Will a Fixed viewpoint be damaging to the immersion? also amount of combat.

[Sinistas]

So OP, why exactly did you look into PE in the first place? It's obviously not what you're looking for, "immersion" wise. There are tons of first-person RPGs out there, wouldn't one of those be more worth your time?

[WDeranged]

I'm perfectly happy with the fixed viewpoint, screwing with the camera in Neverwinter Nights (and Dragon Age to a lesser degree) was a complete pain in my arse.

[Odarbi]

Flat out NO to FPS viewpoint. Go back to playing Skyrim if that's what you really want. I can assure you that it is not what I want in a game. This is meant to be a tactical and strategic RPG, and the FPS viewpoint is quite simply not conductive to this sort of game.

 

I don't mind a Third Person viewpoint in games where I control only 1 person, such as Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, but I want a birds eye view if I'm controlling 6 people like P:E will require me to do. Project Eternity is meant to be a return to the days of Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, and the like, so an isometric birds eye view is the way to go. I won't be opposed to a NWN2 style camera if they decide to go that way, so long as they pick a single navigation mode and make it work well instead of having 3 different camera modes that all work differently and ultimately feel unfinished and/or un-necessary. I would very much prefer, however, they just stick with a fixed camera with very little to no zoom.

 

Having a fixed camera with no zoom not only simplifies things from a programming standpoint, but it also frees up more development resources for other things because they don't have to mess around with fully rendered 3d objects and fully rendered landscapes. This allows them to spend more time and resources, which are probably already limited enough, to do things like: Make the game fun, add more content for the players to explore, spend more time focusing on the lore of the world... you know, things that will actually bring the world alive much much more than the FPS viewpoint you described ever would.

[molarBear]

i think it is pretty much set in stone that we will have top-down view (isometric). so this thread is a bit on the trolling side.

[tartparasite]

No way that the modest budget will allow for a fully 3d experience without sacrificing huge amounts of game quality and length. Not worth it.

[tartparasite]

No way that the modest budget will allow for a fully 3d experience without sacrificing huge amounts of game quality and length. Not worth it.

[Dianjabla]

Trollolololol

[Gorth]

What we've seen in modern RPGs isn't streamlining or evolution. It's simply appealing to the masses who want every game to be generic FPS #7348732

 

This game is for us who miss the old IE games and yes, that means fixed isometric camera. They were very up front about this in the kickstarter video and if they weren't I'm not so sure I would have pledged.

 

Seems to me you would prefer an Elder Scrolls style game rather than what this game is. This is a party based cRPG. First person just doesn't work for that.

 

Anyways, it seems to me that you're asking for a massive dumbing down of the game so that it's like any other game being made today. If they wanted to make a game like that then they wouldn't have had issues getting a publisher.

I just thought I would quote this post because the Like button can not express how much I like this post

 

Those of us fed up with the suckiness of trying to force party based combat and non-isometric view to co-exist needs some love too. Besides, you would need 5-10 times the budget (read: a publisher) for going full *insert generic fps/tpp "action rpg"*.

 

I remember similar discussions that came up in years past, where some people wanted to turn every attempt at making a real strategy game into an action game (aka: "RTS"), completely missing the point, that there are actually people who likes and prefers strategy games and not generic RTS #774

 

 

[incubus9]

I always loved the way that playing the old IE isometric games felt like I was playing beautifully designed D&D table top. I always felt that it gave the best blend between immersion and tactical combat control. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but since what they promised is a spiritual successor to IWD and PST, then isometric is the only way to go.

[Terror K]

I have to say, I find it rather disheartening that there's so many people who seem to think absolutely everything the old IE games did was better, and that absolutely everything that newer RPGs have done is "dumbing down" especially when there's no real argument or logical reasoning behind it. I largely agree that most newer conventions in RPGs these days aren't as good, and that there has been a massive amount of dumbing down and pandering to the mainstream masses in general. That's actually why BioWare are now dead to me as a company. But I think it's awfully close-minded and unrealistically stubborn to say that there have been no advancements and no growth at all and no changes for the better over time.

 

One of these is the camera. I certain agree that the camera shouldn't be forced and close to the character in first-person or third person like the TES games, KotOR, Dragon Age 2, etc. in a good fantasy RPG, but technology has moved on and nor do I think we should just be reduced to small sprites with a limited isometric view. The way to go, IMO, should be the likes of NWN, Dragon Age: Origins and The Witcher, where you can choose how to have the camera and change it on the fly. I loved that about these games because I could alternate depending on circumstances, and while I largely pulled it out to an isometric view during combat anyway, I could also zoom in close if I chose to. And in Dragon Age: Origins where I could actually design my characters' face, it had more meaning to me than this tiny, incredible vague looking sprite with only skin and hair colour to differentiate them from anybody else beyond my portrait.

