How "retro" should the mechanics of PE be?

[BetrayTheWorld]

It's been explained many times. The game will be isometric, or cavalier oblique.

 

I didn't ask what it -will- be. I asked why people -want- it that way. And that hasn't been explained in an understandable manner. I've still yet to see an actual gameplay(not cut scene) screenshot of an isometric game that doesn't look bad compared to the general feel of neverwinter nights 2, which is itself a graphically dated game.

 

Have you played Civilization or Warcraft or any RTS games before?

 

Yes, I've played every civilization game made, and warcraft up through frozen throne. And yes, I've played lots of RTS games. Before you explore that too much, you should know that several RTS games have rotatable cameras, even if you don't normally utilize that feature. Company of heroes comes to mind.

 

 

hat temple screenshot they released is gorgeous to me and that single screen capture is more visually appealing to me than any scene I could find in DA:O.

 

That isn't a screen capture of gameplay footage. If that picture is an example of how good the entire game is going to look in actual in-game footage, that's fine. But I've researched that picture, and the general consensus elsewhere on the web is that picture is deceptive, and unlikely to be seen in the game in the manner presented due to angles and how much is shown on the screen at a time.

Edited November 12, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[Hormalakh]

http://www.penny-arc...-vs.-aesthetics

 

watch this and you'll better understand. BG2 is also mentioned.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Hormalakh

[BetrayTheWorld]

http://www.penny-arc...-vs.-aesthetics

 

watch this and you'll better understand. BG2 is also mentioned.

 

While this video did have some insight, it lost all credibility to me when it compared screenshots from golden axe beastrider, and parrappatherapper, and said the latter looked better. Really? I mean, I feel like they could have found a better example to make their point. And if the second picture here is better, give me worse all day every day.

 

[BBMorti]

It's been explained many times. The game will be isometric, or cavalier oblique.

 

I didn't ask what it -will- be. I asked why people -want- it that way. And that hasn't been explained in an understandable manner. I've still yet to see an actual gameplay(not cut scene) screenshot of an isometric game that doesn't look bad compared to the general feel of neverwinter nights 2, which is itself a graphically dated game.

 

Could you elaborate why you feel the need for this discussion?

 

They make a kickstarter where they are very clear about what type of game they wish to make, in it's old style, and you make a thread talking about dated graphics. I don't see any smoking gun here.

[Hormalakh]

Except I want you to think about which one sticks in your mind longer and brings something more to the game. The point wasn't that it "looks better" because "DUH Graphics" but rather that the style and aesthetic actually fits the game. Beastrider looks exactly like every other graphically intense game I've played and it's all brown to boot. You're telling me shiny brown turds look nicer than less shiny colorful balls? I would disagree.

 

Some of the best games in the past have been 8-bit games and people enjoyed the games for what they were not how they looked. We're now reaching a point in gaming where making specific stylistic choices are less due to technical reasons than they are for artistic ones. Style matters.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Hormalakh

[BetrayTheWorld]

It's been explained many times. The game will be isometric, or cavalier oblique.

 

I didn't ask what it -will- be. I asked why people -want- it that way. And that hasn't been explained in an understandable manner. I've still yet to see an actual gameplay(not cut scene) screenshot of an isometric game that doesn't look bad compared to the general feel of neverwinter nights 2, which is itself a graphically dated game.

 

Could you elaborate why you feel the need for this discussion?

 

They make a kickstarter where they are very clear about what type of game they wish to make, in it's old style, and you make a thread talking about dated graphics. I don't see any smoking gun here.

 

Because it was my thought that the primary drive for support for this game was due to the compelling storylines, mature themes, and fun gameplay of the classics. I didn't think there was some cult drive to return the game presentation to the stone age. So far, the poll is proving me wrong, but I don't understand why that would be. I've yet to see anything compelling to bring me in line with what appears to be the majority, and I like to understand things.

 

So to answer your question, that's it. I like to have a full comprehension of how and why things are the way they are. Healthy curiosity, if you will.

 

You're telling me shiny brown turds look nicer than less shiny colorful balls? I would disagree.

 

I'm saying that making something red, yellow, and green doesn't make it look good unless you're 5. I'd prefer the "turd" picture above to the colorful children's picture below any day.

