Do not make the game isometric

[mkreku]

They didn't. Another case of rose tinted glasses.

 

Also, 3D games can age as well as 2D games, it depends more on art style than technology. In the beginning of 3D, aging really was horrible. But just compare Wasteland to Baldur's Gate to see that 2D also evolved from unplayable today to acceptable.

 

We're now at a stage in 3D graphics that, yes, they will look dated in 20 years, but they will not hurt your eyes any more than Baldur's Gate does today.

[Delterius]

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

 

But they did age (its not Super Noah's Ark 3D), but ToEE looks better.

 

And that's what Eternity seems to be aiming for

Edited September 15, 2012 by Delterius

[Audiocide]

They didn't. Another case of rose tinted glasses.

 

Also, 3D games can age as well as 2D games, it depends more on art style than technology. In the beginning of 3D, aging really was horrible. But just compare Wasteland to Baldur's Gate to see that 2D also evolved from unplayable today to acceptable.

 

We're now at a stage in 3D graphics that, yes, they will look dated in 20 years, but they will not hurt your eyes any more than Baldur's Gate does today.

 

What exactly do you think 3D maps and cutscenes will add to the game's roleplaying value?

 

$1.1M is not a lot of money when you need to employ so many people. They have to prioritize. And just like the poster above said, the people have voted with their wallets as to what those priorities should be.

[mkreku]

What exactly do you think 3D maps and cutscenes will add to the game's roleplaying value?

Nothing.

 

What exactly do you think 2D maps and cutscenes will add to the game's roleplaying value?

[generic.hybridity]

It would probably difficult for them to change it from being isometric when they have nearly raised their entire goal with it as one of the core promises with 24 hours. Maybe a hybrid engine with changing camera angles would be possible (The default of which is ISO).

 

I wonder though if the text based nature of the games dialogue is based on the generic expectation that we see the world from an isometric or similarly top down POV. Leaving more to the imagination

 

Whereas from a 3rd person perspective we'd be more likely to expect voiced dialogue and cutscenes as compared to large branching texts.

 

Having silent or only partly voiced cut scenes would be quite weird methinks.

[Audiocide]

What exactly do you think 2D maps and cutscenes will add to the game's roleplaying value?

 

If it's cheaper and more efficient, it could potentially free the designers and artists to work on more, or better quality content.

[MReed]

Just a note: The maps in Infiinty Engine games (as shown in the screnshot) were pure 3D models during developement, but were pre-rendered (into simple bitmaps) prior to release. If current PCs have the ability to render the source models in realtime, then... Why wouldn't you do that? Just because the background / characters are 3D rendered models doesn't mean that you have to have a floating camera, after all.

 

My vote goes for "Create the backgrounds / character models without regards of the ability to render them in realtime. Once the most complex models have been created, hand them off to the programmers to see if they can be rendered in realtime without modification. If they can't, go with prerendered graphics -- if they can, then go with 3D graphics and a locked camera."

[Tigranes]

2D, 3D, anything that looks beautiful will do me.

 

Of course, to me nobody's made an RPG that looks better than IWD2 since then, but that doesn't mean they can't. Depends on cost - I'm sure they'll be using many existing hires with 3D oriented skills and tools.

[Audiocide]

It would probably difficult for them to change it from being isometric when they have nearly raised their entire goal with it as one of the core promises with 24 hours. Maybe a hybrid engine with changing camera angles would be possible (The default of which is ISO).

 

I wonder though if the text based nature of the games dialogue is based on the generic expectation that we see the world from an isometric or similarly top down POV. Leaving more to the imagination

 

Whereas from a 3rd person perspective we'd be more likely to expect voiced dialogue and cutscenes as compared to large branching texts.

 

Having silent or only partly voiced cut scenes would be quite weird methinks.

 

I think poorly done animations and voiceovers really take away from the quality of the game overall. Leaving more to the imagination would be the elegant solution if you can't swing Mass Effect 3 level of cutscenes, which obviously aren't easy or cheap. Given the massive amount of dialogue in the games that this project aspires to emulate, it doesn't make much sense. Except maybe just a short intro to a conversation like the old IE games did.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Audiocide

[generic.hybridity]

It would probably difficult for them to change it from being isometric when they have nearly raised their entire goal with it as one of the core promises with 24 hours. Maybe a hybrid engine with changing camera angles would be possible (The default of which is ISO).

 

I wonder though if the text based nature of the games dialogue is based on the generic expectation that we see the world from an isometric or similarly top down POV. Leaving more to the imagination

 

Whereas from a 3rd person perspective we'd be more likely to expect voiced dialogue and cutscenes as compared to large branching texts.

