Fallout 3: 3D?

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 11:20 pm

Doyle wrote:Never claimed it was a need, but it's nice.

Yes it's very nice to have in a mod type situation, however I tend to think it'd be better to have good final product with a few limited mods then a kinda good final product with some really pretty mods.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 12:21 am

There's no reason you can't have both. Of course, I doubt we're likely to get either from BIS.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 12:59 am

Doyle wrote:There's no reason you can't have both. Of course, I doubt we're likely to get either from BIS.

Yes there is no reason to not have both, but to have both and have both well done is not as likly then just concentrating on what matters.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 1:35 am

I have to disagree with you, I don't think having 3d is such a drain on resources that it's significantly more difficult to have good content. I will admit that priorities have become skewed so that graphics tend to get more of the resources than actual game content, but I don't think it has to be that way necessarily.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 2:10 am

Doyle wrote:I have to disagree with you, I don't think having 3d is such a drain on resources that it's significantly more difficult to have good content. I will admit that priorities have become skewed so that graphics tend to get more of the resources than actual game content, but I don't think it has to be that way necessarily.

Well considering 2d is a tried and true method and 3d is relatively still in it's infancy, i would say that sometime in the future perhaps I would agree with you, but right now 2d is the easier more perfected route.

Now let's just wait and see about Mr.Cain's 3d with 2d hi-res backgrounds.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:13 am

3D has been around for about a decade now, it's not that young. 3D is plently ripe enough.

Now let's just wait and see about Mr.Cain's 3d with 2d hi-res backgrounds.

That's a technique that has been used for years pretty successfully. Even Static was going to use 3D on 2D.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 4:50 am

Doyle wrote:3D has been around for about a decade now, it's not that young. 3D is plently ripe enough.

Now let's just wait and see about Mr.Cain's 3d with 2d hi-res backgrounds.
That's a technique that has been used for years pretty successfully. Even Static was going to use 3D on 2D.

Key word being relativly. In comparsion to 2d it is new. And it's far from "perfected". And yes that technique is nothing new but if it works well in ToEE then I we might have a reason to say why some 3d isn't too bad.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:15 am

2D isn't "perfected" either. You'll continue to see better and better 2D graphics, if people continue making games. But if everyone says, "3D is kind of new, but not really, so let's use 2D instead" then no one is going to use 3D. Although with your fuzzy logic you think this is a good thing, I'd like to see more games use 3D graphics.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 7:12 am

Doyle wrote:2D isn't "perfected" either.

That's why it's in quotes. Just read it as if I said quote unquote perfected. Of course you can improve it more. But it has gotten to a point that it can be well done with relative ease.

Although with your fuzzy logic you think this is a good thing, I'd like to see more games use 3D graphics.

I would love to see more games using 3d... but not nesccesarily rpgs. there are more than one type of genre of games (as you are aware) and while somethings work well with some other things work better with others. It's about the context in which it's used.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 4:34 pm

Let's try it this way: Do you have any evidence that 2D is easier to do than 3D? Any recent developer quotes? Anything other than groundless conjecture? No? Didn't think so. You're making statements you are qualified to make, statements that anyone with half a brain can see don't make sense. Look at the games on the market, and it's pretty obvious that 3D isn't that difficult to implement.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 4:34 pm

A rotating 3d engine looks pretty but RPGs using that are most likely to be more action-oriented and to have 'simplified' combat. Dungeon Siege and NWN are great examples of this. An isometric view, on the other hand, is more suitable for more slower or turn-based gameplay. Of course, you can make an isometric Diablo style game, hectic clix0ring against dozens of enemies at same time while your other hand is pressing the F1 key to quickly consume healing potions. And we all know that BIS is an expert of unorganized and actioney combat. My point is, however, that it's hard to imagine a NWN-style graphics engine combined with Fallout's turn-based combat. It all boils down to point of view, I guess. 3d engine is fine, if they keep the isometric view. Rotating cameras are a pain in the arse and require some sort of pause function to be somewhat usable. A lot of things must be improved here, as paynetothemax mentioned.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 4:35 pm

Wow, way to make no sense at all, Vas. You're saying that an action game works better with a 3D engine because rotating cameras require slower paced games to be good? What?

