Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Heresy: There is no reason to expect a 2D-isometric engine again. But now we do have one...

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,499
In 3D you have to create all the same pieces as 2D, except you also have to do the following, which is time consuming:
-make sure the models fit polygon restrictions
That happens automatically.
-make sure the models look good from every angle
Not different than otherwise.
-adhere to texture size restrictions
???
-export the models and textures through your content pipeline and import them into your level editor
Only backward game developers are using levels.
-generate and check the low-poly mesh for collision detection
It happens automatically.
-place the completed pieces in the level editor (which is almost always slower than placing them in the 3D program)
So placing them in 3D program is faster?
You have two types of developers these who made these models, and terrain, selfeducated themselves into programming and invented algorithms which would do a lot of things for them... And these who are doing stuff in a way they were taught in school. Well I guess that separates quality developers from University PhD./certified "workers".

-design your levels and set pieces so that you can never see anything of consequence in the distance and hallways have detours in the middle of them to cut draw distance
Actually proper games tend to create these things at distance as well, as long as there is not a compelling reason not to.

-limit usage of foliage and water
There is no reason to limit foliage in 3D. No reason at all. Foliage generates more content, thus it looks less empty. So it's actually important for 3D to create waterfalls, foliage and other stuff.

The only place this ends up saving you time is when it comes to animation and characters that change their appearance by more than a palette swap. Creating the 2D equipment system that blizzard did for Diablo 2 is complicated and prone to small errors.
Creation of proper clothing is computationally expensive in both cases. (The same can be said about hair.) 2D clothing can force CPU time on developer computers. Properly done 3D clothing looks more cute. Look for example on Two Worlds 2, it had great clothing.
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,616
In 3D you have to create all the same pieces as 2D, except you also have to do the following, which is time consuming:
-make sure the models fit polygon restrictions
That happens automatically.
-make sure the models look good from every angle
Not different than otherwise.
-adhere to texture size restrictions
???
-export the models and textures through your content pipeline and import them into your level editor
Only backward game developers are using levels.
-generate and check the low-poly mesh for collision detection
It happens automatically.
-place the completed pieces in the level editor (which is almost always slower than placing them in the 3D program)
So placing them in 3D program is faster?
You have two types of developers these who made these models, and terrain, selfeducated themselves into programming and invented algorithms which would do a lot of things for them... And these who are doing stuff in a way they were taught in school. Well I guess that separates quality developers from University PhD./certified "workers".

-design your levels and set pieces so that you can never see anything of consequence in the distance and hallways have detours in the middle of them to cut draw distance
Actually proper games tend to create these things at distance as well, as long as there is not a compelling reason not to.

-limit usage of foliage and water
There is no reason to limit foliage in 3D. No reason at all. Foliage generates more content, thus it looks less empty. So it's actually important for 3D to create waterfalls, foliage and other stuff.

The only place this ends up saving you time is when it comes to animation and characters that change their appearance by more than a palette swap. Creating the 2D equipment system that blizzard did for Diablo 2 is complicated and prone to small errors.
Creation of proper clothing is computationally expensive in both cases. (The same can be said about hair.) 2D clothing can force CPU time on developer computers. Properly done 3D clothing looks more cute. Look for example on Two Worlds 2, it had great clothing.
You heard it from Raghar first guys, only backward game developers use level editors!

Also, foliage and waterfalls are computationally free!:retarded:

I'm not going to respond to each of your points because I have the feeling I'm being trolled.
 

Commissar Draco

Codexia Comrade Colonel Commissar
Patron
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
20,856
Location
Привислинский край
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Divinity: Original Sin 2
3D Graphics ------------------------------------> Streamlining and Moar Accessibility unless Your Niche market can foot the bill:

n 2000 a 12 to 36 month development project was funded by a publisher for US$1M–3M.[58] Additionally, $250k–1.5M were spent on marketing and sales development.[59] In 2001, over 3000 games were released for PC; and from about 100 games turning profit only about 50 made significant profit.[58] In the early 2000s it became increasingly common to use middleware game engines, such as Quake engine or Unreal engine.[60]
In 2005, a mainstream console video game cost from US$3M to $6M to develop. Some games cost as much as $20M to develop.[r 8] In 2006 the profit from a console game sold at retail was divided among parties of distribution chain as follows: developer (13%), publisher (32%), retail (32%), manufacturer (5%), console royalty (18%).[32] In 2008 a developer would retain around 17% of retail price and around 85% if sold online.[r 1]

