Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Zeckul

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    283

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Zeckul

  1. Zeckul
    Yeah that's pretty much correct. It's a 3D world, but the projection to 2D is done on the developers' machines once, rather than each frame on your machine. Pre-rendering instead of real-time rendering. This allows arbitrarily complex scenes as well as selectively hand-painting over the renders as needed. It however forces the use of a parallel projection (so objects appear the same size regardless of point of view, which is unrealistic), and forever locking the "camera" at a specific angle.
  2. Zeckul
    December 2014 would be my guess. I do hope they don't add more features and push back the release date even more. I'd welcome an expansion pack though
  3. Zeckul
    Tactical combat and beautiful graphics. Unfortunately the closest to that in recent memory was Dragon Age : Origins, and I didn't like the graphics at all. Too brownish and bloody. The Witcher on the hand has superb graphics, but very boring combat. Basically I want Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale back. Project Eternity's my only hope atm.
  4. Zeckul
    Loving every single pixel of these screenshots. This looks sharp and gorgeous at native 1080p. Apart from some missing detail that others have mentioned already, everything looks quite realistic and believable, for a fantasy world, much like Baldur's Gate. The more I see of this game the more I think this will be a worthy successor to Baldur's Gate - that's the highest praise I could give any game. Something needs to be done about the lighting so the monsters stand out a little more against the background - perhaps this is just due to the paintover job not being done, but perhaps some subtle rim shading or something could help bring the models out from the background. At the same time, a common complaint of hybrid 2d/3d games is that models stand out too much from the background; it'll be a difficult thing to balance I'm sure.
  5. Zeckul
    V-Sync is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about games where increasing the framerate results in an increase in simulation speed, as in the original IE titles.
  6. Zeckul
    When a developer renames an engine, what they usually mean by that is that it's changed enough to be considered a new engine. Unless you happen to know the engine code very well, I'll go with Obsidian's take over yours, thanks.
  7. Zeckul
    They've explicitely stated that the poll was advisory only, and since they've expressed preference for a turn-based system already, I think only a crushing majority in favor of real-time could sway their decision. At least Brian Fargo says he's surprised at the near-perfect 50-50 split.
  8. Zeckul
    Heh, so I should argue for the game mechanic that you like because in your mind I would prefer that more? At this point I'm more inclined to vote Turn-based almost out of spite. If combat is not something you care much about, then you should not want to spend much time fighting in the game. RTwP will allow you to spend less time fighting in the game. RTwP would therefore be more in line with your tastes. I don't know what goes on in your mind; I'm making a logical argument. You can point out flaws in it if you want, but reinterpreting it as some kind of personal attack, and even suggesting to pick a side just because you don't like the argument, now that is what I would call disingenuous. That's obviously not what I'm saying. So how do you explain that PS:T and Baldur's Gate 2 could have the same mechanics yet a very different focus? The premise that implementing a RTwP combat system would be more expensive is purely hypothetical. The developers did not even suggest that idea. Even though they have a working turn-based system, it is completly unknown how much of this system could be re-used for TToN. In addition, a turn-based combat system could allow for more complex combat mechanics, meaning more resources put into combat as opposed to story features or areas, as you mention. We can discuss ifs all day, but in the end I don't think we have good reason to think your premise is true, and therefore the argument against RTwP combat doesn't hold.
  9. Zeckul
    In addition I would also argue that if combat is not something you care much about, then you should also vote RTwP, as it will allow for quicker resolution of fights. TB will force you to think a lot more about your actions during combat.
  10. Zeckul
    TToN's developers also disagree:
  11. Zeckul
    You're missing the point that I am making is that PST's encounter design is affected by the focus the developer had on the game (which was not one of focus). I also feel you're being exceptionally disingenuous in your other posts since you clearly recognize this and as such continually make comparisons to Baldur's Gate 2. I'm using BG2 as an illustration of RTwP because that's a good example of RTwP combat. I don't think it's disingenous to wish for combat similar in mechanics to Baldur's Gate 2 in TToN: in fact, the developers themselves in their description of RTwP on the official poll, use Baldur's Gate 2 and even Icewind Dale as examples. The question of mechanics is orthogonal to the question of focus. Obviously what InXile means by "combat similar to Icewind Dale" is not that the game will be heavily combat focused; rather what they mean is that the combat mechanics would be similar to Icewind Dale (or Baldur's Gate 2, or Planescape: Torment). PS:T's combat could have been good even without having been a focus of the game; it was bad because of poor encounter design, i.e. repeated use of thrash mobs. I don't expect combat in TToN to play as proeminent a role as in Baldur's Gate 2, but I'm expecting it to be exciting and tactical, and I believe RTwP mechanics would be better suited for the task. When people usually refer to PS:T's combat it's to point out how tedious it was. I understand your point on different focus but I believe I've just addressed that. I think that PS:T missed a big opportunity on combat and that the game as a whole greatly suffered because of that. The TToN devs are quite aware of that themselves as they've pointed out during the kickstarter. I hope TToN will have fun and meaningful combat, and based on my experience with RTwP vs TB mechanics, I think a RTwP system would be best suited to the task. That said while I am strongly in favor of RTwP, I still trust TToN's devs to produce the best game they can regardless of system chosen; I would still prefer well designed TB combat to PS:T's combat.