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:00 pm

My point was that turn-based combat doesn't quite fit with a NWN style engine. You get a better perspective of the surroundings from a more isometric view. Action-oriented games' viewpoint tend to be more closer to the action, showing more details rather than the general view of the battlefield. In Fallout 3's case, it depends much on what kind of combat system it will use.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:07 pm

That still doesn't make sense. Fast-paced action requires a steady camera more than turns. Theoretically, any camera system should work for a turn-based combat system, but it's a moot point because a 3D engine doesn't require a camera significantly different from the one we saw in Fallout or Fallout 2.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:15 pm

Doyle wrote:That still doesn't make sense. Fast-paced action requires a steady camera more than turns.

Indeed. That's the biggest problem with the rotating camera RPGs we've seen so far. The view is relatively small compared to top-down or isometric views. That's why they need a pause function(to rotate and look around your surroundings).

3D engine doesn't require a camera significantly different from the one we saw in Fallout or Fallout 2.

I have nothing against a 3d engine, if they keep the view isometric. I said that in my earlier post.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 10:59 pm

Doyle wrote:Let's try it this way: Do you have any evidence that 2D is easier to do than 3D? Any recent developer quotes? Anything other than groundless conjecture? No? Didn't think so. You're making statements you are qualified to make, statements that anyone with half a brain can see don't make sense. Look at the games on the market, and it's pretty obvious that 3D isn't that difficult to implement.

Well excuse me for drawing conclusions based on historic precedants!

Lets try and name'em

1.Dark Reign 2
2.Black and White
3.NWN
4.DS
5.etc etc etc

Historically games using a 3d engine do look pretty but on the other hand content suffers.

1.DR2 had horrendous path finding and unit balance two of the most crucial things in an rts were serverly lacking BUT it's looked hella kewlzor!!

2. B&W looked fantastic and had great AI, unfortunatly a somewhat bother some camera and heavy emphasis on micromanagment ruined the show BUT you could make your tomigochi pet poop on the villagers!!!

3.Sported horredous, camera sub par 3d graphics, and absolutly god aweful rpg'ing BUT phat lewtz yo!

4.Didn't require you to do much of ANYTHING to play, bad implentation of rpg elements BUT the spell effects were totally rad to the MAX!!

it goes on and on... if making 3d engine is SO easy then why do SO many games fail to do what they are supposed to do? Sure they look pretty but the gameplay, historically, suffers.

But then ask S_P about Geneforge, I understand it was ONE man working ONE year and made a game that I think it was either Rosh or Deathy that said he might think it better than FO. It's a 2d sprite based game.

Then compare that to NWN, SEVENTY-FIVE people working FIVE years couldn't get it done. BUT it looks pretty and sells like hot cakes. Thus it = teh w1n!

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 11:08 pm

And I could probably come up with dozens of 2D titles that were shit. I guess that means 2D is just as bad!

Seriously though, do you have anything other than meaningless "historical precedence" to base your argument on? I really doubt you do.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 11:11 pm

Doyle wrote:And I could probably come up with dozens of 2D titles that were shit. I guess that means 2D is just as bad!

You'd have to come up with quite a few more than a dozen. There a way more 2d games than 3d games.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 11:14 pm

Uh-huh. So you're going to argue that the ratio of bad to good is worse for 3d? You can prove this?

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 11:16 pm

Doyle wrote:Uh-huh. So you're going to argue that the ratio of bad to good is worse for 3d? You can prove this?

I don't have to.

Doyle wrote:Do you have any evidence that 2D is easier to do than 3D?

paynetothemax wrote:But then ask S_P about Geneforge, I understand it was ONE man working ONE year and made a game that I think it was either Rosh or Deathy that said he might think it better than FO. It's a 2d sprite based game.

Then compare that to NWN, SEVENTY-FIVE people working FIVE years couldn't get it done. BUT it looks pretty and sells like hot cakes. Thus it = teh w1n!