Infinity Engine: Still gas left in the tank?

[Elwro]

In Poland, due to translation issues, Morrowind, NWN and IWD 2 came out the same Fall.

 

[Brother None]

I'm pretty sure IWD2 made money. Definately not a loss. AFAIR it was released slightly PRIOR to NWN.

Nope. NWN was released in July 2002, IWD2 was released in August 2002. The European release of IWD2 was delayed for months because Interplay had forgotten to pay the European distributors for previous titles they'd distributed, so they didn't ship the game out there until after Herve had paid them. IIRC, Herve also had to pony up extra to the European distributors because they didn't want to get screwed again by Interplay. So, it was later than IWD2 in the United States and much, much later of a release behind NWN in Europe. I'm pretty sure that IWD2 was the first BIS game to lose money because it was well over budget, released after NWN, and the European release was so botched. Using the Infinity Engine was a bad enough decision for it, but screwing up the release and not getting it out before NWN didn't help it at all. I know it lost money in Europe.

Yeah, well, losing money was some kind of speciality of Interplay. And that's not all on Herve, either. Remember Stonekeep 2? They kept that one idling while pouring money into it for 5 friggin' years before cancelling it. Fallout 3? Started 3 times, never finished. And, 'cor, TORN.

 

[Brave Diplomat]

Don't forget Van Burnen.

Also, the original stonekeep box actually stated that stonekeep had been in dfevelopment for 15 years!

They should just have released lost vikings 2. That was, relatively speaking their most profitable game AFAIK.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Yeah, well, losing money was some kind of speciality of Interplay. And that's not all on Herve, either. Remember Stonekeep 2? They kept that one idling while pouring money into it for 5 friggin' years before cancelling it. Fallout 3? Started 3 times, never finished. And, 'cor, TORN.

Not to mention all the technology they licensed. Lithtech for TORN, Granny for Fallout 3/Van Buren, and so on. The lithtech license was $1.5M back then. I'm not sure how much they shelled out for Granny.

 

[Mareus]

I wish someone would do what you suggested. Making an old school game with good old infinity engine and great story... It would certainly be a great treat for all those who want more out of games. But what do we get out of it? Just one game made by one enthusiast? That whole aproach is wrong in my oppinion, because it is the developers who have to understand that there is great demand for "smart games". They have to understand they will earn money by making such games. I am talking here about bringing old-school gaming back from the dead. But unfortunately its just a dream that will never come true because everything is connected with money, and without it i don't think anyone can do much about it. Even if some company invested money in infinity engine, they would still need more money for marketing, testing, making music, etc.. We are talking about millions of dollars if you want to make a game as grand as some older titles.

Now you probably think, that is no problem for big companies like Bethseda or EA, or Blizzard who earned billions on WOW. However no one would risk such money for what some people call nostalgia, although it is far from nostalgia. Its goddamn quality.

I don't even blame the new generation gamers who just scream for more eye candy, i don't actually blame the developers either, because its alot harder to make a game today than it was before and somehow the more i think about it the more i am sure they are not to blame. I may be wrong, but i think the developers do not push the graphics forward because they are all crazy about eye candy... I think its because it is the only way to get sponsors for their games. And guess who those sponsors are? Hardware companies who have to push the technology forward if they wish to make a living.

So what do more artistic developers do? They have this great idea, great story,... they know what they have to do, but first they have to make the engine which will offer great graphic. Why? Because if they did otherwise they couldn't get money from hardware companies. So they spend most of their time on the graphics, and as the release date draws closer, one by one... all those great ideas and things get cut off.

Today's gaming is generally lacking something. That something is diversity. With the 3D graphics being the only standard today, and with new generation gamers who want just more eye candy, i am afraid the gaming future on first sight looks pretty dim. Still, the gaming industry as it is cannot keep this graphic marathon for long. More graphics means more resources, and in the end its just not feasable. Nintendo Wii offered something different and it sells more than any other console. Wii may not offer depth as old PC titles, but it is a sign of things to come. It has shown that there is a great demand for something different, and it need not have eye candy to sell. I believe there is a great demand for old-school games, but the developers need sponsors to finance their product like i said. Sure.. some enthusiast may buy infinity engine, and he may even create a great game, but if he doesn't invest in marketing,etc... he wont earn a thing and without profit there wont be any old-school gaming come back on a grand scale. Just look what happened to Planescape Torment. Great game that sold like shit... That is why it will take a looooong time before such a game reapears.

