Torment Torment: Tides of Numenera Pre-Release Thread [ALPHA RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[majestik12]

Stretch goal suggestion: hire Paolo Serpieri as both artist and writer

 

[Kem0sabe]

No.

I won't mind if the don't go for 2D, but I think showing a screenshot of 2D will bring them a lot of $$$. People are graphic whores like that. I actually think it might be better for this game to be 3D. Maybe they can do more interesting stuff with locations that way (because of all the weirdness of locations). 2D will only be from purely esthetic / graphicswhore perspective.

I have to disagree, i think that the weirdness of the setting would be better translated as a 2D background than in 3D.

I can't remember a single 3D rpg that translated it's gameworld with any kind of "oh wow" aesthetic.

 

[Infinitron]

I can't remember a single 3D rpg that translated it's gameworld with any kind of "oh wow" aesthetic.

Morrowind says hi?

 

[Kem0sabe]

Morrowind says hi?

Goddamnit, you got me there. Still, the exception to the rule i think (unless you come up with another game that i can't recall at the moment).

 

[norolim]

I can't remember a single 3D rpg that translated it's gameworld with any kind of "oh wow" aesthetic.

I don't know about that. These look pretty "oh wow" to me:

Spoiler

When you're not lazy, your 3D landscapes can be quite stunning. See these oldies, rendered on an ancient, though modified Aurora:

Spoiler

The truth is, however, that none of this is achievable for inXile, because of low budget and small team. That's why, if they want to have visually appealing scenery, they will probably need to go with 2D.

 

[Lancehead]

Myrtana in Gothic 3 was beautiful.

 

[Captain Shrek]

snip

As I hear, 2D is costlier than 3D in terms of production cost and time.

 

[Kem0sabe]

But the cost (in terms of performance) to the end user to have almost photorealistic visuals is immense. How many people have computers capable or running such 3D engines? or how many developers can afford to go all out?

Imagine designing the bloom as the Numenera setting describes it. We are not talking about forests and countryside villas, but full out scifi madness on a billion year scale. Morrowind at the time was a giant leap from Daggerfall and it was a pain to run at half decent fps for anyone with an average computer, PS:T on the other hand, didn't need a great machine and looked just as good in it's unique 2D style.

 

[Captain Shrek]

But the cost (in terms of performance) to the end user to have almost photorealistic visuals is immense. How many people have computers capable or running such 3D engines? or how many developers can afford to go all out?

Imagine designing the bloom as the Numenera setting describes it. We are not talking about forests and countryside villas, but full out scifi madness on a billion year scale. Morrowind at the time was a giant leap from Daggerfall and it was a pain to run at half decent fps for anyone with an average computer, PS:T on the other hand, didn't need a great machine and looked just as good in it's unique 2D style.

Unless you are still using consoles from 2001, the Witcher should run optimally for you.

 

[evdk]

https://torment.uservoice.com/forums/194182-pledge-rewards/suggestions/3739432-a-door-for-our-key

A "door" in the castoff's labyrinth area, that leads to a small treasure chest chamber, that contains a number of completely random items proportionate to the amount that you pledged in KS, if you were generous then the door would be glorious and shiny (and the contents of the chest would be of considerable value)... if you didn't contribute the door would appear to be a miserable and life threatening crack in a wall, maybe with spikes, bugs crawling all over it and an unpleasant smell emanating from the other side (oh and the contents of the chest would be of poor value XD).

Some people should be retroactively aborted.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Unless you are still using consoles from 2001, the Witcher should run optimally for you.

Didn't find the Witcher all that amazing in their world building, i still praise it to this day (to any friend looking for an action rpg) for it's story and action/consequence system, but was rather bland, but it's a medieval Europe analogy, so i guess bland is what they were aiming for.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Didn't find the Witcher all that amazing in their world building, i still praise it to this day (to any friend looking for an action rpg) for it's story and action/consequence system, but was rather bland, but it's a medieval Europe analogy, so i guess bland is what they were aiming for.

We were talking about the Graphics weren't we?

 

[norolim]

As I hear, 2D is costlier than 3D in terms of production cost and time.

It is when compared to crapy 3D like these:

Spoiler

but to produce 3D visuals at the level of Witcher 2 or even Witcher 1, whould simply require much more resources, time and therefore money, I imagine. That's why I wrote, it would probably be better for inXile to go with 2D.

 

[Captain Shrek]

but to produce 3D visuals at the level of Witcher 2 or even Witcher 1, whould simply require much more resources, time and therefore money, I imagine. That's why I wrote, it would probably be better for inXile to go with 2D.

Does it not depend on the availability of the engine? Aurora engine the modified form of which was used to make Witcher was developed in ~2000.

 

[Aeschylus]

but to produce 3D visuals at the level of Witcher 2 or even Witcher 1, whould simply require much more resources, time and therefore money, I imagine. That's why I wrote, it would probably be better for inXile to go with 2D.

Does it not depend on the availability of the engine? Aurora engine the modified form of which was used to make Witcher was developed in ~2000.

