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.

Who would like the CSG to be 2d or non-rotatable?

I would prefer the new CSG to have the following perspective-

  • Full 3d with rotating camera (AoD and NWN)

  • 2d (i.e. Fallout), Hybrid (ToEE, PoE), or fixed camera 3d (D:OS)


Results are only viewable after voting.

epeli

Arcane
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
719
I have a hunch that most of the people who want 2D and bash 3D don't actually care about that distinction. They just want fixed isometric camera projection instead of perspective projection.

Would be neat if you could keep the possibility for supporting fixed isometric camera projection in mind when designing CSG map layouts. Setting up orthographic camera won't take more than few minutes in UE4, so please experiment early on. If it works out well, give us a choice between fixed isometric projection and freely rotatable perspective projection. Default to whichever you find works better.
 

Elhoim

Iron Tower Studio
Developer
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
2,878
Location
San Isidro, Argentina
I have a hunch that most of the people who want 2D and bash 3D don't actually care about that distinction. They just want fixed isometric camera projection instead of perspective projection.

Would be neat if you could keep the possibility for supporting fixed isometric camera projection in mind when designing CSG map layouts. Setting up orthographic camera won't take more than few minutes in UE4, so please experiment early on. If it works out well, give us a choice between fixed isometric projection and freely rotatable perspective projection. Default to whichever you find works better.

The main issue for that right now is that we don't have a system that hides or makes the meshes covering the player transparent (really liked the effect in D:OS, especially from the technical side. I honestly have no idea how they achieved it).
 

Roqua

Prospernaut
Dumbfuck Repressed Homosexual In My Safe Space
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
4,130
Location
YES!
2D is truly a lost art. Most up and coming artists in video games have switched to or started in 3D a long time ago. And it's because that's how most of the games are being played, there are a ton of free tools, and it's, quite frankly, much easier to learn and be effective at the beginning.
.

I thank you for the explanation but if it is a lost art why are so many 2d games being made by 1 or 3 people teams that look pretty good. Even if you go back to before the current resurgence games like the Inquisitor did and do look good, and that was a one person team. You have the Coles explaining in great detail how switching to 3d to make the game better was so costly versus their original 2d plan.

Maybe we are talking about different kinds of 2d?
Well, Underrail has 2D art. It’s not as gorgeous as PoE, but it is good. They didn’t have a bunch of artists too.

Styg is literally a genius. Not that I believe that his game is perfect, it isn't, but he is one of those rare cases that transcend normality. There are very few individuals who make make alone something that, often, not even entire teams can do. Another one-of-a-kind game like that is "Dust: An Elysian Tail", when we speak of art alone, it was just one guy.

If we use the exception as a rule, nothing will ever make sense. How many other "Stygs" you see out there?


Well said, I have nothing to add. Unfortunately, writing in English is something that I don't have much patience to do, and I certainly wouldn't be able to express myself as clearly and concisely as that.

Are all the 2d game makers geniuses? Omega Syndrome looked better than Underrail and I don't recall anyone calling the guy who made that a genius. What about Eschalon, Inquisitor, and literally a million other examples? Soldak, etc. It literally goes on and on and on.

And you have yet to provide one name of one game when you said steam is chock full o' them.

I have a hunch that most of the people who want 2D and bash 3D don't actually care about that distinction. They just want fixed isometric camera projection instead of perspective projection.

Would be neat if you could keep the possibility for supporting fixed isometric camera projection in mind when designing CSG map layouts. Setting up orthographic camera won't take more than few minutes in UE4, so please experiment early on. If it works out well, give us a choice between fixed isometric projection and freely rotatable perspective projection. Default to whichever you find works better.

Correct. It is about the hassle of fucking with a camera versus not. Or the game being a hassle to play versus not. Some 3d rotatable games aren't that bad, like the new XCOM, or even the WL2 DC since it defaults to a plabe that works and rotates in fixed increments. Some games it is a hassle, especially when I can't rebind the keys how I want them for it to work sensibly for me. Nothing is worse than having to relearn how to ride a bike when you start a new game. I want to learn new systems, not play fuck around with the fucking camera.

I have a hunch that most of the people who want 2D and bash 3D don't actually care about that distinction. They just want fixed isometric camera projection instead of perspective projection.

