Do not make the game isometric

[Tuco Benedicto]

gorgeous

 

final fantasy 7

Does not compute.

[entrerix]

you must not have played it, too bad

[el pinko grande]

I really feel like people in this thread need to go back and read about Van Buren and the Jefferson engine. Wish I could find the old Black Isle Fallout 3 FAQ where they explained why they were going to go fully 3d for the game.

[anek]

Pre-rendered 2D art > 3D modelling

 

This.

 

Pre-rendered backgrounds can use a whole different arsenal of modeling and rendering techniques, as well as meticulous post-processing and fine-tuning by hand by the artists, because it does not matter if each 'frame' takes 3 hours to render on the company's high-powered rendering server plus 5 man-hours of post-processing - there will only be one 'frame' per area, so it'll be worth it.

 

Compare this to the scenario proposed by the OP, in which at least 60 frames per second need to be rendered live on the users hardware (lets say, a 4 year old Laptop), i.e. each frame needs to be rendered in 16 micro-seconds or less and only using the kinds of techniques and 'tricks' which graphics cards support.

 

Is it really that difficult to imagine how in the first scenario the backgrounds will look a hell-of-a-lot better?

Edited September 28, 2012 by anek

[Jasede]

FF 7 is ugly as a sin when it comes to the models and the combat graphics but the pre-rendered backgrounds are very good, even to me. And I can't stand that game.

[Tuco Benedicto]

you must not have played it, too bad

I did, actually. I always found it ugly, especially when it comes to 2D backdrop and world exploration.

3D battles are (were) the only decent looking parts.

Beside, I never liked the game itself that much *AND* FF XII looks actually far better (even if it has some hideous character design and the game is a borefest).

Edited September 28, 2012 by Tuco Benedicto

[entrerix]

I always found it ugly, especially when it comes to 2D backdrop

 

why must you turn my office into a house of lies?

[Metabot]

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.

 

I don't know about anyone else but Baldur's Gate 2 still looks damn good.

[Piccolo]

I've never seen 3D look as good as 2D.

 

Classic example:

 

Age of Empires II looks stunning.

 

Age of Mytholoy and Age of Empires III look like complete trash in comparison.

[Tuco Benedicto]

why must you turn my office into a house of lies?

Let me refresh your memory.

This was a 3D battle:

 

 

and these 2D background in FFVII:

 

 

EDIT: and those screens were from a time when 2D still had a lot of advantages over 3D that don't exist anymore today.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Tuco Benedicto

[jarpie]

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.

 

HAHA OW WOW! The old 3D looks just so fugly. Well done 2D looks still good even if it was done in the late 90s, all the AA and AF etc wont help the fact that Half-Life models are so low-res that they still look blocky as hell.

 

Coming to resolutions, nowdays the most big monitors are about 24" and works with resolution 1920x1080 or 1920x1200, and as I have been using computers, televisions etc for all my life, any considerably bigger resolution would need quite a bit larger monitor. If we're to use resolution double that (3840x2400) you'd need monitor which is almost double the 24".

 

I have to agree on what you said that how we can know what kind of resolutions we have in ten years...unless I'm wrong they can write the code what picks the resolution from the graphics/display drivers and game can use any resolution they tell that display supports.

[Infinitron]

If you ask me, even early 90's 256 color VGA 2D art still looks pretty awesome.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Infinitron

[D3xter]

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.

I would love for that to be true, but it ain't and "a 3D game today" can not look significantly better than a 2D one, we aren't there by a long shot.

Take one with one of the largest budgets and amount of people working on it in the industry from just last year.

 

This was a concept art for an area:

 

This is what it turned into:

 

In 2D or pre-rendered 3D (again making it 2D) game you don't have to sacrifice quality if you don't want to, you aren't held back by the game having to run on slow machines or max polycount and shader operations. You can literally take the concept art and put it or parts of it in the game, or take the very closest approximation of the 2D art rendered in 3D and mix it with parts of the concept or similar in Photoshop.

 

As soon as 3D games start closely resembling their concept arts overall we will be there, but it is at least another 10 long years, and obviously a lot more expensive to craft such an environment if you can move the camera all around it and every little detail has to be just right.

 

Also, how many 3D games actually add the physics and "dynamic" elements even today? You could do the same stuff scripted or with a certain amount of 3D objects placed within a 2D environment too. In fact "2D" games like some of the Ultimas and Ultima Online etc. had WAY more "dynamic" elements you could affect than any 3D games that come to mind nowadays.