I wonder if we can do anything about it?.. All i can say is, thank God for those modders out there.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

blah blah graphics

Why would you use 2D? The 2D vs. 3D debate is long over now that 3D games can look as good as their 2D counterparts.

People like you are why sites like RPGCodex have a bad name. You, sir, belong to a vocal minority of idiots.

P.S. You haven't scored any Codex Cool Points (TM)

 

[Jeff Graw]

blah blah graphics

Why would you use 2D? The 2D vs. 3D debate is long over now that 3D games can look as good as their 2D counterparts.

People like you are why sites like RPGCodex have a bad name. You, sir, belong to a vocal minority of idiots.

P.S. You haven't scored any Codex Cool Points (TM)

And neither have you. Aesthetically, Myrkul's grave in MotB is probably the best looking environment in a 3D RPG, assuming you have a computer that can play MotB on high details. The temple district of BG2 at night with 3D-accelerated fog of war and lighting effects is one of the most aesthetically pleasing environments in a 2D RPG. Both locations are so completely beautiful and atmospheric that it's hard, at least for me, to choose a favorite.

Now, onto why you just made a fool of yourself: The point you don't seem to be grasping is that BG2 is eight years old, while MotB just came out and still looks pretty crappy on medium details (which is what most gamers will be running it at). Your comparison "3D now looks as good as 2D" is stupid, because you're comparing the 3D of today to the 2D of a long time ago -- even ToEE is five years old now. There's no telling what a triple-A quality 2D RPG would look like today.

Here's a second example of your stupidity: You claim that 3D can look better than 2D, but you completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of computers don't have anywhere close to the kind of graphical horsepower required to render 3D images that are competitive with their 2D counterparts. That in itself is a good reason to argue for more 2D RPGs.

And finally, the most important thing that you overlooked is an inherit weakness of 3D and strength of 2D: It's the perspective, dummy. In 3D RPGs, you can often change the perspective, but the perspective that looks the best in a screenshot and the perspective that is the most functional are almost never the same -- or even close to the same. In a 2D game you choose a perspective for it's functionality, and then you're free to make that perspective as aesthetically pleasing as possible. The result is a great looking, great controlling game. That you don't need to worry about constantly fiddling with the camera to find the best angle to control the troops is an added bonus.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Now, onto why you just made a fool of yourself: The point you don't seem to be grasping is that BG2 is eight years old, while MotB just came out and still looks pretty crappy on medium details (which is what most gamers will be running it at). Your comparison "3D now looks as good as 2D" is stupid, because you're comparing the 3D of today to the 2D of a long time ago -- even ToEE is five years old now. There's no telling what a triple-A quality 2D RPG would look like today.

Here's a second example of your stupidity: You claim that 3D can look better than 2D, but you completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of computers don't have anywhere close to the kind of graphical horsepower required to render 3D images that are competitive with their 2D counterparts. That in itself is a good reason to argue for more 2D RPGs.

And finally, the most important thing that you overlooked is an inherit weakness of 3D and strength of 2D: It's the perspective, dummy. In 3D RPGs, you can often change the perspective, but the perspective that looks the best in a screenshot and the perspective that is the most functional are almost never the same -- or even close to the same. In a 2D game you choose a perspective for it's functionality, and then you're free to make that perspective as aesthetically pleasing as possible. The result is a great looking, great controlling game. That you don't need to worry about constantly fiddling with the camera to find the best angle to control the troops is an added bonus.

1 and 2 are the exact same point. And I played The Witcher on high settings with a ~1000 dollar computer, which would probably be about 500 dollars today. It is very affordable to be able to play 3D games which look as good as 2D counterparts.

3. 2D has the problem of no rotation, which is a constant pain in the ass when going behind objects. Again, prerendered backgrounds like those of The Witcher are the way to go to avoid messy camera issues.

 

[Jeff Graw]

1 and 2 are the exact same point

Nope. 1 is saying that you can't possibly know what an AAA 2D RPG would look like if developed today. 2 is saying that most PCs don't have the graphical horsepower to render 3D environments that can even begin to compare with pre-rendered ones.

And I played The Witcher on high settings with a ~1000 dollar computer, which would probably be about 500 dollars today. It is very affordable to be able to play 3D games which look as good as 2D counterparts.