Would be neat if you could keep the possibility for supporting fixed isometric camera projection in mind when designing CSG map layouts. Setting up orthographic camera won't take more than few minutes in UE4, so please experiment early on. If it works out well, give us a choice between fixed isometric projection and freely rotatable perspective projection. Default to whichever you find works better.

The main issue for that right now is that we don't have a system that hides or makes the meshes covering the player transparent (really liked the effect in D:OS, especially from the technical side. I honestly have no idea how they achieved it).

This is something I can understand. If the choice is rotatable cameras that are less of a hassle for the player than not being able to see their character or items or anything behind blocking objects it would be the lesser of two evils.

VD - I didn't mean to imply AoD is not good looking as it is and it is obvious a lot of hard work and love went into the art. I just think the old 2d artwork is better looking to me. I like a certain kind of graphics and I can't really explain why a lot of times. To this day I am impressed by a lot of the graphics in Wiz8. Like the marble in the Braffit's temple and how it reflects. Or how sharp the corridors look inside buildings. it is just sharp and looks clear and good. I like whatever the Beamdog people did with the new patch to the graphics of BG, it just looks clearer and sharper to me. Another game that impressed me graphics wise is Ragnarok Online 2. I don't know why, it just does. It looks sharp, and bright and clear. Another that jumps out in my mind, especially for being a desert setting (for how I started at least with the barbarian guy) is Shadows: Heretic Kingdom. That is probably the desert graphics I like the most out of any game I played. For the same reasons - sharp and clear and bright. Now, for some reason the graphics everyone else loves and think are the best I tend to not find that appealing. But I honestly do not see a difference between SD and HD on TV besides HD looks like everything was lighted the way after school specials were lighted when I was a kid.
 

Mustawd

Guest
I thank you for the explanation but if it is a lost art why are so many 2d games being made by 1 or 3 people teams that look pretty good.

Maybe we are talking about different kinds of 2d?

We might be. I'm talking about well done 2D art in an isometric perspective with a high quality of backgrounds, sprites, and animations. One could say it's almost a painterly style. Something that requires knowledge of perspective to make things read as 3D due to the isometric view. As much crap as I give the IE games, it has some of the best executed art of that type of RPG.

A lot of the top 2D games being made are not really RPGs. We're talking tons and tons of platform games. And while some of these look amazing due to their backgrounds (see below), they have some distinct advantages over an isometric 2D rpg. For one, the animations only need the side profile perspective. Even in bullet hell games, like Binding of Issac, they don't offer more than a few views, and even then it's very samey animation.

2826048-2015030712413907.jpg


Compare that to a BG game in which you have to animate various characters from behind, the side, the front, and even diagonals. And don't forget that you need to animate them fighting in melee, ranged weapons, spellcasting, taking consumables, picking up objects (maybe?), lockpicking stuff (maybe), or anything miscellanous that takes up different movements.

Second, because it's a very flat aesthetic, many of these games have a very comic book, anime, animated movie look to them. One of the earliest successes, Super Meat Boy, is a perfect example. Due to the style, there's not much shading or rendering textures. Many of the forms themselves are minimalist in nature with a few lines here and there. So you can iterate quickly and a lot more easily than an artist trying to make something in 2D look more 3D or rendered.

An example in recent RPGs is something like the Banner Saga and to a lesser extent NEO Scavenger. Both use minimalist graphics. Even then, I bet you the Banner Saga Art budget was pretty damn big on a relative scale.


Even if you go back to before the current resurgence games like the Inquisitor did and do look good, and that was a one person team. You have the Coles explaining in great detail how switching to 3d to make the game better was so costly versus their original 2d plan.


For one, I don't believe a damn thing the Coles say when it comes to budgeting. So let's just get that out of the way and put that aside.


Secondly, wasn't Inquisitor developed by Cinemax game studio? Was it really a one person effort? Regardless, I personally don't find the art all that bad, but it's hardly inspired or on par with some better efforts. For you and I, "looks pretty good", might be more than enough. But games have to sell, and a 2D game nowadays has to have good art direction in order to evoke a theme. A lot of Inquisitor is pretty damn generic. There are some good examples of good backgrounds, but a lot of the environment are just grays, washed out greens, and various browns. There's little variation in a variety of the areas. Like I said, there are a few places where the art was very nice though.

Another issue with that game is that a lot of the assets just seemed plopped into the environment, with no sense of space or logic. And it also had its high share of repetitive assets.