[Pshaw]

That isn't a screen capture of gameplay footage. If that picture is an example of how good the entire game is going to look in actual in-game footage, that's fine. But I've researched that picture, and the general consensus elsewhere on the web is that picture is deceptive, and unlikely to be seen in the game in the manner presented due to angles and how much is shown on the screen at a time.

 

Honestly even if this is the case it's indicative of what they're going for. I still stand by the fact that I think that scene or a scene like it has more visual appeal than any area or zone present in DA:O. This is a matter of personal opinion but I'd take the dated graphics of BG 1 & 2 (in terms of background design) over the narrow boring hallways of DA2.

 

Further more I think these sort of stylistic graphics hold up far better over time than realism. Realism is only amazing until the next set of graphics cards are out. Morrowind was gorgeous at the time of it's release but if you play it today it's really showing its age. Where as I have no doubt that I will feel every bit as strongly about Odin Sphere or Bastion looking amazing even another 10-20 years from now. I still get greater visual enjoyment out of Fallout 2 from 1998 than I do out of Neverwinter nights 2 from 2006. If I replay FFVII the dated polygon characters are bit hard to take seriously but if I'm walking around in the city of the ancients I'm still impressed by those backgrounds.

 

If you personally think that DA:O or NWN style 3D is more appealing than the fixed isometric approach PE will take I can understand that. I simply disagree and think that if done properly this game will look better than anything done in full 3D.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Pshaw

[Hormalakh]

I'm saying that making something red, yellow, and green doesn't make it look good unless you're 5. I'd prefer the "turd" picture above to the colorful children's picture below any day.

 

Thus you've already understood why that style was used. The game was for younger audiences. The style fit the audience. The style used in IE games while we have greater technical opporunities fits the reasoning behind why OEI is using the cav-oblique style. It fits the game best. There has been a lot said about why they have used cav-obq for this game and it would behoove you to go and read up on it.

[BetrayTheWorld]

I'm saying that making something red, yellow, and green doesn't make it look good unless you're 5. I'd prefer the "turd" picture above to the colorful children's picture below any day.

 

Thus you've already understood why that style was used. The game was for younger audiences. The style fit the audience. The style used in IE games while we have greater technical opporunities fits the reasoning behind why OEI is using the cav-oblique style. It fits the game best. There has been a lot said about why they have used cav-obq for this game and it would behoove you to go and read up on it.

 

I would love to. You don't happen to have a link handy, do you?

[Hormalakh]

err... just bits and pieces from different interviews.

 

http://shadeheart.co...th-josh-sawyer/ has a bit of it.

 

Honestly, can't point you to anything specific but it's been mentioned why. There were several reasons, one of them being money. Another had to do with the "strategy of seeing the battlefield". Third was the ability to easily control a party of characters in this way (think RTS games). But I didn't see money as the defining reason.

 

Edit: Technical limitations were also a factor if I remember. The art shown thus far has been beautiful in any case. I actually like the stylistic choice of a cav-obq perspective without a rotatable camera. It allows for interesting game mechanics and gives the areas a sense of awe. Look back to the screenshot they showed. It's as if the eyes are directed immediately to what matters most and then you can spend your time looking at all the beautiful hand-crafted detail found throughout the shot. It's like a beautiful work of art. I would never dare ask Picasso why he chose cubism as his art perspective. Similarly, while they could have used a whole lot of other perspectives, I don't think that there was only one reason as to why they chose CO, but I'm glad they did.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Hormalakh

[LadyCrimson]

I like to have a full comprehension of how and why things are the way they are. Healthy curiosity, if you will.

I'm not sure understanding is going to be reached. It's a bit like asking why do I like cherry pie. People can give all kinds of reasons, some of them even plausible technical ones, but in the end it's likely still going to just boil down to ... "because I do."

 

I was talking about RPG's and the 3D explosion with someone else a while back. It's been kind of strange, because at first, I liked 3d for games. It was new. It was cool. But then I began to notice that my interest in a lot of games was shrinking. I'd play a game and be bored, even if I felt like I should be liking the game. But visually they're so generic now. It's akin to the special effects in movies...same thing. The first time I saw that dino in Jurassic Park, awesome. Now every dino in every movie is the same. First time I saw that cave troll in LotR was kinda neat. Then I noticed every giant, big-mouthed, screaming creature in future movies moved its slobbering mouth in the same way as that cave troll.

