Fixed isometric view?

[Lynx88]

Zoom would be a definite plus, and having a fixed perspective isn't a big deal. It worked for Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and all the classic RPGs we know and love, and it'll work just fine for Project Eternity.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Lynx88

[vv221]

Please stop with all the 2.5D stuff!

Half-dimensions don't exist…

 

Project: Eternity will have 2D backgrounds and 3D characters.

That's the best way in my opinion to make a great team-based RPG!

 

I don't mind if they include a zoom, but I won't use it: I don't think it adds anything to the gameplay.

[Hassat Hunter]

Zoom and camera rotation was only added since 3D made environments so much harder to navigate.

 

A patch to fix the issue.

Since the issue isn't in PE (thank god), there is no need to apply it's patch for the issue...

[Gyges]

Isometric games are about as archaic as Diablo 3. Beyond that.... RTFM

[rjshae]

It will probably allow a zoom function. So not completely fixed.

 

A zoom would add a lot, IMHO. With the increased resolution, it would be a nice touch--not so much for tactical combat--but for searching, thieving, even just to get a closer look at your avatar's armor, etc. I've been playing a little IWD II recently, and think a feature like this would be useful and appreciated. For situations like walking your party around a town, you could zoom in and get a closer look at your immediate surroundings, instead of just looking at a screen full of rooftops. Same goes for a narrow dead-end tunnel, when the rest of the screen is black.

I have this sneaking suspicion that the zoom won't have quite the range you're expecting. The area pixmaps likely won't scale well, so there's no point in allowing zoom down to the point where you can see the armor details. My guess would be down to 2-4 × normal.

[mstark]

Please stop with all the 2.5D stuff!

Half-dimensions don't exist…

It just so happens to be the accepted way of referring to 2D games with 3D "depth", as those games are often neither outright 2D nor 3D. They're often rendered in 3D, but only playable in 2D, ie. you can only move along the X and Y axis, not the Z (depth) axis. Technically, 3D doesn't exist on a computer either: everything you're watching on your screen is happening on a two dimensional plane, your monitor doesn't have depth. Claiming it's 3D is just a convenient way of referring to the rendering technology used. 2.5D games often use a mixture of rendering techniques and becomes the logical choice.

 

That said, PE won't be a "traditional" 2.5D game, it will, as you said, be a 2D game with some 3D elements.

Edited November 3, 2012 by mstark

[Frenetic Pony]

All opinions provided in response appreciated. I can see the point in keeping it fixed I guess. Diablo3 is doing well with this so I suppose its ok however Diablo3 I am pretty sure is on a full 3D engine so I'm not sure how well 2.5D will stack up. (p.s. I'm not trolling)

 

It's nostolgiac and what many at Obsidian "know how to do". I still enjoy playing Baldur's Gate 2, and it's not like any of the 3d style of these games (KOTOR, Dragon Age, Neverwinter Nights) have actually particularly benefited. Ok, I enjoyed some of it in KOTOR. But really it should be good enough.

[Seryn]

It will probably allow a zoom function. So not completely fixed.

 

A zoom would add a lot, IMHO. With the increased resolution, it would be a nice touch--not so much for tactical combat--but for searching, thieving, even just to get a closer look at your avatar's armor, etc. I've been playing a little IWD II recently, and think a feature like this would be useful and appreciated. For situations like walking your party around a town, you could zoom in and get a closer look at your immediate surroundings, instead of just looking at a screen full of rooftops. Same goes for a narrow dead-end tunnel, when the rest of the screen is black.

I have this sneaking suspicion that the zoom won't have quite the range you're expecting. The area pixmaps likely won't scale well, so there's no point in allowing zoom down to the point where you can see the armor details. My guess would be down to 2-4 × normal.

 

I would enjoy a 2x zoom, any more would be gravy.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Seryn

[Archmage Silver]

think of it as more like Diablo 2 then buddy.

I'd rather not, because that makes me want to cancel my pledge. I'll think of it as Baldur's Gate II instead.

[Game_Exile]

Fixed isometric isnt any more archaic than any other perspective.

Yes it is. Scrolling 2d is more archaic than any dynamic 3d perspective, period. Anyone who says differently is talking out of their ass, and anyone with half a brain should know why.

 

The fixed perspective allows greater attention to be paid to the graphical features

Lies. The fixed perspective allows objects to look good or passable with much lesser attention paid to the graphical features. That is the whole reason for doing it.

 

It would be cool to see "areas" or "frames" where the perspective changes from the standard overhead isometric POV. If they are well implemented, perspective efffects, like being able to see the sky or the full scale of some monumental object relative to your characters, could add a lot to the setting and story. They were already doing this stuff in SNES games! Of course if it is badly implemented, it could hurt the cohesion of your setting and mechanics by ruining the player's sense of space. Some amount of art, i.e. some care, has to go into things like manipulation of perspective, but these things have the potential to improve the game by leaps and bounds.

