Clarity is extremely important in an RTS game - possibly more so than any other genre. 3D graphics on a 2D surface (a monitor) are ALWAYS less clear than 2D graphics on a 2D surface. StarCraft 1 is far more clear than StarCraft 2, but a game with pixel art or solid-color vector art would be even more clear. It's time that game developers stopped letting technology drive their artistic choices and started going with what's best.
I ask you this, which is clearer: Super Mario Galaxy, or Super Mario Brothers?
I must disagree (a bit) with this point. 2D visuals, at times, OBSCURED the action in games, and in these cases, I longed for a 3D camera view (or at least a game engine that allowed the action to be viewed from a different perspective). In several 2D games I've played, the perspective was from a 3/4 perspective, and when your characters walked behind a wall (or building), you couldn't see them. Sometimes, there was a DOOR on the side of the building that the player couldn't see!!!
I've been playing "Company of Heroes," a WWII-based RTS game, and it uses 3D polygons, but looks just as good as any 2D RTS I've ever played, if not better. It's not perfect, but it's no worse than a 2D game engine that I've played. And because the engine is polygon-based, it allows for more functionality (and graphical/physics effects) than what I've seen in a 2D-based game.
As for Super Mario Galaxy, I've never played it, but what I've seen really looks cool, and it delivers a different game experience than the original 2D Super Mario Bros. game. The 3D game engine allows for a wide variety of gameplay mechanics that would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve in a 2D environment.
I think the real problem you guys are having with these 3D games is not the 3D itself, but the "dumbing down" of the gaming experience to suit the masses. Using 3D to add "pizazz" at the expense of depth of gameplay is what's happening to a large majority of releases recently.
Clarity is extremely important in an RTS game - possibly more so than any other genre. 3D graphics on a 2D surface (a monitor) are ALWAYS less clear than 2D graphics on a 2D surface. StarCraft 1 is far more clear than StarCraft 2, but a game with pixel art or solid-color vector art would be even more clear. It's time that game developers stopped letting technology drive their artistic choices and started going with what's best.
I ask you this, which is clearer: Super Mario Galaxy, or Super Mario Brothers?
I must disagree (a bit) with this point. 2D visuals, at times, OBSCURED the action in games, and in these cases, I longed for a 3D camera view (or at least a game engine that allowed the action to be viewed from a different perspective). In several 2D games I've played, the perspective was from a 3/4 perspective, and when your characters walked behind a wall (or building), you couldn't see them. Sometimes, there was a DOOR on the side of the building that the player couldn't see!!!
I've been playing "Company of Heroes," a WWII-based RTS game, and it uses 3D polygons, but looks just as good as any 2D RTS I've ever played, if not better. It's not perfect, but it's no worse than a 2D game engine that I've played. And because the engine is polygon-based, it allows for more functionality (and graphical/physics effects) than what I've seen in a 2D-based game.
As for Super Mario Galaxy, I've never played it, but what I've seen really looks cool, and it delivers a different game experience than the original 2D Super Mario Bros. game. The 3D game engine allows for a wide variety of gameplay mechanics that would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve in a 2D environment.
I think the real problem you guys are having with these 3D games is not the 3D itself, but the "dumbing down" of the gaming experience to suit the masses. Using 3D to add "pizazz" at the expense of depth of gameplay is what's happening to a large majority of releases recently.