 

Quite frankly, since the 3D "shiny and more shiny" "polygons are king" or whatever graphic revolution, I've found myself liking RPG's less and less. It's not that they can't be good (and they can certainly be very pretty), but there's something about full 3D worlds that makes me turn off from the actual story/gameplay much of the time. It's fine for more action-oriented titles/shooters but...I dunno, maybe it's just all too distracting, too much motion, too much of my having to fiddle with motion controls vs. the more static top-down point of view. It feels less personal, less inviting, less warm.

 

Does this apply at all to P.E.? I dunno. It's just some thoughts. I don't have any big, logical, technical reasons for still being able to like or want a top-down, fixed perspective 2d visual style - even tho I'm sure there are such reasons. I just do.

 

That said, I'm not against 3D or moving camera etc....but I would love to see top-down, fixed viewpoint games make a bit of a comeback for RPG's, if for no other reason than to give me more variety and choice in visual style and presentation. They could add a few modern tech touches to them, perhaps, while keeping to the basic old style concept.

[BetrayTheWorld]

I like to have a full comprehension of how and why things are the way they are. Healthy curiosity, if you will.

I'm not sure understanding is going to be reached. It's a bit like asking why do I like cherry pie. People can give all kinds of reasons, some of them even plausible technical ones, but in the end it's likely still going to just boil down to ... "because I do."

 

I was talking about RPG's and the 3D explosion with someone else a while back. It's been kind of strange, because at first, I liked 3d for games. It was new. It was cool. But then I began to notice that my interest in a lot of games was shrinking. I'd play a game and be bored, even if I felt like I should be liking the game. But visually they're so generic now. It's akin to the special effects in movies...same thing. The first time I saw that dino in Jurassic Park, awesome. Now every dino in every movie is the same. First time I saw that cave troll in LotR was kinda neat. Then I noticed every giant, big-mouthed, screaming creature in future movies moved its slobbering mouth in the same way as that cave troll.

 

Quite frankly, since the 3D "shiny and more shiny" "polygons are king" or whatever graphic revolution, I've found myself liking RPG's less and less. It's not that they can't be good (and they can certainly be very pretty), but there's something about full 3D worlds that makes me turn off from the actual story/gameplay much of the time. It's fine for more action-oriented titles/shooters but...I dunno, maybe it's just all too distracting, too much motion, too much of my having to fiddle with motion controls vs. the more static top-down point of view. It feels less personal, less inviting, less warm.

 

Does this apply at all to P.E.? I dunno. It's just some thoughts. I don't have any big, logical, technical reasons for still being able to like or want a top-down, fixed perspective 2d visual style - even tho I'm sure there are such reasons. I just do.

 

That said, I'm not against 3D or moving camera etc....but I would love to see top-down, fixed viewpoint games make a bit of a comeback for RPG's, if for no other reason than to give me more variety and choice in visual style and presentation. They could add a few modern tech touches to them, perhaps, while keeping to the basic old style concept.

 

Thank you. Even though you didn't give me a "logical" reason, you at least explained your viewpoint enough to the point where I'm not completely baffled. Your sentiment does, in my opinion, validate my point though. If obsidian had come out and said they were going to make the exact same game, as the successor to the exact same games, with the same style of gameplay, but with a NWN2 style of 3D presentation, I think they would have had just as much success with the kickstarter.

 

Even further, I think that many people who voted for 2d probably did so because that's what obsidian is making, rather than obsidian making it because that's what they want. But, of course, I could be wrong. We've proven that with my expectations for this poll. Mind blown.

 

I never expected the results of the poll to be so lopsided.

 

I want to mention why this thread originally came to mind to create. I've recently played through DA2 a second time. I decided not to finish my copy of skyrim until all DLC is released and goes on sale, so I revisited NWN2. I played through the OC, and MotB, tried SoZ and didn't like it much. So then I began looking for other games to fill my time with, and that's how I discovered PE. I put some time into the forums here and researching PE, and with the fond memories I have of FO, arcanum, and PS:T, I found myself highly anticipating the release of PE. Those games certainly bring back memories of excellent gaming, and nostalgia is a powerful thing. So, I decided to revisit some of these old greats. I went to GOG.com and purchased a new copy of PS:T. I fired it up, and buckled down for a 3 day weekend full of RPG goodness.

 

Then, it happened. I realized how much work old-school RPGs were. I realized how poor the UI was, and how the 2d sprites sucked horribly. The primary issue, of course, was the atrocious user interface that felt like work to use. Obviously this isn't acceptable for a modern game, and goes without saying. However, while I was thinking about what else could be done to improve it, I just felt like improved visuals ala NWN2 3D would have made it great. And when you set out to create the "spiritual successor" to something, your goal is to improve upon the original, right? I mean, it takes a real loser to shoot for mediocrity as their end goal. So I automatically assume that people would try to improve upon previous incarnations of the IE games, rather than just rehashing things that have been done before.

 

Now, I do understand that there exists the possibility with modern technology to create far more detailed and good-looking isometric views, and if they do this, that will be fine(even if I would have preferred 3D). However, if the graphics and aesthetics are presented in the manner that was done 13 years ago with PS:T, I must say that I will be disappointed.

Edited November 12, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[Hormalakh]

 

Thank you. Even though you didn't give me a "logical" reason, you at least explained your viewpoint enough to the point where I'm not completely baffled. Your sentiment does, in my opinion, validate my point though. If obsidian had come out and said they were going to make the exact same game, as the successor to the exact same games, with the same style of gameplay, but with a NWN2 style of 3D presentation, I think they would have had just as much success with the kickstarter.

 

Even further, I think that many people who voted for 2d probably did so because that's what obsidian is making, rather than obsidian making it because that's what they want. But, of course, I could be wrong. We've proven that with my expectations for this poll. Mind blown.

 

I never expected the results of the poll to be so lopsided.

 

I want to mention why this thread originally came to mind to create. I've recently played through DA2 a second time. I decided not to finish my copy of skyrim until all DLC is released and goes on sale, so I revisited NWN2. I played through the OC, and MotB, tried SoZ and didn't like it much. So then I began looking for other games to fill my time with, and that's how I discovered PE. I put some time into the forums here and researching PE, and with the fond memories I have of FO, arcanum, and PS:T, I found myself highly anticipating the release of PE. Those games certainly bring back memories of excellent gaming, and nostalgia is a powerful thing. So, I decided to revisit some of these old greats. I went to GOG.com and purchased a new copy of PS:T. I fired it up, and buckled down for a 3 day weekend full of RPG goodness.

 

Then, it happened. I realized how much work old-school RPGs were. I realized how poor the UI was, and how the 2d sprites sucked horribly. The primary issue, of course, was the atrocious user interface that felt like work to use. Obviously this isn't acceptable for a modern game, and goes without saying. However, while I was thinking about what else could be done to improve it, I just felt like improved visuals ala NWN2 3D would have made it great. And when you set out to create the "spiritual successor" to something, your goal is to improve upon the original, right? I mean, it takes a real loser to shoot for mediocrity as their end goal. So I automatically assume that people would try to improve upon previous incarnations of the IE games, rather than just rehashing things that have been done before.

 

Now, I do understand that there exists the possibility with modern technology to create far more detailed and good-looking isometric views, and if they do this, that will be fine(even if I would have preferred 3D). However, if the graphics and aesthetics are presented in the manner that was done 13 years ago with PS:T, I must say that I will be disappointed.

 

I hope that you will be pleasantly surprised. Do remember that they are changing some of the aspects of the old games. The party for example will be in 3D as opposed to 2D sprites. Some of the objects will also be 3D props. Without a doubt, the quality and resolution of these games will be improved and the images (as evidenced from the screenshot) will look more beautiful than ever before.

 

Now as for UI, I don't think we've really heard what they're doing with it and this is one place where I completely agree with you. Look at my signature for example. I think part of the problem was the clunkiness found in older games. I would like to believe that just as they are revisiting the game mechanics of the older games that have inspired PE and tweaking them, they are planning on doing the same with other elements as well, UI included. After all, they've been doing this for a while and have seen what works and what doesn't in different games. Without a doubt, when some mechanic advancement comes along and changes how players play those games, the developers of those games see that and realize how much better their older games would have been with this newer mechanic. I think you'll find that this game might likely do the same thing. The visual style and gaming style might be nostalgic, but the mechanics and its presentation wouldn't be as "clunky" as it was before. At least, that's what I think everyone here hopes.

[teknoman2]

first thing they said when the project started, was that the graphics will be 2D backgrounds with 3D character models. i dont see why they would change it, considering they got 4M$ by the fans to make it like that.

im still trying to understand why people start polls about making stuff different ( stuff that have been decided by the devs and announced since the project started). As a game designer, who's name i cant remember, said: making a game is not a democratic process and thank god for that!

[Alexjh]

I didn't ask what it -will- be. I asked why people -want- it that way. And that hasn't been explained in an understandable manner. I've still yet to see an actual gameplay(not cut scene) screenshot of an isometric game that doesn't look bad compared to the general feel of neverwinter nights 2, which is itself a graphically dated game.

 

If you are only basing this off Planescape: Torment, go buy Icewind Dale II; PS:T and Baldurs Gate 1 are comparatively ugly games because they were still exploring the tech and working with smaller computer screens at the time. For the most recent Infinity Engine game, go buy Icewind Dale 2 (also on Gog), and you can see both what a different higher resolution monitor support and a MUCH improved interface give. For the purpose of character sprites, go look at Temple of Elemental Evil, again on Gog, as I believe character wise that's more what they are going for.

 

As for your clear reasons:

 

1) Most people don't think isometric games are ugly otherwise we wouldn't have $4million sponsoring the production of one.

 

2) Isometric is not equal to low tech - as I demonstrated earlier with those screenshots they are using super-high poly models as part of their pipeline to generate the backgrounds. They are then painting on top of the high end renders (which as you point out will not be to scale with the picture we've shown which likely represents a whole or a significant part of a whole area, more than one screens worth). This is far higher detail than even the highest tech games can actually render and with the overpainting produces a smooth painterly look you just can't get when everything is 3D models on current tech.

 

3) Isometric allows complete management of what is on screen at any time, so what the player sees can be designed to be beautiful/visually interesting 100% of the time.

 

4) Isometric is more financially efficient - they have stated in interviews that they cannot use their inhouse engine created for DS3 because some of the intermediary tools they use would be too expensive to license for a production on this scale. By using isometric, we get more areas for our money.

 

5) People love the isometric infinity engine. This is a game made very specifically for people who love the infinity engine. Ergo, this is going to be isometric.

 

6) The Infinity Engine games have aged FAR better than any of their 3D contemporaries, the character sprites are a bit clunky but beyond that if you compare Neverwinter Nights or (unmodded) Morrowind to Icewind Dale II which all came out in the same 6 or so months, the level of environmental detail in IWD2 is far higher than either of those and doesn't use repeated items.

 

7) A fully 3D game has to reuse assets constantly for efficiency, in an isometric game there is no reason why you should see the same tree twice (at the same angle anyway, and it'll look like a different tree if the angle is fixed).

[Karkarov]

Your poll is wrong WRONG!!!!! You are asking how the game should appear graphically, which has already been decided and Obsidian has already told us what they are doing. "Mechanics" of a game has little to do with it's graphical presentation. Example, the "mechanics" driving NWN 2 and Baldurs Gate 2 are actually pretty darn similar, but visually the games look totally different.

 

That said I was thinking about how funny it is going to look watching a bunch of fully 3d character models running around on a flat 2d image. I hope Obsidian finds a way to make the game maps considerably more "alive" than they were in PS:T, BG, and IWD.

 

I am beginning to think they expected to get less budget than they did. There are many fully 3d RPG's in the style of the Infinity Engine games out there that actually had smaller budgets than what PE got from just Kickstarter. Some of them even have full voice work to boot which adds a hefty sum on any games dev costs.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Karkarov

[Metabot]

Again, you've played many RTS games. Is the overhead view of those games dated? No, it serves the type of game it is. You claim some have rotatable cameras, but not all of them, even newer ones.

[anubite]

A mechanic's age has little to do with its value.

 

Games should be designed well.

 

Most of IE's RPG mechanics are designed well, but obviously not all of them. But they're better than WOW/EQ-inspired crap we get today (aka Kingdom of Amalur or DAO).

 

Having a "top-down" view suddenly does not make your game retro. RTS cameras are such that they enable a certain kind of gameplay. The same should be said about an RPG.

 

DA2 did not have a tactical top-down view and suffered for it (how hard is it to use radial AOE spells while staring straight on at your targets? It sucks). But then again, it wasn't even designed to be a tactical game (only a few vestigial elements remain), so clearly it didn't even really need the tactical view.

 

PE, should hopefully, be very tactical. This lends itself to many kinds of mechanics and systems which are "retro" because "modern" games utilize regenerating health and idiot-proof half-baked systems that serve only to make "awesome happen".

 

Can you create new systems and camera angles and whatnot to make a tactical game? Yes! But Obsidian doesn't have the time to re-invent the wheel. Baldur's Gate and Fallout work. This isn't the time for ingenuity - the fans WANT a spiritual successor to BG that IS one. So most of the game's mechanics should be similar to BG. They should be "retro" - but Obsidian has said they are going to make changes/improvements where necessary - but we didn't ask them to make an entirely original or "modern" game here.

 

I do. It's a relic of past generations of gaming that was created that way due to technological and resource constraints. Today, we have engines and resources available to make things 3d fairly easily. Independent game makers and studios can produce 3d games with far fewer resources than they would have needed in 1999. It's not nearly as cost-prohibitive, and is generally better received by the public, so that is the direction most games go.

 

You backed the wrong proejct, I'm afraid.

 

I really don't understand the attitude of "It's not 1999." I've heard this a lot lately. You're correct that it isn't 1999, but to imply that things created back then were... wrong, is what's wrong with this industry. You can pick up a very old game and have a blast with it. Have you played Quake or Doom? How about Deus Ex? Baldur's Gate's a given.

 

Isometric design might have come about due to hardware constraints! But that does NOT make it a bad mechanic or even one we should call "retro". Isometric view enables a special kind of aesthetic, level design, and tactical experience. You've been utterly brainwashed that every game should be this first person or over-the-shoulder statespace simulator. I seriously reccomend you try some older games, back when games were experimenting with systems instead of copying each other.

 

Also, retro for me is 1970 or 1980. Maybe I'm showing my age, but 1999 wasn't that long ago. I played a lot of amazing games in 1996 or 1992. Even 1989. Retro for me is pong, blips and bloops. Not Baldur's Gate or Isometrometry.

 

It was triple A budget for a -PC- game in 2006. Since we're talking about a title that will require fewer resources/people to create than modern games, more in line with the production costs of nwn2 in 2006, I think that is a fair comparison to make.

 

My question to those of you voting for locked, isometric 2D graphics as opposed to 3D with the ability to rotate the camera is, why? Why would you prefer a dated, less functional viewpoint to a more modern one?

 

Bear in mind that this discussion assumes that the quality of the gameplay and storyline is mutually exclusive from the graphical viewpoint. It's assumed that we CAN have both a good looking game, and a game that features the gameplay and storylines that we're here supporting the development of. Unless, of course, someone has a compelling argument as to why it cannot be done.

 

Actually, I'm sure with marketing and licensing costs, the budget for NWN2 was much higher than 6m. Even if it is, that's 2006. According to you, 1999 is OLD. 2006 was 6 years ago, 1999 was 7 years before that. You're saying that 6 years isn't a long time? That 6m is a reasonable figure for a NWN2-esque title being developed? Get some consistent belief system here - is 13 years a long time? But 6 years is not a long time? That's half the distance of a 'long time' - 6 million won't cut it. Costs have risen dramatically.

 

Thanks to thoughts like the ones you're expressing. That a game can't be 'good' unless it's 'cutting edge'. Game costs have risen dramatically - just for some stupid eyecandy. I want a fun game, I don't care if it's pretty or not.

 

Well guess what, you can't even have 'call of duty esque' graphics for 4 million dollars let alone six. Obsidian doesn't even have six by the way, so even if what you're saying is possible, they just can't come up with 33% more budget out of thin air. Get a grip!

 

Developing NWN2 in 2012 would probably cost between 12 million and 20 million dollars, minus marketing. And NWN2 isn't even worth copying. It took MotB for Obsidian to give us a campaign even worth caring about. I'd rather they emulate a good game, like one of the IE games, than emulate a game which was barely mediocre at release.

 

From what little we've seen, PE looks aesthetically pleasing enough. What's so atrocious about 'isometric gameplay'? Why do you not like it? If you don't like it, why did you back this project? I'm sincerely confused. You should ask for a refund.

