Jump to content
Mungri

Regarding why 2D CRPGs died out in the first place

Recommended Posts

NWN looked like crap. Crap, I say. It played like crap, too--endless fetch quests. It was a **** game, IMHO, but it was super popular.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id prefer keeping the 2D for the one reason that whenever developers switch to 3D they never get it right ...

 

- Not enough max zoom out

- Too much desire to turn it into third / first person hack n slash

- Too much bloom

 

Though DAO did get a lot of things right in a 3D engine, nothing else has for this type of game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh.  I think it has to do more with the complexity of the genre than the graphics.  Anyhow, I personally prefer it if Pillars 2 switched over to 3D.

 

Pillars is a combination - fully 3D characters with 3D lighting effects on a 2D background that's been painted over and enhanced far beyond what an average gaming computer could render in real time. Gotta keep those 2D backgrounds, IMO. Otherwise it completely loses the "IE" feel.

 

Though they really could do some work on background transparency. Can't count how many times I'm fighting in the forest and the entire battle is obscured by trees. Obsidian pls.

Edited by Matt516
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I got killed by a group of trolls two or three times because of that exact issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"When KOTOR was a huge success,"

 

No more than the BGs or NWN.

 

 

"NWN graphics was a massive downgrade compared to previous IE games."

 

No.

 

You would have to be a Modrom to honestly prefer this gta 1 right angle world over baldur's and ice wind pure beauty. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is the growth of console gaming at the time. Publishers believed that to make a splash on consoles you needed pretty graphics and 2D isometric was never going to cut it. Certainly I can understand EA not wanting to spend millions of dollars and three years only to release a game that looked worse (because of the original Xbox texture/resolution limit) than modded Baldur's Gate.

Edited by Bhazor
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

- Too much bloom

 

God, I hate bloom.

 

Oblivion had so much bloom that everything looked fuzzy.

They overuse bloom in a lot of games to hide to poor quality textures.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of the issue was that videogames became less of a niche market and more of a huge industry.  When PC gaming was in its infancy, games like Daggerfall (Bethesda) and studios like Black Isle and Origin and such were daring and required mature audiences (most of whom were smart/nerdy enough to understand how to run them on PCs back then).  But when games became a bigger market (chicken and egg scenario regarding societal change and gaming change) and people could do more than play Mario Bros., CRPGs were now too small of a market because only those same smart/nerdy people will (be able to) play them.  Why spend money on writing, art, general world-building, etc. when you can license a sports league or make a generic shooter that works cross-platform and appeals to a much larger audience?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spiderweb software is still around and selling well though.

 

Just that Im not paying £15 for Avernum 2 since its barely a £5 worth game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wasn't the biggest reason because Wotsc / Atari pushed for newer DnD games to be 3D only, and wouldn't license the DnD franchise for more 2D IE style games?

I remember Ruins of Myth Drannor came out and didn't light the world on fire. Temple of Elemental Evil and Arcanum came out and fell flat on it's face (even though I thought they were fantastic, Troika made superb games), and I want to say there was one more that came out and bombed. Lionheart I think?

 

 

RoMD and ToEE were both buggy as hell when they were released and had little to no support on them afterwards. I remember RoMD being unearthly slow in combat (and I love turn based). And it was kind of boring.  ToEE was better, but also buggy and incomplete when released. Plus it was capped at level 10 and I remember reaching that before even entering the main dungeon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a push for 3-D because that was the next level of gaming technology. Unfortunately the quality of the painterly/handmade look and feel of 2-D took a huge hit for it. Then there was he DnD licensing being bought out from TSR by Hasbro who wanted to turn it into Pokemon or Magic the Gathering which were huge, mainstream hits and moneymakers. And then Everquest/WoW style MMORPG rolled in and became super big as everyone and their grandmother were playing it. And how can we forget the First Person Shoot stylings of Morrowind and those Elder Scrolls. I gave up on CRPG gaming until Wasteland 2 was Kickstarted and now PoE. Never thought I'd see these days again.

 

The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. Now where was I?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then Everquest/WoW style MMORPG rolled in and became super big as everyone and their grandmother were playing it.

