Do not make the game isometric

[Aedelric]

Why does this thread still exist?

 

Our backgrounds will be pre-rendered from high-detail 3D scenes and then touched up by hand as in the Infinity Engine games. Our characters and certain other objects (where it makes sense) will be rendered in 3D. Temple of Elemental Evil uses this type of combination.

 

Because people always want the game they dream for, not what they are marketed.

 

This topic deserves to be closed.

[TrashMan]

Project Eternity is not about beautiful graphics, it is about bringing back the RPG's we love.

 

In my opinion Project Eternity should not be "about" neither of those. All it needs to be is a great RPG. Limiting your design choices just because "this is what we did 20 year ago" isn't very smart, is it? Whichever style they choose it should be based on what best serves the game they are making, not just nostalgia.

 

Limiting your design choices?

 

They already selected (chosen) the design they are going for. Your comment makes no sense.

[Haerski]

Project Eternity is not about beautiful graphics, it is about bringing back the RPG's we love.

 

In my opinion Project Eternity should not be "about" neither of those. All it needs to be is a great RPG. Limiting your design choices just because "this is what we did 20 year ago" isn't very smart, is it? Whichever style they choose it should be based on what best serves the game they are making, not just nostalgia.

 

Limiting your design choices?

 

They already selected (chosen) the design they are going for. Your comment makes no sense.

 

That doesn't change my point at all. Are you saying that when devs make their decision, we are no longer allowed to criticize or question them? Open discussion has never hurt anybody.

[TrashMan]

No, I mean designing a game means making a choice. That is not "limiting" in the sense you were implying. What exactly is limiting with isometric?

[mkreku]

No, I mean designing a game means making a choice. That is not "limiting" in the sense you were implying. What exactly is limiting with isometric?

You are asking the wrong question. Noone here is arguing for first- or third person view.

 

What I am arguing for is that they will use 3D instead of 2D backgrounds. Still isometric! Still static camera! I don't even need a zoom function, although it would be nice.

 

If you render a 3D world, you can do a lot more things than in a 2D painted world. For example, it is much easier to implement day-and-night cycles. It is much easier to implement physics (try making a 2D object tumble..). It is much easier to implement shadows, hills, running water, animated doors, destructible environments, etc. The list can be made a lot longer.

 

But let's take an example: imagine firing off a fireball in the middle of a forest.. at night. Imagine seeing the orcs you hit ragdoll around, hitting trees and shrubbery as they tumble around from the force of the blast. Imagine seeing the trees closest to the impact center catch fire and light up the night. Imagine seeing the trees closest to ground zero actually fall outwards and break from the power of your magic. Imagine seeing the surviving orcs run screaming and burning between the trees, casting long shadows before they fall over and perish.

 

Now imagine the same scene in 2D.

 

Sure, none of the 3D scenario was in Planescape: Torment. None of it is needed for a better role-playing experience. But I still want it in my game.

[Haerski]

No, I mean designing a game means making a choice. That is not "limiting" in the sense you were implying. What exactly is limiting with isometric?

 

What I was trying to say was that they should not make game isometric with 2D backgrounds just because Infinity Engine games were. Every possibility should be taken in fair consideration.

 

Please note that I'm not implying developers haven't thought this through. I'm sure they have and their design choice has been made for good reasons. I was just replying to Aedelrics post.

[jarpie]

No, I mean designing a game means making a choice. That is not "limiting" in the sense you were implying. What exactly is limiting with isometric?

You are asking the wrong question. Noone here is arguing for first- or third person view.

 

What I am arguing for is that they will use 3D instead of 2D backgrounds. Still isometric! Still static camera! I don't even need a zoom function, although it would be nice.

 

If you render a 3D world, you can do a lot more things than in a 2D painted world. For example, it is much easier to implement day-and-night cycles. It is much easier to implement physics (try making a 2D object tumble..). It is much easier to implement shadows, hills, running water, animated doors, destructible environments, etc. The list can be made a lot longer.

 

But let's take an example: imagine firing off a fireball in the middle of a forest.. at night. Imagine seeing the orcs you hit ragdoll around, hitting trees and shrubbery as they tumble around from the force of the blast. Imagine seeing the trees closest to the impact center catch fire and light up the night. Imagine seeing the trees closest to ground zero actually fall outwards and break from the power of your magic. Imagine seeing the surviving orcs run screaming and burning between the trees, casting long shadows before they fall over and perish.

 

Now imagine the same scene in 2D.