Edited November 12, 2012 by anubite

[Karkarov]

Actually, I'm sure with marketing and licensing costs, the budget for NWN2 was much higher than 6m. Even if it is, that's 2006. According to you, 1999 is OLD. 2006 was 6 years ago, 1999 was 7 years before that. You're saying that 6 years isn't a long time? That 6m is a reasonable figure for a NWN2-esque title being developed? Get some consistent belief system here - is 13 years a long time? But 6 years is not a long time? That's half the distance of a 'long time' - 6 million won't cut it. Costs have risen dramatically.

Yeah just throwing this out here but the engine for PE costs less than the engine of NWN2, PE has no licensing fees as it is an original IP so no need to pay WoTC, marketing is a non issue as this game already has kickstarter press and will see coverage on the internet no reason to bother with print or tv, and 2 years ago a very infinity engine esque game was made with full 3d and full voice work for only 3.5 million.

 

You argument is no more valid than the OP's. They definitely had the funding to go full 3d if they wanted to.

[anubite]

It costs less than the NWN2 engine because NWN2's engine isn't strictly isometric in nature.

 

And the marketing "does not take care of itself."

 

If Obsidian is telling the truth, it will use all $4M to make this game.

 

You cannot run a business and make 0 profit.

 

In order to make profit with a product, you MUST market it. It does not market itself. That kind of thinking brought ruin to many a great company, indeed.

 

R.I.P Troika

[Tigranes]

Every rendering scheme has its ups and downs, but I still find BG2 prettier than NWN2 or KOTOR2.

 

By the way, using the same engine as NWN2 and making it using the same graphics style and assets as NWN2 would be a disaster. Because if you wanted a full 3D game in the modern style, then you're going to be judged by that standard, and people will tell you how bad it looks compared to other full 3D games. It wouldn't have the style and appeal of 2D/2.5D games, and it wouldn't have the style and appeal of 3D games either.

 

I don't know exactly the budget breakdown for NWN2, but even if it cost the same as the current 2.5D method, the latter would be better.

[LadyCrimson]

I hope that you will be pleasantly surprised. Do remember that they are changing some of the aspects of the old games. The party for example will be in 3D as opposed to 2D sprites. Some of the objects will also be 3D props. Without a doubt, the quality and resolution of these games will be improved and the images (as evidenced from the screenshot) will look more beautiful than ever before.

 

[snip]

The visual style and gaming style might be nostalgic, but the mechanics and its presentation wouldn't be as "clunky" as it was before. At least, that's what I think everyone here hopes.

That's been my take on things. The fixed perspective is in, but everything around that seems to be open for new possibilities, if they also fit in with the mechanics and gameplay aesthetic aspects they do want to keep (and time, and budget...).

 

I'm definitely hoping for AI and UI improvements, like most people here, I think, too.

[AGX-17]

Gameplay mechanics are the actual base function of the game. i.e. the d20 system which is a collection of equations used to determine the results of character interactions, be they hostile or otherwise.

 

Control is how the player interacts with the game.

 

Graphics are the visual representation of the game itself.

 

Your poll lists all these things as though they are the same thing. Which is it you're referring to?

Edited November 12, 2012 by AGX-17

[Hormalakh]

Here's another video from Extra Credits and it talks about the Uncanny Valley. While the UV is specific to the characters in games, I think it can also relate to the "character" of the scenes and how they are portrayed in games.

 

http://extra-credits.net/episodes/uncanny-valley/

 

I've become an EC fanboy. Oh God....

[Althernai]

I didn't ask what it -will- be. I asked why people -want- it that way. And that hasn't been explained in an understandable manner.

I can give you three general reasons why I would prefer it to be isometric:

 

1) I have never played a 3D party-based RPG where the camera did not get in the way of combat. NWN2, KOTOR1&2, Dragon Age... it just doesn't work well. Even in single player RPGs (e.g. Skyrim) it's not perfect, but when you have to simultaneously focus on 6 different characters, 3D is more annoying than anything else. It might be possible to make a game where this is not the case, but I don't want gamble on that with Project Eternity.

 

2) State-of-the-art 2.5D is not worse than 3D, it's just different. People have already spoken a lot about this.

 

3) I want this game to succeed and 3D unnecessarily narrows the potential player base by jacking up the system requirements. I know people who would have played, say, Dragon Age, but there's no chance of their laptops running it without making the game uglier than the old games.