Just because *your* 1000 (or 500) dollar computer can play The Witcher doesen't mean that Dell's 1000 dollar computer can. You can still have an expensive computer that skimps on graphics hardware, which is unfortunately the case with every major manufacturer.

3. 2D has the problem of no rotation, which is a constant pain in the ass when going behind objects.

Most 2D games either give the object behind the environment an outline or make the environment blocking the object partially transparent. I'm guessing that an AAA game made today would use the later method, and would probably do a hell of a good job doing it. Compared with having to constantly fiddle with the camera it's a *very* small price to pay.

Again, prerendered backgrounds like those of The Witcher are the way to go to avoid messy camera issues.

Don't be a moron. The backgrounds in the Witcher aren't "pre-rendered" and you don't even know what the word means. The backgrounds were created in a 3D modeling program but your computer still needs to render them. Even then, whether the environments are modeled or are tile based is irrelevant to camera issues so your claim is doubly idiotic. The real reason The Witcher doesen't have messy camera issues is because it isn't party based. You control Geralt the same way you would control any character in a 3rd person action game. 3D is fine for games like Gothic and TW where you only need to worry about one character, but as soon as you add in party mechanics things get messy fast.

 

[Mareus]

blah blah graphics

Why would you use 2D? The 2D vs. 3D debate is long over now that 3D games can look as good as their 2D counterparts.

People like you are why sites like RPGCodex have a bad name. You, sir, belong to a vocal minority of idiots.

P.S. You haven't scored any Codex Cool Points (TM)

I think Jeff here said almost everything, but I have to answer to your post.

I am not arguing that we should completly get rid of 3D graphic. All i am saying is that with 3D graphics being the only standard today, games have lost a lot. There is no more diversity in games, no more chosing between 2D and 3D games, and it also reflected itself on the reduction of genres. Wouldn't it be nice to just have a choice? Just look what happened to adventure games. You used to have those beautiful, funny cartoonlike games where you could do anything with just a mouse. Then Charles Cecil (director of legendary Broken Sword) said: "2D point and click is dead, long live adventure games." And then he made Broken Sword 3 which, although quite good, made things more complicated just so it could be called a 3D game. With Broken Sword 1&2 you could sit relaxed in the chair, playing the game with one hand and scratching your balls with another. The same applys for Heroes of Might and Magic 1,2,3,4 which were in 2D and you had perfect overview of your map with just draging your mouse to the edge of the screen, and then there came the HOMM5 which was in 3D. WHY?? HOMM5 is not very different from HOMM3, but unlike HOMM3 where you can play the game while scratching your balls, in HOMM5 you have to constantly use your other hand to fight with the camera. If that is the price of 3D gaming, then i dont want it. Actually i do want it, but not in the games like HOMM.

3D debate is far from over, because very soon developers will have to face the fact 3D graphics means more investment, more bugs, more problems with camera, less diversity, etc. Weather you like it or not... those are the facts, and Wii has shown that eye candy doesn't mean shit when it comes to sales. And if the RPGCodex supports diversity in games than i salute it, because unlike other sites it talks how things really stand.

 

[mjorkerina]

Nope. NWN looks much better than IE. No contest. People who think otherwise are simply blind. And, that's an insult to blind people. Sorry, blind people who are reading this.

I still feel like throwing up whenever I see a screenshot of NWN1 dungeons.
http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/pc/n/e/nevwpc014.jpg
http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/pc/n/n/nnsupc005.jpg
http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/pc/n/w/nwnhpc010.jpg

Now have a cup of BG2 :
http://www.caltrops.com/images/bgsw08-l.jpg
http://www.smoki.cc.pl/baldur2/red_walka.jpg

3. 2D has the problem of no rotation, which is a constant pain in the ass when going behind objects.

Pain in the ass ? it's a non existent problem in IE games. You go behind something far less often than the times you have to micro manage your camera in NWN2 because there is always something that hides your view or make your camera go crazy.
No rotation, fixed camera is the only right thing in party based games.

 

[DraQ]

Pain in the ass ? it's a non existent problem in IE games.

For those who enjoy the "wave your cursor really fast across the screen" minigame it might be nonexistent.
I find it quite aggravating, given that isometric view practically ensures that some objects will be hidden behind walls and decorations.

 

[mjorkerina]

No they are not. Care to quote an example from say BG2 where an important item would be hidden behind anything ? it never happened to me or I don't remember anything. I try to recall all my favorite fat loot and I don't see anything that was behind a wall or something. Most of the time in fact everything is exposed in a very obvious way in the room.