 

Having silent or only partly voiced cut scenes would be quite weird methinks.

 

I think poorly done animations and voiceovers really take away from the quality of the game overall. Leaving more to the imagination would be the elegant solution if you can't swing Mass Effect 3 level of cutscenes, which obviously aren't easy or cheap. Given the massive amount of dialogue in the games that this project aspires to emulate, it doesn't make much sense. Except maybe just a short intro to a conversation like the old IE games did.

 

Aye. Me too. This is why I think Isometric would probably be better as I think it has that sort of assumption built in.

Whereas other camera angles are implicitly more cinematic and thus almost require a whole bunch of animations and voice over to achieve the same dramatic effect IMO.

[aegishield]

This thread reminds me of the engine thread on the inxile forums. A lot of debate against 2D vs 3D, etc. A big argument is that today, a 2D game would be more expensive to do than a 3d game since you would have to do all of the animations by hand etc. A 3D game with a 2D background would be doable, but what are the real benefits compared to going realtime? The major plus would be lower system requirements, potentially making it playable on integrated graphics.

 

One interesting possibility would be for Obsidian to use Inxile's new engine. The two games seem to have many things in common and the developers are good friends. I think it could be interesting to combine resources on the new engine.

[2ane]

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.

 

...and a LOT less details.

 

2d graphics are still the prettiest to this day. BG2 looks a million times better than Warcraft 3 or even Dragon Age.

[Eich]

One interesting possibility would be for Obsidian to use Inxile's new engine. The two games seem to have many things in common and the developers are good friends. I think it could be interesting to combine resources on the new engine.

 

inXile uses Unity. They didn't build that! The People did!

[dlux]

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.

 

...and a LOT less details.

 

2d graphics are still the prettiest to this day. BG2 looks a million times better than Warcraft 3 or even Dragon Age.

You do know that the backgrounds and characters in BG2 are pre-rendered (3D), right? The only reason they were "flattened" to 2D was because of performance - we did not have powerful 3D accelerators like we have today.

 

And the amount of detail has nothing to do with the game being in 2D. They just put alot of effort into the game - but it could have been done in 3D too. But like I said, that was not an option back then.

[aegishield]

inXile uses Unity. They didn't build that! The People did!

 

The United People of the World? Yeah, I know that they use Unity, but Unity isn't a complete game engine, it's a very general development platform and Inxile did a lot of work beyond that.

 

 

 

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.

 

...and a LOT less details.

 

2d graphics are still the prettiest to this day. BG2 looks a million times better than Warcraft 3 or even Dragon Age.

 

2D graphics can look amazing, and so can 3D graphics. It depends on what's your target platform and on how much you're willing to invest. Hand painted 2D graphics that look awesome in high resolution and are animated can be very expensive. There's a reason why almost everyone uses 3D.

[LadyCrimson]

I wouldn't want every game to be isometric, but I do like it and sometimes miss it, and I tend to prefer that 3/4 perspective vs. 1st person or even over the shoulder, so ... looking forward to it. I'm going to be very interested in some screenshots showing what they're doing with it graphically, however. Will it be more akin to those older games, with that somewhat flatter, more sprite-y look, or more like Wasteland2, Path of Exile, etc.

 

I liked the screens/videos of Wasteland2, in terms of graphical look.

Path of Exile is nice too, overall.

[2ane]

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.

 

...and a LOT less details.

 

2d graphics are still the prettiest to this day. BG2 looks a million times better than Warcraft 3 or even Dragon Age.

You do know that the backgrounds and characters in BG2 are pre-rendered (3D), right? The only reason they were "flattened" to 2D was because of performance - we did not have powerful 3D accelerators like we have today.

 

And the amount of detail has nothing to do with the game being in 2D. They just put alot of effort into the game - but it could have been done in 3D too. But like I said, that was not an option back then.

 

they cant bring this level of detail with nowadays hardway either. Just look at the scenes from Torment and IWD2 in the trailer video and tell me which modern game even comes close to this.

 

3d graphics only look good when stylized and colorful, attempt anything realistic and the result will be inferior to the 2d approach.

[LadyCrimson]

I'm not really clear/up on the difference between 3D isometric and 2D isometric, visually, in terms of modern-day (eg, I do know/remember BG/IWD style but that's a long time ago).

Can someone give me an example of a more modern game of each type, that I can go look at screens for? I mean, is Wasteland2 considered 3D or 2D?

[Tigranes]

Wasteland 2 is 3D. Diablo 3 is 3D, and though the viewpoint is not quite isometric, it's close enough for comparisons here.

