Jeff Graw said:
Don't be an idiot, Dementia.
Now there there, I don't know why you go all guns blazing on behalf of that retard, even if his empty arguments is down the same alley as yours.
Jeff Graw said:
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.
I don't know what made you think I did. Just because I mention AoD and "the big industry" in the same paragraph, doesn't mean you can make whatever meaning of it as you like, as long as it contains AoD and "the entire industry".
Jeff Graw said:
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.
What's this got to do with what I wrote? Quote me where I say that AoD is last-gen. In fact, by being several generations behind, AoD is just that much better of an example.
Jeff Graw said:
Baldur's Gate (resolution aside) looks better than AoD and it's a decade old.
I agree. However what I said was that AoD has better
graphics than Fallout and Arcanum. Even if a game has better graphics, doesn't mean it have to look better. Now, Oblivion obviously has a hell of a lot better graphics than Morrowind, still the latter manages to look better. If you'd shown screenshots of AoD to the BG2 devs, back when they were developing it, they'd wet their pants because of the
graphics. Not necessarily because of the art direction. Incidentally I happen to be of the opinion that AoD also
looks better than Fallout and Arcanum, but that's subjective I guess. I said those games because, from my point of view, they both
look less appealing, as well as having inferior
graphics.
Jeff Graw said:
Even last gen games still need to worry about things like complex facial animation which is a lot of "hassle" to code.
Thing is, in five years they don't. They just lisence the awesome sauce middleware SpeedComplexFacialAnimation, and that's that. Sure it's still going to cost a lot of money, but it sure aint gonna be any hassle. Anyway, complex facial animations is hardly a prerequisite for a nice looking game in 3D, is it? And please don't tell me that you think complex facial animations would be any easier to do in 2D.
Jeff Graw said:
The second point you miss is that a good 3D artist isn't necessarily a good 2D artist and vice-versa.
I don't think you're entitled to even speak about missing points anymore. That's entirely irrelevant to my post, so why the hell should I write anything about it? The 2D artist is out of a job and the studio has to hire a 3D artist instead. So fucking what? Even it it mattered, that marvelous 2D artist of yours could easily be re-located to making textures. That's right! You know those images they wrap around the 3D models? Yes you guessed it, they're in 2D! Sure he has to think a bit different, and perhaps take a course or two, but all in all, he'll still work as a 2D artist.
Jeff Graw said:
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.
What are you smoking? Spiderweb-games are so fugly that using a word as "aesthetically" in the same sentence should be fucking illegal. You know, VD actually thought of licensing some spiderweb engine for AoD until he got in touch with Flashback. And if 2D AoD actually looks any different than this:
...that's a difference I'm unable to tell. When you're on that graphic level, there's little use in talking about better or worse.
Mareus said:
I've got a long, sharp lesson for you you to learn today.
I'll be waiting.
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.
They'd look exactly the same, only with higher resolution. Only way to make them look better yet would be to hire more people, and you've already given the impression that you'd like your dev teams small, no? Also, as Calis said, there is only so much you can do with sprites.
Mareus said:
But thats not the point you turd-like cerebrally-challenged puke-producing smelly-crotched sperm sucker.
Then what's the point? Do you even have one?
Mareus said:
The point was that even IF 2D games were more of a hassle to make, that is no excuse for not producing any.
Who say they've stopped making them? Popcap is making billions on 2D games. How about you go bug their forums with your inane babble instead.
Mareus said:
Games like HOMM don't need 3D because it's just not practical. Same goes for adventure games, etc.
See skyway and Calis' posts for why you are fucking wrong.
Mareus said:
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.
Shut up you fucking hippe.
Mareus said:
Rant about my fallout links
WOOSH! If you just
read those pages instead of just going for the pictures, you'd see that I linked to the credits. If you were able to count that far you'd see that there was quite a lot more than 4 people working on Fallout.
Mareus said:
You sir are a crudinfested hoghumping asswipe.
Cute.
Mareus said:
Dementia Praecox said:
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?
That's right! If you read that sentance again you'll see that my point was that you
should have mentioned gameplay.
Mareus said:
However i see where you are going.
No you're not. You're just seeing your self mirroring in the computer screen. Or that's what I gather from your nonsensical replies at least.
Mareus said:
You are probably trying to connect my mentioning of HOMM5 and 3D graphics with 3D gameplay in certain genres.
No you dumb shit.
Mareus said:
So i m gonna give you a bit of slack here...
You aint giving jack slack, get your head out of your ass crack.
Mareus said:
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.
You can fix the camera angle in 3D you dumb shit. Whoop-de-doo, then it will be just like the old HOMMs. Now, unfortunately for you, the lead designer decided that he wanted a movable camera, and then you got the HOMM 5. What's to blame, 3D or design?
Mareus said:
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.
If your head wasn't stuck so fucking far up your ass, you'd know that's an old joke, and that my statistic is part of said 99%. But never mind that, I want a source for your used-the-right-way statistic. UNLESS YOU JUST MADE THAT UP, HMM?
Mareus said:
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 of blah blah blag
Wow, talk about epic failure. Combat in TOEE didn't suck because it didn't.
Mareus said:
Here i have to agree with you. That old 2D AOD looks worse than new 3D AOD. BUT!!!
That BUT!!! of yours is known as a straw man. Of course shitty 3D looks worse than awesome 2D. I could compare Avernum to The Witcher to make the exact same fallacy in your face.
Mareus said:
Dementia Praecox said:
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.
Aha, your point is that your shitty point is shitty! Now I get it!
Mareus said:
Dementia Praecox said:
Well, that is not the case. Who's the moron now, bitch?
I am.
That's right! Fixed you fucking moron.
Mareus said:
Dementia Praecox said:
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.
And I was talking about artistic quality, shit for brains.
Mareus said:
PS. Am i getting better pops?
No.
Calis said:
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.
Yeah, I don't know what made me think this one had any potential. Anyway, that just mean the rest of you have to work him harder.
Calis said:
Now he's just playing grabass.
Yeah, yeah, the thing with grabasses is that the only one who doesn't see that that sort of behaviour is retarded is them selves. He's just making it easier for the lot of you, though. Anyway, as long as he get strung up before people start caring for him, there shouldn't be a problem.
Jeff Graw said:
Calis: Mareus has some points, but he's not communicating them very well.
HA, no shit.
Jeff Graw said:
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?
Do you remember TOEE?
Jeff Graw said:
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.
You mean like TOEE? Or Final Fantasy 7? Or whatever else game with 3D on 2D backgrounds? It's not like it's a revolutionary new idea or something, and not to forget that it no longer would be fucking 2D.
Jeff Graw said:
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.
Please elaborate.
Calis said:
Mareus said:
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.
Jeff Graw said:
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.
No he's not. Re-read without your SUPPORTIVE-OF-MY-VIEW-goggles.
Jeff Graw said:
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?
You're missing the point.
Jeff Graw said:
BG2 used 3D features, and I'm pretty sure everyone here considers it a 2D RPG.
Yes. What it didn't do was render 3D characters on a 2D background. I'm pretty sure that everyone here would consider it a 3D on 2D background game if it did.
Jeff Graw said:
In any case, you're now arguing semantics like an idiot.
In any case you're arguing with straw men like an idiot.
Jeff Graw said:
An isometric RPG with 2D backgrounds and 3D features would resemble an improved IE more than say, the Aurora engine.
It would resemble TOEE you dumb shit.
Edit:
I GOT SESSION KILLED WHEN WRITING THIS REPLY. Only extreme luck made it not disapear. This needs to end Calis.