Duck and Cover

Blacken wrote:2D. All those who say "m3 want 3-dee becuz it is l33t" (I'm looking towards you, CBR) are deluded. 3D is baaaad. You'd probably need a GeForce4Ti 500 to run a game as complicated as Fallout in 3D, and even then, maybe at 30fps.

.

A) FO3 is not coming out tommorow, dimwit. If it is, by some bizzare miracle coming out THIS year, than I am all for 2D. But, considering that at the least we will be seeing it in mid 2003, 3D technology could not only handle FO, it could make it look great. While 2D will, I opeanly admit, will always have it's good sides, there is a lot that you can get done in 3D that is just not possible in 2.
I own a GeForce4Ti 500.
C) God, what the hell did I ever do to you?

A) Yes, it could be good in 3D. 3D is not bad. 2D, however, would retain the feel of Fallout better.
Most people don't.
C) Idiocy always pisses me off.

Constipated BladeRunner wrote: we will be seeing it in mid 2003.

I'll put my money on never.

I prefer 2D but I believe that FO3 will be 3D, remember that FU said a few years ago that they would create a new engine and if they do that I doubt that they will create a new 2D engine.

You own a GF4 TI500? That is remarkable considering that card doesn't even exist.

Blacken wrote:2D. All those who say "m3 want 3-dee becuz it is l33t" (I'm looking towards you, CBR) are deluded. 3D is baaaad. You'd probably need a GeForce4Ti 500 to run a game as complicated as Fallout in 3D, and even then, maybe at 30fps.

I'm a 3D graphics programmer. I know this stuff.

You're a 3D graphics programmer that thinks 3D is "baaaad?" That's not exactly going to add weight to your opinion. Why are you doing it? Have you made a personal commitment to producing baaaad software?

3D isn't intrinsically, irredeemably or generally bad. I don't think it would necessarily be appropriate for FO3, but it has its advantages and uses (none of which anything to do with being elite in the way you mentioned).

I'm sure this has all been argued before by various evangelists on either side, and by some more open minded people also, most of whom would understand things better than me.

Blacken wrote:C) Idiocy always pisses me off.

You see, the funny thing is that right now could have been an example of one of my idiotic rants, only you do not even add the self paroyding aspect of huge font size and red colors- you actually take you and your rants seriously.
You see, if SaintieP was to mock my sometimes lack of mental tact, he would either-
A) Do something so outrageously funny that you cannot be mad, and instead pretend that he wants people to laugh with you, instead of at you. I use for an example the "hooked on phonics" website link.
He does not go out of his way to insult you.
So, if you are to insult me in the future, at least have the common courtesy to show me examples of my own stupidity.

ok,
2d graphics, with more time to fix the bugs in the quests and scripting, or
3d graphics, looks cool, very different. and most likely more glitches and bugs or later release.

a 2d/3d engine would be interesting, like
using 3d models in the same 2d hexlike placement and targeting thing. just with 3d models for show. and everyhting else working the same, just with 2d instead of 3d... you get my drift?

3d sells better than 2d. That's an important argument.

Does it, though? Don't most players care more about the result than the technology used?

3d might draw more non-fallout players.
but 2d would keep all the origional fallout players.
the origional players would probubly be ok with 3d.

And if anyone for some reason doesn't play Fallout 3 because it's in 3...why?

Everyone keeps saying graphics don't matter so it shouldn't matter wich platform it's in. And the graphics aren't going to be Doom 3 quality, it's an isometric rpg. why would you need really advanced graphics?

meh

um bongo um bongo

Lasse wrote:Yeah. If you have a high end computer. On "normal" computers, though, it would most probably look like crap since you'd have to tone down all the special megakewl fx and detailz. 2D should run better and still look good, AND retain the original feel of Fallouts (unless it had those owl looking power armors a'la FOT).

That's the big problem with 3D is that to sell the most copies, they have to make it run okay on average computers. It won't have much detail because of that - compared to a 2D engine.

Saint_Proverbius wrote: That's the big problem with 3D is that to sell the most copies, they have to make it run okay on average computers. It won't have much detail because of that - compared to a 2D engine.

Today that's a problem, but by the time Fallout 3 gets released, 'standard' PCs are more advanced and capable. Besides, NWN runs quite well on slower comps(P2), with decent graphics and texture detail. It depends a lot on programming, how heavy the engine is.

Today that's a problem, but by the time Fallout 3 gets released, 'standard' PCs are more advanced and capable. Besides, NWN runs quite well on slower comps(P2), with decent graphics and texture detail. It depends a lot on programming, how heavy the engine is.

But alot of you forget that IPLY is having financial trouble. This means that to get a good engine made by somone else will cost a pretty penny for Interplay. It is somthing IPLY will have trouble affording. Especialy if it goes into production in the next year or Two. So most likely IPLY would use an engine they alredy have rights to. Most the engine they used on TORN I forgett its name. If you ever saw some screen shots of that game boy did the graphics suck. Another possibility is that they make their own engine. Most of the employees at BIS do not have much experience with 3d engines. Also one of the reasons TORN was cancelled was because they were having problems with the 3d engine.

Fallout will be delayed by those financial troubles anyway. They're going to keep pumping out cattle games until they get out of debt and have some money in the back or until IP is dissolved. If/when FO3 gets made, it will be more practical for them to use a 3D engine than it is now.

The Shrike wrote: But alot of you forget that IPLY is having financial trouble. This means that to get a good engine made by somone else will cost a pretty penny for Interplay. It is somthing IPLY will have trouble affording. Especialy if it goes into production in the next year or Two. So most likely IPLY would use an engine they alredy have rights to. Most the engine they used on TORN I forgett its name. If you ever saw some screen shots of that game boy did the graphics suck. Another possibility is that they make their own engine. Most of the employees at BIS do not have much experience with 3d engines. Also one of the reasons TORN was cancelled was because they were having problems with the 3d engine.

This is true, I think Fallout engine is the only engine they've made by themselves and most of them have left BIS. Other BIS games use the Infinity engine. But I truly hope they have the talent and patience to make an engine for Fallout. An engine that would be suited for a Fallout RPG, it would also offer more freedom because it's their own engine and they know how it works. By the way, is BIS working on an own engine for the Jefferson project?

Ah, interesting thing about the LithTech engine (the one used in BIS: Torn). One of the main reasons that game was cancelled was because BIS was having so much trouble working with LithTech and adapting it to an RPG, since it's more of an FPS engine. They had to have guys from Monolith over so often that it was getting impractical and the project was canned.

Spazmo is right.
It is hard to use an FPS 3d engine and turn it into and RPG.
NWN uses the MDK2 engine, and look at how THAT turned out- god, they dont remeber what you do!
I just hope that sometime soon we have to great 3D rpg engines (a la Q&U) that are generally accpetable and look great too.