Why did they make CW 3 like CW 1 instead of CW 2?

[Asbestos]

Remember, CW2 had better graphics, unique gameplay, a good story, and a whole bunch of other cool things, like repulsors, nullifiers, microrifts...

[Courtesy]

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!

[4xC]

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.

[Asbestos]

Re: Star Trek Movie Curse, Windows ME, Vista, and 8, Even-numbered Indiana Jones movies

[4xC]

Re: Star Trek Movie Curse, Windows ME, Vista, and 8, Even-numbered Indiana Jones movies

Exactly!

[iycgtptyarvg]

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!

[ctuna]

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.

[hbarudi]

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.

[Anonymeus]

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...)

[beardedlinuxgeek]

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.

[4xC]

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.

[beardedlinuxgeek]

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).



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).

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.

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)(Android) and Greed Corp (Steam)(Android) 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 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.