Why Isometric 2.5D RPGs Should Have Never Come Back

[vortex]

I like both styles although 3d lets you do all kinds of cool vertical stuff

Like climbing a ladder, going on rooftops? If I'm not mistaken Sawyer talked about that somewhere. Obsidian could easily do that as fake 2D. But it was beyond the budget. If Obsidian goes by the Larian steps, then itz all over.

 

[Trithne]

Rotating cameras add nothing to a cRPG except making the game more annoying.

DOSEE was worse for it, and so is WotR.

I interpreted 'WotR' as "Wake of the Ravager" and was very confused for a bit.

As for the graphics whoring: good sprites don't age. The infinity engine games still look amazing today because their art was solid. Even Dark Sun (the first one, not ravager) holds up because the art is crisp and evocative. And detailed. True 3d still can't match the detail that 2d art can be given because putting all those little details that really make the places the art represents come to life is a lot of effort that they don't want to go to.

Also they're wrong about rotation: fixed rotation angles over free-form any day. The chances you need exactly a 67 degree rotation to see something is nil.

Pretty sure this is ragebait anyway.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

2.5 with fixed camera allows for much more thoughtful level design than it will ever be possible in isometric 3D. Whether developers can take advantage of it is another story.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Rotating cameras add nothing to a cRPG except making the game more annoying.

To say rotating camera adds nothing but annoyance is an exaggeration.

Yes, having to rotate the camera in "isometric" games is annoying most of the time (at least, based on my experience with DOS, WL2, AoD, etc.) but there are pluses to having a rotating camera, too. Being able to see things from different angles, being able to zoom in close to inspect something.

I'd take the (imo, minor) annoyance of having to rotate the camera in exchange for being able to interact with more of the game world.

Zooming has nothing to do with this, and the only reason you'd want to rotate the camera is because the designers have designed their game in such a way to require it.
It adds nothing.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I like both styles although 3d lets you do all kinds of cool vertical stuff

Like climbing a ladder, going on rooftops? If I'm not mistaken Sawyer talked about that somewhere. Obsidian could easily do that as fake 2D. But it was beyond the budget. If Obsidian goes by the Larian steps, then itz all over.

The PoE games aren't fake 3D like IE games, it's closer to a bunch of flat quads representing the gameworld.
This seems to be the biggest hangup people have in this thread. PoE games are full 3D with a fixed camera, not some weird hybrid. You need to detach the graphical view from the actual representation.

 

[vortex]

The PoE games aren't fake 3D like IE games, it's closer to a bunch of flat quads representing the gameworld.
This seems to be the biggest hangup people have in this thread. PoE games are full 3D with a fixed camera, not some weird hybrid. You need to detach the graphical view from the actual representation.

I don't understand that but if Obsidian can do this, they can make fake 2D climbing work.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The PoE games aren't fake 3D like IE games, it's closer to a bunch of flat quads representing the gameworld.
This seems to be the biggest hangup people have in this thread. PoE games are full 3D with a fixed camera, not some weird hybrid. You need to detach the graphical view from the actual representation.

I don't understand that but if Obsidian can do this, they can make fake 2D climbing work.

At 0:40 is exactly what I mean, the graphics are just an illusion. The shadows/lighting works like you'd think because the colliders are invisible -- but they exist in a 3D world, just like the characters and interactable props do.

And there's no requirement that using a fixed camera means resorting to tricks like this, which is what I assume the OP's article meant by '2.5D'. I place myself firmly in the 'fixed camera is better' camp because I just don't enjoy fucking around with my camera. Fixed camera games also seem to have -- in general -- better level design and less tight corridors.

 

[curds]

Zooming has nothing to do with this

That's a valid point. Obviously you can zoom in a 2D game, so I'll admit that was a stupid point for me to make.

the only reason you'd want to rotate the camera is because the designers have designed their game in such a way to require it.

Also true. BG and PoE are obviously designed so you don't have to rotate the camera (because you can't). I guess to me it just feels weird when all doors are facing the same way, you can't search behind anything, you can't enter a building via a back window, etc. A 3D world just feels much more interactive to me, and I'm happy to pay the price of having to rotate the camera.

 

[Desiderius]

I like both styles although 3d lets you do all kinds of cool vertical stuff

Like climbing a ladder, going on rooftops? If I'm not mistaken Sawyer talked about that somewhere. Obsidian could easily do that as fake 2D. But it was beyond the budget. If Obsidian goes by the Larian steps, then itz all over.

Wrath has parkour.

 

[curds]

Fixed camera games also seem to have -- in general -- better level design and less tight corridors.

These are design issues that have little to do with the camera being fixed or movable.

However, I find tight corridors are much harder to navigate in a 2D isometric game. These places are a pain in the ass to navigate without a rotatable camera:

 

[Desiderius]

Not meant to be a joke. It’s great. Relevant item you’ve been waiting for the whole game behind very challenging and relevant skill check. Breathtaking view.

