Confirmation that Aurora is inferior to IE

[Volrath]

I don't see how anyone could think a 10-year old isometric pre-rendered and sprite-based 2d engine could be better than a 3d one that can be upgraded easily to support DirectX, pixel shading, hardware T&L etc in games like The Witcher and NWN2. Plus, the combat was a hundred times better in NWN2 than it was in any of the IE games.

 

[DraQ]

@Annonchinil:

I don't know if you're really that retarded, or if the game was really raped into the ground by translators and you're only a bit slow. I don't really care, either way you're a stupid fuck.

However it really takes intellectually bankrupt moron to say something like this:

Oh and having no good & evil does not mean anything, we are not teenage Goths, so stop being amazed buy it.

Not only, as Darth Roxor pointed, does it help freeing the game of retarded biowarisms, but it also necessitates putting some thought into the game which, I presume, is the main factor responsible for your lack of enjoyment as it's not a game you can play with beer in one hand and your dick in another without straining your malformed ischaemic thought organ.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

Whatever, I never liked IE as an engine anyway. TOEE engine is superior to both Aurora and IE, perhaps, but between them there's not a lot of meaningful diffrence. IE had superior controls (though if aurora, or electron or whatever it is enabled free camera with far enough zoom it could do as well) which do matter a lot, but somehow, I don't recall the IE games combat much more exciting or even harder (well you could run in to encounters you weren't prepared for but that's not really about the engine and bar ironman plays doesn't make the game any harder), just more tedious.

 

[SpaceKungFuMan]

I don't see how anyone could think a 10-year old isometric pre-rendered and sprite-based 2d engine could be better than a 3d one that can be upgraded easily to support DirectX, pixel shading, hardware T&L etc in games like The Witcher and NWN2. Plus, the combat was a hundred times better in NWN2 than it was in any of the IE games.

Why do you even post here? Are you going to say the fallout 3 engine is better than Fallout 1/2 because its 3d, and it doesn't use an iso camera (which you seem to hate from prior topics)? You're not funny, and you don't exactly troll. You just state stupid things matter of factly. We already have a Volourn, and don't need a bland poster parroting that kind of idiocy and then taking it even further by PREORDERING Fallout 3!

 

[thesheeep]

I don't see how anyone could think a 10-year old isometric pre-rendered and sprite-based 2d engine could be better than a 3d one that can be upgraded easily to support DirectX, pixel shading, hardware T&L etc in games like The Witcher and NWN2. Plus, the combat was a hundred times better in NWN2 than it was in any of the IE games.

Why do you even post here? Are you going to say the fallout 3 engine is better than Fallout 1/2 because its 3d, and it doesn't use an iso camera (which you seem to hate from prior topics)? You're not funny, and you don't exactly troll. You just state stupid things matter of factly. We already have a Volourn, and don't need a bland poster parroting that kind of idiocy and then taking it even further by PREORDERING Fallout 3!

You just effectively retardoed/dumbfucked yourself.
What Matt was talking about is the engine (read again, he really did). He said that the NWN2 engine is better than the Fallout1/2 one. And it is. There is no doubt. Nobody is talking about the games itself here. Well, besides people like you that don't really seem to grasp the topic....

 

[SpaceKungFuMan]

You just effectively retardoed/dumbfucked yourself.
What Matt was talking about is the engine (read again, he really did). He said that the NWN2 engine is better than the Fallout1/2 one. And it is. There is no doubt. Nobody is talking about the games itself here. Well, besides people like you that don't really seem to grasp the topic....

. . . First things first, Matt did not say a word about the Fallout engine. That was me referencing when he said he preordered fallout 3, and in another topic when he said that his most requested feature in SoZ is a Kotor style follow camera. I was showing how ridiculous his point was by making the analogy of preferring the fallout 3 engine to the fallout engine based on it being 3d and newer. I think most people here would agree that the Fallout 1 engine is superior because 1) it supports turn based gameplay and 2) it handles world interaction very well.

