Do not make the game isometric

[Lexx]

If you cripple yourself technic-wise just for nostalgia, you are doing it wrong, imo. They should use the superior technic, which costs them less and is faster to work with. In worst case, they can still add filters and shaders over the whole scene to give it a painted look. Such a thing is not impossible.

 

The argument of not crippling yourself technically wise because of nostalgia is what gave us Fallout 3. Which I hated. Of course, that lead to New Vegas, which was actually great, but still, not the turn based top down Fallout we all wanted.

 

No it is not. Fallout 3 isn't how it is because birds-eye perspective is technically outdated. It is how it is because Bethesda is doing "what they do best" - first person sandbox games.

[Hassat Hunter]

Heck no. Think BG2 > NWN, massive loss of character. Have you seen as beatiful backgrounds as BG2 in modern games (think DA2). City with as much character?

Nope.

 

As thus, I don't see why people are going all "weh weh" here. Divinity also does Isometric. And it's definitely a good progression.

Wouldn't you want big 8 character control again, rather than the 3 any modern RPG allow due to the camera work? Well, here you go.

 

So, personally I would say "don't make the game anything OTHER than isometric"

[mkreku]

The argument of not crippling yourself technically wise because of nostalgia is what gave us Fallout 3. Which I hated. Of course, that lead to New Vegas, which was actually great, but still, not the turn based top down Fallout we all wanted.

 

I started with Wasteland in 1988. Loved it, still my favourite game. As a kid I dreamt about being in this world, trying to survive and scavenge for items in long forgotten buildings.

 

Then came the Fallouts, which I enjoyed, but not because of the combat (which I thought sucked), but because I wanted to play in those worlds. It wasn't as open world as Wasteland and I actually felt that the combat took away some of the enjoyment of the game, but it was passable.

 

Fallout 3 was a great comeback for this series. It wasn't as well written or as interesting as either Wasteland or the Fallouts, but it showed that with a talented team changing perspective and combat system did not destroy the feel of the old games. In fact, it improved it greatly for me. I was finally in the game, something I had dreamt about since 1988.

 

Then came Fallout: New Vegas. I absolutely love it. One of my favourite games ever.

 

We did NOT all want a turn based top down Fallout.

[alanschu]

If you cripple yourself technic-wise just for nostalgia, you are doing it wrong, imo. They should use the superior technic, which costs them less and is faster to work with. In worst case, they can still add filters and shaders over the whole scene to give it a painted look. Such a thing is not impossible.

 

The argument of not crippling yourself technically wise because of nostalgia is what gave us Fallout 3. Which I hated. Of course, that lead to New Vegas, which was actually great, but still, not the turn based top down Fallout we all wanted.

 

 

Fallout 3 is so much more than simply not limited yourself technically. There was nothing that would have prevented a Fallout 3 game from utilizing an isometric camera. Bethesda just chose not too. They made deliberate design decisions based on their own personal area of expertise and what they wanted to do with the game.

 

There are still new ways of doing things that apply to an "old school" style of game development.

[Luhaja]

We did NOT all want a turn based top down Fallout.

 

We didn't? Ohh, ok then.

[Humanoid]

Fallout 3 was a case of cripping oneself creatively, not technologically.

[Audiocide]

No it is not. Fallout 3 isn't how it is because birds-eye perspective is technically outdated. It is how it is because Bethesda is doing "what they do best" - first person sandbox games.

 

I agree. The first time I've heard Bethesda was making a Fallout game, I was hugely excited. It sounded like a great idea to explore the Fallout wasteland in first person. And I still think it excelled in that front.

 

The problem with that game was that it didn't feel like Fallout. The characters and the story was just a little too cheesy. It didn't have that same feeling of being an outsider in a FUBAR world.

[Sammael]

TBH and the cancelled F3 used 3D engines and looked almost EXACTLY like IE games / original FO.

 

Citing NWN, a game that looked dated the day it came out, is not a good example of why a 3D engine should not be used.

 

There are loads of reasons for using a 3D engine, and pretty much the only reason against is nostalgia.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Sammael

[Luhaja]

There are loads of reasons for using a 3D engine, and pretty much the only reason against is nostalgia.

