How important is for you that the gameworld is both interactive and animated?

[descalabro]

(When I was playing Fallout 2 I remember thinking: "cool, I'm going to get a car sometime. Will I see it move?" I knew the answer would be negative, but I enjoyed wondering. In BG1 I was very glad whenever I saw any animation, as small as it was, but watching a video of a flying Wyvern only to find out it had go around the lake to attack my party. PS:T had some few but awesome animations. IWD had a few animations at the ending, and the fact nothing in Nature moved because all was frozen served as an acceptable excuse. In BG2 there were some improvements, but most of it was static too. Then IWD2 showed a lot more things moving and more big size puzzles, and I wondered if the Infinite Engined could be tweaked so we could get more from it. But then there was Lionheart and nothing more.)

 

I'm very glad this game will be isometric and use pre-rendered art, and I am aware it's not easy to blend 3D animated elements and physics into static "paintings", but come on, almost 10 years have passed...

 

I believe the stillness of pre-rendered graphics was a technical limitation and not an aesthetic option. Pre-rendered isometric games are great because they have a closer relationship with old book and board games but, other than that, I think designers and programmers should be completely free to develop a more interactive experience.

 

I find this very important for the immersion factor. Black Isle games have always had a great atmosphere, the lighting and weather was fantastic and I hope Obsidian's attitude won't be "going back to the RPGs we loved" but "pushing the RPGs we loved to the possibilities of 2012 technology".

 

There's a lot to learn about this on games like Commandos 1, 2 & 3, Robin Hood: the Legend of Sherwood (impressive physical engine!) and Desperados.

[Monkcrab]

Voted 'a lot' with one clarification : I'd rather have more interactions than animations when faced with the choice. Animations give great atmosphere but fulfills less bang for the explorative buck. Interactions go a longer way to me, even if it's just text. Dwarf Fortress, anyone?

 

(No, I don't expect or want PE to have the obsessive detail DF has, just using it as an example.)

 

That said, I do not mind animations at all and think that animations in the small details are one of the loveliest visual touches you can have, much more so than the newest shader whizzbang and all that.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Monkcrab

[Lysen]

The Temple of Elemental Evil was perhaps the most beautiful isometric game that I have played. Obsidian didn't reveal what engine they will be using, but I am sure that Project Eternity will look great. Obviously, it will be based on the modern technology. Just don't go for the cartoonish look like Wasteland 2 Torchlight.

[Reddie]

Animations are not really important for me, but interactivity is. However, i also count in text-based interactivity, as in reading the description of what's happening without it being animated. Even if this consists majority of all interactions, I can live with that as long as description is good (in terms of both writing and being accurate) and doesn't contradict whatever is displayed besides it.

[Pangur]

Animations are not really important for me, but interactivity is. However, i also count in text-based interactivity, as in reading the description of what's happening without it being animated. Even if this consists majority of all interactions, I can live with that as long as description is good (in terms of both writing and being accurate) and doesn't contradict whatever is displayed besides it.

Was going to write pretty much the same.

[Dem]

Right now, I'm actually playing a "new" (as in newly released in English) isometric RPG called Inquisitor. One of the first cool things I noticed in it was the the trees slightly moved with the wind. A neat little thing that added a lot to the atmosphere of walking through a forest.

[Piccolo]

I'm perfectly fine without animations.

 

As long as the artstyle is good and captures my imagination a bit, text will do the rest. I'll have no problems feeling very immersed in the gameworld that's still and motionless.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Piccolo

[Starwars]

It depends a bit on how much work is involved with it I think. On the whole, I would really welcome as animated a world as possible. I don't care too much about advanced stuff like dragons flying or stuff like that but I think a "background" (if we can call it that) that has a bit of movement to it can really help things come alive.

 

But yeah, if it turned out to be a large amount of work then it's easily something I could skip for other things.

[descalabro]

The Temple of Elemental Evil was perhaps the most beautiful isometric game that I have played. Obsidian didn't reveal what engine they will be using, but I am sure that Project Eternity will look great. Obviously, it will be based on the modern technology. Just don't go for the cartoonish look like Wasteland 2 Torchlight.

 

Hmm, I believe that's more a question of the style used. I like the visual style of IWD and ToEE, because the painting-like environments relate more closely to phantasy books without looking cartoonish as you said.

[descalabro]

It depends a bit on how much work is involved with it I think. On the whole, I would really welcome as animated a world as possible. I don't care too much about advanced stuff like dragons flying or stuff like that but I think a "background" (if we can call it that) that has a bit of movement to it can really help things come alive.

 

But yeah, if it turned out to be a large amount of work then it's easily something I could skip for other things.

 

When I was at lower Dorn's Deep in IWD I really wished the lava streams would move, even though It already looked beautiful as it was.

[descalabro]

It depends a bit on how much work is involved with it I think. On the whole, I would really welcome as animated a world as possible. I don't care too much about advanced stuff like dragons flying or stuff like that but I think a "background" (if we can call it that) that has a bit of movement to it can really help things come alive.

 

But yeah, if it turned out to be a large amount of work then it's easily something I could skip for other things.

 

Well the flying dragons would be also a combat enhancement, and that makes a lot of my point in what concerns interactivity. Imagine if some creatures were able to climb walls to avoid melee attacks? Those are nice touches if they are not very expensive.

[Odarbi]

Voted for "So long as it doesn't feel like I'm walking over a painting" in that I'd like to, at the very very least, see things like.. the shadows of clouds floating by, have a lighting/color to indicate morning/midday/evening/night, or see it rain some times.

 

I'd ultimately love to see animated rivers and streams, moving windmills, and all that... but not if it's at the expense of other things like story, content, or gameplay.

[Posbi]

I voted for

 

"A lot! Rivers streaming and real sea-waves; vehicles moving, trees swinging, doors and windmills moving, gigantic boulders rolling and walls crushing in dungeons, mechanical puzzles and bridges, gigantic creatures, dragons actually flying!"

 

as long as they can integrate it into the 2D background, which they should. Shadowrun Returns is doing something very similar. Oldschool is one thing, but there's no reason not to include these things if they offer the necessary extra bit of immersion.

[descalabro]

Voted for "So long as it doesn't feel like I'm walking over a painting" in that I'd like to, at the very very least, see things like.. the shadows of clouds floating by, have a lighting/color to indicate morning/midday/evening/night, or see it rain some times.

 

I'd ultimately love to see animated rivers and streams, moving windmills, and all that... but not if it's at the expense of other things like story, content, or gameplay.

 

I agree with you, but how expensive can that be in 2012? This is really a question, not rhetorical. Can someone answer me?

 

The Robin:Hood game I mentioned at the bottom of my topic has the best physics i've seen in an isometric pre-rendered game, it looks great too, and I don't think it had a big budget.

[WDeranged]

I voted for a lot but I suppose there is an upper limit, to have a screen full of 2D animations churning in your face could be off-putting...either way I'd certainly like to see animations where you'd expect to see them, rivers, trees, boats etc, there's no need for static backgrounds nowadays.

[eimatshya]

If it won't detract from other things, I would enjoy more animation, but it isn't a priority for me. Descriptions can get the job done if they don't have the time/budget for animation.

[Infinitron]

This is the one major improvement Obsidian can make over the Infinity Engine.

[Labadal]

A livlier world would be welcomed by me, but it isn't very important in the end. If they can do it without it hurting the game's scope, then I'm all for it, but if it compromises other things that I find more important, then I don't mind if the world isn't animated in high detail.

[Zed]

The game world can be static in terms of animation for all I care.

But I will want to be able to click bookshelves, tables, chests, etc