 

Sure, none of the 3D scenario was in Planescape: Torment. None of it is needed for a better role-playing experience. But I still want it in my game.

 

If you are looking for ragdolls, you're looking at the wrong game. With the budget of 3-4 million max. do you really think they should be wasting that on unnecessary fluff like 3D and ragdolls?

 

Physics engines to license probably costs quite a bit too.

[mkreku]

It was an example of what is (more easily) possible using 3D rendering, not an example of what I need for the perfect game.

 

And I am already looking at the wrong game. This is not a game for me, I am fully aware of that. But I still cringe when I see ignorant people discussing things based on old notions and nostalgia.

[Living One]

No, I mean designing a game means making a choice. That is not "limiting" in the sense you were implying. What exactly is limiting with isometric?

You are asking the wrong question. Noone here is arguing for first- or third person view.

 

What I am arguing for is that they will use 3D instead of 2D backgrounds. Still isometric! Still static camera! I don't even need a zoom function, although it would be nice.

 

If you render a 3D world, you can do a lot more things than in a 2D painted world. For example, it is much easier to implement day-and-night cycles. It is much easier to implement physics (try making a 2D object tumble..). It is much easier to implement shadows, hills, running water, animated doors, destructible environments, etc. The list can be made a lot longer.

 

But let's take an example: imagine firing off a fireball in the middle of a forest.. at night. Imagine seeing the orcs you hit ragdoll around, hitting trees and shrubbery as they tumble around from the force of the blast. Imagine seeing the trees closest to the impact center catch fire and light up the night. Imagine seeing the trees closest to ground zero actually fall outwards and break from the power of your magic. Imagine seeing the surviving orcs run screaming and burning between the trees, casting long shadows before they fall over and perish.

 

Now imagine the same scene in 2D.

 

Sure, none of the 3D scenario was in Planescape: Torment. None of it is needed for a better role-playing experience. But I still want it in my game.

Are you serious?Not even games with AAA budget can pull that off and you expect a low budget one to make it?

[Merin]

And I am already looking at the wrong game. This is not a game for me, I am fully aware of that. But I still cringe when I see ignorant people discussing things based on old notions and nostalgia.

 

Query - if this isn't a game for you it, the wrong game as you say...

 

did you donate to it? Why - to just support Obsidian?

 

And whether you donated or not (especially if you hadn't, but it's not that important) - if it's isn't for you, why are you advocating for changes to it?

[Haerski]

And I am already looking at the wrong game. This is not a game for me, I am fully aware of that. But I still cringe when I see ignorant people discussing things based on old notions and nostalgia.

 

Query - if this isn't a game for you it, the wrong game as you say...

 

did you donate to it? Why - to just support Obsidian?

 

And whether you donated or not (especially if you hadn't, but it's not that important) - if it's isn't for you, why are you advocating for changes to it?

 

This forum is not restricted only for fans of this game. Of course he has right to voice his opinion as much as any of us do.

[Umberlin]

Still asking a that a game not take after aspects that the Developers have heavily suggested the game to take after . . . seems . . . as if it misses the point of exactly what PE is meant to be. A throw back for the people that did like such things, because, apparently, the Developers liked such things.

[jarpie]

And I am already looking at the wrong game. This is not a game for me, I am fully aware of that. But I still cringe when I see ignorant people discussing things based on old notions and nostalgia.

 

Query - if this isn't a game for you it, the wrong game as you say...

 

did you donate to it? Why - to just support Obsidian?

 

And whether you donated or not (especially if you hadn't, but it's not that important) - if it's isn't for you, why are you advocating for changes to it?

 

This forum is not restricted only for fans of this game. Of course he has right to voice his opinion as much as any of us do.

 

What's the point coming to the forum to demand things which are not gonna happen, especially if you're not gonna pledge/buy the game. For example I'm not going to the BSN and demand Bioware to make Dragon Age 3 turn-based, isometric which uses 2D backgrounds and remove the romances.

[Magnum Opus]

Are you serious?Not even games with AAA budget can pull that off and you expect a low budget one to make it?

No, he doesn't expect PE to be that sort of game. He's referring to the potential of 3D graphics over that of 2D graphics with that example, as he already mentioned.

 

The example does raise an interesting question, tho: If everything Obsidian wants to do with the environments in the game can be done with 2D graphics alone (in terms of animation, interactivity, physics, lighting, etc), then that huge potential advantage of 3D over 2D essentially evaporates, doesn't it? The potential of the medium is always a major selling point, but rarely does the reality of the product live up to the potential of the medium. In the final game, the difference between the two techs might not amount to diddly.

