Infinity Engine: Still gas left in the tank?

[Andhaira]

I have to say that even today, IE's background handrawn pics are heartbreakingly beautiful. I was recently replaying IWD2 for teh lulz and I'm like, wow. Just wow.
Even TOEE's handrawn backgrounds did not come close.

So I am thinking, could someone purchase IE's rights, and modernize it a bit. Say make the avatar's 3d (like TOEE's) but even better and keep everything else the same and make a fantastic game out of that?

 

[Jaime Lannister]

The Witcher was made in a very similar fashion to the IE games. The backgrounds were generated in 3DMax and imported into the game.

So now that the Aurora Engine can have Infinity-style maps, I don't see the need for the Infinity Engine. Sorry.

 

[Radisshu]

The Witcher was made in a very similar fashion to the IE games. The backgrounds were generated in 3DMax and imported into the game.

So now that the Aurora Engine can have Infinity-style maps, I don't see the need for the Infinity Engine. Sorry.

Eh, there is quite a big difference between painted 2d backgrounds and 3d backgrounds.

 

[fastpunk]

IE looks great indeed, specially in the IWD series. Too bad some character models look shitty.

 

[crufty]

weren't ie bgrnds rendered wireframes? In other words, if you can display the ie backgrounds in full 3d, why wouldn't you?

I remember the early bg1 screens...certainly came a long way!

 

[Volourn]

No. IE is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!!! There's a reason why BIO exists still, and BIS/INT basically don't. One moved on, and the other kept beating a dead horse. Guess which one? R00fles!

 

[DraQ]

How do pretty bitmaps make engine displaying them good?
They would look the same in any engine capable of displaying them or in a 2D graphics program.

R00fles!

Redundant R00fles are redundant.

 

[Andhaira]

VOlly, I disagree. IE was what actually gave INT a much needed cash injection. INT kept raping the Bg liscense with DA and DA2. Both were '..ok' games. Nothingmore nothing less.

Anyhow, I was also replaying BG and you know, BG has wonderful backgrounds. The detail is awesome. For example, in the area after the one where gorion is killed, where you first meet elminster, its just gorgeous. A stark contrast to IWD's also beautiful snow. When you walk past bushes, butterflies fly off and they look beautiful. IE's backgrounds have aged sowell its amazing.

Really, BG is very playable aesthetically at least, especially in 800 rezo using tutu. BG2 is also gorgeous but thing is it starts in that stupid, stupid irenicus dungeon with its ugly background and cramped corrdors. Athkatla, a well designed city is also ugly (deliberately so), with some exceptions. However the area's outside are lovely; forexample the village you save (where they make a statue of you). Druids grove. The village that valygar (the katana loving ranger/stalker) guards. All quite nice.


Only issue with IE would be how much rules are hardcoded into it; ad&d 2e is certainly not thebest engine. I would prefer something homebrew. But class based. Also, I want the same people who made BG2 music and/or the IWD1+2 music to work on the music for this. Spell effects will need to be reworked ofcourse, but that should not be too hard.

 

[crufty]

http://linux.prinas.si/gemrb/doku.php for what its worth

 

[doctor_kaz]

We lost something when we went from 2D to 3D. It has taken a long time for the backgrounds in 3D RPG's to catch up graphically with the best 2D games. I think that with The Witcher we are finally there.

 

[Andhaira]

True. However the transition itselfwas extremely painful (recalls teh HORRIFIC early 3d games). Even then, it was still better than the dumb FMV fad! [Shudder]*Fork in the Tale*[/Shudders]

Oh and btw I don't think we are there with witcher at all. I mean, the backgrounds are not destructible. That is the main flaw of 2D/pseudo 2D. Nomatter howmany meteor swarms/fireballs you throw at it, that little shack will remain unharmed.

Freedom Force hasa sweet engine though; with fully destructible environs. Honestly, the dev could have made a pretty penny if they had only reused the engine for a fcrpg before workingon FF's sequel.

 

[MetalCraze]

VOlly, I disagree. IE was what actually gave INT a much needed cash injection. INT kept raping the Bg liscense with DA and DA2. Both were '..ok' games. Nothingmore nothing less.

you're wrong. Volly has problems with INT stat.

 

[JarlFrank]

No. IE is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!!!

I wish you were.

EDIT:

APRIL FOOLS LOL

I actually like to laugh at your stupidity, so, rather not.

