But no game is perfect, and on a list of faults these games have, can you tell me their pop caps are absent? Although C&C is infamous for being unit spammy (since the later games have virtually no spam control whatsoever), is not the lack of a pop cap one of the pluses C&C has over its rivals? Or, perhaps you think these RTSs did them "properly" because they are successful franchises. If you think these RTSs did it "properly" because you don't mind the pop cap, have you considered you make be looking at it from the wrong direction? Did you think it was acceptable when you first started playing the games, or did you just get used to the ball and chain around your ankle over time and allow yourself to submit to your bondage and develop Stockholm syndrome for your RTS oppressors? Spam control is never a good excuse for pop caps. Since the caps were so low, I am fairly certain these mechanics were not due to engine limitations, and were probably for spam control.
The maximum was ridiculously low in the beginning and you had to constantly be trying to increase it throughout the entire game.
I have played WarCraft III and StarCraft II, and their pop caps were stupid. I've only played Age of Empires once or possibly twice and never played Mythology, so I cannot comment on them. With a higher than necessary pop cap, and an engine limitation, Supreme Commander wins a pass in my eyes. Generally, the maximum pop cap allowed never needed to be reached unless you were trying to out-spam the AI.
I read somewhere that Supreme Commander (the first one) had a conflict with the PC harware that made slow down unavoidable when a certain number of units was reached, no matter how powerful of a computer was running it. Supreme Commander, for instance, experiences enormous slow down issues when its pop cap is approached. In a game that has a population cap, I will always first assume that it was implemented due to engine limitations.
0 kommentar(er)
