Camera / Scene Rotation + Backgrounds in Multiple Resolutions

[villain of the story]

I am curious if the 2D backgrounds will be finalised (pre-rendered + touched + post-processed) in a single high resolution and then downscaled either by the engine or come pre-downscaled by Obsidian for lower resolutions OR, finalised in several for a range of resolutions.

 

Surely, this being 2012 and the limitations of IE games being apparent now (namely the resolution inflexibility), I thought perhaps they would opt for a more compatible and maybe even future-proof method than locking the scenes to a single resolution for everyone, regardless of their choice of (or their monitors') resolutions, kind of as though the game were entirely 3D. It would only be common sense at this age.

 

For those wondering, some of the theoretical differences between various methods would be:

 

(0) 2D backgrounds or scenes are made in 3D and then pre-rendered to 2D with best lighting and other effects, then the 2D image is shopped and likely post-processed (in-game effects) for the best result. This is how the backgrounds in all Infinity Engine games were made. They are not 2D artworks as in hand-painted but 3D scenes pre-rendered to 2D images and processed.

 

(1) 2D scenes finalised in a single high resolution and then downscaled by the engine for lower resolutions.

 

+ Least amount of work for Obsidian

+ Smaller file size to download / to ship in discs

- High resolution images potential (and very likely) memory hogs, especially for older or low end systems

- Quality of downscaling dependent on a number of things (system configuration, drivers)

- Loss of detail due to downscaling

 

(2) 2D scenes finalised in a single high resolution and then downscaled by Obsidian for a range of resolutions.

 

+ Still reasonably low amount of work for Obsidian

+ Consistent image quality per resolution across systems

+ Theoretically the best performance per resolution

- Much larger file size to download / to ship in discs

- Loss of detail due to downscaling

 

(3) 2D scenes finalised for a range of resolutions

 

+ Best image quality per resolution possible

+ Theoretically the best performance per resolution

- Much larger file size to download / to ship in discs

- More work for Obsidian (though I'm not certain just how much more: it might be as simple as using presets to do all the adjustments, except several times per resolution, or maybe not)

 

I would just like to know what Obsidian has planned regarding this.

 

 

 

And onto my second related subject:

 

I was wondering how feasible it would be for Obsidian to give us an option to rotate the scenes by 90°, essentially meaning that every scene or location would have to be pre-rendered and post-processed four times to get four 2D images of it which we could then quickly switch between to get the best view to our liking.

 

Apart from the budget/time cost of the procedure itself, I believe that the actual scene data itself would be pretty easy to adapt because essentially, they will already be creating 3D scenes (Unity 3D Engine + 3D models for characters) with just the 2D backgrounds and the necessary graphical features to blend the two aesthetically.

 

So basically, I'm just asking: is this something you at Obsidian have ever considered or are still considering? It would only enhance the game, you know, freeing you of the limitations of locked-view and after all, anyone who has played any IE game has to have, at some point, bitched about obstructions.

 

They did this in Commandos 2 & 3 (both 2D games) to great effect. See it in practice:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More:

 

 

 

As for the toll it would take on Obsidian; take everything I said above about resolutions and multiply it by four.

 

 

But it would be swell if they did this.

Edited October 12, 2012 by villain of the story

[rjshae]

Very nice, yes, but perhaps a much higher cost in terms of 2D artwork?

[villain of the story]

Background scenes are made in 3D, then pre-rendered to 2D images ie. what artwork? It would require 3D scenes to be rendered from 4 directions; not for 2D artwork to be created from scratch for all directions. But it surely quadruples the pipeline described above, as I've mentioned.

Edited October 12, 2012 by villain of the story

[BobbinThreadbare]

They could just pack the high res image, and have the PC scale it down when it comes time to load the image.

[eimatshya]

I've never had a problem with the static camera in IE games. I'd rather have them put their energies into other things than creating each area from four angles.

[Tigranes]

It's nice to have, but also changes the way you design art assets and the levels.

[Semper]

oh vots...