Even in Spellhold with all the puzzles mini games that are making you carry and find lots of items I don't recall anywhere an important item "behind" a wall or a decoration. Everything can be seen right in front of you. You don't need a rotating camera.

Also, BG2 added a keyboard tab shortcut that lets you highlight ALL the interactive items where you are.

 

[Mareus]

Also, BG2 added a keyboard tab shortcut that lets you highlight ALL the interactive items where you are.

Guess he forgot about that little thing. Or maybe he went through the whole trilogy without knowing it exists.

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

Also, BG2 added a keyboard tab shortcut that lets you highlight ALL the interactive items where you are.

That was Throne of Bhaal.

 

[Mareus]

Also, BG2 added a keyboard tab shortcut that lets you highlight ALL the interactive items where you are.

That was Throne of Bhaal.

Hmmm... well unfortunately i dont remember if that is true, because its been a long time since i played it. Actually i finished replaying Baldur's Gate Trilogy mod a month ago, but since that mod allows you to merge 3 games into one making BG1,2 and Throne of Bhaal look exactly the same, i cant say if your statment is true, but i can tell you one thing. I never had any problem with finding items.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

3D debate is far from over, because very soon developers will have to face the fact 3D graphics means more investment, more bugs, more problems with camera, less diversity, etc.

Check your calendar dimwit, we're in 2008 now. They've been facing those facts for 10-20 years. In fact, it's more of an hassle to make a good looking 2D-game than a last-gen 3D game. Compare the artistic quality of 2D-AoD vs 3D-AoD to see what I mean.

 

[Mareus]

3D debate is far from over, because very soon developers will have to face the fact 3D graphics means more investment, more bugs, more problems with camera, less diversity, etc.

Check your calendar dimwit, we're in 2008 now. They've been facing those facts for 10-20 years. In fact, it's more of an hassle to make a good looking 2D-game than a last-gen 3D game. Compare the artistic quality of 2D-AoD vs 3D-AoD to see what I mean.

Oh, zee provocassion from zee king of retards. En garde, slimboul, for you have zee brein of a shicken and zee mouth of a swine. Its a duel, monsieur!

1. You contradict yourself:
First you say: They've been facing those FACTS for 10-20 years.
Then you say: It's more of an hassle to make a good looking 2D-game than a last-gen 3D game.
Make up your mind dumbass.
PS. I guess that is why before it was enough for few people to make a decent game, and today with less hassle you need 10 times more people to make a game that can barely compare with old 2D titles. So yeah... less hassle for 3D games i guess.

2. The year does not mean the debate is over. Maybe the developers have made up their mind for the moment, but there is still demand for 2D games and with the PC sales going down, soon they will face that debate again. Even if 3D games were easier to make (they arent), it doesnt mean you should just dump 2D. 2D should exist because there are games that just work better in 2D than 3D. If you still dont believe me then ask yourself why does HOMM5 camera rotate like shit? Or why do people complain about clumpsy camera in NWN2, or in 99% of 3D party based games? 3D is okay for one player games, but as soon as you get the party, things turn to shit. If you think otherwise then you either have patience like an ox when playing 3D games(which i doubt is the case, judging from most of your posts), or you have the brain of an ox.

3. I dont know about AOD and i have never seen it, so i cannot judge the artistic value of it. But i can tell you one thing. 2D games like BG and PST have been made a loooong time ago. 3D games like NWN2 have been made only recently. If that is the case with AOD 2D and 3D, then you, sir, are a moron because the time gap between those games is so big that you cannot compare the two. Its like comparing effects of the movies made in 70's with the movies made today. But guess what? BG2 can still compete graphicly with new 3D games and if you can't see that get glasses.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Oh, zee provocassion from zee king of retards. En garde, slimboul, for you have zee brein of a shicken and zee mouth of a swine. Its a duel, monsieur!

*Sigh* And to think I actually had faith in you. Well, it's out of the window now, that's for sure. Anyway: YOU'RE ON, BITCH!

1. You contradict yourself:
First you say: They've been facing those FACTS for 10-20 years.
Then you say: It's more of an hassle to make a good looking 2D-game than a last-gen 3D game.
Make up your mind dumbass.

