Duck and Cover

Blacken wrote:I don't doubt that the standard of 3D graphics will remain the same, Crow. I said that once the polygon count becomes academic (meaning, if you didn't catch it, that there's really no visual difference) that the cards will still continue to increase in power (Moore's Law, though that may be petering out in a few years - can't go much below 0.1 micron for chips) and they'll find something else to use the horsepower for. HOWEVER, be honest. I can't tell the difference between a 5,000 polygon human and an 8,000 poly human. But that's being advertised as a major increase in quality. And I'll bet that that demand for that type of increase keeps coming, and so the companies that make the games have to do it in order for everyone's favorite enemy (magazine editors...not really, but I see a lot of nitpicking on this from them) can't say "The graphics are inferior because the game uses less polys."

I get you, and I agree. Video adapter manufacturers will perpetuate their industry the same way everyone else does, by creating a percieved need. However, at the point when visual differences become negligible, the "quality of card" argument ceases to have relevance to the discussion of 3D vs 2D. i.e. Once typical RPG gamers have cards able to render 3D at quality comparable to 2D, 3D begins to hold all the cards.

Right. But I don't see that happening for at least four years, personally. There are three reasons I don't like 3D for RPGs (one of which is self-admittedly somewhat my fault, and another that is my incredibly biased opinion):

-Camera (That's the unquestionable one - yet to see a 3D RPG without camera problems, if it lets you control it at all. And if you can't control it and it's fixed, it essentially does the same as 2D.)
-Speed (slower on my current machine, and I've got to get a new mobo before I can upgrade any more)
-Proliferation of l33tness.

By the third one, I mean something similar to what Saint_Prov said in another thread in General Discussion, about a guy who didn't know what turn-based was (but a similar argument comes to mind). I know a few of those "l33t d00ds" in my school, and I showed them Fallout once.

Their response: "Dude! That game isn't 3D!"
Me: "Nope. Great gameplay, though."
Them: "But it's not 3D! And 3D rules!"
Me: "How do you know that this isn't good without playing it?"
Them: "It's not 3D! 2D games suck!"


And so on. If it's 3D, their response would be more like:

Them: "Dude! That's 3D! It's kewl!"
Me: "It's a pretty good game."

And then they begin to pester me constantly with questions, and I'm sure one of them is probably intelligent enough to use Google, and find the forums, and spam us to hell. :mad:

But that's an irrelevant rant, though it's probably what'd happen.

I wouldn't worry about that type of thing for the future if I were you. How long do you think it is possible to sustain that for a single topic. As soon as the novelty of 3D wears off, they'll be on to their next fad.

One guaranteed way to stop dialogues such as the ones you put up would be to do away with 2D. Not that I think we should. All the kiddie speak and attitude on the Internet passes me by. I generally go places they don't.

When I was at school, people collection football cards annoyed me

I think you could be right about the 3-4 years, though, and that's the important thing.

Let's just assume for a moment Fallout is 3d when it gets done. Yes, put away the war hammer and enter the dark cave of 3d with me.

Camera: main problem with this is in RPGs that it is sometimes hard to keep control of the situation because of a weird camera angle or if the camera 'behaves' badly, poorly made camera that is(Dungeon Siege). This happens especially in battles and other hectic moments. The plus side is, it looks nicer. Both the graphics and environment, and yes, nice flashy minigun effects.

Well, assuming Fallout 3 has turn-based combat, the camera is not a problem when it comes to making quick decisions. You have all the time in the world figuring out how your character acts. And keeping control is easy, because you only have one character to control(PC). I don't especially like the camera focused on your main character or party, because I'd like to see a bit farther than in 2d games. In Fallout you could move the camera around the map, in NWN you can't. That's one problem, but it's nothing that can't be fixed. Also, 3d camera should have the possibility to choose your view, if you want more isometric or 3rd person view than a birds-eye view. It's your to choice. You could even keep the camera in an isometric view, if you want to.

I don't see camera as a problem, especially if Fallout 3 is turn-based. The fact that it's poorly done in some games(tomb raider, yuck) doesn't mean it can't be done well. Camera problems were more of a problem in the past, when 3d was not so used. Also, 3d is more appealing, so it probably catches a bigger consumer interest.

Dialogue: Again, this is not a problem with 3d. The system NWN and Dungeon Siege uses is fine, although DS doesn't contain much dialogue. Also, it's possible to make a dialogue/barter screen, similar to previous fallouts.