Don't expect games funded according to 2002 prices to look like new FPS from 2012... and expect it will be hijacked by big Publishers the moment it will bring good profit leading us back to current AAA games model. in fact if not the commercial sucess of games like Diablo we would have genre for ourselfs... not all genres molded into FPS pop/whack amole we have now.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
-make sure the models fit polygon restrictions
-adhere to texture size restrictions

That's really the only thing that matters when it comes to "3d looks better than 2d lol". A 2d render can be made from a scene of pretty much infinite detail and complexity. Realtime 3d has to obey harsh restrictions unless it intends to fry your GPU. These restrictions somewhat relaxed since the ridiculously butt-ugly days of Quake 1, but they are still there.
 

Kahlis

Cipher
Joined
Jun 23, 2012
Messages
408
Old 3D games are awesome. Brush-based architecture drove people to develop so many surreal settings, perhaps low in detail but adequate enough given the standards of the time. I always loved when various historical or realistic settings were created in old games like Quake or Half-Life, because there was a certain sleepy, impressionistic quality to them. Emphasis on big details, lighting and mood.






What the hell do people do to detail their maps now? Add more texture maps? Add bloom? Add grunge and clutter models everywhere? Okay, I suppose that's more an issue of the industry itself. But as level design shifts towards being increasingly model-based, it becomes increasingly difficult for modders to make truly ambitious projects.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
What can 3D engine offer to RPG what 2D can't? Destructable environment (strange that you can destroy doors with fireballs in Arcanum but not in Skyrim, huh?) or projectile mechanics come to mind, but that's more realm of simulation - TBS or RTS. Modding? Yeah, maybe. Going down the stairs or up the stairs (superior positioning using obstacles and terrain levels)? 2D games had that.

I don't mind to see Silent Storm with swords and magic though.
3D exploration (the only meaningful form of exploration, basically).

Occlusion and elevation handling without additional dedicated mechanics.

Projectile weapons with realistic ranges that don't result in tedious gameplay.

Line of sight handling without dedicated GUI clutter.

Continuous environments with heavy z axis.

Small items and visual cues displayed directly in the gameworld, without resorting to obvious clues such as hotspots.

Ability to do circumstance based to-hit and to-hit for individual parts of entities along with DF-esque damage model with minimum specialized mechanics.

Ability to use physical engine for gameplay mechanics.

Edit:
Avoiding problems with objects occluded by scenery.
 

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,499
You heard it from Raghar first guys, only backward game developers use level editors!

Also, foliage and waterfalls are computationally free!:retarded:

I'm not going to respond to each of your points because I have the feeling I'm being trolled.

Well I played FTL until 7 in morning. The above post was consequence, but the points are valid.

I never said they are computationally free, but they do save work hours in development, and they are not much more computationally expensive than proper hair implementation.

I do stand behind claim that only backward developers are using level editors. I spend a lot of time with research of a large seamless worlds, and there is no need for levels, or level editors. If you want loading screens, be my guest, but the correctly made game has only one loading screen, on start, and that's it.
 

made

Arcane
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
5,130
Location
Germany
What can 3D engine offer to RPG what 2D can't?
3D exploration (the only meaningful form of exploration, basically).
Say what? Some of the best exploration-centric RPGs were 2D.

Continuous environments with heavy z axis.
What games actually take advantage of this? With the notable exception of Dark Souls recently I can't recall a single one. Div2 maybe.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
Say what? Some of the best exploration-centric RPGs were 2D.
Such as?

What games actually take advantage of this? With the notable exception of Dark Souls recently I can't recall a single one. Div2 maybe.
Way too few games actually take advantage of this, especially RPGs. Of course, I could list, say, Morrowind, Daggerfall, Divinity 2, Deus Ex (both), and quite a few straight FPS games, hell, even Skyrim, but I'd be answering the wrong question.

