Information Unigine CEO Offers Free Engine License for Wasteland 2

[DominikD]

Pre-rendered backgrounds are meh. Even the simplest thing like foliage moving on the wind go far beyond what pre-rendered backgrounds could to for the game.

 

[deus101]

Pre-rendered backgrounds are meh. Even the simplest thing like foliage moving on the wind go far beyond what pre-rendered backgrounds could to for the game.

get out.

 

[shihonage]

Arguing for Wasteland 2 to use sprites is neither practical nor plausible. W2 is serious business and it has to scale gracefully to high resolutions. For that reason alone, it has to use 3D models.

DU could (but probably doesn't want to remember it in order to) expand on that or correct me if I misspoke, but Art-related issues were probably the least of our problems with FMF. If one of the artists can speak to it, they can comment on what problems they had with making art, but whatever they were, our artists handled most of them well enough to be invisible to the rest of us.

Indeed, the hardest part of the engine will not involve rendering, but handling of quest and dialogue scripting. More exactly, the maintenance, testing, upgrade while maintaining sync of intersecting parts of it throughout the world.

This will require writing of in-house tools, and will become the make-or-break test for the game, where they will have to choose between going for Fallout level, or backing down into Mass Effect level of interactivity and branching.

 

[Niektory]

Just for the record, there were games that used animated pre-rendered backgrounds extensively, Resident Evil for NGC for example.

 

[Infinitron]

This will require writing of in-house tools, and will become the make-or-break test for the game, where they will have to choose between going for Fallout level, or backing down into Mass Effect level of interactivity and branching.

With no cinematics and no voice acting, I don't see why they would need to give up and back down to "Mass Effect level". This is what we payed them for FFS. And Brian Fargo realizes that or he wouldn't have brought Avellone and his tools onboard.

 

[DominikD]

Pre-rendered backgrounds are meh. Even the simplest thing like foliage moving on the wind go far beyond what pre-rendered backgrounds could to for the game.

get out.

The truth will set you free. It's not 1998 any more. You can have beautiful, *animated* backgrounds. I know, hard to believe.

 

[deus101]

Pre-rendered backgrounds are meh. Even the simplest thing like foliage moving on the wind go far beyond what pre-rendered backgrounds could to for the game.

get out.

The truth will set you free. It's not 1998 any more. You can have beautiful, *animated* backgrounds. I know, hard to believe.

If you wan't beautiful animated backgrounds, give me a call and I'll come and piss down your monitor.

Oh...and 2D backdrops can have animated effects to.. THE MORE YOU KNOW!

 

[Brother None]

Any of you guys played Trine? It relies on certain effects a bit too much but it's hard to argue against 3D when looking at it.

 

[DominikD]

Oh...and 2D backdrops can have animated effects to.. THE MORE YOU KNOW!

Correct, I clearly know more than you. Let me share. Building animated 2D assets is much more expensive than building 3D ones. Example? Bastion: pretty much everything that animates (that is: monsters and characters) is 3D. Pretty much static, hand painted backgrounds are they because the team had only one artist available and she's skilled in 2D. But she wouldn't be able to animate characters for the game herself (it's time consuming == costs a lot) so they outsourced animated 3D models and Jen Zee provided textures. Cost is what eludes you.

Now, back to the backgrounds. Assuming that Wasteland won't go for the cartoony art style, most of the assets will be constructed in 3D anyway. What's the point of assembling, say, grass straws in 3D application and then rendering X frames of animation so you have a 2D animated background? None. You could easily animate this in-engine and get superior results. Not only that but your assets would weight less. Let's think about Fallout 1/2 for a moment. Everything was pre-rendered in a 3D application. The only reason this was the case was horsepower of machines back then. You could easily render objects (backgrounds and models) used in F1/2 in game today in real time. And for an added bonus: stuff in background would animate. Cool, huh?

You're welcome.

 

[deus101]

What's the point of assembling, say, grass straws in 3D application and then rendering X frames of animation so you have a 2D animated background?

Easy...YOU WOULDNT! No one has been retarded enough to make the backdrops into a movie.
You blit the effects( or even use 3D effects layer on top for that matter)

And yes, you usually use 3D modelling to construct 2D assets, and birds go *tweet*.

But there is an aesthetic value which 3D templates, no matter how good they are arranged can't reproduce.
namely top down artistic work.

