Duck and Cover

Oh come on Rosh! The casual gamer is where the money is! Not the gaming enthusast. Games need well known names like Ultima or Quake and they need pretty colors to sell.

bloodbathmaster2 wrote:I hate threads like this. The answer is that it doesnt matter. Each has its advantages:

2d games are more artistic looking, while 3d games have the capability to allow so much more in gameplay

On the contrary. I've found most 3d games in the CRPG genre to be half-ass (aside from the cubist crawl) while 2d seems to be pretty much have the strongest story. Mostly because they can focus on gameplay rather than superficial graphics. Hence why the large nostalgia for the SNES-era RPGs that were 2d and had a hell of a fun gameplay. Chrono Trigger, FF3(6), etc.

paynetothemax wrote:Oh come on Rosh! The casual gamer is where the money is! Not the gaming enthusast. Games need well known names like Ultima or Quake and they need pretty colors to sell.

Straw man! Five yard penalty!

A name and shiny graphics are moot if the game sucks ass. The point is to get a REPEAT CUSTOMER. Draw them in, keep ahold of them. You don't do that with shit games. Fallout even calls to the casual gamer and even at it's release it wasn't the graphically best. Wonder why? Think about it.

Use some common sense. As a casual gamer, are you going to buy haphazardly or...would you buy a game that you knew was good to begin with based upon the previous? Hey, Ultima IV was pretty good, and I have a choice of Ultima 5 or another game. I think I'll buy Ultima 5." That's how a casual gamer thinks, and a game only gets a name to begin with by being good in the first place.

The games industry is obsessed with the casual gamer, but there's nothing that says you can't make a good game that also appeals to the casual gamer. The casual gamer can play Fallout to his/her hearts content, fuck shit up, watch the messy death sequences, and not even realise there's so much more of a game behind it all. Meanwhile, the rest of us can enjoy that side of it too. Even adding some flashy graphical effects to a good game can draw the casual gamer. They much more shallow than the hardcore.

But what it all boils down to is brand recognition. If you have a game that has a reputation for being good, even if it's only the hardcore who think so, when the next iteration of said game is released, even those who haven't played the original gget the recommendation from everyone else.

Rosh wrote:On the contrary. I've found most 3d games in the CRPG genre to be half-ass (aside from the cubist crawl) while 2d seems to be pretty much have the strongest story. Mostly because they can focus on gameplay rather than superficial graphics. Hence why the large nostalgia for the SNES-era RPGs that were 2d and had a hell of a fun gameplay. Chrono Trigger, FF3(6), etc.

I agree whole heartedly, but the fact remains that you can do much more with games built on 3d enignes. I never said that people were making games well with 3d, but that they have introduced concepts that would be impossable to do with 2d engines.

Modders can, but the presentation and the looks in 2d lends to much more. The construction for 2d also lends itself to be functional and simpler, in 3d you have to worry about a lot more. Namely the modeling and movement, which still has yet to look fairly right in 3d. Even some modern FPS games look wooden as hell, with the typical 3d block shoulders. People keep saying it gets more advanced, but it still has to be done from scratch for them to use it. And which would you rather them work on? Lifelike 3d or a game? Wonder where the gameplay of the Final Fantasy games went when they moved to the PSX?

Also in 3d, it often gets in way of itself as far as presentation. Camera angles and control are often a pain in the ass, even in Darkstone and chasing views. Static camera views, like with the 3d viewpoint, are useable as they don't have any nauseating and clip-erring wandering camera point.

3d games can have just the same effect of a beautiflly animated 2d game. Homeworld proved that to us.

Bad example. Homeworld had no structures to deal with, and the camera troubles were irrelevent in that special instance. You could have 360 degree unobstructed viewpoint. Other styles, notably those that CRPGs use, are different.

Homeworld also didn't have that much to deal with, comparatively, to other 3d and could push in more detail where it needed to. The environment in a room styled like one of The Glow's would likely require a lot more detail, and the most of the walls in 3d look like pure ass. There goes more of the textured walls, as your vault walls will be painted on or have painted on effects.

paynetothemax wrote:Oh come on Rosh! The casual gamer is where the money is! Not the gaming enthusast. Games need well known names like Ultima or Quake and they need pretty colors to sell.

Exactly.

Marketability and quality are inversely proportional.

The best, most versatile and most easy to please audience is the "stupid-fucking-idiot demographic."


EDIT: And what S8 said. Though it's still harder to make a good game that appeals to morons than a bad game that appeals to morons.

I wasn't implying that all 3d rpg games are shit, just that one devleoped by iplay/bis is likely to be.

In 3d, I think they would spend too much time making the graphics the main selling point as opposed to 2d being the storyline, the history and the scope of the game.

