The big choice 2d or not 2d

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Sun Aug 11, 2002 5:56 pm

NeamhShaolta wrote:Basically, I just prefer isometric.
X-Com: Enemy Unknown, X-Com: Apocalypse, Jagged Alliance 2, Syndicate, Fallout 1/2.

3D can be isometric.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » Sun Aug 11, 2002 9:22 pm

But if you force a completely 3d game into an isometric view, then you're just gonna piss a bunch of people off...
I think that what they're doing for Lionheart would be great to use for a Fallout 3 with the 3d models being turned into 2d sprites... plus it would stop people from posting about getting rid of the helmets on their power armor...

Crow of Ill Omen wrote:I know people that play the same FPS every night almost, and know everything there is to know about it.

And what's wrong with that? I've been doing that for the last 4 years with Half life... and it's that sort of thing that seperates a true gamer from the vast seas of the ignorant... it's not like all people who play first person shooters are mindless assholes (though many are...)

Crow wrote:I don't know what effect that'll have on RPG, though. Fantasy has always dominated the genre, irrespective of commerce.

There's just something about elves and swords and all that stuff that people just like... plus what's more fantastical? The Elven Mage casting Fireball at an incoming mob of goblins and orcs or the lone gunman traversing the wastelands? I guess you can argue that the former is cliched... but only because people can... supposedly... identify with that sort of thing better... or something...

PaynetotheMax wrote:consoles cannot (or a at least seem to) produce anything with replay value

It isn't replay value that's the problem with consoles... it's in Linearity... Console games are extremely linear when compared with computer games, which are usually extremely open-ended with how you can accomplish various tasks and goals... this, of course, does turn itself into replay value in going back and seeing if you can do certain quests in different ways... but you're basically still doing the same things over and over again... consoles, in their RPGs, are stuck with one or two ways to do anything and a single ending... but some of them do have multiple endings and do offer replay value comparable to a PC game... uh... Ogre Battle on the SNES is the only thing I can name off the top of my head... Tactics Ogre too... but to a lesser extent... and story-wise, both were well told...
And to answer to the debate on 2d vs 3d... I think that it's a problem with hardware... the casual gamer doesn't have the hardware (And won't buy the hardware) for that 3d game to look pretty yet... if you want a 3d game to look nice, you're going to need a 3d graphics card that'll cost ya at least a couple hundred dollars... lotsa RAM like 512 megs at least... and a whole lotta other things... 2d games don't need all that... and so can look prettier...
Plus I don't think that anyone's been able to figure out how to use 3d graphics in a way to tell a story any better then one with 2d graphics... maybe other then the people at Square...

Constipated BladeRunner · Fri Aug 16, 2002 9:37 am

Saint_Proverbius wrote:
bloodbathmaster2 wrote:3d games can have just the same effect of a beautiflly animated 2d game. Homeworld proved that to us.
Homeworld's ships where still pretty blocky. The asteroids looked more like potatoes than say, an asteriod. This is because they could only display a certain amount of polygons at any given time.

Like Rosh said, that's about all that had to be displayed. There was no terrain geometry in Homeworld, no buildings, no day/night cycles, no environmental effects, and so on.

Yeah.
Back then I lived in Europe, I had a multi-lingual gf and two big towers where still there.
I belive the term to be "several generations ago"?
THATS RIGHT, THE IDIOT YOU ALL KNOW AND LOVE IS BACK!

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Sat Aug 17, 2002 1:35 am

VasikkA wrote:3D can be isometric.

Only in the loose sense of the word. Isometric is really a scaled and/or shifted axis projection where the coordinates don't typically match up with real world values. With the standard 2D Isometric tile engines, it's usually width and half-height for the tiles and the coordinates are on a 45 degree offset.

With true 3D, coordinates are not scaled or shifted in terms of design work and programming. The API handles the "projection" as a matrix transform.

Crow of Ill Omen · Post by **Crow of Ill Omen** » Sat Aug 17, 2002 2:58 am

Lancer wrote:
Crow of Ill Omen wrote:I know people that play the same FPS every night almost, and know everything there is to know about it.
And what's wrong with that? I've been doing that for the last 4 years with Half life... and it's that sort of thing that seperates a true gamer from the vast seas of the ignorant... it's not like all people who play first person shooters are mindless assholes (though many are...)

I apologise for any unintended offense.

My point was, in response to the previous one, basically: being a regular gamer does not equate with being someone looking for RPG depth.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sat Aug 17, 2002 3:00 am

Saint_Proverbius wrote:
VasikkA wrote:3D can be isometric.
Only in the loose sense of the word. Isometric is really a scaled and/or shifted axis projection where the coordinates don't typically match up with real world values. With the standard 2D Isometric tile engines, it's usually width and half-height for the tiles and the coordinates are on a 45 degree offset.

