And don't even get me started on the hideous menus and interface.īut that's where my major criticisms end. Also, the frenetic nature of an RTS means it's essential to be able to see what's going on forget troop tactics and using the laughable formations - units mostly just bunch up into ugly and indistinguishable clumps of limbs and heads. But they are important, especially when you're forking out a years' savings on a new graphics card. Sadly, Battlecry III is no exception, as it looks identical to its two predecessors.
If you need evidence, just look at any of the recent turn-based Warlords games or their real-time Battlecry siblings. No matter how good a game is, if it looks like a cowpat smeared on a monitor by a Turner Prize winner, it's never going to attract the plaudits it deserves. Why? Why I ask you? Why has one of the longest-running and most respected strategy series-eses ever still not worked it out? Worked out what you ask? Well, take a look at these screenshots and you'll probably guess.
0 kommentar(er)
