and I always felt the "3d feature" is just the game forcing me to play it in "cinematic view" when good old 2d would have sufficed.