 

Yes I know, the whole reason the devs wanted to go back to making games with ceratin archaic features was so that they could be lazy about certain things and concentrate more on certain other stuff that they feel they can do extraordinarily well. But you have to look at the game as a whole, and having more cool graphics effects would really be worth the effort.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Archaic in the sense that it was common in a previous period. Gaming has been dominated by 3D real-time rendered games for over a decade. It's not archaic in sense of being primitive or antiquated.

 

I think you're not talking about the same thing. Fixed perspective definitely allows for more attention to be paid to what's on the screen at any one time, way, way, more, and objects don't just look good or passable, they can look much much better than real-time rendered.

 

Obviously 3D real-time rendered requires way more developer time to create, so more attention is spent on graphics.

 

Should developers be spending all their time on graphics? No, I'd much rather they spent it on gameplay. Are the benefits of 3D real time rendered worth it? For some games but the reasons you give are pretty terrible, who cares about seeing the sky or objects from multiple angles in a squad based RPG.

 

They've already decided, and it's mostly down to resources available, they don't have the time or team to make a 3D real time rendered game in under 2 years that's as big as they want, or has the amount of features and complexity they want in other areas.

Edited November 23, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[Hormalakh]

Uhh the first 3d perspective game I played was the first game I ever played. It was called Wolfenstein 3D. IF that game isn't archaic then I don't know what the heck you're talking about. OR rather, you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Perspective became an artistic choice before it became "archaic."

[Game_Exile]

Are the benefits of 3D real time rendered worth it? For some games but the reasons you give are pretty terrible, who cares about seeing the sky or objects from multiple angles in a squad based RPG.

Where did I ever say that P:E should have 3D environments? I said they should take a serious look into perspective effects that were even commonly done on the SNES back in the day. The only thing "pretty terrible" here is your reading comprehension.

 

Archaic in the sense that it was common in a previous period. Gaming has been dominated by 3D real-time rendered games for over a decade. It's not archaic in sense of being primitive or antiquated.

Wrong, it is archaic in the sense of being primitive or antiquated. Yes, people are still making 2D games, some of which are really good compared to 3D counterparts. But, tell me, why has gaming been dominated by 3D real-time rendered games for over a decade, as you say? It is because 3D engines are way more complex, way more immersive, and offer WAY more possibilities for immersion. Just because every possibility for 2D games hasn't been explored yet, doesn't mean that 2D games somehow have just as much or more future than 3D games. That's BS. We are only 1 or 2 generations away from the arrival of virtual reality headsets , and you still want to say that 2D is not archaic compared to 3D? FFS.

 

Perspective became an artistic choice before it became "archaic."

Lol, what the hell is this even supposed to mean?

Edited November 24, 2012 by Game_Exile

[AwesomeOcelot]

Pan isometric (P:E isn't even isometric) and laud 3D real-time rendered, clearly you're not advocating it, silly me.

 

These new technologies didn't replace old ones. WiiMote, Move, and Kinect exist, but I still choose to use mouse, keyboard, gamepad, and joystick. VR headsets are going to be gimmicks, there might be some games made for them worth playing, but they're not going to replace screens.

 

Are Dungeon Siege, Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2, or Dragon Age: Origins more immersive than their predecessors? I don't think so. Also Obsidian are probably going to be using mental ray to render the backgrounds, so you can't really say the technology behind the game is primitive compared to a real-time engine. We don't know what animation, lighting, or other filters Obsidian are planning. Even if some 3D games will be more complex, it's wrong to say this game will be primitive.

Edited November 24, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[Pshaw]

Diablo 3 is a fixed view and still allows you to zoom in. I'd hope that a fixed zoom with no rotation will be added to the game but I can understand if it's meant to stand up at a particular viewing distance and doesn't hold up as well up close. So if such a feature never makes it in I won't mind. That said I find it surprising people are against it being fixed isometric when that was pretty much what they campaigned on, if it bothers you at all you really shouldn't have kick started. It would be like coming in at this point and wishing PE was a point-n-click adventure title.

 

I'll also say that I believe that 2D hand made graphics stand up better over time than fully rendered 3D environments. I can't overlook the blocky feel of NWN or Morrowind or FF7 when I replay them. Sure the games aren't unplayable by any means but it certainly bothers me more than when I start up Fallout 2, Odin Sphere, or Diablo 2. Those games look a little dated as well but not to the degree any 3D game older than 5 years do. Simply put 3D has a shorter shelf life on graphical fidelity in my eyes. Dragon Age wasn't awful looking but if I go back and replay it and Diablo 3 10 years from now I know that Dragon Age will be showing its age far more than Diablo 3. Because of this I'm glad they're going with hand painted backgrounds with a touch of 3D objects and characters on top of that.