 

[Brother None]

There's a reason why BIO exists still, and BIS/INT basically don't.

Yeah, one was mismanaged into near bankruptcy and the other one sold itself.

Hell, considering companies like Bethesda and BioWare are owned by conglomerates, Interplay is actually the only one who made it through as an independent.

weren't ie bgrnds rendered wireframes? In other words, if you can display the ie backgrounds in full 3d, why wouldn't you?

Not really, they did use some rendering, sure, but the backgrounds tended to be bitmap images, straight 2D-dimensional and "painted". So not 3D at all.

 

[Volourn]

"Yeah, one was mismanaged into near bankruptcy and the other one sold itself."

In other words, INT was mismanaged, and BIo wans't. I doubt EA would have bothered with BIO if they were as poorly mismanaged as INT was/is. Heck, Interplay can't even make a game now. L0L

BIO, 'sold (out) or not', are still making games, money, success, and on, and on.

 

[Brother None]

In other words, INT was mismanaged, and BIo wans't.

Yeah, pretty much.

That has surprising little to do with the kind of games they release, though. Interplay's last releases were all Action-RPGesque console titles. A row of BIS' last projects were cancelled.

So tell me, what's "the other kept beating a dead horse" in reference to? What game that Interplay released, exactly?

BIO, 'sold (out) or not'.

Who are you quoting?

 

[Volourn]

IWD2.

People kept (and,s till do) BIo to use the IE. Bio told these punks (me included at one time) that the IE was in the past, it was a dead engine, and more use, and they wer emoving on so the engine wouldn't hold them back.

Interplay/BIS kept with the IE for 'one more game', and while IWD2 wasn't the most horrible game of all time, it surely is the least fondly looked at IE game largely because it came out when games like NWN (yeah, yeah, codex hates it, blah blah) and POR2 (a shitty game), and their engines despite any faults were much more 'modern' ie. superior than IE that IWD2 mostly got lost in the shuffle. Why? Old engine.

IE is dead. And, it dragged Interplay/BIS down with it. Of course, using the IE when it was past it's useful state was far from the only (or main) reason for that comapny's downfall. However, the choice to stick with the IE is just another example of how poorly managed it was espciially when comapred to how the creators of the IE dealt with that decision.

R00fles!

 

[Brother None]

IE is dead. And, it dragged Interplay/BIS down with it. Of course, using the IE when it was past it's useful state was far from the only (or main) reason for that comapny's downfall. However, the choice to stick with the IE is just another example of how poorly managed it was espciially when comapred to how the creators of the IE dealt with that decision.

That last bit might be true. I mean, IWD II was probably one of Interplay's many bad decisions.

But compared to the decision to loop cancelled projects in and out of BIS or making very "progressive" but shitty games (like F:BoS and, to a lesser degree, BG:DA), I'd say it's a pretty irrelevant decisions.

I'm not sure how IWD II did, but I doubt it made a loss. If it didn't make a loss, let alone a big loss, it really wasn't one of the reasons of Interplay's downfall. Also, considering IWD II came out a year after BG:ToB, I'm going to have to put some question marks at the statement that the engine was "dead" for use then. Sure, it was on its way out, but dead? Eh.

So all those things taken together, you'll have to admit the statement that IE took Interplay with it in its death throes is, well, enormous nonsense. Hell, the idea of IE or even BioWare being big enough to significantly impact Interplay at the size that company was at at its peak is laughably. Little could take down Interplay except Interplay itself, and that's exactly what happened.

 

[Volourn]

The problem with the IE at the time wans't that it was 'too old'; but IWD2 - the last IE game - came out at basiclaly the same time as NWN and POR2. Like those games or not, they had the market cornered when it came to D&D games. heck, as horrible as POR2 was, it sold quite a bit the first couple of weeks before people caught on.

Interplay pushing for another use of the IE is just a good exmaple of its poor decisions.

BGDA wasn't a mistake. It was a hit. It also spawned one sequel, and the engine was used in at least 3 other games as well. BGDA was one of Interplay's *good* decisions during its death throes.


"Hell, the idea of IE or even BioWare being big enough to significantly impact Interplay at the size that company was at at its peak is laughably. Little could take down Interplay except Interplay itself, and that's exactly what happened."

Who claimed BIO took Interplay down? However, the 'divorce'; between the two was just another example of Interplay simply lacking good business sense. BIO was on their way up, and making interplay quite a bit of money while other products were floundering or being moderately successful (or just not being released, lol).