 

Most relevantly, Dungeon Siege 3 showed us, at the full zoom-out, what Onyx isometric 3D could look like (though the camera was very close).

[Gatt9]

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.

 

...and a LOT less details.

 

2d graphics are still the prettiest to this day. BG2 looks a million times better than Warcraft 3 or even Dragon Age.

 

I would argue against that.

 

Dragon Age Origins looks the way it does because...

 

-Of an extended development time making it's engine dated on release.

-Support for extremely outdated console hardware.

 

3D graphics can look just as good as 2D. Often better, because 3D graphics can beneift from Transform and Lighting, Bumpmapping, Lightsourcing, and many other effects. It's also substantially faster since it can fully use the graphics card, while 2D art doesn't benefit much from hardware acceleration.

 

Honestly, alot of the problem is simply the outdated hardware consoles have and the Publishers requirements that everything be made for them.

[LadyCrimson]

Wasteland 2 is 3D. Diablo 3 is 3D, and though the viewpoint is not quite isometric, it's close enough for comparisons here.

 

Most relevantly, Dungeon Siege 3 showed us, at the full zoom-out, what Onyx isometric 3D could look like (though the camera was very close).

Ok, that's kind of what I was thinking, in terms of visually. DS3 crossed my mind earlier, too.

And in that case, I'd say I'd be absolutely fine with 3D isometric. 2D can be very nice, but I'm not convinced that it's necessarily better. Even in terms of details ... I think that is often more of an emotional perception of what "details" mean, art-wise, and not everyone is going to agree on a definition for that.

[dlux]

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.

 

...and a LOT less details.

 

2d graphics are still the prettiest to this day. BG2 looks a million times better than Warcraft 3 or even Dragon Age.

You do know that the backgrounds and characters in BG2 are pre-rendered (3D), right? The only reason they were "flattened" to 2D was because of performance - we did not have powerful 3D accelerators like we have today.

 

And the amount of detail has nothing to do with the game being in 2D. They just put alot of effort into the game - but it could have been done in 3D too. But like I said, that was not an option back then.

 

they cant bring this level of detail with nowadays hardway either. Just look at the scenes from Torment and IWD2 in the trailer video and tell me which modern game even comes close to this.

 

3d graphics only look good when stylized and colorful, attempt anything realistic and the result will be inferior to the 2d approach.

 

Off the top of my head I would say you should look at Diablo 3, Dungeon Siege 3, Trine 2 or even the video of Wasteland 2 pre-alpha. They all look very good and are all in 3D, even though more than that is possible with today's technology.

 

And to top it off, you can have better superior animations, lighting, etc. with a game in 3D.

Edited September 15, 2012 by dlux

[Avantenor]

Dragon Age isn't that detailed because of the camera perspective. Isometric view reduces the detail level of objects compared to 1st/3rd person. If you can't focus / zoom / get closer, you e.g. don't see the blurry writings on the piece of paper on the desk. So it's easier in isometric view to create the illusion of a detailed environment because of reduced details. That time can be spend on several other tasks, for example creating more different objects.

[2ane]

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.

 

...and a LOT less details.

 

2d graphics are still the prettiest to this day. BG2 looks a million times better than Warcraft 3 or even Dragon Age.

You do know that the backgrounds and characters in BG2 are pre-rendered (3D), right? The only reason they were "flattened" to 2D was because of performance - we did not have powerful 3D accelerators like we have today.

 

And the amount of detail has nothing to do with the game being in 2D. They just put alot of effort into the game - but it could have been done in 3D too. But like I said, that was not an option back then.

 

they cant bring this level of detail with nowadays hardway either. Just look at the scenes from Torment and IWD2 in the trailer video and tell me which modern game even comes close to this.

 

3d graphics only look good when stylized and colorful, attempt anything realistic and the result will be inferior to the 2d approach.

 

Off the top of my head I would say you should look at Diablo 3, Dungeon Siege 3, Trine 2 or even the video of Wasteland 2 pre-alpha. They all look very good and are all in 3D, even though more than that is possible with today's technology.

 

And to top it off, you can have better superior animations, lighting, etc. with a game in 3D.

 

but Diablo 3 and DS3 look HORRIBLE! The only thing 3D graphics offer is real-time shadows/lighting and correct perspective. Something that just doesnt compare to the level of detail you get in games like Icewind Dale or Temple of Elemental Evil where you can see every stone on a pathway, litter on the streets or random patches of snow on the roofs of houses. Games like Diablo 3 just got a messy texture instead.

[Delterius]

Aesthetically, the only 3D that can compare to the likes of ToEE is way beyond the scope of this project. D3 and DS3 are way inferior, IMO.