Best Visuals for an RTS?

Which RTS has the best visuals to date?

COH hands down. DoW should not even be mentioned.

Depends

COH has better textures, physics, animations and unit models while WIC has better effects and terrain. Overall though I would say Company of Heroes.

I find it funny that Starcraft 2 is up here but no total war game is, which are arguably the best looking RTS games

Probably one of the Total Wars.

Total war by far renders the most detailed (and most quantity) of units at once, along with amazing animations in the newer total wars.

Special recognition to Company of Heroes for having some of the most interactive battlefields I've seen and look good doing it.

World in conflict no question.

LOL at anyone voting StarCraft 2. The game looks good, but pales in comparision to the other games mentioned here.

COH hands down. DoW should not even be mentioned.

Creative

Units in DoW 2 are just as detailed as in CoH. I would agree that CoH looks better though.

I'd probably toss it to CoH if anything. One of my big beefs with DoW2 was that the game didn't have anywhere near the same kind of "realisitic"/believable destructibility as CoH.

Its very close with WiC as well considering there hellishly good special effects. Seriously man, its still the best Nuke i've ever seen in a game.

.....

Geez I gotta play that game again.

I thought R.U.S.E. was rather impressive when I played the BETA.

waIT, PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY VOTING STARCRAFT 2 AS HAVING BEST VISUALS? WOW, JUST WOW.malebog123

Yes they are :D Or are you trying to say someone who finds sc2 to be them most visually appealing rts is infact wrong and in something as highly subjective as visuals theres is only one clear answer? Blizzard created a very appealing games thanks to a great artstyle. Fact is raw technical power is not needed to create a visually appealing game or are you going to say a game like mario galaxy 2 is ugly cause its on the low tech wii? Infact this entire poll proves that point people are voting for reletively low tech rts if raw technical graphics is all that matteres everyone would pick the last option and say one of the total war games as those are the crysis of the rts wolrd and if the poll was about the most techincally advanced rts it would be the only right answer but since this is about visuals there is no clear cut answer.

Supreme Commander : FA and DoW 1

*+

dow 2 has some amazing stuff in it.. another good one is C&C RA3 that one ssuper weapons are just epic.

Homeworld. Still looks amazing over a decade later.

[QUOTE="malebog123"]waIT, PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY VOTING STARCRAFT 2 AS HAVING BEST VISUALS? WOW, JUST WOW.DJ_Headshot

Yes they are :D Or are you trying to say someone who finds sc2 to be them most visually appealing rts is infact wrong and in something as highly subjective as visuals theres is only one clear answer? Blizzard created a very appealing games thanks to a great artstyle. Fact is raw technical power is not needed to create a visually appealing game or are you going to say a game like mario galaxy 2 is ugly cause its on the low tech wii? Infact this entire poll proves that point people are voting for reletively low tech rts if raw technical graphics is all that matteres everyone would pick the last option and say one of the total war games as those are the crysis of the rts wolrd and if the poll was about the most techincally advanced rts it would be the only right answer but since this is about visuals there is no clear cut answer.

[QUOTE="malebog123"]waIT, PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY VOTING STARCRAFT 2 AS HAVING BEST VISUALS? WOW, JUST WOW.DJ_Headshot

Yes they are :D Or are you trying to say someone who finds sc2 to be them most visually appealing rts is infact wrong and in something as highly subjective as visuals theres is only one clear answer? Blizzard created a very appealing games thanks to a great artstyle. Fact is raw technical power is not needed to create a visually appealing game or are you going to say a game like mario galaxy 2 is ugly cause its on the low tech wii? Infact this entire poll proves that point people are voting for reletively low tech rts if raw technical graphics is all that matteres everyone would pick the last option and say one of the total war games as those are the crysis of the rts wolrd and if the poll was about the most techincally advanced rts it would be the only right answer but since this is about visuals there is no clear cut answer.

LOL how is SC2 winning?

There must be some delusional fanboys around. While Starcraft 2 looks okay, compared to any of the games listed here it falls short. I swear people are voting SC2 because they want the game to be perfect at everything.

If I new how to display pics in my post I would pics up so everyone can see the clear differences

[QUOTE="DJ_Headshot"]

[QUOTE="malebog123"]waIT, PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY VOTING STARCRAFT 2 AS HAVING BEST VISUALS? WOW, JUST WOW.khornedeadra

Yes they are :D Or are you trying to say someone who finds sc2 to be them most visually appealing rts is infact wrong and in something as highly subjective as visuals theres is only one clear answer? Blizzard created a very appealing games thanks to a great artstyle. Fact is raw technical power is not needed to create a visually appealing game or are you going to say a game like mario galaxy 2 is ugly cause its on the low tech wii? Infact this entire poll proves that point people are voting for reletively low tech rts if raw technical graphics is all that matteres everyone would pick the last option and say one of the total war games as those are the crysis of the rts wolrd and if the poll was about the most techincally advanced rts it would be the only right answer but since this is about visuals there is no clear cut answer.