Edited September 28, 2012 by D3xter

[Metabot]

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.

 

Is this for real? You can make timeless 3d art but you can't make timeless 2d art? Really? Get a grip.

[Jasede]

320x200 / 320x240 resolution was the greatest generation of graphics.

 

Magnificent. Lands of Lore or Doom will never look bad.

[Zeckul]

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

 

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

An isometric projection is a type of orthographic projection (parallel axes) and is typically used by games with pre-rendered or hand-drawn backgrounds. A perspective projection is a type of 3d projection that attemps to produce the illusion of depth by making objects progressively smaller as they move away from the "camera" or point of view. This is typically used by real-time 3d engines, including SC2 and WC3.

 

Note that Diablo 2 is an exception to the rule because it simulates a perspective projection with 2d backgrounds, although the effect looks highly unnatural.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Zeckul

[el pinko grande]

@D3xter, what exactly are you arguing? That 3d games don't look as good as the concept art that inspires them? Because that's not a position anyone is going to argue with. If you're trying to extrapolate from that that 2d games look better than 3d games, you're going to need something more substantial than some screenshots from 15-year old games.

[D3xter]

I really feel like people in this thread need to go back and read about Van Buren and the Jefferson engine. Wish I could find the old Black Isle Fallout 3 FAQ where they explained why they were going to go fully 3d for the game.

Or people could just look at it as far into development as it got and see if it was a good idea:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQcpCLCV560

 

I remember a large many games "turning to 3D" around that time purely for marketing reason since it was the new "cool trend" and failing entirely, to disappear from existence:

 

 

Coming to resolutions, nowdays the most big monitors are about 24" and works with resolution 1920x1080 or 1920x1200, and as I have been using computers, televisions etc for all my life, any considerably bigger resolution would need quite a bit larger monitor. If we're to use resolution double that (3840x2400) you'd need monitor which is almost double the 24".

That's bs, there will be 4k (3840x2160) and likely 8k (7680x4320) monitors and television in 10-20 years time depending on adoption and how technology goes on, the standards have been largely finalized as "Ultra High Definition": http://en.wikipedia....tion_television and there are working cameras for such content already, in fact the BBC had an 8k test broadcast of the Olympic games earlier this year. The largest problem at that point is bandwidth and storage.

Some Apple displays are already using 2880x1800 in their "retina" displays at only 15" and there's very much more of that to expect in the next few years (along with adoption of OLED technology), this is a nice article: http://www.pcgamer.c...makes-me-angry/

This is certainly a point of contention with 2D/pre-rendered graphics.

 

Samsung had the first 4K display available in 2008: http://www.tomshardw...uhdtv,4916.html

SHARP had the first 8k prototype ready in 2011: http://www.engadget....lcd-with-16x-m/

But they're obviously too expensive for mass-production just yet.

 

Here's a snapshot from a 4K test broadcast on Eurobird 1 (28.5°E) - 4K UHDTV (3840 × 2160) (S2, QPSK, AVC)

http://hcd-1.imgbox.com/adtKNFeI.jpg?st=00urOcnHtfbEKKBBMYSX3A&e=1348870438

Edited September 28, 2012 by D3xter

[jarpie]

Coming to resolutions, nowdays the most big monitors are about 24" and works with resolution 1920x1080 or 1920x1200, and as I have been using computers, televisions etc for all my life, any considerably bigger resolution would need quite a bit larger monitor. If we're to use resolution double that (3840x2400) you'd need monitor which is almost double the 24".

That's bs, there will be 4k (3840x2160) and likely 8k (7680x4320) monitors and television in 10-20 years time depending on adoption and how technology goes on, the standards have been largely finalized as "Ultra High Definition": http://en.wikipedia....tion_television and there are working cameras for such content already, in fact the BBC had an 8k test broadcast of the Olympic games earlier this year. The largest problem at that point is bandwidth and storage.

Some Apple displays are already using 2880x1800 in their "retina" displays at only 15" and there's very much more of that to expect in the next few years (along with adoption of OLED technology), this is a nice article: http://www.pcgamer.c...makes-me-angry/

This is certainly a point of contention with 2D/pre-rendered graphics.

 

 

As I am a film buff I am fairly early adopter of plasma televisions and bluray players, and as I've watched lot of films from the bluray, I'm convinced enough that any resolution larger than 1920x1080 would need at least 60" display to make big enough difference vs. 1080p.