Take infinity engine, most of maps there are quite clearly 3D and template produces, but before release...you have a artist go over the to fill in anything that wasnt generated. Sorta like a human pixel shader.
That gives the maps oh so much soul then anything a scenegraph can provide.


There is an another argument for 2D. interface...alot of CRPG with top-down 3D view can't seem to allow people to point the camera whereever they fucking please.

 

[Haba]

Let me quote:

Imagine exploring a painted landscape. That's what this game does.

[--]

--In this game, every inch of the game world will be sculpted by an artist. It's going to be unique, and it's going to make our competitors cry.

To this date, not a single real-time 3D game can beat the vistas presented by proper 2(.5)D game. Trine 2 comes close, Diablo 3 is far, far behind.

3D is design by committee, not work of art.

 

[St. Toxic]

Easy...YOU WOULDNT! No one has been retarded enough to make the backdrops into a movie.

To this date, not a single real-time 3D game can beat the vistas presented by proper 2(.5)D game.

I think we're getting there.



I know it's just some high fidelity random chaos, but I like the idea of our rangers actually kicking sand around.

 

[deus101]

Easy...YOU WOULDNT! No one has been retarded enough to make the backdrops into a movie.

To this date, not a single real-time 3D game can beat the vistas presented by proper 2(.5)D game.

I think we're getting there.

Not sure what you are trying to say here?

I'm talking about 2D animation, that you don't handle tons of frames for the same map just to...say..showing off the steam at 5:15.

 

[St. Toxic]

I thought you were talking about using movies as backdrops.

 

[deus101]

I thought you were talking about using movies as backdrops.

Backdrop as in..

Imagine having to rechange the entire screen just to animate some birds flying through.

 

[St. Toxic]

Was anybody seriously suggesting that?

What's the point of assembling, say, grass straws in 3D application and then rendering X frames of animation so you have a 2D animated background?

Says nothing about having to render everything in a single layer, which I'm sure games haven't done for about 30 years. Converting a 3d render to a 2d sprite, however, isn't really that big of a pain, especially if it allows you a higher graphical fidelity at a lower cost. Considering the resolutions we have these days, a 2d game is still capable of out-shining a full-3d game in lod without half the fucking shaders, and then you get to add the shaders and still come up on top in terms of performance.

 

[DominikD]

Easy...YOU WOULDNT! No one has been retarded enough to make the backdrops into a movie.
You blit the effects( or even use 3D effects layer on top for that matter)

No, really? You blit them? And suddenly it's not rendering multiple frames of grass in your 3D package... how?

Take infinity engine, most of maps there are quite clearly 3D and template produces, but before release...you have a artist go over the to fill in anything that wasnt generated. Sorta like a human pixel shader.
That gives the maps oh so much soul then anything a scenegraph can provide.

You can do the same in 3D. Decals have been known for ages, id Tech is not the only one to use some form of megatextures. And there are many, many other ways to do the exact same stuff w/o being forced to rebuild sprites from assets in your 3D package every time you tweak something.

There is an another argument for 2D. interface...alot of CRPG with top-down 3D view can't seem to allow people to point the camera whereever they fucking please.

And 3D is forcing you to rotate camera... how?

3D is design by committee, not work of art.

Right... 3D is being made by smiths, 2D is being made by artists. Got that. It's not like there's a difference between art direction and techniques employed to achieve it. None at all.

But I'm sure skilled in code and art codexians know better than industry. That's probably why there were about two full-2D AA/AAA games released in the last 12 months: Rayman Origins and Skullgirls. Man if only people budgeting games were listening to you, they'd be swimming in cash. But since people romanticizing 2D are the main target of W2, I wouldn't be surprised if he went this path just to be sure not to piss you off. :D

 

[Davaris]

I wasn't in favor of 2D because I wanted some beautiful pre-rendered game like Baldur's Gate. There is far too much work in those kinds of maps for a small company. What I was thinking of was top down and tile based, as those games can be very easy to code and make assets for.

And 3D is not necessarily inexpensive or easy to program. An artist can spend months working on one creature, depending on how good they want it to look.

I got the impression, they were going to spend the bulk of the money on making a big game, with a very small team, rather than spending it on a large team, to make art assets.

So that's why I was expecting a simple tile based, top down game and the bulk of the money spent on the adventure itself. I really would have liked to see them make more than one of these games, or make several addons, if they raised more than they needed.

As for AAA, why do they have to go that route? Why would they want to subject themselves to high burn rates and scrabbling for money, month by month, to prevent a larger company from going broke? He went through all that with Interplay and it isn't much fun for Obsidian, so why do it again?