:| way to completely miss the point of my post and no where do i say its technically superior to other the other games I said i found it the most visually appealing out of those games which is not something that should be found as surprising. Your confusing technical graphics with visuals which is subjective and depends on the person as to which game hast he better visuals is that really so hard to understand? And yes if that stick figure game had a better artstyle that you preffered it would visually superior to sc2 which is why profressional website gave kirbys epic yarn best graphics of e3.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/best-graphics-best-of-e3/701096

[QUOTE="DJ_Headshot"]

[QUOTE="malebog123"]waIT, PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY VOTING STARCRAFT 2 AS HAVING BEST VISUALS? WOW, JUST WOW.malebog123

Yes they are :D Or are you trying to say someone who finds sc2 to be them most visually appealing rts is infact wrong and in something as highly subjective as visuals theres is only one clear answer? Blizzard created a very appealing games thanks to a great artstyle. Fact is raw technical power is not needed to create a visually appealing game or are you going to say a game like mario galaxy 2 is ugly cause its on the low tech wii? Infact this entire poll proves that point people are voting for reletively low tech rts if raw technical graphics is all that matteres everyone would pick the last option and say one of the total war games as those are the crysis of the rts wolrd and if the poll was about the most techincally advanced rts it would be the only right answer but since this is about visuals there is no clear cut answer.

Your confusing technical graphics with visuals which is a combination of art $tyle and the graphical tech. As for which game looks better visually to a person is highly subjective. And if we are to take your definition of visuals that only tech matters when deciding which game has the better visuals then are you honestly going to tell me a game like company of heroes is more deserving of votes that visually other games pale in comparasion to it? CoH was amazing when it came out but the game is 4 years old now its title for rts graphics king has long been handed down there are rts with far more detial like napoleon total war . I don't see why you would single sc2 as the only offender of this as compared to something like napoleon total war none of the games should be getting any votes there not as techincally advanced as that game

[QUOTE="malebog123"][QUOTE="DJ_Headshot"]

Yes they are :D Or are you trying to say someone who finds sc2 to be them most visually appealing rts is infact wrong and in something as highly subjective as visuals theres is only one clear answer? Blizzard created a very appealing games thanks to a great artstyle. Fact is raw technical power is not needed to create a visually appealing game or are you going to say a game like mario galaxy 2 is ugly cause its on the low tech wii? Infact this entire poll proves that point people are voting for reletively low tech rts if raw technical graphics is all that matteres everyone would pick the last option and say one of the total war games as those are the crysis of the rts wolrd and if the poll was about the most techincally advanced rts it would be the only right answer but since this is about visuals there is no clear cut answer.

DJ_Headshot

Your confusing technical graphics with visuals which is a combination of art $tyle and the graphical tech. As for which game looks better visually to a person is highly subjective. And if we are to take your definition of visuals that only tech matters when deciding which game has the better visuals then are you honestly going to tell me a game like company of heroes is more deserving of votes that visually other games pale in comparasion to it? CoH was amazing when it came out but the game is 4 years old now its title for rts graphics king has long been handed down there are rts with far more detial like napoleon total war . I don't see why you would single sc2 as the only offender of this as compared to something like napoleon total war none of the games should be getting any votes there not as techincally advanced as that game

What this poll ultimately shows it that Blizzard fans lack any sense of objectivity.

Look, two of my favorite games of all time are Fallout 1 & 2 and I pretty much loathe nearly every single aspect of Fallout 3 (my contempt for that game cannot be overstated) yet, even I can freely admit that Fallout 3 has the better graphics. See, it's not that hard being objective.

Unfortunately the votes in this poll are being split by those who can be objective and therefore the results are skewed in the direction of those who obviously can't.

LOL how is SC2 winning?

There must be some delusional fanboys around. While Starcraft 2 looks okay, compared to any of the games listed here it falls short. I swear people are voting SC2 because they want the game to be perfect at everything.

If I new how to display pics in my post I would pics up so everyone can see the clear differences

KeithFerns

Heres SC2

heres CoH

Heres World in Conflict which is still the king of massive explosions and destructiblility.

Dawn of war 2

And heres some ruse which as far as enviormential detial goes looks absolutly gorgeous and also some empire total war which has scale detail and explosions.

Anything made by Relic

World in Conflict, easily.

One of the Total War games.

World in Conflict, no contest.Vfanek

For large scale battles TW: Napoleon I guess, I didn't play it but if it's the same as Empire or better then it wins.

Starcraft isn't anything amazing technically but it's by far the best when it comes to detail.

And heres some ruse which as far as enviormential detial goes looks absolutly gorgeous and also some empire total war which has scale detail and explosions.

DJ_Headshot

what are the last 2 screenshots from?

since when did TW series become RTS?

R.U.S.E, sadly the game isn't nearly as good as the eyecandy.

Not to mention it will probaly have the horrible Ubisoft DRM

since when did TW series become RTS?

Postal_Guy

Uhh, since always? Just because there's a turn based map etc. the battles are still real time.

Homeworld. Still looks amazing over a decade later.

dos4gw82

WiC.

With DX10 l have never seen again shadows created by smoke :shock: .

Total war is a turn based strategy game, not real time.

World in Conflict hands down.