Fallout 3: 3D?

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 1:48 am

You know, payne, you really are missing the point. As easy as it is to use, anecdotal evidence cannot be used alone to build a case.

As for Geneforge vs NWN, that falls under your favorite adage: apples and oranges.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 3:16 am

It answered you question.

As easy as it is to use, anecdotal evidence cannot be used alone to build a case.

And you can't win an argument with it either. So I guess we're just stuck between a rock (that's you) and a hard place (that's me)

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 3:32 am

Actually, payne, what it means is that you have failed to show that 2D is superior in any way to 3d.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:49 am

Oh I believe I have.

There are no gameplay advantages, they are indeed even in that respect. However, designing a 3d engine is a difficult task, as evidenced by Star Wars: Force Commander, and coupled with the historic precedants of favoring pretty graphics over gameplay it becomes clear that the rpg game designers should focus on 2d at this point in time.

In genre's like fps however they don't have the option, then need to be 3d to sell.

Of course one might argue that rpg's need to be 3d to sell, but then one would also have to argue that they need to be real time and hack'n'slash to sell.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:53 am

Again, citing examples and "historic precedence" in this case is completely worthless. There are tons of 2D games that suck, too.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:58 am

Doyle wrote:Again, citing examples and "historic precedence" in this case is completely worthless. There are tons of 2D games that suck, too.

Again, RAWR!! Lets say for a minute that hypothetically my argument has been countered. That still means, that 1) you havn't won the argument (which is the most important of course) and 2) the only thing you have accomplished is proved what I've already admitted, that there is no clear advantage.

My argument is why 2d should be used instead of 3d in rpg delvelopment.

Now there are indeed many 2d games that do suck, but your point is worthless. Because I don't know of ANY 2d game that sucks BECAUSE it's 2d. However there are plenty of games that do suck becuase they are 3d.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 5:30 am

paynetothemax wrote:1) you havn't won the argument (which is the most important of course)

Sure it does, since I wasn't really making any affirmative case. You merely made the statement that 3D sucks.

2) the only thing you have accomplished is proved what I've already admitted, that there is no clear advantage.

What? I don't see how you get that at all. In fact, there are advantages, not only to the modding community which you didn't refute, but also to the game's artists. 3D games require characters and objects to be rendered in less detail than 2D games. Furthermore, they take out a whole step of graphic creation. It's no longer necessary to create individual frames of animation, and you don't have to worry about situations where you need half a dozen wall segments that are identical except for orientation.

Finally, to the end user, the 3D effects can be pretty and the interaction is much more natural. Things like the size of objects can be taken into account more realistically leading to better immersion.

My argument is why 2d should be used instead of 3d in rpg delvelopment.

Which you have not argued well at all. All you've really done is shown that some 3d games suck. Big deal.

Now there are indeed many 2d games that do suck, but your point is worthless. Because I don't know of ANY 2d game that sucks BECAUSE it's 2d. However there are plenty of games that do suck becuase they are 3d.

Now you're flat out contradicting yourself. In your earlier posts in the news forum, you made the statement that some 3D games suck because not enough time is allocated toward content. That can happen with any game regardless of style. Like you yourself admitted, it's the implementation that matters most.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 6:19 am

umm please read my post o'kay! Kthx!!

You merely made the statement that 3D sucks.

Hence the reason in the news forum I posted that I not only Like 3d but also have nothing against it. hmm odd.

In fact, there are advantages, not only to the modding community which you didn't refute, but also to the game's artists. 3D games require characters and objects to be rendered in less detail than 2D games. Furthermore, they take out a whole step of graphic creation. It's no longer necessary to create individual frames of animation, and you don't have to worry about situations where you need half a dozen wall segments that are identical except for orientation.

I'm sorry but once agian I'm talking about rpg's. FINAL PRODUCT = KING, mod tools = shit (just look at NWN and you'll have why) I dont' care about mods. I care about what I'm paying for. If i can have mods that's nice BUT IT DON'T NEED MODS. And once again the advantages to the mod communtiy (these points i believe I refute in the news forum, but I"m not sure) are once again not nesccary. As proved by the here with the FOT and some of the FO work, it doesn't NEED new artwork to be a good mod, especially a new rpg mod. Also you can look at arcanum's mod communtiy. Artwork and pretty colors are not a NEED in terms of a rpg. Their nice but you don't need them. Thus artwork is not an advantage.

Yes you do take the step out of creating indivual frames but you put a new one in with the more complex designing of 3d engine. Both of these have their disadvantages and advantages, but at this point in time, 3d is more difficult.

Finally, to the end user, the 3D effects can be pretty and the interaction is much more natural.

And again pretty colors=gimmick in a rpg. Nothing more. No advantage. Only a selling point, but if cleverly used pretty 2d artwork could be a selling point aswell.