Besides, wasn't it in development for like 10 years? I mean that's a pretty crappy example for 2D if it was.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Telengard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
1,621
Location
The end of every place
It breaks down a bit like this:

Originally, 3d was praised to be less expensive than 2d. And as long as 1) You're not doing R&D to develop new 3d assets and 2) you keep things basic and can re-use your 3d assets (oak cabinets, oak cabinets everywhere), that holds true. Trouble was for someone like Sierra is they weren't built out for a 3d pipeline, so they have to hire and/or retrain to a 3d team, they needed new production tools, and (since Sierra liked to be cutting edge) lots of new R&D. That's all expenses that don't necessary show on the game production cost timeline, but they all stack onto expenses, and they can add up really fast. Conversion is cost. And it's a cost that a lot of 2d companies collapsed over. The 3d production pipeline was cheaper, but getting the pipeline up and running wasn't always so simple and cost-effective. But eventually everyone converted, or died. And things were cheaper, for a while.

In recent years, though, 3d production has lost those things that made it cheap, such as re-using art-assets, simple environment construction, few animations, etc. No longer are box rooms with textured walls considered acceptable. Because as it turned out, after the novelty of 3d wore off, the public wanted unique environments and unique animations and lots of detail in their surroundings - same as they wanted in their 2d games. Shocker. So, 3d production began needing larger and larger staffs to accommodate the ever-increasing amount of detail, which means productions costs skyrocketing. Long story short, these days if you have a dedicated art staff and are doing a game with a lot of detail, 2d has become way cheaper than 3d. Indie companies don't have art staffs, though, they have an art person - maybe. Thus making it difficult to produce the amount of 2d product necessary to make an rpg with. As it was in the past, they can produce way more 3d content for the same price, long as they recycle assets. Which they can do as long as their chosen audience is willing to suffer the lack of detail.
 

Mustawd

Guest
Long story short, these days if you have a dedicated art staff and are doing a game with a lot of detail, 2d has become way cheaper than 3d. Indie companies don't have art staffs, though, they have an art person - maybe. Thus making it difficult to produce the amount of 2d product necessary to make an rpg with. As it was in the past, they can produce way more 3d content for the same price, long as they recycle assets. Which they can do as long as their chosen audience is willing to suffer the lack of detail.


Yes, but this is in the context of CSG. And as you mentioned, ITS is an indie. In addition, they are leaning towards using an engine, UE4, which is not necessarily 2D friendly. IIRC, it doesn't even have a natural orthographic view (actually, that might be another version of UE?).

At the end of the day, something like the new Spiderweb Software games are probably cheaper to make than what ITS is going for. But ITS is also probably trying to get an overall better aesthetic than that. And if you want to push it to something a lot more polished, it takes serious 2D artists, with actual skills other than being able to draw cartoon-ish type portraits and sprites.

Besides, his team is already experienced in working in 3D. It'd be even more expensive and/or difficult logistically to switch over at this point if you ask me.
 

Roqua

Prospernaut
Dumbfuck Repressed Homosexual In My Safe Space
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
4,130
Location
YES!
[
Compare that to a BG game in which you have to animate various characters from behind, the side, the front, and even diagonals.


For one, I don't believe a damn thing the Coles say when it comes to budgeting. .

BG was pretty top graphics for the time. And you are considering really high production value 2d to what Iron tower can do 3d comparatively. If lighting costs a ton, remove lighting, etc. Also, nothing wrong with 2d backgrounds and 3d models like ToEE and probably PoE I think. What is Soldak's considered? Is it 2.5d?

Also, I can't say anything bad about the Coles. I went nuts and became a little entrepreneur to get money to buy my own computer as a kid just for the original Quest for Glory (was Hero's Quest at the time). That game is still amazing and one of the only games or series where I not only loved exploring but wanted more. For some reason typing in words and trying shit is still fun for me in that game. I still found new things last time I played. I think the rpg-adventure type games lost a lot when it went to selectable options in dialogues. Heroine's Quest and that other crpg adventure game with the roguish character where both really good, but not as good as QfG 1 and 2. Same for the Claymation remake of QfG 1 with the selectable dialogues, or QfG 3-5 for the same reason. I have no idea how I learned about the Razzle Dazzle Root Beer cheat but it is burned into my brain.