Sort of right, Greg. Marketing departments are idiots. Hoever, quality games can be good for all kinds of gamers. Hell, even Diablo 1,2 can appeal, and it's graphics aren't too spectacular. Even some hardcore gamers like it for it's traits, which the main one is to provide a romp that you can just jump together with frends in and not worry too much about a story.

Fallout can be approachable to casual gamers, and was. It's learning curve wasn't too hard, and it doesn't take much to get into. Same thing with Arcanum.

That's the beauty of this kind of game, is that they could be played through a number of styles. There's enough combat to appeal to those kind of people, who can just go for the combat and later on come back for more if they wish.

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.

I don't consider myself a "hardcore gamer" -- even though I'm batshit insane and obsessed with Fallout.

I just like good games. Mainly, in terms of their originality and the amount of thought/artistic merit that a game presents.

But an inspired, original, interesting title isn't guaranteed to (and usually won't) sell as well as the overhyped, rehashed pop fluff.

Hobbits and magic swords sell better than unique ideas.

They're easier to mass-produce and pump out.

Games like Fallout are risky and hard to make.

The cool part is Rosh (and why "good" games are inherently bad) is that the casual gamer likes games that he can just "pick up and play" which means that consoles are #1 and consoles cannot (or a at least seem to) produce anything with replay value which is what I'm think you (and me) like to see in games. Thats why you like rpgs because of the replay value. But where is the replay value in games like Dungeon siege? or Icewind dale? Multiplayer doesn't constitute a good game and games that focus on multiplay (at least in my experiance) are generally lacking in single play. But a casual gamer doesn't care about replay value! He cares about instant gratification, he wants the fun NOW!, he doesn't want to wait, he doesn't want to learn anything, he wants to be able to play when it's too cold to play golf or disc golf or do whatever. Games aren't his hobby therefore he doesn't buy games regulary, so he only trust games that are supported by his favorite games mag. or newsweek or sen. Liberman or have the well-known name or the very pretty colors...I've lost my train of thought...I find it later...

Casual gamers have tastes that vary as much as anyone else. If they're casual RPG gamers, they may well be looking for a good story. Lately, it's unlikely they'll have found one, but then graphics haven't been that good lately, either.

Likewise, regular gamers are not necessarily looking for depth. I know people that play the same FPS every night almost, and know everything there is to know about it - some of them do their own mods and skins. They're interested only in how they can get the game to look its best, perform its best, and how they can get the highest kill rate.

Greg, fantasy has inevitably hit limelight since the Lord of the Ratings trilogy began, but it'll fade back into the shadow of sci fi again once it has been over-exposed enough to bore even the owners of rubberised Elrond Earsâ„¢ and Gandalf's Guide to a Bigger Staffâ„¢. Nothing lasts for more than a few years at the top, commercially.

I don't know what effect that'll have on RPG, though. Fantasy has always dominated the genre, irrespective of commerce. I find it bizarre, given that you'd think the RPGers are some of the same people who buy sci fi novels over fantasy ones.

In short, and back on topic, I don't think bad plots have much to do with 3D.

Casual gamers are dumbasses!! Go to my local wal-mart and you fing Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon for like $49 and Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Desert Whatever Expansion pack (that includes Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon) for $48... Makes perfect sense doesn't it! Also you can find Shogun: Total war for $12 and it's expansion pack (which includes the original game) for $12!!!!! Unreal Tournement GOTY Ed. $9 Wolfenstein 3D $9!!!
side note: FO/FO2 duel jewel $9

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

I think 3d is a great idea, we could totally ruin something that's working well by changing the formula, and we could import doom and quake models too. Why not?? We could also add jet packs! I'm sure there's some way to have TURN BASED 3d action... right? WTF, 3d... lets turn it into a side scroller!! Isometric has such a nicer feel... every time I play fallout I get this wonderful feeling... it's like...AHHH Isometric still lives... AHHH artwork and thought running the game instead of pure rendering ability... hehehe... funny little things that wouldn't exist in 3d... why would anyone want to change that? Yeah, lets have WORSE graphics and less gameplay options as well as make the entire thing more complex by turning it into 3d.... unless they somehow figured out how to make an isometric 3d game that had graphics like...i dunno... tactics.... do YOU expect that?

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

wait a seccie, apocalypse... is that 3, or 4? cause 4 wasnt isometric...

and since when is ja isometric? i only played the first(own it too) but it was bird view

i got a number of more isometric games if you're interested



ed the monkey:quick guess... you started playing computer games around '98?;)

Ja2 is isometric, Ja1 was almost top-down in angle. Indeed birdview. The perspective on it was wrong in certain parts anyway. Not that I cared . Didn't rob me of any of the great fun.


Crow : Lord of the Rings, like Star Wars, did not fade over decades and decades. At least not the books. Or the first Star Wars movie trilogy.
Yes, the extra hype might fate after the movies, but I have met so many people, young and old. (Given, if they read books at all) that have read Lord of the Rings that I believe high fantasy will always spark recognition with a large crowd.