Gamespot Review!

[ElIndio]

Good review from Gamespot, considering how "mainstream" they are, i.e. Call of Duty is guaranteed at least an 8.5 or 9.0 irrespective of it being a reskin of the previous year's title..

But on the subject of the graphics, personally I think they are really good and almost have a retro feel to them. 3D is not needed, as you would lose the feel of what the game is trying to achieve (as has been stated).

Besides if Panzer Corps was 3D, then it would basically be viewed as a R.U.S.E. clone and lose the point of the game!

Now R.U.S.E. is an enjoyable game but has nothing like the depth or thought process needed in Panzer Corps.

[Xitax]

Man, am I ever getting tired of the 'graphics' discussion. I mean, if a game isn't full 3D and using every possible shader plus some invented in the future and time-transported into the past by Jean-Luc Picard himself, then we are made to feel as if we have something to apologize for?!

As far as I'm concerned the gameplay fits the form of 2-d sprites (and they are good-looking no doubt) far better than any 3-D interpretation. I feel that many strategy games have lost something by the mad rush into graphics card land hell, and I can only express my appreciation to a team that properly realizes that their game is not a good fit there.

Form and function, the perfect fit as it is! Bravo, I say!

[handyman24602]

I love good graphics as well as gameplay. However, this idea that 3d is automatically better than 2d in a game graphically is wrong. Plently of sequels which switched to 3d ended up having worse graphics due to a lack of detail in the 3d models. For example Stronghold's 2d graphics looked great against Stronghold 2's 3d graphics which looked ugly and lost character. For the same developement time i'm sure that 2d graphics would end up looking much better and have more character than a 3d implementation.

[Obsolete]

Ahh geeze... Stronghold.... that brings back....

Memories... Somehow that simple campaign game really was addictive.