Do not make the game isometric

[Semper]

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.

 

besides the point that you can simulate and bake this also with 2d sheets you won't hardly notice bump maps within a 3d isometric perspective with a zoomed out camera.

[alanschu]

 

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.

 

Advantages 3D would have is camera control (which may or may not feed into how a player can look at the setting and make decisions), as well as more easily enabling alternative solutions for combat and quest completion. Simple rules can be established to allow, for example, an archer to have extended range and an improved chance to hit, simply by being at a higher elevation. This can more easily be done programmatically than by hand, because you can use the game engine itself to calculate these rules. Suddenly you've added a tactical element to the combat system that can be applied to the entire map. With a 2D map these situations have to be explicitly specified by hand which slows iteration time and can create additional costs (opportunity or otherwise).

 

Other elements is it's cheaper to set up something like level destruction (even just at scripted points) that allow for alternative paths to be opened up by player creativity.

[fkldnhlsdngsfnhlsndlg]

I don't want 3D graphics. They won't help a game like this, and they probably won't be cheaper to make.

 

What I'd really love to see is highly detailed, extremely high-resolution hand-painted backdrops based off of 3D renders, but enhanced through modern shaders, animation and effects. So, running water in rivers, smoke rising from chimneys, grass and tree leaves blowing in the breeze, sun shafts, and so on. There have been a few games over the last generation that have been done entirely in 2D and have been completely stunning thanks to the advantages of modern tech - I think that such an approach would be a perfect fit for a traditional top-down RPG.

 

There's also gameplay to consider. I think that a fixed perspective, orthographic style of projection works very well for tactical positioning in combat, and for selecting characters and enemies. With a standard 3D perspective, suddenly things like hitboxes and character selection become variable due to some objects being larger than others, and camera rotation can add to problems as well if it's implemented. Judging distance can also be more difficult in a game with with a 3D perspective, which could be an issue for targeting spells etc.

Edited September 16, 2012 by sea

[Tauron]

I hoped there would be destructble enviroment...a fireball in a house! Or on a house...fun fun fun!

 

It will be okej with 2d background and 3D chars. But i have to agree that there hasnt been yet system to visually create your 3d character as a 2D portrait can do. Remeber those awsome portraits from BG series and IWD, there are none 3D creation game that can capture what 2D portrait can offer. I still hope there will be way to modify your character beyond hair color. Not face nescesserlly as Portraits can cover that, but body type scale, fat, muscular, size and such...leave faces to portraits.

[Rahona]

Am I the only one who would love to just play a 2d infinity engine style game here and wasnt the purpose of this whole kickstarter to go for this? or what?

 

I could be wrong, but I actually think that was the whole purpose.

 

 

 

I would be great to have a good game with detailed story and mechanics, and not graphics!

To many games (Never winter nights as example) have been really great, but the ability to see details of the character and environment just takes a way focus. Let’s get a great RPG without fancy 3D graphics of epic armours. Those can be achieved in the common games ala. WOW or Dragon Age etc.

What I am nervous about is the team can keep focus and not run wild on the many things they have a good opportunity to do right

For the win Obsidian!

[Rahona]

When thinking about it, what I think made the original games so memorable was their ability to let me imaging details myself. Modern games strive to follow the high resolution on characters and miss the point of imagination. The great filter that makes an Xart from Baldur's gate stand in my mind clearly though rendered with a what 3x6 pixels face expression.

 

Kind regards

[RosesandAshes]

Am I the only person who doesn't really care as long as the backgrounds look pretty?

I think TOEE's graphics are awesome:

 

 

and (for something completely different) so are the graphics in Heretic Kingdoms: The Inquisition:

 

 

and I could care less what engine they use or what dimension everything is in. They both look great.

[Tuco Benedicto]

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

They actually did.

of course, you can notice their shortcomings now, but that doesn't mean much, as it's even worse for many 3D games released at the same time or even few years later (I mean, NWN 1 and 2 are FAR more ugly than any IE title, and they should be way more modern).