The right question is "which games could have actually taken advantage of this?" and the list is long.

1. *Any* game at least partially taking place in a city, especially one allowing you to play stealthy characters and one built around concept of freedom of approach - there are roofscapes to explore and use as access or escape routes, as well as sniping posts with rifle or bow, there are windows to gain entry or shoot through and so on.
Take Arcanum for example - you know what it really lacked? Dense urban landscape of several story tall XIX century like buildings.
Tarant, often claimed to be such an awesome city, sucked. Fucking. Balls. Yes it might have had a lot of content, but it was also a collection of wide, flat, single story buildings with a lot of wide spaces in between - almost exact opposite of a Victorian city, it also didn't even occupy such a large area, it was just a bitch to walk across. Of course, having multi-story buildings in the same worldspace as exteriors would be a fucking disaster in an isometric 2D engine because it would create visual clusterfuck of stuff occluding other stuff.
Take BG1's Baldur's Gate, a gorgeous, but noninteractive background of a city cut-up into arbitrary loading zones. A city where you can play a rogue but can't do this in a game where you can't do this.

2. *Any* game featuring combat in pretty much *any* scenery you could deem impressive that isn't just an inaccessible backdrop. Battling near an awesomed ruined gate? Whacking cultists in a temple with hugeass idol? Duking it out in a tall, open staircase or multi-story hall or even any large space with supportive beams under the ceiling? Why not climb it and rain death from above?

Old 3D games are awesome. Brush-based architecture drove people to develop so many surreal settings, perhaps low in detail but adequate enough given the standards of the time. I always loved when various historical or realistic settings were created in old games like Quake or Half-Life, because there was a certain sleepy, impressionistic quality to them. Emphasis on big details, lighting and mood.






What the hell do people do to detail their maps now? Add more texture maps? Add bloom? Add grunge and clutter models everywhere? Okay, I suppose that's more an issue of the industry itself. But as level design shifts towards being increasingly model-based, it becomes increasingly difficult for modders to make truly ambitious projects.
:bro: but I'll withdraw it and smite you with my mighty cock if you don't edit your post to add Unreal.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
FeelTheRads said:
You proved shit. You still have to show me a 3D game that has the level of detail of IWD.
You mean like any 3D game I used as an example thus far?

IWD looks even worse than Bioware IE games FYI.

Someone posted this original art for Icewind Dale on the P:E forums, I actually had to get back to this: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60512-2d-isometric-graphics-warning-large-pictures/

Maximize and scroll around in it.

icewind-dale-wyrms-tooth.jpg


Also that STASIS guy really can into 2D/prerendered art:

feb2012-3.jpg

Parking-Lot-1.jpg

RAILWAY-STATION.jpg





He also had some Wasteland 2 concepts a while back: http://www.stasisgame.com/wasteland-ideas/

Can only reiterate my glee that Obisidian isn't going with real-time 3D on this one like Wasteland but that they'll use high-res prerendered backgrounds :P
 

made

Arcane
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
5,130
Location
Germany
Say what? Some of the best exploration-centric RPGs were 2D.
Such as?
Ultima, naturally. M&M as well. Div1 for a more recent example.

The right question is "which games could have actually taken advantage of this?" and the list is long.
Indeed. The most obvious benefit of going full 3D - ie. actually using that third dimension in a meaningful way - is woefully underused in the genre. I'm not keen to start fanboying over DS again, but that's one game that takes full advantage of it in its level design. You should play it. It has dragons.
 

shihonage

Subscribe to my OnlyFans
Patron
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
7,157
Location
location, location
Bubbles In Memoria
THE GAME is much harder to make than a decision between renderers or even the task of producing graphics assets for whatever renderer you choose.

When you have a game before you, nobody cares, truly, in the depths of their hearts, if the renderer is 2D or 3D. Really.

If Fallout 3 was as creatively and visually bankrupt in isometric 2D, or Fallout 1 used Van Buren renderer, I don't think the Codex consensus on those games would change much - and for good reason.
 

