Instead of having isometric graphics like IE games (BG, IWD, PT etc.) make it fixed perspective from above such as most RTS games nowdays like Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2. This is almost the same thing gameplay wise, but will add more feel of depth to the graphics.

 

Making the background 3D on the other hand instead of flat 2D texture allows you dynamic resolution, dynamic lighting, more dynamic world, realistic physics and the list goes on and on.

I'd consider games like SC2 and WC3 to be "isometric."

 

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.

What he means to say is probably "don't use pre-rendered backdrops". It's something that leaves me a little perplexed too, in that I don't really see the appeal beyond "nostalgia!!", but I'm willing to wait until I see what Obsidian is cooking up, engine-wise.

Yes, like WorstUsernameEver said. The way they use the word isometric and then talk about games like Baldur's Gate as their ideal sounds like they are going with 2D backdrops.

Edited September 15, 201213 yr by Bercon

The appeal, in my opinion, is that the levels don't consist of the same exact 3D models recycled again and again ad nauseum.

 

When you play the old IE games 10+ years later, sure it looks quaint. But the same kind of thing done right now would probably look pretty good. They could integrate 3D models into the 2D backdrop to add little animations and whatnot, and the player characters could be in 3D, but I think hand drawn environments can really add character to every location you visit.

Edited September 15, 201213 yr by Audiocide

Pre-rendered 2D art > 3D modelling

 

It's also probably cheaper. Which means more content!

Edited September 15, 201213 yr by Sensuki

Yeah, I hope its not completely isometric. I'd want to zoom in and tilt the camera to my liking when I'm exploring. Cut-scenes and dialogue would also look really dated if it was done like in BG.

With the kind of budget Kickstarter allows, you won't get cinematic conversation or cutscenes anyway.. though I'd personally like to see something like the Dungeon Siege III painted cutscenes for the most important/pivotal conversations/cutscenes. Not sure how feasible it is for conversation, tho', since they have customizable characters.

Yeah, I hope its not completely isometric. I'd want to zoom in and tilt the camera to my liking when I'm exploring. Cut-scenes and dialogue would also look really dated if it was done like in BG.

 

On the other hand, the camera zooming into people's faces in the absence of voice acting might feel kind of weird.

I'm at least hoping for a rotatable camera.

I'm at least hoping for a rotatable camera.

 

I doubt there will be one. What's been confirmed is that it will have pre-rendered backdrops and apparently a "new rendering method" whatever Feargus is hinting at with that. They're clearly going for an Infinity Engine-feel (they said that themselves), and honestly, Obsidian is not good at stuff like interface and camera. A fixed perspective will help them focus on better map design and more interesting environments, imo.

Cut-scenes and dialogue would also look really dated if it was done like in BG.

 

No 'cinematic experience' here. No voiced PC and minimal NPC VO.

Pre-rendered 2D art > 3D modelling

 

It's also probably cheaper. Which means more content!

 

In terms of generating content for good cost, 3D has really come a long way. In many ways it's actually cheaper than 2D now (especially with models, though there's nothing stopping a dev from putting 3D models onto a 2D backdrop)

 

They may make 2D art, but 3D grants a lot of power especially if they want the settings to change at all (say an action you do results in a castle taking damage or something).

But it's also grossly misused in some cases like in DA2's dungeons, er, dungeon.

I think the focus here is to make a great RPG.

 

Neither rotating cameras, nor facial animations would have made Planescape: Torment better.

You can make a great RPG that has Wasteland-tier graphics, but I'm sure that's not the goal

I'd have to say a zoomable (out, in this case) would have made PS:T better though.

Pre-rendered 2D art > 3D modelling

 

It's also probably cheaper. Which means more content!

 

In terms of generating content for good cost, 3D has really come a long way. In many ways it's actually cheaper than 2D now (especially with models, though there's nothing stopping a dev from putting 3D models onto a 2D backdrop)

 

They may make 2D art, but 3D grants a lot of power especially if they want the settings to change at all (say an action you do results in a castle taking damage or something).

 

The problem with 3D in such vast areas is that, it will either take too much time and money, or they will have to end up copy/pasting the exact same models everywhere a-la Neverwinter Nights.

 

Neither is very appealing. I don't understand why 3D should be an absolute necessity. I haven't seen it done in a long time, but I'm sure that with modern tools, some spectacular looking maps can be made for an isometric game.

 

Also, castles can also take damage in 2D. 2D graphics can, in fact, be animated. It could probably be made zoomable as well, if they use large enough resolutions.

Edited September 15, 201213 yr by Audiocide

On the other hand, the camera zooming into people's faces in the absence of voice acting might feel kind of weird.

 

I heard there would be voice acting, just not full voice acting? I'm fine with dialog tree boxes for basic conversations, but for important scenes or conversations with companions, they should go for a more a more cinematic look with voice acting.

Edited September 15, 201213 yr by Tevious

The problem with 3D in such vast areas is that, it will either take too much time and money, or they will have to end up copy/pasting the exact same models everywhere a-la Neverwinter Nights.

 

Are you referring to the backdrop or the character models? I'm less keen on how much is involved in developing a prerendered backdrop, but characters (especially customizable ones) are cheaper and more versatile in 3D. And this is not with copy/pasting.

 

I don't understand why 3D should be an absolute necessity.

 

There's a reason why inXile went with a 3D engine to do the "true sequel" to an old school, very 2D game. There are huge benefits to development, as well as quality assurance.

On the other hand, the camera zooming into people's faces in the absence of voice acting might feel kind of weird.

 

I heard there would be voice acting, just not full voice acting? I'm fine with dialog tree boxes for basic conversations, but for important scenes, they should go for a more a more cinematic look when using voice acting.

 

My guess is it will be similar to Fallout in terms of voice acting. Narration and major NPCs getting a line or two to introduce them.

Gamebanshee and Brother None IIRC said it's going to be 2D backgrounds with 3D charachters.

Instead of having isometric graphics like IE games (BG, IWD, PT etc.) make it fixed perspective from above such as most RTS games nowdays like Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2. This is almost the same thing gameplay wise, but will add more feel of depth to the graphics.

 

Making the background 3D on the other hand instead of flat 2D texture allows you dynamic resolution, dynamic lighting, more dynamic world, realistic physics and the list goes on and on.

I would like it to be like Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale. I was pretty much content with that aesthetic and I love artistic backgrounds.

I've been told about pre-rendered handpainted backgrounds, but nothing about 2d characters. I'm going to assume they'll go full 3d for them, much much easier.