 

I'm not sure this is a bad reason. Just saying, otherwise I agree.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Luhaja

[Monte Carlo]

Wow. You have been tempted out of exile by this fell news. Hello again.

[Reddie]

First, the pre-rendered 2D art was a 3D model first too.

 

No. Pre-redendered 2D means just that: it's already there and not rendered at runtime AND it's 2D. It can be 2D from start to end and doesn't have to start as a 3D model (concept phase not taken in account here). In fact, I believe Infinity games backgrounds never were 3D models, while they are certainly pre-rendered and 2D.

[Sammael]

Wow. You have been tempted out of exile by this fell news. Hello again.

Hello. I actually stopped by a couple of weeks ago, it must have been a premonition of some sort (or, perhaps, the work of one of my diabolical informers).

[Hoverdog]

TBH and the cancelled F3 used 3D engines and looked almost EXACTLY like IE games / original FO.

 

Citing NWN, a game that looked dated the day it came out, is not a good example of why a 3D engine should not be used.

 

There are loads of reasons for using a 3D engine, and pretty much the only reason against is nostalgia.

Well then, which semi-isometric 3d does look better than IWD or PST? neverwinter nights 2? drakensangs? dragon age? well?

[Audiocide]

TBH and the cancelled F3 used 3D engines and looked almost EXACTLY like IE games / original FO.

 

Citing NWN, a game that looked dated the day it came out, is not a good example of why a 3D engine should not be used.

 

There are loads of reasons for using a 3D engine, and pretty much the only reason against is nostalgia.

 

True. I actually played that demo. I'm not against 3D backgrounds at all, if the level designers can pull it off without being limited by the engine's capabilities. The reason I was citing NWN was those limitations.

 

So if Obsidian chose to use pure 2D, or 2D/3D hybrid graphics, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

 

Basically all I care about is a great RPG that I know these guys can deliver.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Audiocide

[Eich]

Oh my god. Is there seriously a debate going on about the question whether the game should be awesome or use a soon-to-be ugly 3d engine? I want to play this game in 10 or 20 years without my eyes beeing insulted by some outdated 3d engine. It's not about nostalgia, it's about ageing. Baldurs Gate 1 is still a beautiful painting. Any 3d game from 1998 is unplayable because of the use of a seemingly 'superior' 3d engine. You just can't beat a painting. Don't fool yourself we havn't reached the pinnacle of graphics yet. Any 3d game being released right now will look bizarre in 20 years. Also, the devs want to create a Infinity-esk game. If you don't want such a thing support an other game.

[Wombat]

Presentation of the game-play can be important - I wasted my share of time dealing with NWN 2 camera and the story must be the same for the designers. As a player, I found the game-play was not as good as ones on IE, either. ToEE's 3D was not bad but I wish it had been less buggy in terms of the game-play. Personally, I cannot but doubt these things worth the invested time of both the players' and the designers'.

[Hassat Hunter]

*Great post*

Hear hear.

It's the same why looking at older movies the matte paintings hold up, but the CGI looks terribly outdated. And yes, CGI these days also still looks rather horrible in most cases.

 

As for anyone asking if DA:O, Drakensang etc. look better than BG2 or PS:T the answer would be... no. I am pretty sure I'm not the only one. I don't really see why anyone would prefer making it look worse, AND add camera issues to distract from proper gameplay is a good thing :/... seriously people think that?

[catmorbid]

Oh my god. Is there seriously a debate going on about the question whether the game should be awesome or use a soon-to-be ugly 3d engine? I want to play this game in 10 or 20 years without my eyes beeing insulted by some outdated 3d engine. It's not about nostalgia, it's about ageing. Baldurs Gate 1 is still a beautiful painting. Any 3d game from 1998 is unplayable because of the use of a seemingly 'superior' 3d engine. You just can't beat a painting. Don't fool yourself we havn't reached the pinnacle of graphics yet. Any 3d game being released right now will look bizarre in 20 years. Also, the devs want to create a Infinity-esk game. If you don't want such a thing support an other game.