On to what this topic is about and what Matt actually said. I knew full well that he was saying the aurora engine is superior to the IE engine. This is a topic (started by me no less) about the superiority of the INFINITY ENGINE over the Aurora engine. I was not talking about games at all. This whole topic is filled with people debating that statement, although most are arguing that IE is better, because the hand rendered backgrounds were prettier, and the party control mechanics were more responsive and more reliable (this last point is what Josh said in the quote I began the topic with). For you to come in here, misinterpret my statement like this, and state without any support that aurora is superior to IE without acknowledging that the entire topic is filled with reasons for and against that statement make you seem like the dumbfuck. Did you even read the topic?

 

[Texas Red]

Matt was once an OK poster but now he just posts random, rather stupid statements.

 

[Mareus]

I don't know about those reacting times and technical info, but I do know one thing. 3D camera in party based games is a nuisance. Sure, it can work well in games like The Witcher, because you don't need to move the camera around every few seconds and jump from characters to enemies, but as soon as you have a party you are better off in simple 2D isometric look. And I base this argument on the games I have played so far, which in other words means I still have to play a 3D party based game that doesn't have a problem with the camera.

 

[SpaceKungFuMan]

I don't know about those reacting times and technical info, but I do know one thing. 3D camera in party based games is a nuisance. Sure, it can work well in games like The Witcher, because you don't need to move the camera around every few seconds and jump from characters to enemies, but as soon as you have a party you are better off in simple 2D isometric look. And I base this argument on the games I have played so far, which in other words means I still have to play a 3D party based game that doesn't have a problem with the camera.

The problem your describing is definitely one of the big issues, but its not actually a problem of 3d per se. A 3d game with a fixed perspective would work just as well as a 2d iso game. The real problem is that camera control is difficult in most 3d games, and when you have a party, it just becomes a real chore. MotB has a pretty good camera for a 3d squad based game imo, but they need to let it remain fixed perspective on area transitions.

The frustrating thing about all the problems we have with 3d engines is there is simply no reason for them. Camera control shouldn't be so hard, and there is no excuse for the input lag in aurora. Although there was basically no gameplay in dungeon siege, I think that dungeon siege had the camera down perfectly, and that game came out around the start of these new full 3d RPGs totally replacing 2d engines. I think the real problem with aurora, and most other engines, is trying to balance for multiple viewpoints. As bad as the Oblivion engine is, at least it delivers fully on one perspective (first person) but the trade off is 3rd person sucks. Aurora was built for 3rd person over the shoulder, and it delivers reasonably well on that. For NWN2, they tried to balance it for both over the shoulder and iso, and that's where the problems came in. If MotB had been balanced entirely for the iso camera, with level design and interface/command modifications designed only for the single view point, I'll bet it would have turned out better.

 

[Volourn]

"PREORDERING Fallout 3!"

Meh. A quarter of the Codex has probably preodered it too. And, most of the rest probably plan to buy it within a week of its release anyway.

R00fles!


P.S. Aurora > IE

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Actually, I cancelled my pre-order after reading a few of the other previews. I will wait for the Codex and NMA reviews before I make a decision regarding Fallout 3. I'll probably sail the seven seas for it, anyway. Bethesda need to earn back my trust in them.

To the guy who asked what I thought about the move from 2d Fallout to 3d Fallout, I really don't give a damn about the change in graphics. The first two Fallout games provided atmosphere in a lot more than just graphics. Fallout 3 could be a good game if Bethesda recognise that, but I doubt they will. I'm not one of the few people here who think 3d games are automatically shit. In my opinion, every RPG made since the transition to 3d has been far superior to those that came before. Excepting the two Fallouts, which I love.

As for my opinions regarding Aurora/IE, deal with them. I'm not going to play along with the hive mind just to be liked here. I've already made my opinions known regarding Arcanum, BG, IWD etc. I think they are huge piles of shit, and games like The Witcher, MotB, KOTOR, Bloodlines etc are far superior as RPGs.