 

Am very curious to see those first few gameplay vids, whenever they start rolling. Not that it'll make much difference to me. I like a certain amount of bling in games and certainly wouldn't mind seeing mkreku's vision brought to a monitor near me, but I don't have a problem with going back to Baldur's Gate in all it's 640x480 splendour, either (tho I'm hoping for a higher resolution than that with PE. )

[Merin]

And I am already looking at the wrong game. This is not a game for me, I am fully aware of that. But I still cringe when I see ignorant people discussing things based on old notions and nostalgia.

 

Query - if this isn't a game for you it, the wrong game as you say...

 

did you donate to it? Why - to just support Obsidian?

 

And whether you donated or not (especially if you hadn't, but it's not that important) - if it's isn't for you, why are you advocating for changes to it?

This forum is not restricted only for fans of this game. Of course he has right to voice his opinion as much as any of us do.

 

This wasn't a "go away, you aren't allowed" question but a "why do you care if you already know the game isn't for you?"

 

I mean, I don't like Call of Duty. I'm not a FPS fan. I think it'd be an absolute waste of my time to go over to an Activision forum and start telling them that I want to be able to create a character and engage in dialog with characters for a game I'm not going to buy anyway.

 

Of course, in a public forum, he can say what he wants.

 

But why would he want to? I don't understand the motivation, the return on effort. "Here's a game I don't want, it isn't for me... and I'm going to tell them how I'd prefer it to be created anyway."

 

It's a silly waste of time, but his time to waste I guess.

 

---

 

That said -

 

if he's not a backer, he doesn't actually get to have an equal voice in how the game is made. He can say what he wants about the game where ever there's a public forum for such things - but someone who isn't putting money down shouldn't really have his voice considered with much weight.

 

It's like someone who won't vote in an election complaining about politics. Yeah, sure, they CAN - but why if you aren't really part.

 

---

 

If he DID donate, even if the game isn't for him, I still think it is something of a waste of time for him - but as he put money in, then his voice should carry some weight.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Merin

[Ieo]

Is there really anything left to discuss since Obsidian already made the choice? This thread sounds like arguing against classes now that Update #12 has been released.

 

Our backgrounds will be pre-rendered from high-detail 3D scenes and then touched up by hand as in the Infinity Engine games. Our characters and certain other objects (where it makes sense) will be rendered in 3D. Temple of Elemental Evil uses this type of combination.

And isometric party-based was set in stone at the beginning. "Camera has been confirmed as static, though probably zoomable" according to Known Information thread.

 

:/

 

Time to install ToEE...

[Tauron]

Let troll my opinion again, so I can run under the bridge. This game isnt made becouse of old sentiment and nostalgia to the classics tech-art and sentiment towards infinity engine as 2d vs 3d, but STORY TELLING. Having all 3D rendered and full voice acting acually limits the storytelling options, especially considering the budget of the game. Most games offer you one vs another choice and ton of useless dialogue options that just gives you illusion of option and mostly forces your action, annoying. Once you cut through that bull**** and all the newst directx-xx features stopp dazzling your brains, it is exactly what you are left with, a poor, mediocre at best story telling RPG with AWSOME graphics. In the end, poorly designed and limited game.

 

What got people here excited is MORE RP options...if you are giving me illusion of option, at least sell it good. Magic behind magic trick works as long you cant figure trick behind the magic.

 

I would love that they add all newst 3D effects if it wont limit gameplay and storytelling that was promised to fans of classics this game is based on.

[TrashMan]

No, I mean designing a game means making a choice. That is not "limiting" in the sense you were implying. What exactly is limiting with isometric?

 

What I was trying to say was that they should not make game isometric with 2D backgrounds just because Infinity Engine games were. Every possibility should be taken in fair consideration.

 

Please note that I'm not implying developers haven't thought this through. I'm sure they have and their design choice has been made for good reasons. I was just replying to Aedelrics post.

 

I don't recall anyone was arguing that that was the specific reason why they do it. They have their reasons.

[TrashMan]

It was an example of what is (more easily) possible using 3D rendering, not an example of what I need for the perfect game.

 

And I am already looking at the wrong game. This is not a game for me, I am fully aware of that. But I still cringe when I see ignorant people discussing things based on old notions and nostalgia.

 

Oh, I don't suffer from nostaliga...and I'm quite well eduicated on art and game engines. Far more than most people, given that it was my friggin thesis!