Having the engine saves time, but it does not create the assets, which is where most of the work and money goes. It's not like the Witcher reused anything from NWN other than the base engine. Creating a hi-res 3d model and animating it is apparently super expensive.

 

[Kem0sabe]

We were talking about the Graphics weren't we?

I phrased that badly, i was referring to the graphics as a means to portray the world and suspend the players belief that they are playing a game, that's what i have been talking since i started posting about it (but sometimes i don't get my point's across due to language barrier i guess).

The advantage of 2D when compared to 3D is that it's easier for me to imagine inhabiting the gameworld if it's portrayed in a more abstract way instead of aiming for the semi-realism that most developers make the mistake of doing with their 3D efforts.

For me, in the scenes bellow, i will always find that the 2D will look much better, but as with everything it's down to personal preference.

 

[norolim]

but to produce 3D visuals at the level of Witcher 2 or even Witcher 1, whould simply require much more resources, time and therefore money, I imagine. That's why I wrote, it would probably be better for inXile to go with 2D.

Does it not depend on the availability of the engine? Aurora engine the modified form of which was used to make Witcher was developed in ~2000.

Having the engine saves time, but it does not create the assets, which is where most of the work and money goes. It's not like the Witcher reused anything from NWN other than the base engine. Creating a hi-res 3d model and animating it is apparently super expensive.

Beat me to it. It is as Aeschylus wrote. Landscapes in 3D games need to be carefully crafted. Assets need to be built, and than caerfully placed in the environment. Witcher 1 is not visually pleasing just in those 3 areas, the images of which I posted. Its presentation is pretty much consistent throughout...and this takes tones of work and as a result money.

 

[Infinitron]

The comparison here in terms of cost isn't between 3D games in general and 2D games in general. It's between 3D top-down/isometric games and 2D top-down/isometric games.

 

[norolim]

images

Oh come on. First of all the 3D image you chose comes from NWN2, one of the ugliest 3D RPGs there are. And the 2D one is actually rather bland in my opinion...I've seen much better, and a lot.

 

[Kem0sabe]

It is less expensive than doing High Res 2D is what I argued earlier.

Kem0sabe

Look Lone deranger, it has nothing to do with personal taste. in 3D you can of course put more information and get better tactics if it is well done.

Lone derange? What does that even mean?

If it's just a numbers game for inxile, in terms of what is more cost effective, what do you think will cost more a well crafted and well done 3D world or a 2D one? I don't know the answer to that, but if they simply don't have the money to make the game 2D, then so be it, we will all play it for the story anyways.

Oh come on. First of all the 3D engine you chose comes from NWN2, one of the ugliest 3D RPGs there are. And the 2D one is actually rather bland in my opinion...I've seen much better, and a lot.

I chose 2 games that fit in the same mold of what Torment is aiming for, Isometric rpg's, games like NWN1/2, BG series, IWD series, and the like. I actually find ToEE to be one of the most beautiful games ever made.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Let me repeat:

This is less to do with the engine and more to do with the artist.

 

[norolim]

The comparison here in terms of cost isn't between 3D games in general and 2D games in general. It's between 3D top-down/isometric games and 2D top-down/isometric games.

That's true and therefore, again, 2D will probably be a better solution if they want stunning scenery. That doesn't mean that it can't be done in 3D (isometric included) with great results. It can, but it will cost much more thatn 2D. And that was my argument.

 

[Kem0sabe]

I thought you knew the reason for popularity associated with the word 'kemosabe'. Never mind.

Damn, now that you put it like that it's actually funny.

 

[Infinitron]

The comparison here in terms of cost isn't between 3D games in general and 2D games in general. It's between 3D top-down/isometric games and 2D top-down/isometric games.

That's true and therefore, again, 2D will probably be a better solution if they want stunning scenery. That doesn't mean that it can't be done in 3D (isometric included) with great results. It can, but it will cost much more thatn 2D. And that was my argument.

No, in the top-down/isometric sphere, 3D costs less than 2D. Do you realize that every single one of those "stunning sceneries" needs to be modelled in 3D anyway, whether it's 2D or 3D in the final product?

 

[norolim]

The comparison here in terms of cost isn't between 3D games in general and 2D games in general. It's between 3D top-down/isometric games and 2D top-down/isometric games.

That's true and therefore, again, 2D will probably be a better solution if they want stunning scenery. That doesn't mean that it can't be done in 3D (isometric included) with great results. It can, but it will cost much more thatn 2D. And that was my argument.

No, in the top-down/isometric sphere, 3D costs less than 2D. Do you realize that every single one of those "stunning sceneries" needs to be modelled in 3D anyway, whether it's 2D or 3D in the final product?

Well, not necessarily. I don't know the details of how exactly the 2D scenery is produced, but I imagine that after the modelling phase it doesn't look nearly as good as the final art. It is through artists' touch up on the pre-rendered image that the final look is achieved. And this, I think, is less time consuming and costly, when considering that in case of 3D all the diversity and detail has to be achieved in the engine and detailed elements have to be placed in the environment manually and must look good from many directions (camera can usually be rotated in 3D). But, if you know more about the process, feel free to prove me wrong. I'd be glad to learn sth new about it.