That should have read "It's more of an hassle to make a good looking 2D-game than a last-gen 3D game today". [/spoon-feed] But that should've been implied by the statement it followed, as well as me using the term "last-gen".

PS. I guess that is why before it was enough for few people to make a decent game, and today with less hassle you need 10 times more people to make a game that can barely compare with old 2D titles. So yeah... less hassle for 3D games ig guess.

What games are you talking about here? Not Fallout, Baldurs Gate, Baldurs Gate 2 or Arcanum I'd take it? The graphics of Age of Decadence (developed by four people) are easily better than both Fallout and Arcanum at this point. Even if the industry had stuck with 2D the teams would have been just as big as the teams developing AAA 3d titles today. They have to spent all that money on something you know.

2. The year does not mean the debate is over. Maybe the developers have made up their mind for the moment, but there is still demand for 2D games and with the PC sales going down, soon they will face that debate again.

You are mixing graphics with the gameplay the 2d games of yore delivered. Those games had vastly superior gameplay than most of the games these days, and incidentally those games had 2d-graphics.

And if you really believe 3D games are less of a hassle to make, then why does HOMM5 camera rotate like shit?

Eh, bad design?

Or why do people complain about clumpsy camera in NWN2, or in 99% of 3D party based games?

Bad design, bad design, bad design. Also, did you know that 99% of all statistics are bullshit?

3D is okay for one player games, but as soon as you get the party, things turn to shit. If you think otherwise then you either have patience like an ox(which i doubt is the case, judging from most of your posts), or you have the brain of an ox.

That must be the reason why the combat in TOEE is the worst ever.

3. I dont know about AOD and i have never seen it, so i cannot judge the artistic value of it.

vs

Now you can.

But i can tell you one thing. 2D games like BG and PST have been made a loooong time ago. 3D games like NWN2 have been made only recently.

Yes, and Gothic 3 came out little over a year ago, what's your point? That shitty design is shitty?

If that is the case with AOD 2D and 3D, then you, sir, are a moron because the time gap between those games is so big that you cannot compare the two.

Well, that is not the case. Who's the moron now, bitch?

Its like comparing effects of the movies made in 70's with the movies made today.

Exactly! Yet Suspiria is vastly superior to movies like Hostel or Saw 3 and Zombie Holocaust is easily is more shitty than Dawn of the Dead (2004).

How can that be? I DON'T UNDERSTAND!

But guess what? BG2 can still compete artistically with most new 3D games and if you can't see that get glasses.

Fixed you dumb little shit.

 

[Jeff Graw]

Don't be an idiot, Dementia.

There are a number of points wrong with your argument, the first being that you can't take the work of a small four man indie team and use their work to make a generalization about the entire industry -- that's stupid, obviously so. Secondly, AoD isn't last gen, it's several generations behind. No major developer worth their salt, even one behind on the graphical curve, is going to make a game as graphically dated as AoD. Baldur's Gate (resolution aside) looks better than AoD and it's a decade old. Even last gen games still need to worry about things like complex facial animation which is a lot of "hassle" to code. The second point you miss is that a good 3D artist isn't necessarily a good 2D artist and vice-versa. You could have easily had a poor(er) looking 3D AoD and a good looking 2D AoD if their artist had better 2D skills. Just look at Spiderweb... their newer games are at least on par with AoD aesthetically and they're just one man.

 

[Mareus]

*Sigh* And to think I actually had faith in you. Well, it's out of the window now, that's for sure. Anyway: YOU'RE ON, BITCH!.

I've got a long, sharp lesson for you you to learn today.

That should have read "It's more of an hassle to make a good looking 2D-game than a last-gen 3D game today". [/spoon-feed] But that should've been implied by the statement it followed, as well as me using the term "last-gen".

You cannot possibly know how a 2D AAA title would look like today, because the technology has not been developed nearly enough as 3D. If games like Fallout, BG2, PST looked so great 10 years ago, imagine how good they would look today. I bet it would kick ass out of any 3D title. But thats not the point you turd-like cerebrally-challenged puke-producing smelly-crotched sperm sucker. The point was that even IF 2D games were more of a hassle to make, that is no excuse for not producing any. Games like HOMM don't need 3D because it's just not practical. Same goes for adventure games, etc. And by this i am not saying there should be no 3D adventure games or 3D strategies. I am just saying there should be a choice for the diversity sake like i stated on my previous posts.