[Zack Fair]

This would be a good idea, but I fear it will increase the cost of the project, and the time needed to finish the game. So I support this idea, but if it doesn't make it into the game, I won't be too disappointed.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Zack Fair

[Osvir]

Voted "don't care", "Yes or no, doesn't matter".

 

It's not like I wouldn't mind it. In fact, I think it even could be quite nice. It's not up to me to decide.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Osvir

[sesobebo]

(0) 2D backgrounds or scenes are made in 3D and then pre-rendered to 2D with best lighting and other effects, then the 2D image is shopped and likely post-processed (in-game effects) for the best result. This is how the backgrounds in all Infinity Engine games were made. They are not 2D artworks as in hand-painted but 3D scenes pre-rendered to 2D images and processed.

 

the textures for models are still hand-painted, and the post-processing still involves quite a bit of hand-work - mostly painting.

and as Tigranes said, the details have to be made for all four sides, not just one - so it's not just a question of raw computer power.

 

 

oh vots...

 

?

[teknoman2]

i dont really care. if they can do it i'm all for it. if they can't im fine as i was in all IE games

[Mazhlekov]

I think the static view is good enough and there is one big benefit from this - all interaction objects will be adopted for only one view and synchronised with the gameplay. If there is an hiden place and it's visible from only one angle the possibility of mising it by not depending from us reasons like (4 directional view - you didn't see is from the other 3 directions) is 0%

[sesobebo]

I think the static view is good enough and there is one big benefit from this - all interaction objects will be adopted for only one view and synchronised with the gameplay. If there is an hiden place and it's visible from only one angle the possibility of mising it by not depending from us reasons like (4 directional view - you didn't see is from the other 3 directions) is 0%

 

it could enhance the exploration, but it'd have to not be a one time gimick, and be all in all quite rewarding, for it to be justified.

 

commandoses(?) did it quite well, but they were games on a different scale, with different gameplay and goals, and played at a different pace (and they had split screens for multiple cameras that could be placed around the level, which helped a lot, as the camera wouldn't have to be fiddled with, once the views were set)

[villain of the story]

How odd for people to consider how difficult it might or might not be. I mean, you don't need to play the "considerate guy" for developers. You either think it would be cool or not.

 

They could just pack the high res image, and have the PC scale it down when it comes time to load the image.

 

Yes, they could. And it could be a memory hog for lower end systems, look ugly depending on systems and lose details. It doesn't sound too good for a game trying reaching back to that spot we all have for beautiful 2D scenes as in IE games.

 

Anyway, I'm just curious to know what they are planning.

[Karkarov]

While it is a cool idea in practice this should be avoided if it can't be done in actual seamless 3d. Only needing to design the areas from one universal perspective also gives the devs more time to make well rounded and interesting maps, not to mention on making them look as good as possible. Then there is the modding factor, if map creation becomes possible it would be a bit of a pain to do it from multiple angles.

[curryinahurry]

How odd for people to consider how difficult it might or might not be. I mean, you don't need to play the "considerate guy" for developers. You either think it would be cool or not.

 

They could just pack the high res image, and have the PC scale it down when it comes time to load the image.

 

Yes, they could. And it could be a memory hog for lower end systems, look ugly depending on systems and lose details. It doesn't sound too good for a game trying reaching back to that spot we all have for beautiful 2D scenes as in IE games.

 

Anyway, I'm just curious to know what they are planning.

 

 

You said it in an earlier post, its 4x the work. That's art resources that could be used in other areas, like a day/ night cycle or better ambient lighting or animations or spot 3d objects that allow for cover; all things I would prefer to have before a rotating camera

[villain of the story]

I explained what it likely would entail just to set the record straight. You don't have to choose between them based on any number of conditions. Yes, I would also prefer all that and more before it would even come to scene rotation. But why so scared to just want it? You. Either. Want. Or. Don't. You either think it would add something of value to the game, or you don't. "I don't want it because X" is ridiculously and unnecessarily hesitant.

 

 

While it is a cool idea in practice this should be avoided if it can't be done in actual seamless 3d. Only needing to design the areas from one universal perspective also gives the devs more time to make well rounded and interesting maps, not to mention on making them look as good as possible. Then there is the modding factor, if map creation becomes possible it would be a bit of a pain to do it from multiple angles.

