Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Josh Sawyer's tweets and teasers

AndreaColombo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wormerine

Wormerine

Posted
Posted

I am not sure what the issue is. The 2D art in pillars looks better than DOS2 to me. The camera can be annoying in full 3D iso also like in DOS2. I guess if game dev cycle is faster that is one reason to switch. I mean DOS2 look nice maybe if Obsidian did the same with a more grounded fantasy look i would think differently so it could be hard to compare.

I don’t mind 2d prerendered background but it is limiting for devs. I do find rotatable camera in top down games frustrating but as Josh mentioned there is nothing stopping devs from making isometric view with 3D assets. Starcraft2 and Civ5 are good examples of 3D isometric games. Nice thing about prerendered is that it doesn’t tax your computer that much. But for anything above my crappy laptop moving to 3D should open new possibilities. What is easier from dev point of view however - I have no idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
draego

draego

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

I am not sure what the issue is. The 2D art in pillars looks better than DOS2 to me. The camera can be annoying in full 3D iso also like in DOS2. I guess if game dev cycle is faster that is one reason to switch. I mean DOS2 look nice maybe if Obsidian did the same with a more grounded fantasy look i would think differently so it could be hard to compare.

I don’t mind 2d prerendered background but it is limiting for devs. I do find rotatable camera in top down games frustrating but as Josh mentioned there is nothing stopping devs from making isometric view with 3D assets. Starcraft2 and Civ5 are good examples of 3D isometric games. Nice thing about prerendered is that it doesn’t tax your computer that much. But for anything above my crappy laptop moving to 3D should open new possibilities. What is easier from dev point of view however - I have no idea.

 

 

I bet if the art direction in DOS was more pillars than I would find the overall look just better. I am sure my judgement is clouded by the stylized look of DOS. 

Edited by draego
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sedrefilos

Sedrefilos

Posted
Posted

The thing is, you can have full 3D game without camera rotation. The 3D bakgrounds of DOS2 (and othe rgames such as Heroes of M&M 6-7) have nothing to be jelous about the 2D rendered backgrounds and it is much much faster to do. As Josh himself mentioned, they already putting 3D stuff to make them more alive and at that point, going back and forth from 3D to 2D rendering and then handmade makeover, does it worth it? I mean look at the graphics of Pillars 2. Are they any better that DOS2 ? Nope. They aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
injurai

injurai

Posted
Posted

The thing is, you can have full 3D game without camera rotation. The 3D bakgrounds of DOS2 (and othe rgames such as Heroes of M&M 6-7) have nothing to be jelous about the 2D rendered backgrounds and it is much much faster to do. As Josh himself mentioned, they already putting 3D stuff to make them more alive and at that point, going back and forth from 3D to 2D rendering and then handmade makeover, does it worth it? I mean look at the graphics of Pillars 2. Are they any better that DOS2 ? Nope. They aren't.

 

I much prefer what Deadfire is doing stylistically and graphically. There are so many rpgs that get this sort of cleaned over bright look from the 3D graphics, which is a result of how textures variably project from different distances from camera space. The Witcher 3, Dragon Age; Inquisition, DOS2 all have this. The graphics can look great and service what the game set's out to be. But I really appreciate the high degree of realism that serves as the backdrop for Pillars. Even the most "realistic" and cutting edge graphics often fall back on some degree of stylization.

 

Pre-rendered graphics have always been a boon to a certain style of realistic fantasies. That is fantasies whose setting is a real world like ours, full of detail. You won't get Naughty Dog making an rpg, so were else are you going to find this sort of stylization?

 

It's certainly more work to make deadfire, but only to a degree. You can push yourself just as hard to squeeze the most out of 3D graphics, and remember they are doing all of this on a crowd-funded game. Not every RPG needs to go pre-rendered, but it was basically dead for over a decade. I'm constantly ecstatic that it's back while playing these new games. If only we'd get an RTS or Diablo-like that returned to that style as well. Hell Obsidian could probably find some audience in such a thing.

 

I just don't get claims that it's simply not better.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AndreaColombo

AndreaColombo

Posted
  • Author
Posted

^ seconded.

"Time is not your enemy. Forever is."

— Fall-From-Grace, Planescape: Torment

"It's the questions we can't answer that teach us the most. They teach us how to think. If you give a man an answer, all he gains is a little fact. But give him a question, and he'll look for his own answers."