[TrashMan]

So exactly what's wrong with these?

 

http://www.mobygames...ure-windows.jpg

 

http://2.bp.blogspot...e_screen001.jpg

 

http://image.gamespo...e_screen004.jpg

 

http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/79816673-4.jpg

 

http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/51774-the-temple-of-elemental-evil-a-classic-greyhawk-adventure-windows.jpg

Edited September 29, 2012 by TrashMan

[Data4]

Let troll my opinion again, so I can run under the bridge. This game isnt made becouse of old sentiment and nostalgia to the classics tech-art and sentiment towards infinity engine as 2d vs 3d, but STORY TELLING. Having all 3D rendered and full voice acting acually limits the storytelling options, especially considering the budget of the game. Most games offer you one vs another choice and ton of useless dialogue options that just gives you illusion of option and mostly forces your action, annoying. Once you cut through that bull**** and all the newst directx-xx features stopp dazzling your brains, it is exactly what you are left with, a poor, mediocre at best story telling RPG with AWSOME graphics. In the end, poorly designed and limited game.

 

What got people here excited is MORE RP options...if you are giving me illusion of option, at least sell it good. Magic behind magic trick works as long you cant figure trick behind the magic.

 

I would love that they add all newst 3D effects if it wont limit gameplay and storytelling that was promised to fans of classics this game is based on.

 

RPG =/= Storytelling. Dear Esther is thattaway --->

 

Okay, yes, a good story helps add to the total package of what makes RPGs good, but if one requires 3D whizbangery to get their story... well, see above.

[Starglider]

You know all those cool details you see in Planescape: Torment? Try picking something up in the bar. Try opening a door. Try kicking a barrel. It's lifeless and dead. With 3D they can add physics and interactivity to all these details.

 

A fully interactive environment (e.g. all objects are physics objects) is a huge time/money sink. I doubt this game will have a physics engine at all; it is just not a sensible use of time/money when any attempt to do so is always going to be a poor shadow of the interactive worlds in Skyrim / Just Cause / GTA etc. Far better to spend the budget on the unique selling points of this game, and for world interactivity scripting specific interesting things to interact with (adventure game style) instead of generic physics on everything.

[Merin]

RPG =/= Storytelling. Dear Esther is thattaway --->

 

Okay, yes, a good story helps add to the total package of what makes RPGs good, but if one requires 3D whizbangery to get their story... well, see above.

 

Story != RPG

 

Correct.

 

I know many people are upset at BioWare for "romance"... but what I'm upset at BioWare for is that they have successful upended precedence by making people believe story + recruitable companions = good cRPG.

 

Story, or companions, are as "vital" to a cRPG being a cRPG as gold, swords, class-based leveling and transferring of characters between games.... that is to say they can be part of a cRPG, but a cRPG certainly doesn't need any of them to be a cRPG.

 

Grrr.

[Quillon]

Sorry to revive an old thread but someone in another forum told that he bought the game on release but couldn't play it more than 6 hours till this day cos of the in depth replication of 20 year old games, he would have liked it to be a lot more modernized.i.e. he'd have liked it to be like dragon age where he can rotate and zoom the cam etc. The features I wouldn't mind having as well, apparently I can do without, tho combat would have been much more clearer rather than chaotic looking as we have now. Which raised the questions...

 

I did a bit of searching and found this thread.

 

 

Pre-rendered 2D art > 3D modelling

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

Makes no sense. First, the pre-rendered 2D art was a 3D model first too. Therefore building a 3D model, then rendering it to 2D, then cutting it and implementing it into the map is more work than just using the basic 3D model from the go.

 

 

I also recall devs were saying that making maps in this game is too complicated when they talked about modding possibilities.

 

So the game is made now:

 

1. Would it have cost the same(or cheaper/more expensive) if the same game made fully 3D like WL2? 

2. Was the 2D background decision all for nostalgia or money/time?

[Sedrefilos]

I'd go with either 3d models in 2d pre-rendered background or full 3d environment. Personally, I prefer the second because both characters and environment are of the same "design" like they're both of and in the same world, whereas in the 1st situation characters and background don't "match" 100%. Of course I loved Pillars' graphics and especially the backgrounds but I believe the nostalgic feeling enforced this love. I'm sure whichever the situation, graphics and aesthetics wise, Obsidian will have me covered

Other are the things I'd most worry about they get it right in a (or should I say "the"? ) sequel.