Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Why Did Isometric 3D Rpgs Fall Out Of Vogue?

rpg ad&d isometric 3d

  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#21
Tagaziel

Tagaziel

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 744 posts
  • Location:Pseudo-state of Poland
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
Because with an isometric camera you need to have a ****load of good content, while in first person you can distract gamers with shiny graphics.
  • Lephys likes this

#22
DnaCowboy

DnaCowboy

    Scurrilous Rogue of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 100 posts
  • Location:England
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

@DnaCowboy  There are probably many reasons, one of them is for certain fashion which also exists in gaming industry. For example, years ago very popular were FPS taking place in WWII scenarios and now we have modern or futuristic shooters. When one developing studio succeed with their product instantly you will see more devs going the same road.

 

It might depend also from change in the generation? Youngsters wanted more dynamic and fast pace games without a lot of thinking because these are TV/internet standards. And now many people are rediscovering games like D1, D2, Fallout, BG, IWD, Planescape etc. I think that best explanation you will find in these video.  http://youtu.be/r4NkADMQwzg?t=20s

 

@FacelessOne

 

Great video lol, thanks for your input

 

@Everyone else 

 

Thanks for your feedback



#23
Failion

Failion

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 311 posts

isometric rpgs you need good game to attract players. Niche players only also, even most old school do not find isometric games visually appealing. And the main market of gamers now which consist of mostly young generation are all about good graphics and isometric doesn't cut it as good. They don't even care about rpg elements and are more about pure action. I seen how multiple younger gamers play games like fallout new vegas and the latest dues ex. They care very little about role playing and the games story, They kill everything in the game.



#24
anubite

anubite

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 488 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

It's because Doom, WoW and CoD are first/third person. And developers play follow the leader.



#25
Malekith

Malekith

    (7) Enchanter

  • Members
  • 865 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

Yes but as Diablo 3, LoL and Dota has shown, isometric doesn't realy turn people off if your game is good.



#26
nikolokolus

nikolokolus

    Bridge Troll of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1165 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

In a word "money."  As in both expensive to make and not particularly profitable compared to other genres.  So if you're a big shot publisher, do you pay somebody to quickly churn out a shooter with lots of 'splosions' and purdy graphics and sell hundreds of thousands or even millions of units or do you fund a project with a much smaller audience that takes 3 to 4 times as long to produce?

 

I love isometric RPGs and it saddened me greatly when they started to disappear from store shelves, but I get why it happened.  Thank god for Kickstarter I guess?



#27
mcmanusaur

mcmanusaur

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 602 posts
  • Location:A moment in eternity.

 

Because isometric view just isn't a particularly good option over  a free-moving third-person camera for "tactical" party-based RPGs (NWN, KOTOR)

BS. Strategy games without a fixed view are a pain in the ass. The same applies in RPGs. If i'm spending more time fighting the camera than the enemies something isn't right.

 

 

For strategy games perhaps, but we're not talking about strategy games here, and the very fact that someone's argument (with which many people apparently agree) would hinge on the assumption "because it applies to strategy games, it also applies to RPGs" makes me all the more dejected about the genre's future (but it's not worth getting into that can of worms)...


Edited by mcmanusaur, 03 November 2013 - 04:51 PM.


#28
rjshae

rjshae

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 5069 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Malekith and Remmirath raise one of the main issues, though: the common camera hassles in 3D RPGs, including infernal zooming issues and unwarranted rotations of the camera. I think it comes down to the 3D first-person view in computer games failing to portray our stereo vision with corner of the eye capability and all. Perhaps some gaming helmet with a neat goggle interface will solve at least that particular issue in the future. 

 

This. You're busy trying to control two sets of actions--body movement and head facing--that are normally performed by different sets of muscles. Trying to control both just through your hands will always be less effective than how you do it IRL.



#29
Karkarov

Karkarov

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 3116 posts
  • Steam:Karkarov
  • PSN Portable ID:Karkarov
  • Xbox Gamertag:Karkarov
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Watcher
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

@Karkarov, I disagree. A controllable camera adds another thing to control, however well it's implemented. That control demands attention and action that could otherwise be focused on controlling your units.

