It's only "asking for it" from the player's point of view. How does the company loose if they publish a game where the graphics are the best thing in the game, assuming people still buy it (and people really do)?X warrior411 wrote:Graphics only help a game, making the graphics the best thing in the game is just asking for it.
I'd say you have never heard of this RTS game called "Starcraft". It has several years and several thousand players up on EE.X warrior411 wrote:I'd say EE is the longest surviving RTS game...ever.
Hell, Warcraft can't touch it, infact, I played it, and it's a lot like EE, but with better graphics....meaning it sucked, I'd say they copied EE
You don't mean Activision, you mean Rebellion.X warrior411 wrote:If Activision takes the 'Graphics over Gameplay' (or Graphic>Game) style from EE 2 and 3, it's going to suck WORST then EE 2-3.
Activision needs to get off their asses and look back at the classics to learn what's missing, too bad they're probably swimming in 1,000$ bills as I type this message.
Anyway, if Rebellion takes that approach then Empire Earth 4 will be better than 2 and 3. Here's how I got there:
Empire Earth 2, aside from the graphics, is essentially utter trash.
Empire Earth 3, aside from the graphics, is essentially utter trash.
Empire Earth 4, aside from the graphics, assuming the approach you suggest, will essentially be utter trash.
Therefore, the only meaningful difference between them would be the graphics, and certainly if EE4 goes with the same approach, its graphics will be superior, making it a superior game.