With true 3D, coordinates are not scaled or shifted in terms of design work and programming. The API handles the "projection" as a matrix transform.

If it creates the same general appearance, why does it matter?

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 2:14 am

Doyle wrote:If it creates the same general appearance, why does it matter?

3d environments are easier(and faster) to create, because they consist of pre-made tiles. Also, 3d allows bigger maps and areas, 2d maps are usually more detailed and smaller.

the guardian · Post by **the guardian** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 2:39 am

but oh so much prettier.

you know, its interesting... recently finished resident evil 1, for the gamecube... the game realy, realy, looks realistic

for once, i liked 3d

ive come to terms with it: i like 3d graphics, and 2d graphics at the same time, for diffrent reasons... today's 3d is simply exellent, real-looking, and along with some deep ambient music, can realy make a good game

on the other hand, 2d games can also exel at their beauty, take castlevania: symphony of the night... dont think ive encountered a more beautiful 2d game,they realy poured their hearts into the graphics

to sum things up, i suppose this is an endless question, since both sides have their perks

Constipated BladeRunner · Mon Aug 19, 2002 7:08 am

Resident Evil's graphics 3d?
Bullshit, it's 2.5d.
UT2, however, looks GOOD.

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 10:08 am

the guardian wrote:
on the other hand, 2d games can also exel at their beauty, take castlevania: symphony of the night... dont think ive encountered a more beautiful 2d game,they realy poured their hearts into the graphics

to sum things up, i suppose this is an endless question, since both sides have their perks

Ahhh, another SOTN fanatic. It is a wonderful game and a really good platform game of sorts. The style of it's artwork is much like that of Fallout. You just can't recreate that charm in 3d. The 3d of the N64 Ass-sylvania games look like ass, appropriately. Even with the RAM pack. The style is just not the same or possible to match. The comic style of Fallout would be a bit hard for 3d to recapture.

Constipated BladeRunner · Mon Aug 19, 2002 10:22 am

But you cannot re create wonder in 2D.
Say, for instance Morrorwind- you could not really create the "oohhs" in 2D.
So it is wonder- a deep, profund emotion or cute graphics.
The choice is obvious.
Moreover, 3D is the way (undoubtably) the wind is blowing these days.
Some time you have to sever a limb to save the body.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 11:52 am

VasikkA wrote:
Doyle wrote:If it creates the same general appearance, why does it matter?
3d environments are easier(and faster) to create, because they consist of pre-made tiles. Also, 3d allows bigger maps and areas, 2d maps are usually more detailed and smaller.

I'm not quite sure why you responded, as that was directed at Saint. The point was, even if it's not really isometric, it could still make a game in similar style.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 11:03 pm

Doyle wrote:If it creates the same general appearance, why does it matter?

Because it doesn't. There are several isometric projections which really wouldn't work well in 3D. 3D is fairly literal in terms of what it does, so you can't "neatly" do something like - say - a hex grid overlapping the tiles in 3D.

VasikkA wrote:3d environments are easier(and faster) to create, because they consist of pre-made tiles. Also, 3d allows bigger maps and areas, 2d maps are usually more detailed and smaller.

You have that backwards. Most 2D games are tile based.

Crow of Ill Omen · Post by **Crow of Ill Omen** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 11:27 pm

S_P, maybe you can explain what they mean by "3D tiling". Ever since I heard that term, I've always thought it sounded like a bit of an oxymoron, but (for instance) people refer to a "tileset" for NWN, which I thought was 3D.

the guardian · Post by **the guardian** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 11:47 pm

Rosh wrote:
the guardian wrote:
Ahhh, another SOTN fanatic. It is a wonderful game and a really good platform game of sorts. The style of it's artwork is much like that of Fallout. You just can't recreate that charm in 3d. The 3d of the N64 Ass-sylvania games look like ass, appropriately. Even with the RAM pack. The style is just not the same or possible to match. The comic style of Fallout would be a bit hard for 3d to recapture.
nothing can beat sotn... used to be a zealot, knew everything on the game, even the saturn version

then i grew up
its still a wonderful game though

i bought cbr a pony?

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 12:26 am

Saint_Proverbius wrote:You have that backwards. Most 2D games are tile based.

What I meant was simple and quick tools as in NWN, instead of hand-drawn backgrounds. Environment creating is easier with a toolset like in NWN as compared to, for example, Inifinity engine games. Of course, this depends much on the engine.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 1:18 am

VasikkA wrote:What I meant was simple and quick tools as in NWN, instead of hand-drawn backgrounds. Environment creating is easier with a toolset like in NWN as compared to, for example, Inifinity engine games. Of course, this depends much on the engine.

Those two engines are exceptions. Also, infinity engine landscapes aren't "hand drawn", they're modelled, and then rendered.