 

Now, I'm not saying that Project Eternity has to adhere to this, or that it should. What I'm saying is that even if a good deal of modern changes to RPGs have been bad ones and dumbing down of the genre, not all of them have. If Baldur's Gate was made in the NWN2 or Dragon Age: Origins engine with all of the gameplay perfectly intact but had the addition of being 3D, players not being limited to an isometric camera and players being able to actually create their characters' faces, then it would lose absolutely no depth and complexity at all and would not be dumbed down in any sense of the term. In fact, it would have additional depth and complexity, and that's the exact opposite of dumbing down. It's actually hypocritical and ironic to call it "dumbing down" in these circumstances.

 

It seems to me that all too often the term "dumbing down" is being used here to just mean "modern convention" and that's it, and that too many people use it to apply to features of more modern RPGs that it shouldn't merely because other factors of these RPGs largely have been dumbed down. I miss the RPGs of old like BG2, IWD, Fallout 1&2, etc. as much as anybody, but there are some things that have been done better over time, and not all of these newer conventions automatically make something "dumbed down." Taking away the isometric view entirely would be a case of dumbing down, but giving players more control and freedom over the camera is not so long as that ability remains intact.

[NoxNoctum]

You should try playing a roguelike Caligula if you think immersion results from 1st person

 

For example this game has been one of the most immersive games I've played of late:

 

 

I remember the tension still when I was slowly hacking my way through a mountain in that game filled with various ice dragons and these Snow Giants that would chuck a boulder at you from offscreen and blind you for multiple turns. Creeping along VERY slowly (permadeath will do that do you ), carefully conserving my shields and various abilities for the crazed lightning mage that I had been told was up there, stumbling on scraps of a journal from an adventuring party that had gone before me and apparently gone mad and turned on each other before getting picked apart by the frost wyrms.

 

THAT is immersion . Don't underestimate the capability of the mind's eye to trump anything fancy graphics can come up. That is what good writing (and permadeath) can do.

[Ieo]

Ultimately, the modern/dumbing down/newfangled/better/worse doesn't matter. Isometric (and its assumed technical trappings) is part of the original business proposal Obsidian put forth on the Kickstarter: people backed with the full understanding of their intentions via this communique. OP and others asking for 3D zoom camera whatever are basically asking or even demanding that Obsidian renege on their original pitch to the public.

 

There are many aspects of the project that are fluid in terms of allowing appropriate supporter feedback. The fundamental proposal set forth on the Kickstarter page, including changing tier rewards after so many have already backed, are not.

[Gorth]

It was a main selling point for me. Sadly, some people just don't seem to comprehend that there are people out there with different tastes and preferences. Like tactical combat instead of action combat, overview rather than staring at my butt, things left to my imagination rather than spelled out in graphical detail etc. Not every game has to be a carbon copy of the last 10 major titles released.

 

 

[Grimlorn]

Now, I'm not saying that Project Eternity has to adhere to this, or that it should. What I'm saying is that even if a good deal of modern changes to RPGs have been bad ones and dumbing down of the genre, not all of them have. If Baldur's Gate was made in the NWN2 or Dragon Age: Origins engine with all of the gameplay perfectly intact but had the addition of being 3D, players not being limited to an isometric camera and players being able to actually create their characters' faces, then it would lose absolutely no depth and complexity at all and would not be dumbed down in any sense of the term. In fact, it would have additional depth and complexity, and that's the exact opposite of dumbing down. It's actually hypocritical and ironic to call it "dumbing down" in these circumstances.

 

It seems to me that all too often the term "dumbing down" is being used here to just mean "modern convention" and that's it, and that too many people use it to apply to features of more modern RPGs that it shouldn't merely because other factors of these RPGs largely have been dumbed down. I miss the RPGs of old like BG2, IWD, Fallout 1&2, etc. as much as anybody, but there are some things that have been done better over time, and not all of these newer conventions automatically make something "dumbed down." Taking away the isometric view entirely would be a case of dumbing down, but giving players more control and freedom over the camera is not so long as that ability remains intact.