The lawsuits between the two didn't help Interplay either, and it barely effect BIo at all - as they ultimately got what they wanted - control of NWN (through Atari), and getting rid of the Interplay albatross.

 

[Brother None]

The problem with the IE at the time wans't that it was 'too old'; but IWD2 - the last IE game - came out at basiclaly the same time as NWN and POR2. Like those games or not, they had the market cornered when it came to D&D games. heck, as horrible as POR2 was, it sold quite a bit the first couple of weeks before people caught on.

True. Though again, I'm not so sure if IWD 2 made a loss.

BGDA wasn't a mistake. It was a hit. It also spawned one sequel, and the engine was used in at least 3 other games as well. BGDA was one of Interplay's *good* decisions during its death throes.

True, I was just using it as a counterpoint to the image you were painting of Interplay as some kind of regressive organization.

Who claimed BIO took Interplay down?

I said "even BioWare", as a superlative to IE. You were claiming IE took Interplay down, which was probably one of your trademark hyperboles, but still nonsense.

 

[The Feral Kid]

So all those things taken together, you'll have to admit the statement that IE took Interplay with it in its death throes is, well, enormous nonsense.

Not at all. This statement is spot on. Given Interplay's biggest selling games from 1998 to 2001 were IE games the void that was left with the IE demise was too big to be filled. Although Interplay didn't try at all to fill it would be more precise.Interplay tried to squeeze the IWD cow beyond acceptable point. I mean the first game although ok and fun to play tried to cash-in to the success of BG/IE. Anybody at the time that would see n IE engine RPG would go buy it. IWD was a rip-off of BG/IE to make some extra cash. It was a familiar strategy of Interplay to try and cash-in in previously successful franchises with quickly-made quick-cash games (FOPOS, BG:DA). Thus instead of proceeding with new much-anticipated projects like Torn and Fallout 3 that would probably have saved the company and made us happy, they opted for trying to keep cashing previous licenses (either gaming or engine) were there was no more room for it and on the wrong end of it. IWD2 although obviously not the only reason for Interplay's downfall it epitomizes the company's later philosophy that led to the downfall: make games as cheaply as possible, as quick as possible so that we can cash in on the trend before it dies. And if it is acceptable with IWD there was absolutely no reason to make the piece of shit that is IWD2.

 

[Section8]

I'm no expert, but from memory, Baldur's Gate is all pre-rendered backgrounds, and the "hand-painted" thing came from BIS forum tards who couldn't understand what "pre-rendered" meant - not unlike the Bethesduh forum tards who can't grasp what "permutations" means in relation to OVER 9000! endings.

 

[NiM82]

Yeah they are just bitmaps, based on renderings made in Max, Lightwave or whatever with some retouching in Photoshop for stuff that's easier to paint than model. It's even more obvious tho in PST where they used the same 3D models to render the little flybys and stuff.

I like Inf, but ToEE has a far better engine imo. It's a shame everyone these days thinks isometric games should have spinny cameras and be able to do first person style close ups; they could do things so much more effectively/efficiently taking the best of both worlds (2d/3d)) and simply locking the camera. The turn based combat in ToEE also shits all over the infinity rtwp.

Even TOEE's handrawn backgrounds did not come close.

I think the TOEE backgrounds are fine, artistically, they just don't depict as interesting content as some of the BG/IWD/PST stuff. But it's got nothing to do with the engine, just the art design. ToEE's backgrounds also allowed composite 3D elements, such as running water and stuff.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Oh and btw I don't think we are there with witcher at all. I mean, the backgrounds are not destructible. That is the main flaw of 2D/pseudo 2D. Nomatter howmany meteor swarms/fireballs you throw at it, that little shack will remain unharmed.

How are we not there with The Witcher? You were talking about pre-rendered backgrounds. The Witcher's pre-rendered backgrounds are at least as good as Baldur's Gate's.

Oh, and destructible pre-rendered backgrounds? R00fles!

 

[Andhaira]

You fool! At least read what I write before ranting stupidly. A poster above said we 'lost something' in the transition from 2d to 3d but 'are now catching up'. Not the exact quote but wuteva,

I am saying no we still havea long way to go, because true 3d doesn't look near as gorgeous, while pre-rendered backgrounds are not destructible.

I want fireballs to leave scorchmarks, at the very least.