[Game_Exile]

Pan isometric (P:E isn't even isometric) and laud 3D real-time rendered, clearly you're not advocating it, silly me.

I dare you to point out exactly where I "advocated" that P:E should have 3D environments. You can't. So what you can do is STFU with your suggesting that I did. And I didn't "pan" or "laud" anything. I just said that 2D is more archaic than 3D, which is obviously true (and that anyone who says it's not is either lying or an idiot, which is also obviously true).

 

VR headsets are going to be gimmicks, there might be some games made for them worth playing, but they're not going to replace screens.

Yeah, that's why industry leaders in Valve Software, Epic Games, etc. are backing the Oculus Rift. Because there's no future in it, right? A few more generations, and cost shouldn't even be an issue.

 

Are Dungeon Siege, Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2, or Dragon Age: Origins more immersive than their predecessors? I don't think so.

So, what?

 

Also Obsidian are probably going to be using mental ray to render the backgrounds, so you can't really say the technology behind the game is primitive compared to a real-time engine.

What does this have to do with 2D and 3D?

 

Even if some 3D games will be more complex, it's wrong to say this game will be primitive.

Do you know what the word primitive means? Compare 3D games that are showing the way to the future vs 2D isometric CRPGs, which the devs even intended to be throwbacks to classic games. If one game is obviously more primitive than another, then it is right to call it primitive. That doesn't mean that P:E won't be more worth playing compared to less primitive games. Understand?

[gum661]

@"primitive/archaic 2D" vs. "3D engines are way more complex, way more immersive, and offer WAY more possibilities for immersion."

 

I guess that depends on your perspective .

When you investigate 2D and 3D a bit more, this debate becomes kinda shallow, I think, since both worlds come with great complexity, just in different ways. In general, I think, you could say 3D-engines are more complex with regards to math and production performance (engineering & economy) while 2D is more complex within a mindset that appreciates freeform, roughness, and personality (art)... speaking black and white.

 

So generally speaking, yes, 2D-graphics are more "primitive" from a technological point of view, but we got a positive "primitive" there, since the staff's time and energy is now released to concern itself with making the 2D-perspective's art and gamedesign *complex* in its own way.

If you've played the 2D games like BG2, P:ST and the likes (or even RTS games like Red Alert), it wasn't just the games themselves, it was the POTENTIAL you might have glimpsed there, potential which I feel never was explored in many ways. Visual potential as hinted at by that "screenshot" of PE.

 

Besides that, I crave for quality 2D games because of expectation and experience. One thing I grew accustomed to expect from high quality 2D games is something NOT ONE SINGLE 3D-engine adventure/rpg game has yet provided for me [EDIT: Ok, concerning games like The Witcher 2 or the new Deus Ex...I have to admit a few exceptions exist]: a high level of depth in adventure and personality (and demanding gameplay, I'd like to add) - and thus: immersion (in a different, more fulfilling way than, say, the immersion of Skyrim's pretty 3D landscapes). I should write this in big letters. PERSONALITY. As I argued, personality seems like a strong point of 2D art. If personality is included, it makes you wonder, since neither you nor any science or market research really knows about other personalities. I would love to wonder about an rpg/adventure game again.

Edited November 24, 2012 by gum661

[AwesomeOcelot]

And I didn't "pan" or "laud" anything.

Apparently you don't know what these words mean.

 

Yeah, that's why industry leaders in Valve Software, Epic Games, etc. are backing the Oculus Rift. Because there's no future in it, right? A few more generations, and cost shouldn't even be an issue.

Did I say that there's no future in it, or did I say the opposite? Also, people who work for Valve Software and Epic Games aren't beyond supporting gimmicks.

 

Are Dungeon Siege, Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2, or Dragon Age: Origins more immersive than their predecessors? I don't think so.

So, what?

Illustrating my point that in terms of squad based RPGs, 3D vs 2D doesn't matter for immersion, so your ranting doesn't even apply to this game at all, I'm so glad we agree.

 

What does this have to do with 2D and 3D?

It's a bit much to call something primitive when the renderer behind the images is more complex than real-time 3D engines. I also notice how you have completely ignored my point about not knowing what real-time rendering Project Eternity is going to have, including lighting, animation, filters, real time 3D rendering of characters and objects. Can you say that Project Eternity is going to less complex than Half-Life? No. Is Limbo less complex than Descent? I don't even know what basis you're using to judge.