It breaks down a bit like this:

Originally, 3d was praised to be less expensive than 2d. And as long as 1) You're not doing R&D to develop new 3d assets and 2) you keep things basic and can re-use your 3d assets (oak cabinets, oak cabinets everywhere), that holds true. Trouble was for someone like Sierra is they weren't built out for a 3d pipeline, so they have to hire and/or retrain to a 3d team, they needed new production tools, and (since Sierra liked to be cutting edge) lots of new R&D. That's all expenses that don't necessary show on the game production cost timeline, but they all stack onto expenses, and they can add up really fast. Conversion is cost. And it's a cost that a lot of 2d companies collapsed over. The 3d production pipeline was cheaper, but getting the pipeline up and running wasn't always so simple and cost-effective. But eventually everyone converted, or died. And things were cheaper, for a while.

In recent years, though, 3d production has lost those things that made it cheap, such as re-using art-assets, simple environment construction, few animations, etc. No longer are box rooms with textured walls considered acceptable. Because as it turned out, after the novelty of 3d wore off, the public wanted unique environments and unique animations and lots of detail in their surroundings - same as they wanted in their 2d games. Shocker. So, 3d production began needing larger and larger staffs to accommodate the ever-increasing amount of detail, which means productions costs skyrocketing. Long story short, these days if you have a dedicated art staff and are doing a game with a lot of detail, 2d has become way cheaper than 3d. Indie companies don't have art staffs, though, they have an art person - maybe. Thus making it difficult to produce the amount of 2d product necessary to make an rpg with. As it was in the past, they can produce way more 3d content for the same price, long as they recycle assets. Which they can do as long as their chosen audience is willing to suffer the lack of detail.

Thanks. That is a great explanation and I appreciate it. In your opinion, how much money and effort does it take to make graphics to the quality as seen in The Pit - https://af.gog.com/game/sword_of_the_stars_the_pit_the_pilgrim?as=1649904300

which I consider on the lower end of good versus something like this (Balrum) http://store.steampowered.com/app/424250/

which I think is middle good, versus something I think is at the high end of what a small team can do (Space Rogue) http://store.steampowered.com/app/364300
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mustawd

Guest
BG was pretty top graphics for the time. And you are considering really high production value 2d to what Iron tower can do 3d comparatively.

Fair point. I assumed that's what you were talking about. Not the Spiderweb Software type of quality.

EDIT: Of which I'm a big fan of personally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mustawd

Guest
Care to weigh in on experience with 2D artists, MRY or Charles-cgr? Cheaper/more expensive vs 3D for the same type of quality? Easy/Hard to work with?
 

MRY

Wormwood Studios
Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
5,703
Location
California
Surely this is a person-by-person thing. I don't imagine that all 2D artists or all 3D artists fit a certain mold.
 

Telengard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
1,621
Location
The end of every place
Thanks. That is a great explanation and I appreciate it. In your opinion, how much money and effort does it take to make graphics to the quality as seen in The Pit - https://af.gog.com/game/sword_of_the_stars_the_pit_the_pilgrim?as=1649904300

which I consider on the lower end of good versus something like this (Balrum) http://store.steampowered.com/app/424250/

which I think is middle good, versus something I think is at the high end of what a small team can do (Space Rogue) http://store.steampowered.com/app/364300

All of my numbers will be outdated, since I haven't hired an artist in donkey's years. However, the trick is not the price quote one can get a drawing for anyways, but wrestling an artist down to do multiple pieces in just the way you want without actually hiring them permanently. Artists are flaky. Not as flaky as writers, but pretty flaky. While outsource artwork at The Pit level is pretty cheap, with (badly outdated numbers and talking a serious average here) line drawings being $50, while box/book/splash screen cover shots (large with detailed color) from $500-$1000. And then inner artwork that isn't line drawings being in between, ranged depending on size and detail and quality/reputation of artist. That would technically get you The Pit, at least back when. But it's really tough to get a lot of consistent work doing it that way. Far better to have an art lead and outsource only when you have to, and VD quoted an accurate number for a permanent hire.

The total price thus depends on how deep the line of art in The Pit goes (which I don't know), because the number of unique assets is what is crucial. That said, blowing through $10,000 can happen faster than you can blink.