2D is the mainstay of the Indie game maker community, because one relatively low skilled person, can make games rapidly and with low cost, while a higher skilled and expensive team is required to make 3D games.

There are Indies that make a very, very, good living from 2D games with simple graphics. I was really hoping they would use Kickstarter to break out of the old AAA system, rather than use it to break back in. Oh well, they must enjoy pain.

BTW I love working on 3D engines myself.

 

[St. Toxic]

What about a blend between pre-rendered and tile-based ala Fallout? When creating assets it's a sound economical consideration to try and make the created material re-usable. Giving every area it's own unique background would certainly put a limit to the size of the game, but one unique asset on a map consisting of generic tiles does nearly as much for the atmosphere at a fraction of the cost.

 

[Haba]

But I'm sure skilled in code and art codexians know better than industry. That's probably why there were about two full-2D AA/AAA games released in the last 12 months: Rayman Origins and Skullgirls. Man if only people budgeting games were listening to you, they'd be swimming in cash. But since people romanticizing 2D are the main target of W2, I wouldn't be surprised if he went this path just to be sure not to piss you off. :D

Lets see. 2D art can be equally or more beautiful as 3D. Using 2D art does not stop you from employing layers, transparency and a whole lot of the same effects as 3D games utilize. In the first place, our argument is that we do not need all of that eye candy.

Since you are well versed in everything, you probably also know how much time and effort it takes to produce a single fully modelled, textured and animated character model. You'd probably be shocked to hear how few resources were spent in making the art for some of my favourite games. Of course, in today's world of excess and insanity, those costs would be exponential in a so called "AAA" production.

I could go further in the argument, but seeing how you are just a recently registered alt/troll/newfag (etc.), it'd probably be pointless.

Pixels are beautiful and a line drawn by human hand has always more soul than one rendered by a machine. Or something faggy like that.

 

[shihonage]

Not gonna lie - I love 2D, meself. It's an irrational sort of love. 2D allows for a lot more unique-looking stuff, while 3D looks all the same on low fidelity tiers (i.e. indie). Colored carton with cheapo effects. 3D only really starts looking different between games when they go for high-res models and normal mapping.

But seriously, many "pledgers" will freak out when they paid BRIAN "INTERPLAY" FARGO, and then they run the game and everything looks tiny in 1920x1080, or they run it in 1280x1024 and your character takes 1/3 of the screen because 1920x was the "design" resolution.

Or, everything looks fine in all resolutions, except for shimmering AA edges when sprites walk, because they have to scale them down to resolution in realtime.

 

[deus101]

Easy...YOU WOULDNT! No one has been retarded enough to make the backdrops into a movie.
You blit the effects( or even use 3D effects layer on top for that matter)

No, really? You blit them? And suddenly it's not rendering multiple frames of grass in your 3D package... how?

To be honest that was just a me being a dick and taking what you said literally.
You don't flip through the whole map because the animation of some leaves or dust in the wind are broken down into smaller more manageable art assets.
In rendering context...nothing is wrong with that.

But also i fail to see how the overhead is much different, since in 3D such effects usually has its own director anyway.

And I'm defending handpainted/edited 2D enviroments, I'm not attacking the use of 3D actors.

Take infinity engine, most of maps there are quite clearly 3D and template produces, but before release...you have a artist go over the to fill in anything that wasnt generated. Sorta like a human pixel shader.
That gives the maps oh so much soul then anything a scenegraph can provide.

You can do the same in 3D. Decals have been known for ages, id Tech is not the only one to use some form of megatextures. And there are many, many other ways to do the exact same stuff w/o being forced to rebuild sprites from assets in your 3D package every time you tweak something.

Thats true for textures , but what if you wanted a knocked over stonepost here, some rubble there, etc, you obviously can't because the 3D view transforms differnt results for each position.

There is an another argument for 2D. interface...alot of CRPG with top-down 3D view can't seem to allow people to point the camera whereever they fucking please.

And 3D is forcing you to rotate camera... how?

Should be been more clear.
Kotor introduced the really annoying AWSD movement, resulting in having to bore yourself crusing from one end to another.

While being a squadbased RPG this is really attrocious, offcourse that stems from making the game for console.

But even on PC where you do have the mouse to click select.
Then the map is still limited to your immidiate surroundings of your PC's.

In neverwinter nights and DA thats where this constraints really become annoying, meaning you have to click constantly if you want your character to go traverse long distances across the map.