 

[Solohk]

As for my opinions regarding Aurora/IE, deal with them. I'm not going to play along with the hive mind just to be liked here. I've already made my opinions known regarding Arcanum, BG, IWD etc. I think they are huge piles of shit, and games like The Witcher, MotB, KOTOR, Bloodlines etc are far superior as RPGs.

I'll grant you that Troika's games are buggy as hell, and the combat in Arcanum is simply horrific. Because of that I could understand those things to be a huge turn off and make it so you ultimately pass on the game. But to say that KOTOR, KOTOR, is a superior RPG? You've gotta be fucking kidding me.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

It's a matter of opinion. I'm not going to hand down any decrees on the matter, it's just my view and I'm not going to force it on anyone else.

 

[Solohk]

Look, if you like KOTOR better that's a-ok with me. You might even be able to argue that it's a better game than Arcanum. But saying it's a better RPG is like saying Commando is a better drama than There Will Be Blood just because you enjoyed Commando better.

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

KotOR certainly is a better RPG than IWD and BG.

 

[SpaceKungFuMan]

To the guy who asked what I thought about the move from 2d Fallout to 3d Fallout, I really don't give a damn about the change in graphics. The first two Fallout games provided atmosphere in a lot more than just graphics. Fallout 3 could be a good game if Bethesda recognise that, but I doubt they will. I'm not one of the few people here who think 3d games are automatically shit. In my opinion, every RPG made since the transition to 3d has been far superior to those that came before. Excepting the two Fallouts, which I love.

Just FYI, both parts of your post were responding to me.

If you don't care about the change in graphics, then why would you say that all 3d games are better than all 2d games? I'm genuinely curious about this. And is PS:T lumped in with the inferior 2d games? Is Dungeon Siege better than BG2? Is Fable better than PS:T? Would KOTOR be a worse game on IE than Aurora?

Also, since you said that Betheda has to regain your trust, what games of theirs did you like, and what made you lose your trust?

 

[SpaceKungFuMan]

KotOR certainly is a better RPG than IWD and BG.

I'll agree with that. Shallow C&C trumps almost none. But BG is the better game imo, because the combat and exploration are a lot of fun. KOTOR's fun factor comes more from the story + combat animations + choosing some funny, albeit it ridiculous, dark side options. KOTOR2 on the other hand is one hell of an RPG.

 

[JarlFrank]

Matt was once an OK poster but now he just posts random, rather stupid statements.

He became stupid as soon as he changed his avatar to something furry :!:

 

[Mareus]

I don't know about those reacting times and technical info, but I do know one thing. 3D camera in party based games is a nuisance. Sure, it can work well in games like The Witcher, because you don't need to move the camera around every few seconds and jump from characters to enemies, but as soon as you have a party you are better off in simple 2D isometric look. And I base this argument on the games I have played so far, which in other words means I still have to play a 3D party based game that doesn't have a problem with the camera.

The frustrating thing about all the problems we have with 3d engines is there is simply no reason for them. Camera control shouldn't be so hard,... bla bla Dungeon siege camera was perfect... bla bla...

Then why doesn't someone already make a 3D party based RPG where camera is not an unnecessary nuisance? Even in dungeon siege the camera was far from being as enjoyable as in old IE engines.

PS. Please stop changing Avatars every second day...

 

[Mareus]

KotOR certainly is a better RPG than IWD and BG.

It is not.

 

[Mareus]

Actually, I cancelled my pre-order after reading a few of the other previews. I will wait for the Codex and NMA reviews before I make a decision regarding Fallout 3. I'll probably sail the seven seas for it, anyway. Bethesda need to earn back my trust in them.

To the guy who asked what I thought about the move from 2d Fallout to 3d Fallout, I really don't give a damn about the change in graphics. The first two Fallout games provided atmosphere in a lot more than just graphics. Fallout 3 could be a good game if Bethesda recognise that, but I doubt they will. I'm not one of the few people here who think 3d games are automatically shit. In my opinion, every RPG made since the transition to 3d has been far superior to those that came before. Excepting the two Fallouts, which I love.