Abstration. That's what the game is. When you interact with the game environment it's done abstractly, you have to use your imagination. The same would go with a 3d engine. You'd still hvae to use your imagination. Now if it was an adventure game or a fps then it'd be another story but we're talking rpgs here. Thus no advantage. Just a needlessly complecating the task.

Which you have not argued well at all. All you've really done is shown that some 3d games suck. Big deal.

I have too. And I've shown that 3d graphics don't have inherrant advantages. Some of your word choice in this post makes me think you didn't actually read my post hmm scary though....

Now you're flat out contradicting yourself. In your earlier posts in the news forum, you made the statement that some 3D games suck because not enough time is allocated toward content. That can happen with any game regardless of style. Like you yourself admitted, it's the implementation that matters most.

The hell I am. i said that effort going to the 3d engine made content suffer THEREFOR the developers decsion to use 3d made the game's content suffer thereby making the game suck. BUT as far as I have seen there hasn't been a game where content as suffered because they put more emphasis on the 2d engine/artwork.

Nor have I ever played an rpg that I like BECAUSE of the graphics, content is king. Therefor it shouldn't matter. BUT at this point in time choosing 3d means you could either have content suffer or a horrendous 3d engine.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 7:49 pm

paynetothemax wrote:I'm sorry but once agian I'm talking about rpg's. FINAL PRODUCT = KING, mod tools = shit (just look at NWN and you'll have why) I dont' care about mods. I care about what I'm paying for. If i can have mods that's nice BUT IT DON'T NEED MODS. And once again the advantages to the mod communtiy (these points i believe I refute in the news forum, but I"m not sure) are once again not nesccary. As proved by the here with the FOT and some of the FO work, it doesn't NEED new artwork to be a good mod, especially a new rpg mod. Also you can look at arcanum's mod communtiy. Artwork and pretty colors are not a NEED in terms of a rpg. Their nice but you don't need them. Thus artwork is not an advantage.

You really are a clueless sod, aren't you?

but at this point in time, 3d is more difficult.

I'm supposed to take your word for that?

And again pretty colors=gimmick in a rpg. Nothing more. No advantage. Only a selling point, but if cleverly used pretty 2d artwork could be a selling point aswell.

Good graphics are never a negative.

Abstration. That's what the game is. When you interact with the game environment it's done abstractly, you have to use your imagination. The same would go with a 3d engine. You'd still hvae to use your imagination. Now if it was an adventure game or a fps then it'd be another story but we're talking rpgs here. Thus no advantage. Just a needlessly complecating the task.

Like I said, good graphics are never a negative. If it's simply abstraction you want, why not advocate text only or ASCII RPGs?

I have too. And I've shown that 3d graphics don't have inherrant advantages. Some of your word choice in this post makes me think you didn't actually read my post hmm scary though....

How? By simply denying that it's true? Yeah, ok, payne. Go lie down now.

The hell I am. i said that effort going to the 3d engine made content suffer THEREFOR the developers decsion to use 3d made the game's content suffer thereby making the game suck. BUT as far as I have seen there hasn't been a game where content as suffered because they put more emphasis on the 2d engine/artwork.

Once again, logic is conspicuosly absent. You've rattled off a handful of 3d games that suck, good job. Why do these games suck? That's another issue altogether. I could list some 2d games that suck, and claim they suck because they aren't 3d, but that doesn't make it true.

Nor have I ever played an rpg that I like BECAUSE of the graphics, content is king. Therefor it shouldn't matter. BUT at this point in time choosing 3d means you could either have content suffer or a horrendous 3d engine.

Right. This is just baseless conjecture. You have no clue what you're talking about.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 10:11 pm

Haha, I don't want to do this but...

I told you this thread is going to suck, and be nothing but talking about old stuff that hadn't changed.

You can see how this turned into a thread in which you two (yes, only you two) are talking about thread logic.

That's all I wanted to say.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 2:21 am

Try again with fewer flames.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 2:58 am

ugh. You get to flame all you want and for reason I can't :(

I'M TAKIN' MY BALL AN GOING HOME!!!

:cry:

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 12:11 pm

Ok stop that now.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 4:31 pm

Oh my, this could have been such an interesting topic... All ruined! Why don't you let others participate too, next time. I've noticed this feud has been going on in several threads.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 5:48 pm

VasikkA wrote:Oh my, this could have been such an interesting topic... All ruined! Why don't you let others participate too, next time. I've noticed this feud has been going on in several threads.

Anybody could have joined in... you'd just act like an asshole that's all.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 6:23 pm

paynetothemax wrote:ugh. You get to flame all you want and for reason I can't :(

Yeah, that's about the gist of it.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 6:55 pm

Doyle wrote:Yeah, that's about the gist of it.

FIGHT THE POWA!!! I won't let the man keep me down!!

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 8:28 am

Well... I think this thread right about served it's purpose.