 

The difference between resolutions when certain threshold has been passed gets smaller, one of the few things where huge resolutions comes into play are pictures taken by DSLR cameras.

[Haerski]

@Metabot: Where did I say that?

 

@Jarepie: And you are saying that BG character made out of few dozen pixels isn't "bloggy"? I agree the human characters are the weakest spot of 3D, but that's why I suggested Wasteland 2style 3D where Action and characters are seen from far and thus don't need as much details.

 

Problem witj resolutions is that when you create 2D art it's going to have certain resolution and that cannot ne changed afterwards. As resolutions increase the picture is getting smaller and smaller unless you let you monitor scale lower resolution to monitors higher native res which causes ugly distortion in the Image.

[jarpie]

@Metabot: Where did I say that?

 

@Jarepie: And you are saying that BG character made out of few dozen pixels isn't "bloggy"? I agree the human characters are the weakest spot of 3D, but that's why I suggested Wasteland 2style 3D where Action and characters are seen from far and thus don't need as much details.

 

Problem witj resolutions is that when you create 2D art it's going to have certain resolution and that cannot ne changed afterwards. As resolutions increase the picture is getting smaller and smaller unless you let you monitor scale lower resolution to monitors higher native res which causes ugly distortion in the Image.

 

It's actually Jarpie.

 

Of course they are somewhat blocky but it doesn't really matter because nowdays with the widescreen mod they're not even that big. What ugly distortion? do you mean when old games which are in 4:3 resolution are scaled to the 16:9 or 16:10 monitor? Some monitors have the setting where it leaves black bars on the sides and centers the image but you're probably gonna say "But oh noes! Can't stand those black bars! teh horror!".

 

And btw. only Half-Life bought from Steam has the patch which lets you use higher resolutions, and you can't update game which is installed from the CDs.

 

Someone can probably correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't display drivers nowdays have scaling where it leaves black bars on the sides if some game is 4:3 and viewed with 16:9/10 monitor?

[D3xter]

As I am a film buff I am fairly early adopter of plasma televisions and bluray players, and as I've watched lot of films from the bluray, I'm convinced enough that any resolution larger than 1920x1080 would need at least 60" display to make big enough difference vs. 1080p.

 

The difference between resolutions when certain threshold has been passed gets smaller, one of the few things where huge resolutions comes into play are pictures taken by DSLR cameras.

Trust me, it's coming and there is a difference (also see Edit above), the easiest way to make sure yourself is simply go to an exhibition that have some of those 4K/8K displays around and see the difference yourself. The question is, when you look at your PC screen or at the TV do you have the same visual experience as when you look outside a window and the answer so far is no

 

The human eye generally can recognize details at least up to 300ppi (obviously depending on distance away and visual acuity, if you need glasses to see and don't have them a much higher resolution won't make much difference).

 

1080p on a 60" television is only 36ppi, which is somewhat helped by you not knowing any better and sitting so far away it will seem somewhat fine.

Even 4k (3840x2160) on a 21" monitor is only around 210ppi and 8k (7680x4320) on a 30" is about 300ppi, it all depends on the distance, size and usage of the thing. But especially for phones, tablets and PC monitors that you likely have right in front of your face it makes a lot of sense and it'll come naturally for TV broadcasts too.

 

Fun fact, IBM already had monitors with a resolution of 3840x2400 in 2001: http://www-03.ibm.co...elease/1180.wss but they ceased producing them as they exited the hardware market and sold most of their manufacturing capabilities to companies like Lenovo. In the past 10 years most manufacturers were in a race to the bottom to create the cheapest possible product for the largest market possible, but especially the mobile and tablet market in the last few years has brought some change.

 

Anyway, that's why it would be nice if this time around they rendered/produced their backgrounds at at least 4K, it shouldn't be that much of a problem for 3D models and hand painted stuff so it'll be somewhat more future-proof than the Infinity Engine games, which we have to zoom out a lot to look good. (It's always easy to downscale something, adding detail ain't possible)

Edited September 28, 2012 by D3xter

[jarpie]

As I am a film buff I am fairly early adopter of plasma televisions and bluray players, and as I've watched lot of films from the bluray, I'm convinced enough that any resolution larger than 1920x1080 would need at least 60" display to make big enough difference vs. 1080p.

 

The difference between resolutions when certain threshold has been passed gets smaller, one of the few things where huge resolutions comes into play are pictures taken by DSLR cameras.