None of that stuff you describe improves the RPG. It just improves the graphics and gives you more to look at. All that stuff costs a lot of development money. I don't think the camera zooming in really mattered in DA because when you went to talk it zoomed in and showed your character talking anyway, so why not keep the whole game in isometric? Trying to control a party in a fight in any other camera other zoomed in camera view is a pain in the ass.

 

There's been a huge shift with people asking for better graphics, visuals with characters, voice acting, etc. People forget this stuff costs a lot of money and takes away from other aspects of RPGs like character creation/development, party size, combat, dialogue, story, length. Pretty much all the things that make RPGs great reduced in favor of eye candy, voice acting, and making the player feel good by making the game easy enough for anyone to beat. Dumbed down fits this perfectly.

 

These are the people developers like Bioware cater to. This guy can't even figure out how to equip weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JplWWFtkdjY&feature=player_embedded

Edited September 21, 2012 by Grimlorn

[Darkpriest]

What we've seen in modern RPGs isn't streamlining or evolution. It's simply appealing to the masses who want every game to be generic FPS #7348732

 

This game is for us who miss the old IE games and yes, that means fixed isometric camera. They were very up front about this in the kickstarter video and if they weren't I'm not so sure I would have pledged.

 

Seems to me you would prefer an Elder Scrolls style game rather than what this game is. This is a party based cRPG. First person just doesn't work for that.

 

Anyways, it seems to me that you're asking for a massive dumbing down of the game so that it's like any other game being made today. If they wanted to make a game like that then they wouldn't have had issues getting a publisher.

 

To be honest it does not have to be fixed, because games like NWN shown that you can have rotating camera and also a good tactical system (for the TB cookie, go new X-COM).

 

The problem becomes with the amount of work which needs to be put into the whole 3D environment. Obviously rotating camera does not work good with 2D environment, that was announced, and that's the only reason why the fixed camera is better here.

[working man hole]

and that's the only reason why the fixed camera is better here.

 

Also the fact Obsidian has a tendency to make really bad camera controls - the worst aspect of NWN2 was the horrible camera. I don't mind first person camera for a single PC, but when controling a party of characters, fixed iso is the way to go.

Since this is not a "find a hidden object" game, rotating camera would add nothing worthwhile, but, judging by previous experiences, only frustration. Zoom will probably be in and useful too, to accomodate for different resolutions etc.

Edited September 21, 2012 by working man hole

[True_Spike]

Project: Eternity is a party based game. First person perspective makes it impossible for such a system to work. I see no reason for this debate, to be honest.

[Hoverdog]

this thread gave me cancer.

[Althernai]

To be honest it does not have to be fixed, because games like NWN shown that you can have rotating camera and also a good tactical system (for the TB cookie, go new X-COM).

 

The problem becomes with the amount of work which needs to be put into the whole 3D environment. Obviously rotating camera does not work good with 2D environment, that was announced, and that's the only reason why the fixed camera is better here.

Have you actually played the Infinity Engine games? I ask because if you have, then I don't understand why you would use NWN as your counterexample. NWN was great because of all of the mods, but party-based tactical game play was definitely not its strong suite. The original only allowed you to directly control one character. The sequel allowed full party control, but it was awkward. Dragon Age: Origins also allowed full party control, but it was also awkward. I cannot think of any such game where the combat came anywhere close to Baldur's Gate 2 or Temple of Elemental Evil. It might be possible, but the reason the isometric perspective is being used here is probably that nobody has ever made anything else work half as well.

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I think this guy got lost on his way to the TES forums, why is it that some people seem to have pledged their money but are completely confused about what the game is like/ based on.

 

It's a bit weird.

[Terror K]

It was a main selling point for me. Sadly, some people just don't seem to comprehend that there are people out there with different tastes and preferences. Like tactical combat instead of action combat, overview rather than staring at my butt, things left to my imagination rather than spelled out in graphical detail etc. Not every game has to be a carbon copy of the last 10 major titles released.

 

Yes, but similarly, not every aspect of the game needs to be stuck about 15 years in the past. I mean... the way some people talk it's more like they just want a whole new expansion-like campaign of Baldur's Gate 2, Icewind Dale or Planescape: Torment with nothing new or fresh and every single damn element to be exactly the way it was back then, even the ones that sucked.