  12. Zeckul
    NWN2 uses the Electron Engine, not the Aurora Engine. Mask of the Betrayer played quite well in strategic mode ("isometric") in my experience.
  13. Zeckul
    You're making an assumption that the combat in PST would've been identical had it been a turn-based system. We don't know that. But that's irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that PS:T's combat system was bad due to the encounter design, not the real-time nature of the combat. The assumption you're pointing out was only for illustration purposes. That's clear from reading their comments; it's also clear to me that some are okay with both, there's a clearly labeled third option for that in the poll with several votes in it, where did you get the idea that I wouldn't be aware of that, and how is that of any relevance??
  14. Zeckul
    But then if people vote in ignorance then that changes how you can interpret the poll results. Clearly the number of people who actually want RTwP is greater than the poll results suggest. In any case even with a 60-40 split it would still be rather close and not the kind of overwhelming majority that would reverse InXile's preference to make the game Turn-Based, so it doesn't matter that much. What personally bothers me most about this is the fact that after 6 months in pre-production they still haven't decided such a fundamental element of the combat system. PE had this down from day 1. I hope combat isn't relegated to an afterthought as it seemed to be in PS:T.
  15. Zeckul
    It's explained pretty darned clearly right there where you vote: RTwP TB This information isn't hidden, it's right there in front of people's faces when they vote. Indeed, but then a lot of people must not have stopped to read those. They see "turn-based" and think "Baldur's Gate" because Baldur's Gate emulates a turn-based system - the confusion on semantics was present in this very discussion here, just head over to the comments page and see what many "supporters of TB" claim are valid arguments to support it.
  16. Zeckul
    Actually, what they're saying is they "want Heroes of Might and Magic-style combat rather than Planescape: Torment combat". Which, as I recall, is the one thing almost universally derided by even the most ardent of PST fans. PST combat wasn't the same as the BGs or the IWDs. No. Planescape Torment uses real-time with pause combat exactly like Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale; it's even the same engine (Infinity Engine). PS:T's combat was derided not because of the fundamental system, but because of the poorly designed encounters. If PS:T had been turned based, those poorly designed encounters would have been even more of a pain (because there would have been no quick way to resolve them). If you want Baldur's Gate style combat, you need to vote for RTwP. The fact that this obviously isn't clear to a lot of people (and it's not just you, it's everywhere in the comments) throws doubt on the legitimacy of the poll's results.
  17. Zeckul
    I don't understand. Are people voting TB saying that Baldur's Gate 2 would have been better with turn-based combat? I am strongly of the opinion that Baldur's Gate 2 main appeal was the exciting tactical RTwP combat. The second best RPG I've played, Mask of the Betrayer, was also RTwP . The third best RPG I've played, Planescape Torment, was also RTwP - admitedly, combat was not its strongest point, but that wasn't due to its real-time nature. Having it be turn-based would have only aggravated the issue. Why should TToN be any different? Do you really want to see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdmGthYqTbo#t=960 rather than this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCi37-xGpm0 Because this is what you're saying by voting Turn-Based. You're saying you want Heroes of Might and Magic-style combat rather than Baldur's Gate 2-style combat. You want the terrain to be divided as a grid and every character waiting patiently while one takes its turn until things are resolved, rather than being able to place characters anywhere and pause when you wish to. I wonder just how many TB voters actually realize this. You are also giving up: - the ability to actively dodge area of effect threats - the ability to race towards or from enemies - any sense of simultaneity, i.e. witnessing two of your mages unleashing fireballs together If what you're calling turn-based combat is Baldur's Gate-style combat, then that is RTwP.
  18. Zeckul
    OP expressed my thoughts exactly. After seeing gameplay footage of Wasteland 2 I can definitely say this is NOT what I ever expected when backing TToN. Looks drawn-out, tedious, unexciting and too "gamey" or immersion breaking. Anyway, if you have an opinion to make, the best place to voice it is at https://torment.uservoice.com/forums/228631-combat-discussion-forum-backer-only-/suggestions/4905338-advantages-of-real-time-with-pause As the developers will actually read that.