Trust me, it's coming and there is a difference (also see Edit above), the easiest way to make sure yourself is simply go to an exhibition that have some of those 4K/8K displays around and see the difference yourself. The point is, when you look at your PC screen or at the TV do you have the same visual experience as when you look outside a window and the answer so far is no

 

The human eye generally can recognize details up to 300ppi (obviously depending on distance away and visual acuity.

 

1080p on a 60" television is only 36ppi, but since you don't know any better and you're sitting so far away it will seem somewhat fine.

Even 4k (3840x2160) on a 21" monitor is only around 210ppi and 8k (7680x4320) on a 30" is about 300ppi, it all depends on the distance, size and usage of the thing. But especially for phones,tablets and PC monitors that you likely have right in front of your face it makes a lot of sense and it'll come naturally for TV broadcasts too.

 

Fun fact, IBM already had monitors with a resolution of 3840x2400 in 2001: http://www-03.ibm.co...elease/1180.wss but they ceased producing them as they exited the hardware market and sold most of their manufacturing capabilities to companies like Lenovo. In the past 10 years most manufacturers were in a race to the bottom to create the cheapest possible product for the largest market possible, but especially the mobile and tablet market in the last few years has brought some change.

 

Anyway, that's why it would be nice if this time around they rendered/produced their backgrounds at at least 4K, it shouldn't be that much of a problem for 3D models and hand painted stuff so it'll be somewhat more future-proof than the Infinity Engine games, which we have to zoom out a lot to look good. (It's always easy to downscale something, adding detail ain't possible)

 

I can't imagine that films would look that much better as 4k vs. 2k since imo they already have enough detail...some people even wrongly claim that they can't seen difference between dvd vs. blu-ray but that's discussion for different topic.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they actually render/produce the backgrounds in 4k since it's always better to downscale than make for the maxium resolution (as 2k in this case). The future monitors should be good enough to scale the lower resolutions well enough as I dont think there will be larger monitors than 24" or 28" as it's pretty much maxium what people can use when used as a normal desk.

[Elerond]

All graphichs on your monitor are 2d, as your monitor screen has only two dimensions.

 

But there is ways to make graphics on your screen look like they have depth and so make illusion of three dimensional graphics. Isometric projection for example is one of this ways.

 

3d graphics is really a marketing term for dynamic graphics which have illusion of depth.

 

In rpgs depate of 2d vs 3d is actually depate about prerendered an dynamic graphics mixed with locked vs free camera angle.

 

Both methods have their good and bad qualities.

 

Game with prerendered graphics can use more polycons and much more detailed textures than game with dynamic graphics on same computer.

 

Game with prerendered graphics look same on every machine, but game with dynamic graphics changes it's look depending on graphich prosessor which render it.

 

You can change rendering resolution of dynamic rendered graphics as you also can change camera angle where it will be rendered, but in prerendered graphics you are locked that resolution and that camera angle which they rendered in first place.

 

Dynamic rendering makes possible changing enviroment like running water where prerendered graphichs is freezed on that time when it is rendered.

 

And there is also other advantages and disadvantages for both, but for me this are enough.

 

So for project eternity which aims to use locked view angle, prerendered graphics are possible choice as it won't therefore need free camera from dynamic graphics.

 

Development of monitor resolution and size is somewhat on hold as we have reached such sizes on those that most people don't need or even want higher. This gives OE a opportunity to use high enogh resolution on prerendered graphics for every player.

 

Using prerendered graphics will drop recomenned specs without need make compromises on graphic details.

 

But prerendered graphics make it harder an more expensive to make moving objects like characters. Where comes to play idea to use prerendered graphics only in backgrounds and dynamic graphics on moving objects. In project eternity this can bring best things from both worlds. As OE can make absolute beatiful back grounds without need for expensive graphics in both monetary and specs wises. But their moving objects are not locked on those prerendered poses which make animating them faster and more free. And when you add for that posibility to make running water and other dynamic baground items to make world look life like even as most of it is static.

 

So I see why OE would like to use prerendered background and dynamic moving objects in project eternity and I will go so far that I say that it is brilliant choice if they can make their engine to support it without clitches.

[Shevek]

Obsidian has it right. 2d with 3d models plays well on more computers, takes less time to make and still looks damn good. The fixed camera drastically reduces to amount of art assets you have to make and the distance from the characters reduces the amount of detail required for them to look good. This means less total dev time and, therefore, less funding required. More time and effort can therefore be dedicated to making the actual game better.