 

Do you know what the word primitive means? Compare 3D games that are showing the way to the future vs 2D isometric CRPGs, which the devs even intended to be throwbacks to classic games. If one game is obviously more primitive than another, then it is right to call it primitive. That doesn't mean that P:E won't be more worth playing compared to less primitive games. Understand?

That's like saying Limbo is exactly the same as They Bleed Pixels, one is a deliberate throwback to a previous era, one is not.

Edited November 24, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[Nomine Vacans]

[words]

You either argue with an idiot, or feed the troll. In any case, this is quite pointless.

[UpgrayeDD]

All opinions provided in response appreciated. I can see the point in keeping it fixed I guess. Diablo3 is doing well with this so I suppose its ok however Diablo3 I am pretty sure is on a full 3D engine so I'm not sure how well 2.5D will stack up. (p.s. I'm not trolling)

 

It's nostolgiac and what many at Obsidian "know how to do". I still enjoy playing Baldur's Gate 2, and it's not like any of the 3d style of these games (KOTOR, Dragon Age, Neverwinter Nights) have actually particularly benefited. Ok, I enjoyed some of it in KOTOR. But really it should be good enough.

to be honest I think a lot of games(including the ones listed) would have been much better off had they just done what PE is trying to do now

[Hassat Hunter]

Handpainted backgrounds or 3D assets used over over and over and over.

 

Surely the first is more lazy, right?

 

Troll harder, you still won't be right, Exile.

[stiven]

Yes of course, not retarded 3D, but decent 2D isometric + 3D pre-render stuff, like in Temple.

[JOG]

3D is sooooooo 80's...

 

Before Ultima 6 introduced the iso perspective aka 2.5d in 1990, almost every RPG was either completely 3D or switched between 3D and top down perspective. Wasteland is the only complete top down RPG I remember from that period.

 

3D has a couple of advantages: It scales better with higher resolutions, and it is much cheaper to create, because you can use that dedicated co-processor card on the player's PC, to do the calculations to actually display that animated figure on the screen, while in 2.5d every single animation frame for every single armor+weapon combo needs to be hand drawn, or at least pre-rendered. For the player the later is only an advantage, because there is much more room in the budget for different looking armors and weapons.

 

The main disadvantage of 3D is that it ages badly. Background-art games like BG or Dark Sun still look and play as they always have, while NWN1 and even NWN2 look very clunky and amateurish by now. Even tile-based 2.5D games like Fallout, Arcanum or even Ultima 6-8 get off better, because their presentation of the gameworld always was an abstraction and never attempted to provide a realistic vision of that world.

Edited November 27, 2012 by JOG

[AwesomeOcelot]

3D is sooooooo 80's...

 

Before Ultima 6 introduced the iso perspective aka 2.5d in 1990, almost every RPG was either completely 3D or switched between 3D and top down perspective. Wasteland is the only complete top down RPG I remember from that period.

 

3D has a couple of advantages: It scales better with higher resolutions, and it is much cheaper to create, because you can use that dedicated co-processor card on the player's PC, to do the calculations to actually display that animated figure on the screen, while in 2.5d every single animation frame for every single armor+weapon combo needs to be hand drawn, or at least pre-rendered. For the player the later is only an advantage, because there is much more room in the budget for different looking armors and weapons.

 

2.5D as it's meant with Project Eternity is not also known as isometric, they're referring to completely different things. Fallout and Arcanum aren't 2.5D, they're 2D using prerendered 3D models. It's not more expensive to use prerendered characters compared to real-time 3D, I don't understand your point about GPUs at all. You don't need to prerender every armour and weapon combo, that wasn't the case with Fallout or Arcanum, there were types like two handed rifles in Fallout using the same animation with the weapon sprite rendered separately. Project Eternity will be using real-time 3D models.

Edited November 27, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[JOG]

It's not more expensive to use prerendered characters compared to real-time 3D,

 

Of course it is.

 

I don't understand your point about GPUs at all.

 

What's not to understand? The developer provides model and texture, animation base data and an animation sequence, the player provides a card with enough computing power to calculate an image with the current frame of the animation sequence. The main effort in adding a new animation-sequence is adding the gameplay-code to actually activate it

 

In 2.5D (3D perspective simulated in 2D usually called isometric, although most games are 3/4 view dimetric projection rather than isometric projection) you have to draw or prerender every single animation frame for every single action, and yes, weapons were usually an overlay sprite that had the same animation frames, nonetheless the effort rises exponentially with each new animation sequence, body shape and new style of armor. This is why there were overlay sprites for weapons in the first place, or why BG2 mirrors the sprites (player always sees the shield arm) to save developing time and thus costs.

Edited November 27, 2012 by JOG