Game News Project Eternity Kickstarter Update #49: Prototype Demo

[Jasede]

Lossless? How come they didn't use it in BG then? Would it have made loading times even slower?

 

[Duraframe300]

Lossless? How come they didn't use it in BG then? Would it have made loading times even slower?

Because size.

 

[tuluse]

Bioware/Interplay were obviously terrible at knowing about compression. There is a reason the re-releases used 2 discs instead of 4-5.

Also, decompressing a PNG on a Pentium 166 was probably not a pleasant experience.

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

Also, decompressing a PNG on a Pentium 166 was probably not a pleasant experience.

Good guessing.
But I'd rather draw a comparison with audio files, just to show the difference.
WAVE/BMP>no decoding>Fast and lossless, but large size.
MP3/JPG>decoding>Slow, shitty, small size.
FLAC/PNG>decoding>Slow, lossless, but size is between MP3 and WAVE.
See for yourself.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Oh boy.

You just stirred the Hornets nest.

I didn't understand what I was looking at when I said that, but now I do. This engine is using Baldur's Gate rendering methods, with the addition of 3D effects. There is nothing convoluted about it.

Now watch this:

Still doesn't look anywhere as good to me as the Project Eternity Demo, but that's my personal opinion. Today Realtime 3D rendering still can't seem to emulate the crisp, sharp and detailed visuals of prerendered 2D backgrounds. The shitty bloom in that video doesn't help much either...

 

[DwarvenFood]

Chaos Chronicles looks quite great, and is 3D.

 

[Volrath]

3D means shitty camera. It's inevitable.

 

[Jaesun]

The Witchers camera was perfect.

 

[Rake]

The Witchers camera was perfect.

Camera that can work in consoles can't be perfect by default

 

[Excidium]

The witcher was never released on consoles. Though I never played on top-down so I don't know what's good about the camera. Isn't it the same engine as NWN2? What did the potatos do right that Obsidian failed?

 

[Infinitron]

The witcher was never released on consoles. Though I never played on top-down so I don't know what's good about the camera. Isn't it the same engine as NWN2? What did the potatos do right that Obsidian failed?

It is a heavily modified NWN1 engine.

"What they did right" probably has more to do with level design than the actual camera. Although making it kind of slow to move so that players wouldn't be tempted to constantly adjust their view and would just stick with the default one may have helped.

 

[tuluse]

I don't remember the Dragon Age camera being obnoxious.

 

[Rake]

Dragon Age camera wasn't bad. In fact it was one of the best i have played. Has anyone played the Witcher 1 in top-down camera? Is it good?

 

[DwarvenFood]

I found the Witcher 1 camera way better than the NWN/NWN2 or even Dragon Age 1 camera implementations.

 

[Smejki]

Lossless? How come they didn't use it in BG then? Would it have made loading times even slower?

All that is lost in weight in either losy pr lossless format must be recomputed every time you want to reproduce the original state (image or track)
bitmap is memory cosuming but helluva simple -> quick to process (under condition that there is no bottleneck for processing such amount of data)

For example: notice that when you select screnshots output format as PNG/JPG in Fraps you can experience fps drop/lag in game while BMP doesn't cause this. But it consumes many times more disk space which is unconvenient for storing.

 

[Smejki]

Dragon Age camera wasn't bad. In fact it was one of the best i have played. Has anyone played the Witcher 1 in top-down camera? Is it good?

camera in DA worked quite fine in normal regime (over the shoulder) but the top-down camera didn't work everywhere. Witcher 1's camera is ok-ish but as well as in DA it was faster and better to use over-the-shoulder when traveling.

Want really shitty camera? Play Dungeon Siege 3. (Hello, Obsidian)

 

[Rake]

Want really shitty camera? Play Dungeon Siege 3. (Hello, Obsidian)

No thanks.

 

[AngryKobold]

When it comes to isometric graphics, 3D is superior to 2D in every aspect, both technically and visually. There's one condition though: if it's done right.

I've seen no fucking isometric RPG using 3D done right. Neither technically nor visually.

That's why going for 2.5D in PE was smart decision. Expecting Obsidian (of all companies) to use full 3D properly is laughable. But obviously it wasn't the only reason, playing on nostalgia is just as important.

 

[skuphundaku]

The point is that 3D real time rendering can be done well and yes, it looks very nice too. Not to mentions it contributes heavily to good mechanics since you cab then implement more modifiers such as from terrain, heights etc better.

Agree with you on most everything there. Height maps can be simulated somewhat with bitmaps. But the customers like the look of the pre-renders, so what can you do?

Bait & switch:
Obsidian & inXile: "Remember that 2D shit we promised you overgown spermatozoa in order to pacify you? We're not doing it. Instead, we're going for the sensible approach of using a full 'isometric', adjustable camera 3D. Deal with it. "

 

[J_C]

When it comes to isometric graphics, 3D is superior to 2D in every aspect, both technically and visually. There's one condition though: if it's done right.

I've seen no fucking isometric RPG using 3D done right. Neither technically nor visually.

If you have you have never witnessed a good 3D isometric game, how do you know that isometric 3D is superior to 2D?

 

[Rake]

When it comes to isometric graphics, 3D is superior to 2D in every aspect, both technically and visually. There's one condition though: if it's done right.

I've seen no fucking isometric RPG using 3D done right. Neither technically nor visually.

If you have you have never witnessed a good 3D isometric game, how do you know that isometric 3D is superior to 2D?

Because in theory it is true. No matter than no one managed it until now, 3D enthusiasts keep pointing how "perfect" 3D is superior to"perfect" 2D
because it is 2D+.
For myself i will believe it when i see it.

 

[St. Toxic]

The two are incompatible. As for generic 2d v.s 3d, movies and photography are generally represented in 2d, meaning that if someone went through the effort we could have a picture-perfect photorealistic gaming experience with no real strain on hardware or software, while 3d still falls short of the mark. The concept isn't very popular, though. Last thing that tried it, afaik, was:

 

[Davaris]

Bait & switch:
Obsidian & inXile: "Remember that 2D shit we promised you overgown spermatozoa in order to pacify you? We're not doing it. Instead, we're going for the sensible approach of using a full 'isometric', adjustable camera 3D. Deal with it. "

 

[bhlaab]

3D is definitely better than 2D, if only because of the quicker turnaround times. But also because of the perceptible depth, more sensible collision, and dynamism

I only wish someone would learn their fucking lesson and lock the camera in place. Fully rotational just does NOT work for these types of games because shit will keep getting in the way and it is disorienting. It creates a situation where the player has to continually fiddle with something that should be imperceptible.

 

[St. Toxic]

3D is definitely better than 2D, if only because of the quicker turnaround times. But also because of the perceptible depth, more sensible collision, and dynamism

What a load of horseshit.

I only wish someone would learn their fucking lesson and lock the camera in place. Fully rotational just does NOT work for these types of games because shit will keep getting in the way and it is disorienting. It creates a situation where the player has to continually fiddle with something that should be imperceptible.

It's more like forcing the player to tolerate obstructions by locking the camera, not making the problem go away.