What games are you talking about here? Not Fallout, Baldurs Gate, Baldurs Gate 2 or Arcanum I'd take it? The graphics of Age of Decadence (developed by four people) are easily better than both Fallout and Arcanum at this point. Even if the industry had stuck with 2D the teams would have been just as big as the teams developing AAA 3d titles today. They have to spent all that money on something you know.

Again you don't make sense you airheaded buttlicking twit! Like i said you cannot know how good 2D titles would look today because it has not been developed nearly enough as 3D games, and therefore you also cannot know how big a team they would need for it. But let us say you speak hypothetically, and even IF 2D won over 3D,the logical presumption would be quite the contrary of your statement, because the games you showed look good even for today's standards. Those Fallout links you sent are not representitive due to taking screenshots from LCD monitor where every pixel is the size of a grape. Take a look at these:
Fallout01
Fallout02
And you forgot to take into consideration that your marvelous AOD3D (i must say quite impressive for only 4 people, if what you say is truth), was made(correct me if i am wrong, but it says so on the link you sent) in 2006, while Fallout was made 10 years before that. Now you do the math and if you still decide to press the matter in favor of 3D, i will have no choice but to use another insult like: You sir are a crudinfested hoghumping asswipe.

You are mixing graphics with the gameplay the 2d games of yore delivered. Those games had vastly superior gameplay than most of the games these days, and incidentally those games had 2d-graphics.

Attention! Dumbass alert! Can you please copy paste one, just one sentence where i mention gameplay? Nope? However i see where you are going. You are probably trying to connect my mentioning of HOMM5 and 3D graphics with 3D gameplay in certain genres. So i m gonna give you a bit of slack here and will try to explain things because you obviously dont understand. You see, my bright friend, there are certain games that just dont work too well in 3D and it is 3D that affects the gameplay. Just imagine if BG was made in 3D? You would lose half of gameplay. To put it bluntly 3D camera in certain games is a bad choice and should be avoided.

Eh, bad design?

Eh, nope? 3D camera? ...And if you manage to show me a game like HOMM in 3D with same gameplay value as HOMM in 2D, then sir, i will apologize for everything i have said and will kiss your ass until it's skin falls off.

Bad design, bad design, bad design. Also, did you know that 99% of all statistics are bullshit?

If you knew anything about statistic you would know that they are 99% bullshit, unless you use them in the right way, which i did.

That must be the reason why the combat in TOEE is the worst ever.

If you are talking about Temple of Elemental Evil, you are wrong again. Combat didn't suck because of camera nor did it suck because it was turn based. Combat suck because there were only 10 levels and magic casters were pretty useless, making thus strategy weaker point of the game. Also in later stages of the game i couldn't hit anything with my fighters despite the fact i had great stats. So it was just loading and saving until i found that lost hero guy who had a sword with which you cannot miss.

Now you can.

Here i have to agree with you. That old 2D AOD looks worse than new 3D AOD. BUT!!!

Take a look at this, as Mjorkerina pointed out.

"I still feel like throwing up whenever I see a screenshot of NWN1 dungeons."
http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/pc/n/e/nevwpc014.jpg
http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/pc/n/n/nnsupc005.jpg
http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/pc/n/w/nwnhpc010.jpg

Now have a cup of BG2 :
http://www.caltrops.com/images/bgsw08-l.jpg
http://www.smoki.cc.pl/baldur2/red_walka.jpg

Yes, and Gothic 3 came out little over a year ago, what's your point? That shitty design is shitty?

No, my point is that 3D graphic reduces gameplay in certain genres. No matter how good the design is, 3D graphic will take it's toil out of certain genres.

Well, that is not the case. Who's the moron now, bitch?

Certainly not me, you rectumsniffing addict.

Exactly! Yet Suspiria is vastly superior to movies like Hostel or Saw 3 and Zombie Holocaust is easily is more shitty than Dawn of the Dead (2004).
How can that be? I DON'T UNDERSTAND!

And you never will you spermless wancker, because you are talking about movies. I was talking about special effects. ... You are such a dumbass, hehe.

Fixed you dumb little shit.

HAHAHA! I really don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works.

PS. Am i getting better pops? :wink:

 

[Calis]

You cannot possibly know how a 2D AAA title would look like today, because the technology has not been developed nearly enough as 3D.

Bullshit. There's only so much you can do with sprites. I'll let you think on your own about why the "technology development" argument is bullshit, since the answer to that is really, REALLY obvious.