 

That said, I'm not exactly into this kool-aid of "2D is always better!!1!" and I actually think that given enough budget and talented artists a 3D game today can look significantly better than a 2D one, even using an isometric perspective (just look at DOTA 2, for instance. Like the art direction or not, that game is absolutely gorgeous). 3D also makes way more manageable to add better lighting, physics, dynamic elements in the scenario, and so on.

And *yet* when it comes to this game I'm all for Obsidian using 2D backdrops for many reasons:

 

1) I want a ****load of content, and when an area is essentially a gigantic bitmap image, it becomes incredibly more cheap to produce.

2) Obsidian... doesn't really have a great track record nailing smooth and comfortable 3D cameras and controls.

3) Even when you artists are not stellar, it's way too easy to make a 2D backdrop look nice.

 

That said, I'm also all for 3D characters and monsters, because.

 

1) once again it's more cost effective. Creating 3D models ang adding dozens of animations to them is way more simple and cheap than drawing hundreds of sprites for every single character or creature.

2) given a competent animator, the result will most likely also look prettier in action.

3) when you have to take huge customization into consideration, it's way more simple to change a skin or add a detail to a 3D model than drawing additional variations to 2D sprites that must take into account characters/creatures facing many different directions.

 

And so on.

So, yeah, long story short: without being "nostalgic" at all, I still think that going for this mix (2D backdrops, 3D characters) is the smartest approach for a game with this budget and ambitions.

 

P.S. ironically enough, most of the "beautiful 2D art in Bastion" is actually obtained out of 3D renders turned into static sprites.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Tuco Benedicto

[Haerski]

I'm little reserved about isometric 2D style. In days of BG and PS:T it might have been the only sensible way of making this kind of RPGs, but nowdays 3D is real and I think also an affordable option. It allows so much smoother and painless gaming experience they should definitively go for it. I think the style inXile has chosen for Wasteland 2 would be best. It's kind of isometric 3D where you can zoom in and out, but camera doesn't get too close on characters so they don't need to be detailed. The demo didn't show camera rotating so I think that was also left out.

 

Anyway, if they choose to go 2D I won't complain as long as story and gameplay are good. I just think they should consider 3D very carefully. It certainly has advantages over 2D.

[Darkpriest]

TBH, I would be pleased with more 3d environment, but isometric view. The graphic style of NWN (not NWN 2) was really good and it could be something to be used, but... there is the matter of funds here...

 

The 2D environments can also be great, but I'd be more inclined to 2,5D sort of like Wasteland 2 seems to have in design (which is also the Unity engine and is also a kickstarter project).

Edited September 28, 2012 by Darkpriest

[Tuco Benedicto]

The graphic style of NWN (not NWN 2) was really good

I wouldn't reall ysay that. i always found them unbearably ugly even when they were brand new, let alone now that obsolescence comes into play.

 

but I'd be more inclined to 2,5D sort of like Wasteland 2 seems to have in design (which is also the Unity engine and is also a kickstarter project).

Actually Wasteland 2 is going for full 3D. Not a particularly pretty one, either, from what they've shown so far.

But, oh, well, I can live with that,

[Tigranes]

It's incredible anyone ever found NWN1 good-looking. I remember waiting and waiting for it after Throne of Bhaal, then when it came out it looked like a bunch of blocks and jaggies.

[Tuco Benedicto]

It's incredible anyone ever found NWN1 good-looking. I remember waiting and waiting for it after Throne of Bhaal, then when it came out it looked like a bunch of blocks and jaggies.

Ahah, yeah. i remember that pretty much any Baldur's Gate/IE fan I knew back then hated the game fiercely, for both its visuals and its changes to the party-based formula.

The game started becoming popular and loved just after a while, mostly for its multiplayer features (that I personally didn't care about, at all).

[Haerski]

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.