EDIT: I will also add, if you can nab a talented college grad and hire them, you could get any of those 3 games done for much less, and it would be much the same price no matter which since they're a newb. But getting a talented newb with a decent work ethic that isn't snapped up by some large company is another kind of ordeal entirely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Telengard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
1,621
Location
The end of every place
Long story short, these days if you have a dedicated art staff and are doing a game with a lot of detail, 2d has become way cheaper than 3d. Indie companies don't have art staffs, though, they have an art person - maybe. Thus making it difficult to produce the amount of 2d product necessary to make an rpg with. As it was in the past, they can produce way more 3d content for the same price, long as they recycle assets. Which they can do as long as their chosen audience is willing to suffer the lack of detail.


Yes, but this is in the context of CSG. And as you mentioned, ITS is an indie. In addition, they are leaning towards using an engine, UE4, which is not necessarily 2D friendly. IIRC, it doesn't even have a natural orthographic view (actually, that might be another version of UE?).

At the end of the day, something like the new Spiderweb Software games are probably cheaper to make than what ITS is going for. But ITS is also probably trying to get an overall better aesthetic than that. And if you want to push it to something a lot more polished, it takes serious 2D artists, with actual skills other than being able to draw cartoon-ish type portraits and sprites.

Besides, his team is already experienced in working in 3D. It'd be even more expensive and/or difficult logistically to switch over at this point if you ask me.
I was agreeing with you. As an indie with 1.5 artists, ITS can produce way more 3d content for the same price than they can 2d content. Especially since the particular audience that VD is going for doesn't care (that much) about lots of re-used art assets.*

I was more illustrating why things were different for Sierra. ie, it was a different time with different production issues than exist today.


* Except hair models, of course. The measure of potential success of an RPG is, after all, directly proportional to the number of unique hair models.
 

Kos_Koa

Iron Tower Studio
Developer
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
315
If I had a choice I would love to make a 2D game, but like many have already mentioned it's a production more suited for a larger team and a bigger budget. Keep in mind that 3D assets are used heavily in 2D games like PoE and Stasis. Mustawd nailed it when he wrote:

"Think about this, to be a good 2d artist you need to understand lighting inside and out, you need to understand perspective (along with all other types of visual distortions, depending on the specific look you want to achieve), you need a fuck ton of hours of practice just to get your dexterity to a level where you can get your hand to move how you want it, and you need to learn photoshop or gimp or some other program well enough to not just use the software as intended, but many times know it so well that you meed to find tricks in order to make it look like an actual painting.
...
This is just scratching the surface. It's a shitload of issues that 3d artists can find ways to get around. Posing? Who cares, the model is already created. I can pose him how I want. Lighting? Oh cool, the software has a light renderer. Animation? Meh, I'll take video of myself and just record the model doing the same thing (not easy but hardly needing as much skill in animation as a 2d artist). Textures? Oh, no need to actually learn it right now, lemme just use a pre-existing texture. Perspective? Software does it all for me."


A 3D artist (skilled in their own right) is not required to truly understand the foundations of art (lighting, perspective, anatomy, etc) to be able to create quality work, since much of the program provides the foundations for them. Keep in mind that I know master level 3D artist who study sculpting, anatomy, color theory, etc. So there are incredibly skilled 3D artists (both in knowledge and execution), but they are few and far between.

It's also rare to have an artist who is proficient in environments, characters, vehicles, guns, creatures, graphic design, illustrations, etc. In general, artist tend to be proficient in a few things, considering that being decent in just one subject, like character design, is hard enough as it is. For example if you browse the "Picks" tab on Artstation and select the first 3 character concept thumbnails and the first 3 environment thumbnails, you'll see how much crossover an artist typically has.

https://www.artstation.com/artist/scholes
https://www.artstation.com/artist/zabrocki
https://www.artstation.com/artist/anooj

https://www.artstation.com/artist/edwarddelandre
https://www.artstation.com/artist/sarunas
https://www.artstation.com/artist/merkymerx

It's not a hard and fast rule, but if someone intends to get real skilled at what they do, they tend to specialize. My work covers a spectrum of subjects (due to being part of a small team), but I produce varying degrees that range from mediocre to decent. I even tried to get some things off my plate for CSG so I can better focus on other areas more in my specialty (which will hopefully allow the time to give CSG a decent art direction), which might or might not bite us in the ass. We'll see.
 
Last edited:

Roqua

Prospernaut
Dumbfuck Repressed Homosexual In My Safe Space
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
4,130
Location
YES!
Do you artists get mad when people use the portraits you make for a game in a portrait mod pack for another game? Or is that considered a compliment in the art world?