Wrong.  This isn't an action game, I can pause any time I want, therefore there is absolutely no drawback to the controllable camera.  No one in their right mind who had the budget and time to make a game fully 3D would not do so.  A forced isometric view with a forced camera angle only impairs what you can design and how you can display it on screen, designers in general don't like to have limitations on what they can design. 

 

What do they say about common sense at the Friendly Arm again?  Oh that's right, they say most of the posters on this forum don't have any.

 

 

 

You can cite examples like NWN2 and said "no it isn't" but I can simply counter with "Yes it is, it isn't the cameras fault it was programmed badly and poorly implemented.  Blame the designers.  A well made and properly done free movement 3d camera will always be better."

The funny part being 'A well made and properly done 3D camera' has yet to be made... IN 15 YEARS.

Play some games from the last decade please.  Or are you insinuating the Witcher 2, Dark Souls, Dragon Age (especially the newest one), hell even X-Com from a couple years ago which all have rotatable cameras at the least didn't do it at least "well".  Hell X-Com of those I just listed had the worst camera of the lot and it was the only one that forced isometric view on you.  Go play a Drakensang game or something for christ sake.



#30
Agiel

Agiel

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 702 posts
  • Location:...at 80,000 feet... and climbing

 

@Karkarov, I disagree. A controllable camera adds another thing to control, however well it's implemented. That control demands attention and action that could otherwise be focused on controlling your units.

Wrong.  This isn't an action game, I can pause any time I want, therefore there is absolutely no drawback to the controllable camera.  No one in their right mind who had the budget and time to make a game fully 3D would not do so.  A forced isometric view with a forced camera angle only impairs what you can design and how you can display it on screen, designers in general don't like to have limitations on what they can design. 

 

What do they say about common sense at the Friendly Arm again?  Oh that's right, they say most of the posters on this forum don't have any.

 

 

 

You can cite examples like NWN2 and said "no it isn't" but I can simply counter with "Yes it is, it isn't the cameras fault it was programmed badly and poorly implemented.  Blame the designers.  A well made and properly done free movement 3d camera will always be better."

The funny part being 'A well made and properly done 3D camera' has yet to be made... IN 15 YEARS.

Play some games from the last decade please.  Or are you insinuating the Witcher 2, Dark Souls, Dragon Age (especially the newest one), hell even X-Com from a couple years ago which all have rotatable cameras at the least didn't do it at least "well".  Hell X-Com of those I just listed had the worst camera of the lot and it was the only one that forced isometric view on you.  Go play a Drakensang game or something for christ sake.

 

 

I would say Dark Souls and Demon's Souls' cameras had a nasty tendency to obstruct your view on the odd boss fight at the worst of times (coming from someone who really liked both games). Otherwise I completely agree with you, though I'd go a bit further to say that the lack of an "on the ground" camera would sometimes lead you to sending an operative to somewhere where they didn't quite have the LOS you wanted. 

 

When I first played Dragon Age: Origins, I originally thought that I would play it from the top-down perspective almost exclusively, which was an idea I discarded after an hour or so since it was actually easier to keep track of things as (to borrow American football terms) a Quarterback rather than a coach. Which is not to say I never used the top-down camera ever again; far from it, it's handy for plotting where you're going to plant your AOEs.


Edited by Agiel, 03 November 2013 - 09:48 PM.


#31
PrimeJunta

PrimeJunta

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4900 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

Wrong.  This isn't an action game, I can pause any time I want, therefore there is absolutely no drawback to the controllable camera.  No one in their right mind who had the budget and time to make a game fully 3D would not do so.  A forced isometric view with a forced camera angle only impairs what you can design and how you can display it on screen, designers in general don't like to have limitations on what they can design.


So you don't feel that needing to pause more frequently doesn't in any way detract from the gameplay experience? Again, I respectfully disagree.

What do they say about common sense at the Friendly Arm again?  Oh that's right, they say most of the posters on this forum don't have any.