Mother Russia

Andhaira
Andhaira
Dumbfuck Queued
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
3,876
Codex 2013
Tile Based engines are the best. Sprites Rawk. Two reasons:

-Not as fugly as ugly 3d
-Not completely static like 2d. You can actually affect the environment. That is a huge plus.

That said, Legend of Grimrock has a completely 3D engine and it looks gorgeous. So maybe 3D is getting somewhere in the beauty department.
 

Raapys

Arcane
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
4,960
That may be true, but whether it's first/third-person or iso/top-down certainly matters, and 2D kinda limits you to the latter while most gamers seem to prefer the former.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
Ultima, naturally. M&M as well.
Ok, I can agree that you can make large scale exploration work in 2D titles provided very large map size and no way to know their bounds. This mode of exploration is independent of 2D/3D, but can't work in something like Infinity Engine with its obviously bounded maps and worldspace consisting of tiling of individual locations. There is simply nowhere for stuff to be found to hide, apart from pixelhuntastic hotspots that are shitty design decision if you can't highlight them via key, and trivial if you can.

Still, overall exploration is better in 3D titles, because it's also non-trivial even within confined locations, whereas in 2D it then boils down to just exhaustive search of the location map. For confined 3D location exhaustive search may be simply unfeasible, because not only does the difficulty of simple traversal increase with cube, rather than square of location's dimensions, but with different ways to move around you're not just traversing simple x-dimensional map any more, but you have to traverse it using restricted movement. For example you can't just float up or down or across chasms (unless you have a spell or trinket, but then it's limited by resource or availability).

It can also involve not just physical dimensions, but scale and orientation - by providing objects or clues at different scales (something fake 3D blobbers can emulate with some degree of success) and by providing stuff that can only be noticed at specific locations and angles respectively.

BTW: M&M isn't actually 2D. It's fake 3D, but this still allows for many strengths of an actual 3D FPP, albeit in a poor man's version.
Just look at Wizardry and how naturally can you transit such game to full 3D without major changes to its formula.

In any case:

My personal favourites in terms of exploration (in cRPGs) would be Morrowind and Deus Ex.
My personal anti-favourite would be BG.

Indeed. The most obvious benefit of going full 3D - ie. actually using that third dimension in a meaningful way - is woefully underused in the genre.
It's underused in all genres but cRPG genre is probably the worst in this regard. Even derpy next-gen developers still think too much in PnP terms which no longer apply to a completely different medium.

I'm not keen to start fanboying over DS again, but that's one game that takes full advantage of it in its level design. You should play it. It has dragons.
But can you befriend/become/fuck* a dragon in it?


*)
:troll:
Not really interested in last one, actually.
 

Klarion

Arcane
Joined
Oct 10, 2014
Messages
1,864,550
Location
Stonekeep
3D is waaaay better than 2D.
2D used to look better but today with advancement of 3D, it's not much better looking.
example of a beatiful 3D engine, D:OS:
5r91zcf.jpg


In 2D games, like POE, you can't see what's behind this building and when your characters come there they're hidden behind the wall.. so retarded:
eternity17.jpg


So yeah, my conclusion would be, in codex's dictionary, if you're a retarded fucktard who prefer looks over gameplay then I guess isometric 2D is for you(as are all Biothesda games made post 2005.), but if you're a hardcore RPG player like I am, you'll appreciate the gameplay more than looks.
Cheers!
:gets_ready_for_shitstorm:
 

Vikter

Learned
Patron
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
148
Location
Brazil
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
I think the sweet spot is 3D models in pre-rendered 2D environments looks amazing, like in PoE. The bad thing is: you lose control over the camera.
That means combat can be annoying when you have buildings in the map, so dungeons can't have too many objects not in corners.
But at the same time, it can look soooo good, and 3D models don't even need to be too detailed. It should be good for indie developers without a high budget.
 

Tigranes

Arcane
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
10,350
I think people can look at the screenshots themselves and see what is the clear winner.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,048
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Personally, I really like 2.5D for party-based games, and first person 3D for single character games.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom