Icewind Dale The Icewind Dale Series Thread

[Rake]

The disease called the 3D engine is the source of decline.

The problem of 3D is not 3D itself, but the fact that it makes you a slave to graphical presentation, especially if we're talking about first-person. It creates the expectation that EVERY interaction, every micro-event will have to be expressed visually : no more "fiddling" generic animation like in the first Fallouts, and no more awesome paragraphs like in Torment.
That's why i personnally think isometric presentation is the best, because of the perfect equilibrium between writing, visuals and gameplay, which creates a space where everyone of those elements can be masterfully crafted without ever infringing on the others. And visuals in particular can be a strong selling point (think IWD 1 and 2), and yet the view is far enough from the action that it still allows a place for abstraction.

 

[Rostere]

The disease called the 3D engine is the source of decline.

The problem of 3D is not 3D itself, but the fact that it makes you a slave to graphical presentation, especially if we're talking about first-person. It creates the expectation that EVERY interaction, every micro-event will have to be expressed visually : no more "fiddling" generic animation like in the first Fallouts, and no more awesome paragraphs like in Torment.
That's why i personnally think isometric presentation is the best, because of the perfect equilibrium between writing, visuals and gameplay, which creates a space where everyone of those elements can be masterfully crafted without ever infringing on the others. And visuals in particular can be a strong selling point (think IWD 1 and 2), and yet the view is far enough from the action that it still allows a place for abstraction.

 

[Tigranes]

trolls who need to be finished off with fire damage

Or acid or poison, or chunked under Confusion (vets will know what I mean).

You can also disintegrate them 2-ways which, with the first method, doesn't require any special tools except exceptional patience. You can disintegrate them firstly by getting a critical hit that goes significantly above and beyond what life they have left, a standard disintegrate death, and, secondly you could be lucky enough to be carrying a weapon of Turn To Ice which has the same effect but is not based on criticals but is instead based on a percentage chance each time you hit, hitting a frozen object disintegrates it. I disintegrated Yxunomei in two seconds once with such a weapon. I still have the screenshot somewhere...

I remember when I was 13 and so pleased when I found out you could contingency-fire malisons & Lower Resistance then FOD him in the first turn with two mages. It's actually a notable achievement in the sense that most RPGs make 'bosses' immune to instakills, or make it trivially easy, but freezing Yxunomei (I've never done it, but I've frozen many a troll) is an example of how it's not necessarily supereasy or obvious but satisfying and sensible.

 

[Apexeon]

The disease called the 3D engine is the source of decline.

You really can't stress this enough. Although it's probably not the only source.

Its the main one. Once your team is 100 you go **** turn based we need the main stream gamers $$$ and think how to pack in more DLC and meds for little johny to feel like Rambo.

Money is the root of evil because its there in the corner and a developer like me must fight the beast to bring forth turn based goodness. My true battle is with this beast so I can divert funs to the core gameplay when the time comes. Art gets you into the game but it is not the game.

I look at uncharted and see a big fancy cover based shooter TECH demo. Fancy engines to play the same game all the time. Run, gun and press X.

 

[Athelas]

Rotational and zoomable 3d doesn't mimic isometric, it leaves it in the dust.

QUOTE]

Spoken like a person who has never run a art departments budget.
Fixed 2D isometric art cuts the cost of a Crpg game down by a metric ton.


Once that camera moves the budget moves. The disease called the 3D engine is the source of decline.

Pillars of Eternity only required a team of about 30 vs about 90 for Fallout NV.
Pillars of Eternity looks 100 times better then the brown stain on the screen called Fallout 3.

Brain Fargo has locked his camera down for Torment. Now look at this vs Wastelands 2.
I rest my case.

Uh, Wasteland 2 had a much lower art budget than Torment. The latter project expressed the difficulty of making a lot of unique environment/art assets whereas the former mentioned saving a ton of money on the graphics side of the game compared to other games.

 

[agris]

Uh, Wasteland 2 had a much lower art budget than Torment. The latter project expressed the difficulty of making a lot of unique environment/art assets whereas the former mentioned saving a ton of money on the graphics side of the game compared to other games.

2D backgrounds are just projections of a 3D scene having 3D objects, geometry and textures (though texturing can be done to accommodate the final isometric vantage point; see D:OS). That's why they can re-use assets just as well as a fully 3D game.

I don't think that your assertion is correct. I think WL2's art budget was low because that's what it was set at, and it shows. Just open the game and see for yourself what their art budget produced.

 

[Athelas]

I didn't say it looked good, just that it was significantly cheaper.

And I'd rather trust what the people actually producing these games have to say.

 

[deus101]

The disease called the 3D engine is the source of decline.

You really can't stress this enough. Although it's probably not the only source.

You should check out my first post.


Nice to feel vindicated.

2D backgrounds are just projections of a 3D scene having 3D objects, geometry and textures (though texturing can be done to accommodate the final isometric vantage point; see D:OS). That's why they can re-use assets just as well as a fully 3D game.

Why does this sentence even exist? Derp Roads, Neverwinter nights....you really want to bring up a comparison?

 

[agris]

Because that's how the 2D backgrounds in the IE games and PoE are made (with the addition of a paint-over post-render)?

 

[Lilura]

The disease called the 3D engine is the source of decline.

Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Mask of the Betrayer, Dragon Age: Origins, Silent Storm, Gothic 2 and Vampire Bloodlines?

... idiot.

 

[Apexeon]

The disease called the 3D engine is the source of decline.

Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Mask of the Betrayer, Dragon Age: Origins, Silent Storm and Vampire Bloodlines?

... idiot.

A 3D engine team will multiply the game budget by a factor of 400% for silkworm just so people like you can rotate the camera. Rotation of the camera will in my opinion adds nothing to the gameplay.

 

[Athelas]

Hmm, the perspective you choose looks like it will obstruct a lot of the environment, so you're only strengthening Lilura's argument that a 3d game with a rotatable camera is superior.

The disease called the 3D engine is the source of decline.

Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Mask of the Betrayer, Dragon Age: Origins, Silent Storm, Gothic 2 and Vampire Bloodlines?

... idiot.

Mask of the Betrayer and Dragon Age: Origins gained nothing from being 3d - they're stat-based games that would've worked perfectly fine, or even better, in a 2d environment.

 

[Apexeon]

Hmm, the perspective you choose looks like it will obstruct a lot of the environment, so you're only strengthening Lilura's argument that a 3d game with a rotatable camera is superior.

The disease called the 3D engine is the source of decline.

Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Mask of the Betrayer, Dragon Age: Origins, Silent Storm, Gothic 2 and Vampire Bloodlines?

... idiot.

Mask of the Betrayer and Dragon Age: Origins gained nothing from being 3d - they're stat-based games that would've worked perfectly fine, or even better, in a 2d environment.

Wishing a developer/publisher divert a budget of 20 million up to 100 million plus for a deep old school Crpg experience is comedy hour. Sorry if I was in command of that amount of money I would be making a game that appeals to the masses.

This is why the dragon age series has not developed along the lines of DA1 and is now chasing Skyrim.
If you invest millions you are after more millions.

Also the large companies are in a all or nothing approach. So a 20 million budget game is now rare.

 

[Lilura]

This is why the dragon age series has not developed along the lines of DA1 and is now chasing Skyrim.

Yeah, I can really see how a rotatable and zoomable cam which snaps up to isometric-style bird's eye along with full party control, marquee select and a conditional tactical framework paves the road to extreme decline like Skyrim.

 

[Apexeon]

This is just going to turn into a preference match, but money rules the 3D game engine.

However once the pen hits the paper a designer/producer (with a budget of time and money=man power) knows that its not what you put into a game that counts its what your going to leave out.
3D out = A lot of money saved.

 

[dukeofwhales]

This is why the dragon age series has not developed along the lines of DA1 and is now chasing Skyrim.

Yeah, I can really see how a rotatable and zoomable cam which snaps up to isometric-style bird's eye along with full party control, marquee select and a conditional tactical framework paves the road to extreme decline like Skyrim.

It does because the higher development costs of 3D engines demand higher sales to get an acceptable ROI, which demands mainstreaming your video game to attract a wider demographic.

 

[crawlkill]

Hmm, the perspective you choose looks like it will obstruct a lot of the environment, so you're only strengthening Lilura's argument that a 3d game with a rotatable camera is superior.

this seems like flawed reasoning. if you build a game with a non-rotatable camera, you can plan around -having- a non-rotatable camera. some games don't, it's true, but that's a development failing.

personally, I don't really care, although I agree with the general consensus that it's a lot easier to make a shitty-looking 3D game than it is to make a shitty-looking 2D game. As I understand it, Wasteland used Unity -because- it would be cheaper; it's a lot easier to put out an ugly-ass game built on recyclable assets, which in the current culture means "3D," than it is to hire a bunch of artists to make unique 2D art. it may be cheaper to make a beautiful 2D game than it is to make a beautiful 3D game, but it's cheaper to make an ugly 3D game than an ugly 2D game.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Mask of the Betrayer, Dragon Age: Origins, Silent Storm, Gothic 2 and Vampire Bloodlines?

... idiot.

To be fair, aren't these games ok in spite of the camera, not because of the camera. And if you're making comparisons, why not provide a comparison list for static camera games. We've been pretty much dominated by 3D ludicrous-cam for 10 years now and you only really list games that are so old that they felt freshly original being in a different presentation style:

Deus Ex (2000)
System Shock 2 (1999)
Silent Storm (2003/4)
Gothic 2 (2002)
Bloodlines (2004)

The only 2 from your list that are from the "heyday" of 3D rotatable camera era are DA:O and MotB, both of which are most definitely praised well in spite of the camera. I do understand what you're saying, jumping back to a static cam game after playing a rotatable does make you frustrated at a static cam as you make reflex attempts to look behind walls and jar yourself as the action provides no result, but you soon get used to a static screen again.

I think what the problem is, is that because 3D costs more money to make, it is associated with superiority. Also it has a mental association with simulation, the next logical step for gaming. But the reality is that some concepts simply work better in 2D and that many franchises were in fact declined by 3D rotatable cams, such as platformers like Mario and Sonic and tacticals like Worms. In the period post-DOS the market tended to have an equal share between 2D and 3D games, and some formats worked better in 3D and some worked better in 2D. Myth requires 3D, for example, but that game does sacrifice visual appeal for quality gameplay, quite the reverse intention of most 3D developer's.

It's as if the world of 3D has won some kind of psychological propaganda war where it wins just by automatically claiming technical and visual superiority over any other format, a bit like how Transformers automatically creates a sense of state-of-the-art visual appeal that seems to be enough to carry it for the masses while the hardcore film fans vomit at the incredulity of it as a film medium. But you can have attempts at film and include special effects, such as Jurassic Park or Inception or Matrix or whatever, but some sections of the audience (that big sprawling mass of casuals who only buy by what their mates are buying) become so acclimatised to one specific type of movie that they suddenly then start viewing all non-CGI movies as low budget = shitty/boring, when, in reality, for anyone with a brain, the reverse is more often true.

For me there was always a trade-off, both 2D and 3D had positives and negatives dependent on the specific game and it was great having the choice of format to use. What 3D has done to generate the decline is create an expectation for 3D which has reduced choice...

 

[Apexeon]

Simulation vs stimulation. All this hyper real time walking similations vs old school board game like turn based.
Boy I sure do miss the 90's. That's why the good old days rocked when developers made games not stimulations.

These nerds need stimulation.
I got a wife for that.

 

[pippin]

I got a wife for that.

b-but i had a kid with morri-chan... i guess that counts... right?

right?

 

[Apexeon]

I got a wife for that.

b-but i had a kid with morri-chan... i guess that counts... right?

right?

Ok bad example have some wine its on the house.

 

[pippin]

 

[Abelian]

3D out = A lot of money saved.

I actually prefer the isometric perspective myself, but 3D modeling can save money in the long run since once the initial money/time investment is made, it's much easier to reuse assets.

In an isometric game the artists generally have to animate each character sprite in eight different directions, whereas in 3D they just create the mesh model and animation and the camera takes care of the rest. Also, 3D models have the advantage of being easy to alter by changing the texture on the mesh, which saves artists' time.

Isometric games also have the problem of having limited kinds of rooms/areas they can realistically depict. For example, if there is a change of elevation, the slope has to increase from the bottom of the screen toward the top and not the other way around. Similarly, buildings and other points of interest have to face the south so they aren't hidden from the player's view.

 

[Surf Solar]

3D out = A lot of money saved.

I actually prefer the isometric perspective myself, but 3D modeling can save money in the long run since once the initial money/time investment is made, it's much easier to reuse assets.

In an isometric game the artists generally have to animate each character sprite in eight different directions, whereas in 3D they just create the mesh model and animation and the camera takes care of the rest. Also, 3D models have the advantage of being easy to alter by changing the texture on the mesh, which saves artists' time.

Isometric games also have the problem of having limited kinds of rooms/areas they can realistically depict. For example, if there is a change of elevation, the slope has to increase from the bottom of the screen toward the top and not the other way around. Similarly, buildings and other points of interest have to face the south so they aren't hidden from the player's view.

Most if not all beloved 2d Isometric games have been created in 3d and have been rendered out in 2d anyway. No need to draw new assets for each new render as you can reuse older ones.

The Sprites back then have been rendered in single frames too because otherwise PCs couldn't handle them being rendered in realtime.

 

[Abelian]

Most if not all beloved 2d Isometric games have been created in 3d and have been rendered out in 2d anyway. No need to draw new assets for each new render as you can reuse older ones.

Good points. I was aware, but I wanted to compare 2D vs 3D on their own merits without the complication that it often takes 3D modeling to make a good-looking isometric game.