— Kvothe, The Wise Man's Fears

My Deadfire mods: Brilliant Mod | Faster Deadfire | Deadfire Unnerfed | Helwalker Rekke | Permanent Per-Rest Bonuses | PoE Items for Deadfire | No Recyled Icons | Soul Charged Nautilus

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lephys

Lephys

Posted
Posted (edited)

@Sedrefilos

 

But full 3D doesn't have that same FEEL. Their 2D environments are AWESOME! You can get the same level of detail with 3D, but it's gonna tax your system a lot more AND is going to still not going to have the same feel as a 2D environment.

 

Not really saying one's inherently better than the other, but... going full 3D just isn't the same. It's not comparing two cars with differing horsepowers. It's like comparing a motorcycle to a car.

Edited by Lephys
  • Like 2

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sedrefilos

Sedrefilos

Posted
Posted

Good thing about 2D is that it doesen't require much system power. DOS2 can't run over medium detailed graphics on my pc (even those are great though).

About the feel I don't know, I don't see any difference. I'm getting the feel just fine from 3D games. Also lighting is much better in full 3D so mood and atmosphere is better achieved.

Even the team is dropping more 3D stuff in there 'cause they work better. We can't overlook this. They can't progress further graphics-wise if they don't go 3D. Else they'll stay with the same stuff over and over.

The thing is Obsidian is not a small company. Is not even a medium company, is above that level. They are not 5 people in a rented suburb studio doing everything by themselves. They can make really good 3D games and, tbh, I believe they will. Josh Sawer almost admitted 3D is the way to go.

I'm not bothered about them staying in 2D - I like 2D graphics in general - I just believe this will limit them graphics-wise *AND* gameplay-wise in the future; they'll be left behind by more innovative games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
injurai

injurai

Posted
Posted

I don't see how they are limiting themselves in the slightest. The much of the world is a 3D wire-frame, with invisible walls and pathing markers. All the AI and movement works off a 3D representation that sits on top of a flat isometric background. All that logic can be lifted right back into a 3D world, so it's not wasted work that can't be used on a 3D title. Never mind all their work for Pillars is in Unity, and they are using Unreal for their next 3D game, so a lot of that work doesn't translate over regardless. I don't think we need to worry about Obsidian.

 

As far as some of the flat/static lighting in Pillars1, Deadfire seems to be doing much better. It once again has 3D meshes that map global lighting onto both characters and onto the 2D environment. So I'm excited to see where things get. I don't think 2D lighting is all that naturally gimped, it's just largely unexplored. I get some of the things your saying, I don't want to just sit around refuting your every point. 2D certainly wins every time with baked lighting, and with additional dynamic illumination I think it's going to get pretty darn close. While 3D will never match the texture detailing. In computing you generally want to make everything that can be static and compile-time just that. Pre-rendering and baking is the analog of that for assets. So it makes sense that they are taking a hybrid approach and dedicating run-time resources to elements that actually are dynamic. It makes very little sense to have a fixed isometric camera and use 3D graphics from an engineering perspective, even if it's easier for a small team.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lephys

Lephys

Posted
Posted

@Sedrefilos,

 

3D is definitely a way to go. Not necessarily the way to go. The biggest argument for Pillars is what injurai said; If you're going with a fixed-perspective game, there's really no reason to go full 3D, even though it's easier. The results are more optimal if you do what Obsidian's taken the time to do for 2D backdrops (you're never going to see them from another angle anyway).

 

There's nothing wrong with going full 3D, but this idea that 3D is somehow inherently better than 2D is a bit silly. Not saying you're holding that idea, but the industry sort of took off with it really badly about 15-20 years ago, and we keep seeing it crop up with various things, as if the only way to go is photorealistic graphical fidelity.

 

Some of the most charming RPGs were the JRPGs that switched to 3D backgrounds, but still used 2D character sprites. The characters had SO much more detail and charm in them than 3D characters did, and you still got the effect of a 3D expansive world and rotatable camera, etc.

 

I honestly don't see why they can't continue a line of games that remain isometric in style, like Pillars, and keep on with the 2D-baked environments for that. Separately, if they want to make all the 3D games in the world, they can. But to just take the next Pillars game (or Pillars-style game) full 3D... I won't say that's definitely a mistake, but it'd take some extra care for it not to be.