As for my opinions regarding Aurora/IE, deal with them. I'm not going to play along with the hive mind just to be liked here. I've already made my opinions known regarding Arcanum, BG, IWD etc. I think they are huge piles of shit, and games like The Witcher, MotB, KOTOR, Bloodlines etc are far superior as RPGs.

Have you played Planescape Torment? The IE at it's prime.

 

[SpaceKungFuMan]

PS. Please stop changing Avatars every second day...

Back to the original. Happy?

 

[Deleted member 7219]

To the guy who asked what I thought about the move from 2d Fallout to 3d Fallout, I really don't give a damn about the change in graphics. The first two Fallout games provided atmosphere in a lot more than just graphics. Fallout 3 could be a good game if Bethesda recognise that, but I doubt they will. I'm not one of the few people here who think 3d games are automatically shit. In my opinion, every RPG made since the transition to 3d has been far superior to those that came before. Excepting the two Fallouts, which I love.

Just FYI, both parts of your post were responding to me.

If you don't care about the change in graphics, then why would you say that all 3d games are better than all 2d games? I'm genuinely curious about this. And is PS:T lumped in with the inferior 2d games? Is Dungeon Siege better than BG2? Is Fable better than PS:T? Would KOTOR be a worse game on IE than Aurora?

Also, since you said that Betheda has to regain your trust, what games of theirs did you like, and what made you lose your trust?

Well the argument I was trying to make back there was which was a better engine: Infinity or Aurora. I wasn't trying to say KOTOR, NWN2 were better games because they have better graphics. I have other reasons for thinking that, namely choices and consequences, the interactivity with other characters, and the strength of story etc.

So that post of mine that you are referring to, the one I first made in this thread, may make me look like some kind of graphics whore, thinking graphics make a good game. I don't think that way at all. I just prefer the Aurora engine to the Infinity engine, that's all.

As for Bethesda, Morrowind is one of my favourite games, I was expecting Oblivion to be better in terms of roleplaying. I believe that Pete or Todd once said there would be numerous ways of solving quests. But Oblivion was even more linear than Morrowind, since in Morrowind you did have to choose between factions, and couldn't join all guilds until your skills were satisfactory. In Oblivion you could join anything you wanted at whatever level. There was dumbing down in levelling up and weapons (axes became blunt weapons, etc) and handholding in the quests, the lore was shat all over and the conversations were shallow. Basically everything was worse. After so much hype, too. That is what caused me to lose my faith in Bethesda.

 

[SpaceKungFuMan]

Well the argument I was trying to make back there was which was a better engine: Infinity or Aurora. I wasn't trying to say KOTOR, NWN2 were better games because they have better graphics. I have other reasons for thinking that, namely choices and consequences, the interactivity with other characters, and the strength of story etc.

So that post of mine that you are referring to, the one I first made in this thread, may make me look like some kind of graphics whore, thinking graphics make a good game. I don't think that way at all. I just prefer the Aurora engine to the Infinity engine, that's all.

I understand that. My question (which may not have been clear) is really what it is about the engine that makes it better. You listed a lot of graphical stuff, and then said combat it better. What is it about combat that makes it better?

My question about conversion of graphics stands though. Would you like KOTOR less on IE? Is it the modern game design that made you like it more, or is it actually something about the engine?

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Maybe its just the combat system of AD&D that I don't like. I didn't like being only able to use magic spells once, I didn't like the vast swarms of enemies, and I didn't like the extremely fast way your companions tended to die. I think the turn-based system in Fallout was much more interesting, because although your companions could die, it took a lot more to finish them off than just the one or two blows common in the IE games.

I liked the D20 system used in KOTOR, ok it wasn't tactical but it was fun.

I have no idea what KOTOR would look like on IE. If it followed the PST route then it could have been good, because PST wasn't heavy on the combat (except for the areas with undead, but they were mostly optional anyway). But KOTOR was a combat heavy game, and I prefer the combat in the Aurora engine games.

I suppose I do like modern game design, but I also liked the gameworld and story more, and of course the all-important choices and consequences, which I felt BG and IWD lacked.