I still remember buying Everquest and discovering only at home that it was an MMO.

I don't even remember if I even had a dial up at the time.

 

Never played it in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloom.. the bane of gaming existence.  I don't know when designers decided bloom was needed all over the place and in such extremes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But they could have made 3D fixed iso view CRPGs, like the ARPG genre continued with Sacred 2 / Torchlight series / Diablo 3 / Path of Exile.

 

I never understood why this never happened with CRPGs.

wow I never thought someone would mention the original PoE on these forums, Path of Exile is an amazing game however

 

I can't play with Path of Exile camera. Too restrictive.

And the small inventory is way more tedious than camping resources could ever be.

 

well they do that so they can sell stash space lol, still to me when someone types PoE ill always thing path of exile lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Eh.  I think it has to do more with the complexity of the genre than the graphics.  Anyhow, I personally prefer it if Pillars 2 switched over to 3D.

I'd prefer they stick to 2D.

  • It's more pleasing to (my) eyes
  • By the time they work on Pillars 2, this engine would (hopefully) be freed from most of its kinks.

 

 

Keep Pillars 2D, kickstart a new space cRPG i.p. in 3D  :wub:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Eh.  I think it has to do more with the complexity of the genre than the graphics.  Anyhow, I personally prefer it if Pillars 2 switched over to 3D.

 

I'd prefer they stick to 2D.

  • It's more pleasing to (my) eyes
  • By the time they work on Pillars 2, this engine would (hopefully) be freed from most of its kinks.
 

Keep Pillars 2D, kickstart a new space cRPG i.p. in 3D  :wub:

Obsidian could be making so much money right now.

 

I agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were two main reasons.

 

A) Almost universal move to 3D graphics and publishers' demand of 3D for marketing purposes

 

B) Raising popularity of console gaming and publishers' unwillingness to market PC exclusives

 

That's pretty much it.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were two main reasons.

 

A) Almost universal move to 3D graphics and publishers' demand of 3D for marketing purposes

 

B) Raising popularity of console gaming and publishers' unwillingness to market PC exclusives

 

That's pretty much it.

I agree with your points.

 

Everything said before regarding the market of gaming I also agree with. Costs grew, consoles became a monster (along with their requirements that essentially simplify the PC version) and as such, what sells the most is what gets made, the other suffers. You have to maximize the sales etc...

 

I personally believe that Dragon Age Origins was a significant point in gaming history regarding this topic. It seemed to be the last best effort of a major studio to not only attempt to pacify the era by combining the two but also to hold up the old as a style not to be forgotten AND incredibly fun in both modes. It was really well done. At a time when the studio was being bought out by EA and all previously mentioned points took hold. 

 

It was an effort that I hold up as a beacon of light that Obsidian seems to have begun to take the reigns of.

 

As far as i'm concerned, Bioware succeeded until the "trend" and changes took hold that rendered DA2 and DAI for us. DAI being a game that seems to not know what it wants to be (a Skyrim type open world game that by the way no one can compete with *see note* or a game that embodies what DAO succeeded in being and failing horribly).

 

DAO combined the 3D first person with the isometric IE "feel" extremely well. A very good balance that was thrown away up through DAI.

 

As far as 3D being what everyone wants, it is only a section of gaming. ARPG's thrive on this style. It is viable in PC gaming so the argument puzzles me.

 

Thank God that someone is there to showcase it. 

 

It may not make the most in terms of sales, but it certainly is profitable. Just not to the point where large publishers want and I think that is the issue. Although I understand that it's a business, it's just gotten ruthless.

 

NOTE: You either develop an open world RPG or a focused RPG. Pick a road and go unless you are committed to delivering both. Bethesda knows their game and their vision. They hold on to it and it shows. ES6 will either showcase this or seal the deal.

Edited by veevito
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There were two main reasons.

 

A) Almost universal move to 3D graphics and publishers' demand of 3D for marketing purposes

 

B) Raising popularity of console gaming and publishers' unwillingness to market PC exclusives

 

That's pretty much it.

I agree with your points.

 

Everything said before regarding the market of gaming I also agree with. Costs grew, consoles became a monster (along with their requirements that essentially simplify the PC version) and as such, what sells the most is what gets made, the other suffers. You have to maximize the sales etc...

 

I personally believe that Dragon Age Origins was a significant point in gaming history regarding this topic. It seemed to be the last best effort of a major studio to not only attempt to pacify the era by combining the two but also to hold up the old as a style not to be forgotten AND incredibly fun in both modes. It was really well done. At a time when the studio was being bought out by EA and all previously mentioned points took hold. 

 

It was an effort that I hold up as a beacon of light that Obsidian seems to have begun to take the reigns of.

 

As far as i'm concerned, Bioware succeeded until the "trend" and changes took hold and rendered DA2 and DAI for us. DAI being a game that seems to not know what it wants to be (a Skyrim type open world game that by the way no one can compete with *see note* or a game that embodies what DAO succeeded in being and failing horribly).

 

DAO combined the 3D first person with the isometric IE "feel" extremely well. A very good balance that was thrown away up through DAI.

 

As far as 3D being what everyone wants, it is only a section of gaming. ARPG's thrive on this style. It is viable in PC gaming so the argument puzzles me.

 

Thank God that someone is there to showcase it. 

 

It may not make the most in terms of sales, but it certainly is profitable. Just not to the point where large publishers want and I think that is the issue. Although I understand that it's a business, it's just gotten ruthless.

 

NOTE: You either develop an open world RPG or a focused RPG. Pick a road and go unless you are committed to delivering both. Bethesda knows their game and their vision. They hold on to it and it shows. ES6 will either showcase this or seal the deal.

 

 

ES6 will be more dumbfied in system as Skyrim was, i know that skyrim is a good game in both lore and gameplay value

 

but the rpg mechanics are pretty flawed and there's no mod that saves it, its more like im playing dumb Hexen(without, items, mana and only with the cleric's 1st weapon), Heretic or Witchhaven instead of TES, i still think that oblivion had atleast a better rpg system rather than skyrim, with morrowind Steamrolling both.

 

the reason of why i loved pillars is because i had the chance to meet a old friend, where i could plan of how do i create my character sheet for the rest of the game like the old IE games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I would think the failure (sales wise, not content wise for all of them) post-BG probably had a big hand in it."

 

Every game BIO released post BG2 outsold it except for S;RPG (Lol) and JE. NWN was easily their best seller until DA and the ME sequels came along. Why do people make up crap without checking their facts? Oh yeah, the 'feels'.

 

 

"NWN looked like crap. Crap, I say. It played like crap, too--endless fetch quests. It was a **** game, IMHO, but it was super popular."
 

NWN is the best game ever. PERIOD.

Edited by Volourn

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is (a) consoles (b) consoles.

 

WoTC being precious about D&D licencing hardly helped, either.

  • Like 2

sonsofgygax.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The market research departments said: people want 3D games

I belive that's all :).

 

Consoles and PCs got the power to make decent use of 3D without the need of pre-render stuff. And after a hand off successfull releases every gaming company jumped on the train.

 

But I still prefare 2D over 3D when it's well done ;). A fixed background made with love to details beats EVERY 3D background as even the most mordern GPUs+CPUs couldn't handle the sice of textures + real time randering and still maintence decent FPS.

this tech demo looks realy cool, true. But if you try to let it run on something less powerfull then a SLI-980 and top end I7 you end with 2 FPS.

 

I then prefare a cool looking 2D meadow without moving grass over a 3D meadow where I have to turn off grass to get 30-60 FPS ;). (or the need to invest 2000,-€ just to play it).

 

And at the end of the day it's all about: how many user can play this without the need to upgrade their hardware?

Can I sell maybe 1 million copys as the hardware my game need is common?

Or can I sell just 5000 copys as my game looks super awesom but the hardware need is insane ;).

Edited by Schakar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know really but personally I wish this game was D&D 3.5 based

While i like 3.5 i think 5ed should get a proper shot... Turn based shot *glares at Tim*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...