 

You can do miracles with PCs of today. The reason we aren't seeing much more top-notch graphics is precisely because consoles are technically limiting every multi-platform game. Luckily Obsidian ditched console versions, so they can focus on giving pc gamers all the love they can. That said, I hope the game will be top notch graphically.

 

An argument towards 3D though: You say you want to play the game in 20 years. Well, imagine how nice a game intended for 1920x1080 resolution will look on that 100" 16384 x 29127 screen on your living room, running on your supercomputer. I doubt you like the pixels that much. However, with 3D some modders could've still made some pretty nice high resolution models and textures

[Madzookeeper]

anyone here looked at bastion recently? it's pretty freaking amazing looking to be painted/drawn. pretty isometric and 2d more or less as well. you CAN make an amazing looking game without 3d.

[Delterius]

You can do miracles with PCs of today. The reason we aren't seeing much more top-notch graphics is precisely because consoles are technically limiting every multi-platform game. Luckily Obsidian ditched console versions, so they can focus on giving pc gamers all the love they can. That said, I hope the game will be top notch graphically.

 

From the way I see it, Obsidian thankfully ditched consoles from a design (keyboard has more buttens), not artistic, standpoint. Graphic whoring is something else entirely, and its ultimately another problem that the console generations brought to RPGs: a creative stiffening cinematic focus which Obsidian also seems to disagree with, given their opposition of full voice acting (not that they had any choice in the matter, haven't seen a 'wall of text kickstarter' with full VO yet).

[Semper]

No. Pre-redendered 2D means just that: it's already there and not rendered at runtime AND it's 2D. It can be 2D from start to end and doesn't have to start as a 3D model (concept phase not taken in account here). In fact, I believe Infinity games backgrounds never were 3D models, while they are certainly pre-rendered and 2D.

 

not denying that matte painting skills ain't needed but those infinity engine games are 3d areas rendered flat. you can even notice some damn ugly uv stretching in some of the assets.

oh, and just look at that

 

creating areas just with a "pencil" and a uniform and consistent perspective is very difficult. therefore 3d models as guidlines or whole pre-rendered areas are common. and i am absolutely fine with that. in fact they shouldn't even waste time on doing high detailed 3d faces. portraits are enough and the camera should be locked at a height similar to iwd.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Semper

[Humanoid]

It's not so much the resolution as much as the raw size of the screen. DOS-era VGA games look blocky not because the average resolution went up, but because the physical dimensions of the display went up. The game looking sharp on your 30" monitor today (I say 30" as I imagine the average monitor size may creep up towards that over the next decade) will look much the same on the 30" monitor of 2025 no matter what resolution it operates as, whether 2D or 3D. We're no longer at the stage where we'll see a doubling of diagonal measurement (and thus quadrupling of viewable area) in monitors since the limitation becomes one of usability rather than one of technology. That 100" display won't be sitting an arm's length away from you, that's for certain.

 

All that said though, I hope the art for the game is scanned at least to the maximum standard available today, and looking at the near future, 4k would be nice.

 

 

I'd add that the point at which 3D has surpassed 2D in terms of what is possible artistically has likely already been reached. I haven't played many of the games quoted here, but I'm of the belief that DA:O for example is past that point - it's failure then is not down to any technical aspect but one of art direction (one that seems to treat colour as an enemy).

[Ieo]

I honestly think the reason 3d reboots/sequels of 2d games has more to do with business decisions based on market peers ("everyone is doing it") than fundamental development bonuses. Those game firms don't go out of their way to poll players, either.

 

I hate the excess dependency in today's games on cut-scenes and NPC VOs, making play experience PASSIVE and shifting our roleplay PC power to NPC presentation.

 

And there's a better reason not to bother with 3d, cinematics, etc. The kickstarter well ostensibly reach goal in 24 odd hours, showing that the paying players are interested in things beyond those.

[WorstUsernameEver]

I honestly don't think the Infinity Engine games aged all that well in terms of looks.

[Malcador]

I must be weird in that I don't really get bothered by game engines' 'aging'