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sedrefilos

Sedrefilos

Posted
Posted (edited)

Guys, just take it from Sawyer himself.

As I said, I like 2D graphics but I really do believe they are limiting, especially when you want to move your gameplay forward (destructable environments, movable items, levels that their height matter etc). I don't believe Pillars should do all these nescessarily but if they want, they'd just can't in 2D.

Also (I know many will disagree, but that's how I feel) rewatching the Deadfire updates now that I've spent 2 months in DOS2, I find its graphics less appealing - especially animations (that doesen't mean I don't find them very good).

For me the IE feel was never the prespective of the graphics - I was not sold on the 2D pre-rendered environments - this is the least I care it is inspired by the oldies. Isometric view, rtwp combat, environments, dungeons, characters, adventure etc that's what I want to persist. These are timeless after all - they don't have to do with technology.

 

EDIT: Josh's latest twits about the graphics:
https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/929954915148894208
 

Edited by Sedrefilos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
injurai

injurai

Posted
Posted (edited)
EDIT: Josh's latest twits about the graphics:

https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/929954915148894208

 

Yeah, Josh has a point to a degree. I get what both of you are saying. But as a software developer myself, I'd be more interested in what Adam Brennecke has to say. Or even what he'd have to say about it if he had a larger programming team with free resources to build and support such technology. I don't think it's really the technique of the 2D that is most limiting, it's the fact that they are having to roll out a lot of bespoke and custom technologies that doesn't exist natively in the flagship engines.

 

There are limits sure, but there are also trade-offs, meaning you get something in return. You have less dynamic vertical, but then you just artistically split a dungeon vertically like The Endless Paths, where you see elements cutting through layers. Or you occlude layers and take advantage of hills and slopes. Destructible environments are quite doable and are simply canned animations that might generate particles and other 3D assets, although it'd vere get data heavy. All their environments are fundamentally coming from a 3D source anyways, so visually they can do just about anything as long as it's in frame of the fixed camera. I think people today really really really take 3D graphics for granted because so much of the infrastructure has already been setup. 3D graphics get a tone of research support for medical and scientific simulation. The 2D approach only ever really existed for the sake of art and entertainment.

 

In the comments Chris Bischoff (creator of Stasis) responded with:

 

"Ive found that a smaller team of 2D artists can create a game that looks on par with AAA titles. 2D isometric art also has a magic about it that is hard to replicate in 3D."

 

I think this sums up the essence of why teams back in the day went with it, and why some contemporary artists choose to use the technique.

Edited by injurai
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sedrefilos

Sedrefilos

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yeah the technique is good and can give you a nice visual outcome but if you care for more than visuals then, I don't know, I think 2D limits you a lot or if it doesen't it mkes things much more difficult for you.

But, hey, I'm no programmer, maybe I'm wrong. On the other hand, if the devs having a hard time working back and forth from 3D to 2D I don't want to be selfish and insist they do something they don't feel like doing any longer.

In the end, I'm ok with whatever they choose to go. Even if it is a 3rd person camera game. I'll still miss the iso-style but it's their game and their worktime. I might just not buy it if I think I won't like it and that's all.

 

PS: I think 2D graphics work better when the game is 2D entirely. The magic is consistent.

Edited by Sedrefilos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
injurai

injurai

Posted
Posted

I imagine they'll stick with the pre-rendered graphics when they are doing infinity-style games. (Hopefully for a 3rd game.) But once they expand on the Pillars IP beyond The Watcher's story, I'm sure they are going full 3D. Which I welcome. It is their first IP that they control and it will be exciting to see where they try to take it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
smjjames

smjjames

Posted
Posted (edited)

Not seeing the film reference. And that icon is probably just a coin with the likeness of somebody (though simplified due to the resolution), perhaps one of the Monarchs that live and rule from Neketaka.

 

Though given that Neketaka is likely barely a city state, I don't see any coinage that they mint getting used outside of the city. Vailian and Rauatai coinage would be more common.

Edited by smjjames
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enoch

Enoch

Posted
Posted (edited)

Not seeing the film reference.

At the risk of ruining the joke by explaining it, see the tweet text accompanying the image and compare with

from the clip I linked.  Josh didn't do that by accident. Edited by Enoch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...