Has anyone else ever wondered why no one ever came up with a portrait mod pack of just the work of Norman Rockwell and Andy Worhal?
 

Mustawd

Guest
Do you artists get mad when people use the portraits you make for a game in a portrait mod pack for another game? Or is that considered a compliment in the art world?

I think it all depends on what you're making them for. If you are in the business of making good quality fantasy portraits, and someone uses them for a publicly disseminated mod pack? Yeah, that'd piss me off a bit. I mean, portraits take a lot of work to make 'em look good. And you typically post your best stuff online.

But another part of me feels like you should take it like it's good advertisement. And you should limit how many you put out there. At least if you have any business sense. For example, maybe put out 3 really high quality ones. What is someone going to do with three? Especially if they are in a distinct style? On the other hand, if they like the three they might commission 4 or 5 more. And then you have a bit more business.

It's tough. If things are constantly ripped off and there is no need to commission your work, then it's difficult to make a living (IF that is what your business model is). Personally, I think it's best to make a name for yourself and be associated with good mod packs. Then your stuff can be widely disseminated and praised. Once you get some name recognition you can get some quality free lance work. But most of the time, deviant art 'tards are too young and inexperienced to think that far ahead.
 

Surf Solar

cannot into womynz
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
8,827
I havent played as much AoD as I wanted, because I hate fighting the camera in games :/

A 3d game with atleast a fixed camera could work. Prerendering maps would also be nice, since you can make the enviroments more beautiful by painting over and dont have to care for polygoncount etc. I too used this approach and it wasnt much slower than the barebones 3d approach.
 
Self-Ejected

Excidium II

Self-Ejected
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
1,866,227
Location
Third World
I have a hunch that most of the people who want 2D and bash 3D don't actually care about that distinction. They just want fixed isometric camera projection instead of perspective projection.

Would be neat if you could keep the possibility for supporting fixed isometric camera projection in mind when designing CSG map layouts. Setting up orthographic camera won't take more than few minutes in UE4, so please experiment early on. If it works out well, give us a choice between fixed isometric projection and freely rotatable perspective projection. Default to whichever you find works better.
:salute:

I mainly prefer 2D just to avoid perspective projection and camera hell. I don't really care if the assets are drawn 2D or if created from 3D art.
 

Charles-cgr

OlderBytes
Developer
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
984
Project: Eternity
Care to weigh in on experience with 2D artists, MRY or Charles-cgr? Cheaper/more expensive vs 3D for the same type of quality? Easy/Hard to work with?

I can't really say, as I don't do, or have any 3D done. But I imagine 3D costs have been on a constant rise with capabilities in poly count pretty much enabling photorealism. And it is very hard to make low poly look good. So I'm sticking with 2D, but it does have its limits. Once a model is created you can animate it any which way whereas a 2D asset needs to be redrawn. So I'd say it dépends on the level of quality you accept, and how much animation you require. An interesting question for me as I have hundreds of unanimated monsters in Sovereign, but the lack of animation restricts potential player base whereas Grimrock clones (my competition) tend to have small bestiaries with all sorts of animations (dying, hitting, casting, taking a hit...). Grimrock had 16 monsters if I recall.
 
Self-Ejected

Excidium II

Self-Ejected
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
1,866,227
Location
Third World
I think it depends entirely on the ability of the artists and the level of fidelity. Some people have better workflow with 2D others with 3D, what the team's artists are best with is what they should go for.

Once a model is created you can animate it any which way whereas a 2D asset needs to be redrawn.
This depends on approach. There's 2D animations that are done with rigging instead of sprite sheets.

Also you can get away with very little animation if you make the transition more dynamic by using effects and the camera, see Darkest Dungeon for example.
 
Last edited:

Tigranes

Arcane
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
10,350
As with everything else in, well, the universe, you can never sit down and say "what looks better? OK, let's go with that." If we could, then obviously fixed 2D with painted backgrounds beats 3D about 95% of the time. Given reality, and given how artistic style and visuals plays a very minor role in the appeal of a game like AOD, I can deal with either.

Obviously, if you do 3D, try not to make camera rotation necessary, since cameras so often become wonky. I was OK with AOD's, but it did go crazy in places like Ganezzar (which really shouldn't have been designed like that given the camera).
 

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