It just seems like Knuckle Cracker got lazy when they made CW 3 like CW 1, instead of trying to outdo CW 2 it seems like they just copied CW 1 and added a lot of features. Now I am not saying that they did not modify CW 3 from CW 1, I am just saying they took the easy way out and copied the base game play from CW 1. They could have outdid themselves by completely redoing the game play like when they went from CW 1 to CW 2. I am not looking for any speculation here, I want an actual answer from someone at Knuckle Cracker or someone who has got a response to a question like this. If someone posts a sarcastic or stupid comment do not expect me to give any type of response.
You could say this, to an even greater degree, of every FPS ever created.
CW1 was the more widely liked gameplay style, but some of its features lagged behind cw2. There isn't really a way to "completely redo" anything without a. scrapping the concept of the creeper, or b. making it true 3D (which would probably be inaccessible to most users due to processor limitations, and also probably have an extremely terrifying UI.)
Also, it's "he," not "they." KC is a one-man team (Virgil).
Lots of people hated the side view of CW2.
Quote from: planetfall on May 31, 2014, 12:16:07 AM
You could say this, to an even greater degree, of every FPS ever created.
CW1 was the more widely liked gameplay style, but some of its features lagged behind cw2. There isn't really a way to "completely redo" anything without a. scrapping the concept of the creeper, or b. making it true 3D (which would probably be inaccessible to most users due to processor limitations, and also probably have an extremely terrifying UI.)
Also, it's "he," not "they." KC is a one-man team (Virgil).
Thank you for actually answering my question and just giving some sarcastic remark. I did not know that KC was a one-man team either. I was also wondering if you personally think that he will make a CW 4 and have it be more like CW 2? I personally enjoyed CW 2 much more than either CW 1 or CW 3.
Wow. You start off pretty badly to accuse Virgil of being "lazy". Not really a good way to introduce yourself.
What you should know is that Virgil firstly makes a game that he wants to play. There is no design committee or anything. Virgil starts with an idea and goes from there. I was lucky enough to be in on the very early development of CW2 and I got to see the very first prototypes of the CW3 game (was called CFUN).
There isn't an aspect of Laziness anywhere - think about it, there is really only two modes of play - top down or side view. And do me the courtesy of not saying 3D, since that isn't workable.
After CW1, Virgil wanted to explore the side view aspect and made CW2. He found that intrinsically it had some inhibitors along with the good points. In CW3 he wanted more - some of the concepts of CW1 that was not in CW2, as well as some of the concepts of CW2 that was not in CW1. He experimented more with complex camera angles and views, and added elements that was not in either of the previous games - the most notable is the CRPL language that allows map makers far more control over enemy units.
It took him 3 years to rewrite the game from scratch in a new environment (Unity3D and C# as opposed to the previous Adobe Flash/AIR and ActionScript). He gained flexibility and huge performance increases, allowing him to do the things he had to skip in both previous games.
Now I've answered someone with your attitude and pre-conceived notions of this community enough. I hope that your future participation here is not based on assumptions of laziness of the one guy that works harder than anyone I know, or pre-conceived notions of "sarcastic and stupid" comments from the members here.
As for the next game, I've seen a few early notions (even more early than the CFUN prototypes), but it is not for me to disclose any details of where and how Virgil is thinking. He shares with the community those ideas he want to share via his blog at irregular intervals.
Quote
"...just copied CW 1 and added a lot of features"
Guilty.
A more complete lineage might look like this:
Chaturanga -> OXO -> CW1 -> CW2 -> CW3 (Not to scale)
Each is a "copy" of the earlier game with a lot of features added.
You should be a shamed of yourself!
Quote from: Karsten75 on May 31, 2014, 08:27:17 AM
Wow. You start off pretty badly to accuse Virgil of being "lazy". Not really a good way to introduce yourself.
What you should know is that Virgil firstly makes a game that he wants to play. There is no design committee or anything. Virgil starts with an idea and goes from there. I was lucky enough to be in on the very early development of CW2 and I got to see the very first prototypes of the CW3 game (was called CFUN).
There isn't an aspect of Laziness anywhere - think about it, there is really only two modes of play - top down or side view. And do me the courtesy of not saying 3D, since that isn't workable.
After CW1, Virgil wanted to explore the side view aspect and made CW2. He found that intrinsically it had some inhibitors along with the good points. In CW3 he wanted more - some of the concepts of CW1 that was not in CW2, as well as some of the concepts of CW2 that was not in CW1. He experimented more with complex camera angles and views, and added elements that was not in either of the previous games - the most notable is the CRPL language that allows map makers far more control over enemy units.
It took him 3 years to rewrite the game from scratch in a new environment (Unity3D and C# as opposed to the previous Adobe Flash/AIR and ActionScript). He gained flexibility and huge performance increases, allowing him to do the things he had to skip in both previous games.
Now I've answered someone with your attitude and pre-conceived notions of this community enough. I hope that your future participation here is not based on assumptions of laziness of the one guy that works harder than anyone I know, or pre-conceived notions of "sarcastic and stupid" comments from the members here.
As for the next game, I've seen a few early notions (even more early than the CFUN prototypes), but it is not for me to disclose any details of where and how Virgil is thinking. He shares with the community those ideas he want to share via his blog at irregular intervals.
First of all I did not know that KC was a one man team when I posted my question and being only one person working on it I could see how it was necessary to use the base game play from another CW game. Now if it was like ten or twelve people working on it like I assumed I would stick with my original comment of lazy, but not since it is just one person working on it. Since it is just one person I was wrong to say that it was lazy.
Now on the second point, in EVERY SINGLE forum that I have read or posted on, there are at least a handful of people the feel the need to diminish or make fun of the question or comment that was posted and that part of my post was directed towards them. I certainly did not mean to offend people that come to these forums with honest and sincere posts. If I did offend one of honest people that read my original question then I apologize.
Quote from: MadMag on May 31, 2014, 04:39:36 PM
You should be a shamed of yourself!
of what part?
At least all of them... Irony from the start..
I'd like to point out that CW1 is unlike any other game, at least I've never seen anything like it. So even if Virgil had simply copied that and added features or levels, I would have called that a great game and purchased it. As it turns out, with CW3 the graphics are better, the interface is better, there are a lot of new units, and as Karsten pointed out the user is given the ability to change not only the board itself but the behavior of every game object. It's an entirely new game.
Regarding this forum, if you're new here you'll be pleasantly surprised at the way we treat each other. I've seen posts that would ignite a flame war anywhere else on the internet, but here they continue as polite conversation. I'd like to once again thank whoever it is that keeps it that way.
I've been a fan of the series since the first game; I really like CW2 as it is, and as a sequel, because it was very different from the original, but it wasn't completely different, it was still Creeper World. CW3 blends the original game that made it popular with a lot of the features from CW2, and adds on to it. Using older designs isn't a step back, unless it really was exactly the same as the first. Virgil did an amazing job with it, and I think it should be up on the same pedestal as Warcraft or Command and Conquer. I really don't see how an updated CW2 would be better, and making it more like a modern 3D RTS, assuming he had the budget, would have taken it far from what makes it a great series.
*APPLAUSE* to Karsten75.
CW2 was a step up from CW1, CW3 was a step up from CW2, not much (if anything at all) to complain about.
In general, it seems RTS games fare better with vertical 3rd person POV's instead of horizontal 3rd person POV's.
I actually personally thought CW2 was 10 steps backwards. I still enjoyed it but I considered it an inferior installment to the first.
Remember, CW2 had better graphics, unique gameplay, a good story, and a whole bunch of other cool things, like repulsors, nullifiers, microrifts...
It doesn't matter. Repulsors were incredibly likely to backfire and kill you by shoving creeper into places it otherwise wouldn't reach, which destroys pods. The microrifts trivialized strategic positioning, and got rid of the concept of keeping the path inbetween odin city and your guns/construction minimal. Nullifiers were 'ok' but not all too refined yet IMO.
It's my least favorite installment.
But please understand that's like me saying "This piece of chocolate cake was the least tasty". It was still cake!
Quote from: Courtesy on June 16, 2014, 01:10:20 PM
It doesn't matter. Repulsors were incredibly likely to backfire and kill you by shoving creeper into places it otherwise wouldn't reach, which destroys pods. The microrifts trivialized strategic positioning, and got rid of the concept of keeping the path inbetween odin city and your guns/construction minimal. Nullifiers were 'ok' but not all too refined yet IMO.
It's my least favorite installment.
But please understand that's like me saying "This piece of chocolate cake was the least tasty". It was still cake!
You make a fair statement. After all, not every farm harvest yields crops from every seedling, and no cookable recipie is liked by absolutely everyone. You just can't expect the best out of absolutely everything. but it just goes to show the whole is always greater than the sum of its parts.
Plus, second installments of anything have a habit of being outshined by both the first and third installments. Sometimes its the other way around, but the bottom line is 1 and 3 tend to have more in common than 2 does with either one of them.
Re: Star Trek Movie Curse (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StarTrekMovieCurse), Windows ME, Vista, and 8, Even-numbered Indiana Jones movies
Quote from: Asbestos on June 19, 2014, 11:34:50 AM
Re: Star Trek Movie Curse (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StarTrekMovieCurse), Windows ME, Vista, and 8, Even-numbered Indiana Jones movies
Exactly!
CW1 was really an eye opener for me in the sense that I didn't know I liked this type of game (puzzle/RTS?).
CW2 was a step forwards in sophistication, but a big step backwards in fun.
CW3 is pretty close to the perfect CW1 remake. Although I unfortunately hardly have any time to play, I can honestly say that CW3 (and CW1) have made my life better... I'm happier because of them. I'm not much of a gamer, but there are a couple that make me keep coming back. CW1 used to be one of those, and now it is replaced by CW3.
So, yes CW3 is a progressed copy of CW1. But really, the step forwards is immense!
I've been involved in CW since early in CW1, and don't post often, but thore95's post struck me as "respondable". It may have been the intent to ask a serious question, but the opening remark sounded more like an argument than a question. That may be why it was received with some rancor by some. Perhaps if the question had been asked without the judgmental adjectives, the responses would have been less visceral.
I did like cw2 a lot, so I do agree with this thread of comments title well, but cw3 is a good game too.
Although I wish if its possible to do cw4 in isometric 3d style the combine the first 3 games and build upon them into the fourth.
While usually isometric 3d requires a powerful computer, it can be made with lower system requirements so that more people can play the cw4 game.
Because CW1 is the better game.
Don't get me wrong, CW2 is a really cool game (and how I got to know CW1&3).
And CW3 is supercool (as has been pointed out above, it's CW1 with better graphics and cooler units/features, powerzones CPRL and more)
But CW1 remains the best*...
A.
(*I humbly submit that in pure ludic terms CW1 can stand proud alongside giants like Half-life and Tetris...)
Quote from: hbarudi on July 01, 2014, 04:44:33 AM
Although I wish if its possible to do cw4 in isometric 3d style the combine the first 3 games and build upon them into the fourth.
CW3 is already isomeric 3D (though I think the term 2.5D is more accurate). The game has 2 dimensions (X and Y axes) and the height of the terrain provides the pseudo Z-axis. Just because most 2.5D games have their viewing angle set to about 45° (like Age of Empires), I don't think a viewing angle of 90° (like in CW3) means it's no longer a 2.5D game.
The 45° angle made sense in AoE so they could show off their detailed units and buildings, but the buildings and units in CW are deliberately simple. Changing the viewing angle would make the game harder to play and the units harder to identify, just so you can see more of a side view of the command node. It's a really bad idea.
If the devs really want to go 3D then they'll have to really change the gameplay around. Check out Tower Wars (http://store.steampowered.com/app/214360/), it's very different from CW but it shows that you can make a 3D tower defense game fun. Sanctum is also pretty cool for a tower defense/FPS combo (http://store.steampowered.com/app/91600/). Creeper World just isn't your type tower defense game though. I like it how it is. Doing any sort of 3D stuff will add a ton of development time and I don't know if it'll really be worth it. CW is a unique series, that's what makes it popular.
EDIT: I don't know what the devs are working on, but CW3 has very basic controls and a lot of stop and go. It would be the perfect candidate for a tablet game. FTL has a similar play style but a lot more complexty in the interface and their tablet version is great (http://i.imgur.com/00Cz5y0.png). I love CW3, but I feel like if I'm on my gaming PC then I should be using it to it's full potential and play TF2, Dota, ect. If CW3 was an app, that's all I would play while out of the house.
CW2 had a 90-degree perspective of everything; instead of top-down, you saw it from the front-back.
Yes, you could say CW3 is 2.5D as the view is entirely XY with the subtle inclusion of a Z-axis with regards to terrain heights and shadows of anything not "touching the ground" like moving units, spores, and weapon shells.