The only reason I can think of why they added this constraint, is because of shitty performance handling.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Pixels are beautiful and a line drawn by human hand has always more soul than one rendered by a machine

Not many "recent" 2D RPGs are hand drawn. There's KotC. I don't know of any other. So, if you don't want pixelart, you won't get hand-drawn.

 

[DominikD]

Lets see. 2D art can be equally or more beautiful as 3D. Using 2D art does not stop you from employing layers, transparency and a whole lot of the same effects as 3D games utilize. In the first place, our argument is that we do not need all of that eye candy.

Sure, you can achieve "beautiful" with both 3D as well as 2D. The things that change are cost and iteration time. Both are huge factors for a small studio.

Since you are well versed in everything

I'm not. I'm a simple graphics programmer. I spend most of my time debugging various renderers.

you probably also know how much time and effort it takes to produce a single fully modelled, textured and animated character model. You'd probably be shocked to hear how few resources were spent in making the art for some of my favourite games.

And I love me some roguelikes. Raising 3mil to build an ugly game doesn't sound to me like a great business model though. Fargo stated something along the lines of "selling 1mil copies will let us build our favorite games for the next 10 years". Assuming that's the goal, W2 not only has to be a good game gameplay-wise but also a pretty decent looking one. Nobody is expecting characters polished to the level of, say, Gears of War. Especially since we're not gonna see them in such a detail on the screen. And I don't think we should expect artists spending several months polishing characters in Zbrush, iterating on textures, normal map export, etc. With that in mind i think it's reasonable to assume, that animated objects will be in 3D, real-time. Not hand-drawn, not sprites exported from a 3D package (this would be the second most probable option but I simply see no benefit over rendering in RT). There's been a suggestion in this thread that terrain engine will prob be tile based - it probably will, but that doesn't mean it cannot be varied or that it has to be 2D (think: Torchlight - it's 3D and prefab/tile based). There's a thread somewhere on Codex with a pretty cool 2.5D engine presentation (great idea BTW; I did a similar thing in the past for the side scrolling engine). This is also a pretty likely thing they could do. The only problem is that no current middleware has this in-box and I'm not sure they'd go for developing something substantial from scratch. That's a waste of resources and a stall situation for game designers.

Pixels are beautiful and a line drawn by human hand has always more soul than one rendered by a machine. Or something faggy like that.

I'd love to see those sentient machines spewing pixels which were NOT prepared by artists...

Thats true for textures , but what if you wanted a knocked over stonepost here, some rubble there, etc, you obviously can't because the 3D view transforms differnt results for each position.

Could you restate this? I'm not sure I get what you're saying. You can easily have 10 stoneposts onscreen, each with slightly different texture (or even state of decay), different rotation, stale, position, etc. You can even push them with a simple draw call using instancing. But I'm not clear if that's what you're claiming to be impossible.

The only reason I can think of why they added this constraint, is because of shitty performance handling.

It could have been a design decision or ten different things. Past titles are no indication of what is/isn't possible for future ones. Both in terms of expanded, as well as contracted feature set.

 

[deus101]

Thats true for textures , but what if you wanted a knocked over stonepost here, some rubble there, etc, you obviously can't because the 3D view transforms differnt results for each position.

Could you restate this? I'm not sure I get what you're saying. You can easily have 10 stoneposts onscreen, each with slightly different texture (or even state of decay), different rotation, stale, position, etc. You can even push them with a simple draw call using instancing. But I'm not clear if that's what you're claiming to be impossible.

I was thinking of the mappers/artists prerogative to compose the details he/she sees fit.


Now, you've been talking alot on overhead, but the map/level designing i'm thinking of is a post process, where the artist are basically painting over a sketch.

The only reason I can think of why they added this constraint, is because of shitty performance handling.

It could have been a design decision or ten different things. Past titles are no indication of what is/isn't possible for future ones. Both in terms of expanded, as well as contracted feature set.

Well it hard to see what could have spurred the idea to make the interface as awkward as they did withouth bringing in limitations their engine gave.

Its just that for squad based tactics, 3D engines opens a can of worm in relation to how they can design the interface and gameplay.


Now, its not that its impossible to do it right, its just that past experiences that has given me a larger appreciation of the aesthetics, interface and gameplay of2D games(RPG and most strategy games) then it has for 3D ones. So that's where I put my money on.

Which is odd considering I'm a graphics coder myself.