 

Half-Life was released '98 and it's still very much playable. Actually I think it's still pretty good looking in it's own way. I would even go so far to say it has aged better than BG or PS:T when it comes to graphics, because it still has endless resolution options and you can even add filters like AA or Anistropic, which in the time of release were unheard of, but still make game look much better today. With BG you are stuck with tiny 800x600 resolution unless you use mods. Can you tell us what resolutions are we using in 10 years and how we ensure PE will still support them?

 

You definitively can create timeless 3D art. 2D on the other hand might not be as timeless as you make it sound like. EDIT: But, I still want to say that whatever developers choose to do I'm sure I'll be fine with it. They know what they are doing.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Haerski

[Darkpriest]

It's incredible anyone ever found NWN1 good-looking. I remember waiting and waiting for it after Throne of Bhaal, then when it came out it looked like a bunch of blocks and jaggies.

 

it just felt different and IMO spells and combat looked better The environment not so much, but it still wasn't that bad :D

[Shadenuat]

Also, don't make a game an RPG. Because with third-person Action/RPG you can ease player's immershun in game and show-off that amazing 3D engine. Also, more gold!

[Darkpriest]

The graphic style of NWN (not NWN 2) was really good

I wouldn't reall ysay that. i always found them unbearably ugly even when they were brand new, let alone now that obsolescence comes into play.

 

but I'd be more inclined to 2,5D sort of like Wasteland 2 seems to have in design (which is also the Unity engine and is also a kickstarter project).

Actually Wasteland 2 is going for full 3D. Not a particularly pretty one, either, from what they've shown so far.

But, oh, well, I can live with that,

 

Full 3D... hmm not sure if it is best design, because you can't have large world which will not feel uniform in 3D in a low budget game... Although The Witcher 2 had amazing 3D for around 10mln USD, but we are not talking about a CEE country here that is housing the developer and the staff... We are talking about NA devs and that alone costs a lot more on salaries.

[Merin]

It's incredible anyone ever found NWN1 good-looking. I remember waiting and waiting for it after Throne of Bhaal, then when it came out it looked like a bunch of blocks and jaggies.

 

I was so excited for that game, and the look of the graphics and the 3D view and bad cameras were the first (of MANY) things that turned me off to NWN.

 

Not even when it was released... had that look come out five years earlier I'd have been as equally "Blech" on it.

[TrashMan]

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.

 

I'm kinda thinking they know what they want AND how much it costs and how fast it is to work with FAAAAAR better than you.

 

If it looks like ToEE (but slightly enhanced) it will be a great game.

[TrashMan]

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.

 

Wut?

...

 

I say agian - WUT?

How can a perspective be outdated?

[Jasede]

Why does this thread even exist? The Kickstarter pitch said "isometric, party-based RPG".

What are you going to do next, post a "Please don't make the game party-based." or a "Please don't make PE an RPG." thread?

 

This is what I keep saying: the RPG player of today can't read because the games that come out train you not to and are designed for ages 8 and 80.

 

Edit: I do get what the OP/TC is saying but that's just like TOEE and we'd probably all consider that pretty much isometric.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Jasede

[TrashMan]

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

 

How would you know?

Unless you worked in the gaming industry and know the exact pros and cons of both that is....

 

 

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

 

HM...Of those I'd say Drakensang: RoT looked by far the best. It's pretty much one of my favorite RPG ever.

[Hoverdog]

Drakensang would look good, if not for the absolutely horrible, eye-gouging bloom.

[entrerix]

fixed camera, high detail backgrounds filled with character and individuality. if that can be done in "3d" great, but usually it works better as prerendered backgrounds.

 

even in console games, compare the gorgeous prerendered backgrounds of final fantasy 7 to the giant empty corridors of final fantasy 12... so sad to see the complete lack of details in the "3d" games' backgrounds

[Caerdon]

I don't care whether this game is 2D or 3D. But I do wan't this game to...

 

A) be resolution independent, so that it will look good on my 30-inch 2560x1600 display (and all the big, high-res displays of the foreseeable future)

 

B) have a zoom function with a reasonable range, just for convenience's sake (even though many "hardcore" gamers seem to be against anything that makes playing the game more comfortable)