Speed: Yes, it requires a faster comp, but people have better computers in the future, when Fallout 3 gets released. It takes at least 3-4 years. What the PC standards are then is almost impossible to know.

The truth is, 3d is developing all the time and is getting rid of the problems it had in the past. I wouldn't mind at all if Fallout 3 is 3-dimensional as long as the content is good. That is the most important thing, good looks is secondary compared to content.

Of course, none of us have talked about ANOTHER possibility: 2.5D. You know what I mean - 2D/prerendered backgrounds, 3D characters. That way, you can have lesser system requirements as well as really good looking miniguns (though there's another argument I could make that I can make a damn fine minigun effect in Photoshop, but I digress).

They were doing that with Static but ultimately decided to go full 3d.

"Of course, none of us have talked about ANOTHER possibility: 2.5D. You know what I mean - 2D/prerendered backgrounds, 3D characters."

Do you mean something similar to the Inifinity engine likee in Badlurs Gate and all its love children -Ice wind dale, 1 haert of winter, IWD 2, Baldurs gate tales of sword coast, Baldurs gate 2 and phew Baldurs Gaate 2 throne of Bhaal

Yeah, that's what I mean. It's a sad, scary thought, but it'd be workable.

well i suppose BiS could I mean Ice Wind Dale 2 has only just been released hasnt it? but if and by the time Fallout 3 were to be made wouldnt something like the infinty engine be out of date? or maybe BiS could make a few raz mataz adjustments to an engine like the infinity engine.

I don't think the IE uses 3d models for characters, though.

Lasse wrote:

Blacken wrote:But that's an irrelevant rant, though it's probably what'd happen.

Maybe it's not irrelevant. I'd guess 3D sells better because it attracts the masses. Masses = stupid. Interplay = stupid. 3D = stupid. INTERPLAY WILL MAKE STUPID 3D FALLOUT! O NO! GO TO THE CAVE AND KILL ALL SUPERMUTANTS AND BRING ME THE HEAD OF MUTANT BOSS!

Yeah, maybe it is irrelevant.

we both know thats exacly what they'll do, just to piss us off, so there's no use ranting about it

I want 2d purely because they then wont spend all the plot/story development time on ubér leet graphics and give us a boring, staid, and repetitive game.

NeamhShaolta wrote:I want 2d purely because they then wont spend all the plot/story development time on ubér leet graphics and give us a boring, staid, and repetitive game.

Yeah.
It just happens to be called System Shock, Daggerfall, Deus Ex, SS2, do you REALLY want me to continue?
Notice to noob- think about 3D rpgs BEFORE you needlesly flame the future, let alone the only way that RPG's will stand a chance against the on slot of the Sims clones/ FPSes.

System Shock

FPS with stats

Deus Ex

FPS with stats

SS2

FPS with stats

do you REALLY want me to continue?

I know I want to hear you continue.

Notice to noob- think about 3D rpgs BEFORE you needlesly flame the future

Uh... CBR how was he flaming?

I think the theory that every 3d game lacks content, decent storyline and detail is flawed. Let's give the game developers a chance and think about all the 3d CRPC engines that are available at the moment and in the future. Re-using them saves a lot of time when it comes to better game design etc.. Today, 90% of FPS games don't use their own engine, they use Q3, Unreal, Lith-tech -engines and modify them a bit and make new textures. That's why new FPS games are developed so quickly, they re-use same technology and game development time is in some cases less than a year. Raven Games is a good example of this. Doom 3 uses an own engine, that's why it has been in development for several years.

The whole FPS genre is just an example.

That seems like a very good point.

The connection between 3D and lack of content is contrived. It is based entirely on premise that a game has to be 3D to get adequate sales, and that adequate sales equate to mass appeal, which in turn equates to lack of substance.

Well,

a) I believe a huge number of people play Diablo II in 2D mode (to boost frame rate), although I realise this doesn't necessarily make it a 2D game. I believe we could class Diablo II sales as adequate.

b) There is plenty of room for sales to justify development costs without selling a copy to everyone. 3D could contribute to this in the way VasikkA describes (reduction of costs).

c) A mass appeal RPG still has to be an RPG. A game with only combat and end bosses would be either tactical, action-adventure or FPS. A 3D RPG would - by definition - not be one of those.

I think commandos 2 manages isometric 3d well.