 

Kinda good point but I doubt there will be more than a few people who will even bother with map creation even if Obsidian provided all the tools and gave away the details to their own particular pipeline for scenes. Because, hey, IE games have been modded extensively for a long long time and how many new maps do you remember from mods for all IE games combined? Not many. The process itself is very involving and not something most people could bother with. And for those who would, I doubt that multiple renders of a scene they already constructed in 3D would be a problem. At worst, they would just disable rotation for their new areas in their own mods.

 

Even if Obsidian released the source files to their 3D scenes at some point, it would hardly help anyone. In fact, for this reason alone, scene rotation might be a good idea. To keep the game world more flexible in the way you can add to it without being restrained by angles.

Edited October 13, 2012 by villain of the story

[curryinahurry]

Not a matter of being scared or just wanting it or not. The majority of posters on this thread have stated similar sentiments; if it can be done without being a burden on other resources then its ok. The problem is that it will be a burden on other resources.

 

Personally, I think its a waste of resources and would add practically nothing to gameplay or exploration in a game of this sort. do I really need to see the back of a statue? Will transparency settings vs rotating camera really hinder gameplay for dungeons where we will have to travel down corridors? For me the answer is no.

[BobbinThreadbare]

How odd for people to consider how difficult it might or might not be. I mean, you don't need to play the "considerate guy" for developers. You either think it would be cool or not.

 

They could just pack the high res image, and have the PC scale it down when it comes time to load the image.

 

Yes, they could. And it could be a memory hog for lower end systems, look ugly depending on systems and lose details. It doesn't sound too good for a game trying reaching back to that spot we all have for beautiful 2D scenes as in IE games.

 

Anyway, I'm just curious to know what they are planning.

 

None of the things you said need to be true.

 

Time to load zone 5, compress zone five images and resize for correct resolution and save them to cache folder. Then load them.

 

It would add maybe a second or two on a 5 year old machine, never use 1 kb more of memory, and look fine because the resizing config is predefined.

[Hassat Hunter]

Yup, like the others, I rather have 4x more beatiful crafted areas to go around in, then that time spend on making one area rotate.

Also it would add in the difficulties of 3D games, that from some angles you just can't see jack.

 

If the area is designed with one angle in mind, they can make the play area never obstructed, and still add it up with many things, that might block the camera if you rotate. So they probably would also need to lose detail for this to work, making it an even bigger "no"

[ImRhoven]

I never missed rotating in the IE games. When you design you're backgrounds with a single POV in mind you can make sure everything is visible from that angle. No need for rotation.

 

I'd rather have OE spend resources somewhere else than on different camera angles.

[Mazhlekov]

Yup, like the others, I rather have 4x more beatiful crafted areas to go around in, then that time spend on making one area rotate.

Also it would add in the difficulties of 3D games, that from some angles you just can't see jack.

 

If the area is designed with one angle in mind, they can make the play area never obstructed, and still add it up with many things, that might block the camera if you rotate. So they probably would also need to lose detail for this to work, making it an even bigger "no"

Absolutely agree with your opinion!

[testerius]

Rotate camera should be good in 3D enviroment but PE is 2D isometric view, so I don't want to rotate option. I prefer isometric camera without it.

[villain of the story]

Rotate camera should be good in 3D enviroment but PE is 2D isometric view, so I don't want to rotate option. I prefer isometric camera without it.

 

Have you even look at the videos for an example?

 

I prefer 2D to 3D any time of the day in this type of game. It doesn't mean that it has to be a dogmatic affinity heavily absorbed in nostalgia, disregarding new possibilities of improving the base model.

 

But if you prefer it that way, that's as valid as it gets, of course.

Edited October 13, 2012 by villain of the story

[Tsuga C]

I'll be spending all of my time zoomed out to keep an eye on the entire battlefield. The only time I anticipate zooming in is if one of my party has been disarmed and I need to click on their weapon so they can pick it up. This being the case, I'm not sure that an ultra-high resolution for the background is all that necessary. Spend the zots on more animations.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Tsuga C