How fortunate we are that their civility and respect for differing opinions makes up for it.

#32
Elerond

Elerond

    One of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 2649 posts
  • Location:Finland
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

Play some games from the last decade please.  Or are you insinuating the Witcher 2, Dark Souls, Dragon Age (especially the newest one), hell even X-Com from a couple years ago which all have rotatable cameras at the least didn't do it at least "well".  Hell X-Com of those I just listed had the worst camera of the lot and it was the only one that forced isometric view on you.  Go play a Drakensang game or something for christ sake.

 

 

Witcher 2 and Dragon Age 2 both had very annoying camera that often hide things that you wanted to see and you needed to stupid gimmicks with camera angle that you get to see enemies that you wanted to see. And in dragon age 2 placing AoE effects was quite awful especially on long range and it was easy to make mistakes because of the camera angle.


  • nikolokolus, rjshae and Malekith like this

#33
Hassat Hunter

Hassat Hunter

    Royal Bug Catcher of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 5992 posts
  • Location:Out there, somewhere...
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

designers in general don't like to have limitations on what they can design.

Eh? What?
They always have limitations. Poor designers :/ 

Let's look at the mentioned titles;

* Witcher II. Been a while, but from what I recall it was an FIXED over-shoulder camera. As I stated before yes, that can work. But tell me, how many characters did your team consist of in Withcer II? What? No team. I rest my case.
* Dark Sould I don't know.
* Dragon Age. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The level designers knew full well you can rotate now. Result; It's forced upon you, often. Stuff became hard to see. Control is lacking, so they needed to invent the "action menu" for teammates. Since camera is fixed on one character sometimes for spells you needed to select another character to have a proper view to cast. And you know the funniest thing? It looks WORSE than Baldur's Gate II, a 10-year older game. And that in our Graphics Cold War Era.
* X-Com. Can I refer you to my "what are you playing?" post about it? And how I HATED the camera. I don't know who controlled it, but he or she followed your idea of "Hey, you got all the time in the world, let's make the camera as obnoxious as possible on purpose. Who cares they need another 1-5 minute per turn to use this ****ty camera, it's turnbased".
Rotating around to see enemies and waypoints was a pain. Zooming was a pain. And elevation? It was so horrible I just rather waited 10 turns for the enemy to come down than go up. It was THAT ****ING BAD. SO BAD IT MAKES PEOPLE GO ALL CAPS LOCK WITH STARS! "You got all time, so it doesn't matter" my sweet ass...

Drakensang is also over the shoulder. And the teamplay is... bad at best.
  • Tanred, PrimeJunta, Remmirath and 1 other like this

#34
Amentep

Amentep

    Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 5210 posts
  • Location:Fawcett City
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

That makes a lot of sense, isometric on consoles has been a tide of woes....wait didn't Diablo 3 come out on the PS3?

Be interesting to see how that looks and plays, I gather they added roll to the mechanics.

 

Diablo 1 also came out on the playstation 1.  And back in 1991, I played Arcus Odyssey on the Sega Genesis.

The problem really isn't that isometic on consoles is difficult, it that's Isometric + party + real time = pain in the ass for a controller user.

 

There is still a cottage industry for Japanese games that uses an isometric style turn based party RPGs, but handling a party in turn based isn't really an issue like it is in real time (or even real time with pause).



#35
Zeckul

Zeckul

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 283 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

The term isometric refers to a very specific type of projection, and not the fixed or 3rd-person nature of the camera. Starcraft 2, for example, uses a camera with a fixed orientation that can only move alongside a plane (for the most part), but it's a standard 3d perspective projection, not an isometric one. The two concerns are largely orthogonal (math pun woot?!).

 

One concern that has been entirely left aside in this discussion is that RPGs are more than tactical battle simulators, unlike RTSes. They're also about exploration and character development. In these areas a free camera is clearly superior to a fixed one, since it allows for seeing more of the scenery and inspecting your character in more detail. I dearly wish I could look up at the Gnoll Stronghold from the river beneath for instance, or that I could look behind certain buildings, but Baldur's Gate won't let me do that. I'm more than willing to trade away the convenience of a fixed point of view for the increased sense of immersion and freedom of exploration that a free camera provides.


Edited by Zeckul, 05 November 2013 - 07:36 AM.

  • nikolokolus, Karkarov, DCParry and 1 other like this

#36
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

The term isometric refers to a very specific type of projection, and not the fixed or 3rd-person nature of the camera. Starcraft 2, for example, uses a camera with a fixed orientation that can only move alongside a plane (for the most part), but it's a standard 3d perspective projection, not an isometric one. The two concerns are largely orthogonal (math pun woot?!).


Right, but the second you rotate a camera, you've lost that very specific form of projection, correct? So, would the fixed nature of the camera not be a property of isometric projection? I'm sincerely asking.

#37
mcmanusaur

mcmanusaur

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 602 posts
  • Location:A moment in eternity.

 

The term isometric refers to a very specific type of projection, and not the fixed or 3rd-person nature of the camera. Starcraft 2, for example, uses a camera with a fixed orientation that can only move alongside a plane (for the most part), but it's a standard 3d perspective projection, not an isometric one. The two concerns are largely orthogonal (math pun woot?!).


Right, but the second you rotate a camera, you've lost that very specific form of projection, correct? So, would the fixed nature of the camera not be a property of isometric projection? I'm sincerely asking.

 

Rotating the camera doesn't inherently preclude isometric projection as far as I know; it disrupts the use of a grid to map objects (a fixed grid can only be viewed isometrically from four directions).



#38
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Rotating the camera doesn't inherently preclude isometric projection as far as I know; it disrupts the use of a grid to map objects (a fixed grid can only be viewed isometrically from four directions).


Ahh. So it's just tilting it that would screw it up?

#39
mcmanusaur

mcmanusaur

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 602 posts
  • Location:A moment in eternity.

 

Rotating the camera doesn't inherently preclude isometric projection as far as I know; it disrupts the use of a grid to map objects (a fixed grid can only be viewed isometrically from four directions).


Ahh. So it's just tilting it that would screw it up?

 

I'm no graphics expert, but that's what I would assume. Tilting is definitely out of the question for isometric projection, and rotation is more of a question of the reference grid (the orientation of which is generally fixed to reduce the necessary number of sprites).


Edited by mcmanusaur, 05 November 2013 - 04:53 PM.


#40
Zeckul

Zeckul

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 283 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

 

The term isometric refers to a very specific type of projection, and not the fixed or 3rd-person nature of the camera. Starcraft 2, for example, uses a camera with a fixed orientation that can only move alongside a plane (for the most part), but it's a standard 3d perspective projection, not an isometric one. The two concerns are largely orthogonal (math pun woot?!).


Right, but the second you rotate a camera, you've lost that very specific form of projection, correct? So, would the fixed nature of the camera not be a property of isometric projection? I'm sincerely asking.

 

The term is essentially abused to refer in general to parallel projections, which use an infinite focal length. Parallel projections are essential to games using pre-rendered backgrounds such as the Infinity Engine because then the scenery becomes independent from the camera position, as long as it's restricted to a fixed direction and a fixed height. Basically this allowed for very detailed worlds back when 3d acceleration was in its infancy, and even today presents some technical advantages (enough for Obsidian to use it in Project Eternity at least), although it's largely been abandoned.

 

Nothing inherently precludes a game from using real-time rendered graphics and a parallel projection, which would allow for a free "isometric" camera, but that would look horribly unnatural. Even with a fixed height and direction, parallel projections are terrible at representing heights, leading to geometric absurdities. Notably the Arcane Sanctuary in Diablo 2 included some optical illusions, made possible by the use of a parallel projection.

 

See http://www.significa...n-in-videogames


Edited by Zeckul, 05 November 2013 - 05:36 PM.

  • Karkarov, DCParry, mcmanusaur and 1 other like this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: rpg, ad&d, isometric 3d

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users