  19. Zeckul
    What does Need for Speed Rivals and the Infinity Engine have in common? That's right, game speed tied to the framerate. This might have been acceptable in 1999, but in 2013, it's NOT. http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Need-Speed-Rivals-Gimped-PC-60fps-Completely-Breaks-Game-60649.html I expect animations in this game to look buttery smooth on my 120hz monitor, as a proper modern PC title should be able to do. Since it is my understanding that character animations are rendered in real-time, it should be possible for the game to scale naturally to any framerate; and even if some animations are pre-rendered at a fixed framerate (which would suck by itself, please avoid pre-rendered animations as much as possible), the game as a whole shouldn't be.
  20. Zeckul
    Yes the level of detail is out of this world. Why can't I be playing this game now?
  21. Zeckul
    What a delightful and interesting read! I would love to learn more about your development processes. Do the developers adhere to any specific methodology (SCRUM, XP, etc)? How iterative is feature design across various areas (gameplay systems, UI, area design, dialogue, etc)?
  22. Zeckul
    I would attribute this to the move towards console and cross-platform titles. This itself was motivated by gamer expectations requiring bigger budgets which in return required bigger markets. PC-only games became much more rare, and with them, controls that required a mouse and keyboard. A gamepad is a clumsy device to manipulate a group of characters, so party-based RPGs didn't make sense. But if you're controlling a single character, then you can simply attach the camera to that character and simplify controls even more that way. The only reason games like Project Eternity and Tides of Numenera are possible today is crowdfunding, which allows a developer like Obsidian to target a more limited market and make the game they truly want to make rather than try to please a theoretical mass market. Ultima was in part first-person by the way; I think it was the main inspiration behind Elder Scrolls.
  23. Zeckul
    So let's review the arguments presented against making the game "isometric" (by which I assume the OP refers to the use of pre-rendered backgrounds and a viewpoint with a fixed altitude and direction): It's not a valid argument against pre-rendered backgrounds to simply say that this is an old technique. The idea of using polygons for 3d models is at least as old, but it's still used in every game today. It is true that it would have been impossible to get anywhere near the level of detail seen in the Infinity Engine games had it used real-time rendered backgrounds instead. It is also true, however, that even in this day and age, Obsidian has judged that they could achieve more detailed environments and a better overall game using pre-rendered backgrounds than 3d graphics. One of these reasons might be that modern 3D RPGs like The Witcher 3 cost over 10M$ and take many years to produce, while Project Eternity has 4M$ and aims to get completed in 2 years total. It's a lot easier to make something look good from a single, fixed point of view, than from any point of view. That's just one idea; I'm Obsidian had its own as well. I don't think it'll just stand up to modern 3D RPGs, I think it'll royally kick all their combined posteriors. Just in terms of graphics, I think we're getting highly customizable characters and finely detailed environments at a crazy resolution. Screenshots so far have been nothing short of jaw-dropping. That said, Project Eternity is not attempting to raise the bar for graphics, it's raising the bar for story and character development, something modern 3D RPGs have consistently failed to do as well as Infinity Engine games. PE has already made 4 millions in sales and so more than proven its viability on the market: it will be cherished as a classic game for many years to come.
  24. Zeckul
    Right, but the second you rotate a camera, you've lost that very specific form of projection, correct? So, would the fixed nature of the camera not be a property of isometric projection? I'm sincerely asking. The term is essentially abused to refer in general to parallel projections, which use an infinite focal length. Parallel projections are essential to games using pre-rendered backgrounds such as the Infinity Engine because then the scenery becomes independent from the camera position, as long as it's restricted to a fixed direction and a fixed height. Basically this allowed for very detailed worlds back when 3d acceleration was in its infancy, and even today presents some technical advantages (enough for Obsidian to use it in Project Eternity at least), although it's largely been abandoned. Nothing inherently precludes a game from using real-time rendered graphics and a parallel projection, which would allow for a free "isometric" camera, but that would look horribly unnatural. Even with a fixed height and direction, parallel projections are terrible at representing heights, leading to geometric absurdities. Notably the Arcane Sanctuary in Diablo 2 included some optical illusions, made possible by the use of a parallel projection. See http://www.significant-bits.com/a-laymans-guide-to-projection-in-videogames
  25. Zeckul
    The term isometric refers to a very specific type of projection, and not the fixed or 3rd-person nature of the camera. Starcraft 2, for example, uses a camera with a fixed orientation that can only move alongside a plane (for the most part), but it's a standard 3d perspective projection, not an isometric one. The two concerns are largely orthogonal (math pun woot?!). One concern that has been entirely left aside in this discussion is that RPGs are more than tactical battle simulators, unlike RTSes. They're also about exploration and character development. In these areas a free camera is clearly superior to a fixed one, since it allows for seeing more of the scenery and inspecting your character in more detail. I dearly wish I could look up at the Gnoll Stronghold from the river beneath for instance, or that I could look behind certain buildings, but Baldur's Gate won't let me do that. I'm more than willing to trade away the convenience of a fixed point of view for the increased sense of immersion and freedom of exploration that a free camera provides.
×
×
  • Create New...