 

Again, I don't expect Project Eternity to go 3D at all, but the amount of stubborn pretentiousness that sometimes pops up if the game even dare think about using even one single RPG convention from the last 10 years is astounding. I loved the classic titles too, but come on... they weren't infallible and they didn't do absolutely everything perfect and not every new concept from the last decade equals "dumbing down" just because it's new and just because, admittedly, a hell of a lot of them do. And what concerns me is the fact that if RPG fans so quickly shoot down things that aren't dumbing down such as a more freeform camera, what other aspects are also going to be shot down without a chance that also aren't dumbed down aspects just because the classics didn't have them and new titles did?

 

And keep in mind, this is coming from somebody who has been accused of being a dinosaur RPG elitist on other game forums lately for lambasting the direction the gaming industry as a whole has been taking, and especially when it comes to RPGs, particularly with BioWare. I just think game aspects should be judged on their own and not simply what decade they were from and what other games had them or didn't have them.

[Gorth]

And keep in mind, this is coming from somebody who has been accused of being a dinosaur RPG elitist on other game forums lately for lambasting the direction the gaming industry as a whole has been taking, and especially when it comes to RPGs,

Mate, if you remember having a good time playing the original Sword of Fargoal (another "remake" kickstarter), then you can join the dinosaur club, which I'm myself a member of. What I resent is the idea that all games have to conform to current norms, rather than diversify and cater to a variety of tastes. It's not like people who prefer FPP/TPP crpgs/action rpgs are actually starved for games that caters to their tastes

[Terror K]

And keep in mind, this is coming from somebody who has been accused of being a dinosaur RPG elitist on other game forums lately for lambasting the direction the gaming industry as a whole has been taking, and especially when it comes to RPGs,

Mate, if you remember having a good time playing the original Sword of Fargoal (another "remake" kickstarter), then you can join the dinosaur club, which I'm myself a member of. What I resent is the idea that all games have to conform to current norms, rather than diversify and cater to a variety of tastes. It's not like people who prefer FPP/TPP crpgs/action rpgs are actually starved for games that caters to their tastes

 

I started with the Gold Box SSI AD&D titles, the early Bards Tales, Ultima, the Might & Magic titles, Wizardry, etc. on the C64 and Amiga mostly. But then age wise, I'm still in my 20's (just). I definitely agree with you. That's one of my biggest complaints: that the one audience is getting catered to and games are getting homogenised into this samey brown mush of hybrid titles rather than having clearly defined genres and games made for different audiences any more. Syndicate being rebooted into another gritty FPS to add to the overstacked pile was a good recent non-RPG example of what's wrong with the gaming industry lately. Too much catering to the mainstream masses, not enough variety and making the games the way they should be made. RPGs these days in most cases are little more than cinematic, story-driven action games with a little more character customisation and an XP system. And it's leaving the RPG fan with very little in the way of proper, deep, tactical RPGs of any decent scope or complexity.

 

But all that said, I still prefer the more freeform camera of NWN, DAO, The Witcher, etc. over the stuck-in-isometric birds eye view model. I just do. I'm not going to think any less of Project Eternity for being this way, but it's just a fact and a preference. To me, the perfect RPG would basically be the guts of BG2 mixed with the presentation and style of Dragon Age: Origins. I know I'm likely never going to see this perfect RPG, but... a man can dream.

[HansKrSG]

I do not agree with the OP.

 

We have been promised the old feel when it comes to gaming, with the Infinity Engine games set as examples on what they want to create. If this didn't tip you off on this issue, you should probably discover what these games are.

 

When KOTOR came out I wanted a BG in a 3D environment, but soon found out that I wished the 2d isometric view back when NWN and NWN2 came out. Although I liked both games, I felt I had less control and owerview than the IE games, and the games became more of an actionrpg, than a tactical rpg.

[Gorth]

But all that said, I still prefer the more freeform camera of NWN, DAO, The Witcher, etc. over the stuck-in-isometric birds eye view model. I just do. I'm not going to think any less of Project Eternity for being this way, but it's just a fact and a preference. To me, the perfect RPG would basically be the guts of BG2 mixed with the presentation and style of Dragon Age: Origins. I know I'm likely never going to see this perfect RPG, but... a man can dream.

Fair enough if it's a wish born out of reflection over what you really prefer rather than adopting the current paradigms and doctrines. My background is just slightly different, being an "old" gamer when newfangled stuff like the gold box games came out (mass produced clones of each other that they were), I grew up with Avalon Hill tabletop wargames and later c64 SSI wargames before they started on crpgs. So my preference is something that offers me good tactical combat and a strategic overview. Something I always found lacking when my vision got stuck at ground level perspective, depriving me of the feeling of "being there", in control.