This is exactly the design I want and have been waiting for for years. You faggots are sour on life and it’s coloring your views on games.

Git Gud. L, N, or C I don’t give a fuck.

 

[Butter]

I just wanted to remind everyone that this is a real map in a real video game. It's a fucking nightmare and I don't know what Bioware were thinking. But shitty level design exists in both 2.5D and 3D games, and this would've been shit regardless of whether you had the option to move the camera around.

 

[curds]

Whatever shit you posted didn't load but I'm gonna guess... Thieves' Maze?

That level is so atrocious I felt it would've been unfair to post it as an example. But actually I do think it would've been easier to navigate in a 3D game.

 

[Tavernking]

part 2 electric boogaloo

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Yep.
Ragebait troll it is.

 

[barghwata]

2.5 with fixed camera allows for much more thoughtful level design than it will ever be possible in isometric 3D. Whether developers can take advantage of it is another story.

Zooming has nothing to do with this, and the only reason you'd want to rotate the camera is because the designers have designed their game in such a way to require it.
It adds nothing.

Meh, codex is clearly full of old grognards stuck in 1992, Silent Storm shits on any of your favorite 2.5D isometric games in terms of level design and it's in no small part due to it being 3D, and no it's not just about "climbing ladders" or anything that 2.5d can simulate



2.5D and 3D both have their places, if you're going for timeless visuals and a good atmosphere then go 2.5 but if you're going for something more intricate in terms of level design, verticality and mechanics etc.... then 3D is clearly superior and anyone denying this is simply living in fantasyland.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

2.5 with fixed camera allows for much more thoughtful level design than it will ever be possible in isometric 3D. Whether developers can take advantage of it is another story.

Zooming has nothing to do with this, and the only reason you'd want to rotate the camera is because the designers have designed their game in such a way to require it.
It adds nothing.

Meh, codex is clearly full of old grognards stuck in 1992, Silent Storm shits on any of your favorite 2.5D isometric games in terms of level design and it's in no small part due to it being 3D, and no it's not just about "climbing ladders" or anything that 2.5d can simulate



2.5D and 3D both have their places, if you're going for timeless visuals and a good atmosphere then go 2.5 but if you're going for something more intricate in terms of level design, verticality and mechanics etc.... then 3D is clearly superior and anyone denying this is simply living in fantasyland.

Again, there is nothing preventing these games from having a full 3D environment. It's all about not having to fuck around with the camera.

 

[Ol' Willy]

Like climbing a ladder, going on rooftops?

3D, guys

You know from which blog I loaned this screenshot

 

[Ol' Willy]

Silent Storm shits on any of your favorite 2.5D isometric games in terms of level design and it's in no small part due to it being 3D

How many games like Silent Storm have we seen since?

 

[barghwata]

Again, there is nothing preventing these games from having a full 3D environment. It's all about not having to fuck around with the camera.

What is the point of having full blown intricate 3d environments with several levels and buildings etc..... if you're not even going to use angles to your advantage?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Again, there is nothing preventing these games from having a full 3D environment. It's all about not having to fuck around with the camera.

What is the point of having full blown intricate 3d environments with several levels and buildings etc..... if you're not even going to use angles to your advantage?

exactly what benefits do "camera angles" provide over not having to fuck around with the camera and just enjoying the game?

Seems like they'd be better off just making a first person or third person game if the camera matters that much.

 

[barghwata]

How many games like Silent Storm have we seen since?

So your point is? there haven't been many attempts at using 3D to its full advantage so devs should just stop trying entirely?

 

[Ol' Willy]

So your point is? there haven't been many attempts at using 3D to its full advantage so devs should just stop trying entirely?

Point is there is more good 2D RPGs than 3D ones, and even some 3D ones try to masquerade as 2D ones. I, for one, will welcome a new Silent Storm, but where it is?

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

2.5 with fixed camera allows for much more thoughtful level design than it will ever be possible in isometric 3D. Whether developers can take advantage of it is another story.

Zooming has nothing to do with this, and the only reason you'd want to rotate the camera is because the designers have designed their game in such a way to require it.
It adds nothing.

Meh, codex is clearly full of old grognards stuck in 1992, Silent Storm shits on any of your favorite 2.5D isometric games in terms of level design and it's in no small part due to it being 3D, and no it's not just about "climbing ladders" or anything that 2.5d can simulate



2.5D and 3D both have their places, if you're going for timeless visuals and a good atmosphere then go 2.5 but if you're going for something more intricate in terms of level design, verticality and mechanics etc.... then 3D is clearly superior and anyone denying this is simply living in fantasyland.

Another game that used 3d verticality well was Freedom Force, but the fact is that there are about 8 games that have done good 3d tacticool levels.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Original x-com had 3D verticality... In 1994.

Not understanding this argument.