Eh, nope? 3D camera? ...And if you manage to show me a game like HOMM in 3D with same gameplay value as HOMM in 2D, then sir, i will apologize for everything i have said and will kiss your ass until it's skin falls off.

Pespective in game != technical way you project your world onto a 2D screen. You're really not grasping any of the concepts you're bringing up here, sonny.

No, my point is that 3D graphic reduces gameplay in certain genres. No matter how good the design is, 3D graphic will take it's toil out of certain genres.

I'm tempted to go up and read how the hell you managed to argue this, but I'm afraid I'll have a headache afterwards, and I'll probably feel an uncontrollable urge to tag you.

(Dementia Praecox: I had such hopes for you as a snoob hunter, but this guy isn't really taking you seriously anymore since you were sorta-nice to him once. Now he's just playing grabass.)

 

[Jeff Graw]

Calis: Mareus has some points, but he's not communicating them very well.

Bullshit. There's only so much you can do with sprites. I'll let you think on your own about why the "technology development" argument is bullshit, since the answer to that is really, REALLY obvious.

There's only so much you can do with sprites, yes, but you are making the faulty assumption that sprites are the be-all-end-all factor in 2D graphics. This couldn't be further from the truth. Remember Resident Evil: Zero? (probably not, it's a console game) Believe it or not, but that game had pre-rendered 2D backgrounds and used technology that allowed it's 3D characters to cast *shadows* on those backgrounds, as you can see here:

The truth of the matter is that an AAA 2D RPG made today would most likely use a mix of 2D and 3D features. The background would be 2D and the perspective would be fixed, but it might use 3D characters, water, spell and weather effects, etc. Seeing as Resident Evil: Zero is a 2002 game it stands to reason that an AAA 2D RPG would look and run better than any 3D RPG on the market today.

No, my point is that 3D graphic reduces gameplay in certain genres. No matter how good the design is, 3D graphic will take it's toil out of certain genres.

I'm tempted to go up and read how the hell you managed to argue this, but I'm afraid I'll have a headache afterwards, and I'll probably feel an uncontrollable urge to tag you.

What he's trying to say is that it's harder to control a 3D party based RPG because you are constantly fiddling with perspective while a 2D party based RPG has a fixed perspective and doesen't need toying with. Sure, you can create a 3D party based RPG with a fixed perspective, but then you kind of loose the entire point of making the game 3D in the first place, don't you?

 

[MetalCraze]

3d takes much less resources in the same departments as 2d. like with character animations. in 2d you will have to prerender and then load in RAM every single frame of character movement/etc (and don't forget that you will have to calculate/erase pixels in every frame that should be invisible like f.e. covered by a weapon - pain in the ass in other words) while with 3d it's just a small number of parameters which doesn't take any noticeable RAM at all. the same with shader effects. in 2D you will have to load water animations frame by frame while in 3D it takes only 1 or 2 kbs of code and gives much more better graphical result.
really 3D had only 2 problems all this time - the number and size of textures and the number of polygons your vcard can handle. shader effects is not necessary for 3d to look better than 2D really - yes things like bumpmapping simply compensate the lack of polys - but with modern vcards rendering millions of polys per frame and the large amount of 4kx4k textures is not a problem anymore. plus shader effects again - as a bonus. dynamic shadows and lighting f.e. - something 2d can't do.
also I disagree with the statement that 3d is shitty because it covers important objects in NWN2. it's just a retarded design - it's not 3d's fault. just look at that Generals RTS f.e. - it shows units behind buildings by showing their silhouettes. and it's 2003.

 

[Jeff Graw]

blah, blah, blah... plus shader effects again - as a bonus. dynamic shadows and lighting f.e. - something 2d can't do.

Can you read? Are you blind? I was just talking about how a modern 2D AAA-level RPG would have 2D backgrounds, but would most likely use certain 3D features. And I *just* gave screen shots of a game with 2D environments that *does* have dynamic shadows and lighting.

Also I disagree with the statement that 3d is shitty because it covers important objects in NWN2. it's just a retarded design - it's not 3d's fault. just look at that Generals RTS f.e. - it shows units behind buildings by showing their silhouettes. and it's 2003.

Generals is a poor example. It's not an RPG, for one thing, and it doesen't have indoor areas for another. Add that silhouette feature to MotB and it would still control worse than its IE counterparts.