The problems with making CW3 available on Mobile:
Mobile games tend to have so many exclusive features not found in their PC/Flash versions that Virgil would probably be swamped if he had to dedicate his time and resources to that.
A lot more scrolling than necessary and tiny screens to limit the full perspective of the whole field; some maps are so big, you would literally need a microscope to see them if you zoom out to the max.
Massive Micro and Macro Management that I doubt is found in Mobile.
Technological overloads that may cause the device to lag with medium-sized maps.
Sure, it would be "Hook, Line, and Sinker" if it were on Mobile devices, but it does not so far appear to be worth the efforet of making it available on them.
EDIT: On the other hand, I will try not to get too ahead of myself as there is a Mobile version of BTD5, a popular Tower Defense Game with "Bloons" as the antagonists and Monkeys as the protagonists, available of flash, a PC "Deluxe" version, and, as I said, Mobile with features seen in no other version. Considering how tight the tower placements can be in that game, I am amazed Ninjakiwi was able to mobilize that one.
Quote from: 4xC on August 22, 2014, 09:32:17 AM
CW2 had a 90-degree perspective of everything; instead of top-down, you saw it from the front-back.
Are you using spherical coordinates to describe this?
Because we're talking about 3 different games and different perspectives, I was just using the same coordinate system to describe all of them. The xy plane is the ground. An object on that plane has its area defined by x and y and its height defined z. Let's say that the camera starts at a distance of 1 arbitrary unit from its target. Let's also say that when you look at the screen, the center point is exactly (0,0,0).
(http://i.imgur.com/BpGuOqE.png?1)(http://i.imgur.com/l0t1ZZT.png)
In CW2, the world has either been flattened to have only height and width but not depth, or you have the ability to travel through the solid earth and can only see a single slice of it. Doesn't matter what the lore is, the math is the same. And just to be consistent with the above graphic, lets say the slice you're looking at is the yz plane. Then in case of CW2, the camera is at (1, 90°, 0) and scrolling in and out moves you along the x-axis.
Then in CW1 and CW3, the camera is a top-down view. And let's say the top of the screen is in the positive x direction. So the camera is at (1, 0, 0) and when you scroll to zoom, you move along the z-axis. But actually the camera angle in CW1 is not quite a perfect top-down view. It's more like (1, -10°, 0).
Quote from: 4xC on August 22, 2014, 09:32:17 AM
A lot more scrolling than necessary and tiny screens to limit the full perspective of the whole field; some maps are so big, you would literally need a microscope to see them if you zoom out to the max.
I agree that you couldn't do it on a phone. But the resolution of my tablet is 2560x1600. That's bigger than my monitor. Just increase the amount that you're allowed to zoom into. I already play the game at 100% zoom most of the time. I just zoom out to navigate to the next area where I want to zoom in.
Quote from: 4xC on August 22, 2014, 09:32:17 AM
Massive Micro and Macro Management that I doubt is found in Mobile.
Technological overloads that may cause the device to lag with medium-sized maps.
Sure, it would be "Hook, Line, and Sinker" if it were on Mobile devices, but it does not so far appear to be worth the efforet of making it available on them.
EDIT: On the other hand, I will try not to get too ahead of myself as there is a Mobile version of BTD5, a popular Tower Defense Game with "Bloons" as the antagonists and Monkeys as the protagonists, available of flash, a PC "Deluxe" version, and, as I said, Mobile with features seen in no other version. Considering how tight the tower placements can be in that game, I am amazed Ninjakiwi was able to mobilize that one.
I think you're underedtimating the hardware of tablets these days. Anomaly Korea (Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/app/251530/))(Android (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.elevenbitstudios.AnomalyKorea&hl=en)) and Greed Corp (Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/app/48950/?snr=1_7_7_151_150_1))(Android (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Invictus.GreedCorpMobilePaid&hl=en)) are two of my favorite 3D strategy games on Android. My Nexus 10 tablet is almost two years old now and it has no problem running either game. Just as another example, the famous Temple Run 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Run_2) is also a Unity game; I doubt it's very processor intensive but the 3D graphics look good.
And isn't the whole point of Unity is that you only need to write the game one and you can publish it on PC,Mac,Linux,Android,iOS? I made a simple 2d game once in Unity and it was fairly straight forward to get it running on Linux and Android (not really interested in any other platforms tbh). I can't imagine there's a bunch of platform specific code in CW3.