Bofferbrauer2 said:
The AI of the first game is very bad, it gets progressively more complicated with each new version. AoE 3 was a big reason at it's release to upgrade both CPU and GPU And the AI calculations are not the only things going on when playing a game, the engine has to do hundreds of calculations in the background every second. I mentioned AI because it's, beside physics and pathfinding, one of the things that ramp up the number of calculations by a signifcant degree - and they are all coming into play at the same time in RTS games. There's a reason why pathfinding had a slider back in the days and physics up to this day. If you want a more modern RTS game for comparision, just look up framerates in Starcraft II. The CPU is the limiting factor here, not the GPU as it is the case in vitually any other game and genre. |
Understood. I really left RTS a long time ago, perhaps 15 years.
Considering graphics aren't demanding they could offload a good portion to GPU. But yes, if several sacrifices need to be made to run the game, then it isn't a good idea, we just can't really tell at the moment.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







