Why Isometric 2.5D RPGs Should Have Never Come Back

[urmom]

X-COM had doors facing in every direction too.

 

[Bad Sector]

Yes, in theory if a game commits to always placing stuff in the visible directions a fixed camera can be fine. But when even highly regarded games like Baldur's Gate have a ton of stuff in the invisible directions and i felt compelled to wallhug the collision planes in case i didn't notice a door or object, even games that seem to promise everything would be visible leave me suspicious that some bastard level designer will take advantage of that and break the promise by placing some powerful item in a room accessible only from the invisible side.

Also being able to rotate and zoom the camera, even when it isn't needed, helps me read and orient myself in the world so i prefer that.

 

[Doktor Best]

Yes, in theory if a game commits to always placing stuff in the visible directions a fixed camera can be fine. But when even highly regarded games like Baldur's Gate have a ton of stuff in the invisible directions and i felt compelled to wallhug the collision planes in case i didn't notice a door or object, even games that seem to promise everything would be visible leave me suspicious that some bastard level designer will take advantage of that and break the promise by placing some powerful item in a room accessible only from the invisible side.

Also being able to rotate and zoom the camera, even when it isn't needed, helps me read and orient myself in the world so i prefer that.

Press Tab to highlight objects. Include doors. Problem solved.

 

[Bad Sector]

Press Tab to highlight objects. Include doors. Problem solved.

...for finding stuff in Baldur's Gate.

I mean sure, that is the example i gave, but it isn't the only isometric game with a fixed camera out there.

(and even that doesn't solve the other issue i personally i have with reading and orienting myself)

But that solution is nice where available and in fact even better in an adjustable camera game - e.g. in Dragon Age Origins i have the highlight objects shortcut mapped to one my mouse's thumb buttons. It is a feature that most games with a lot of interactive objects should have, especially more modern games that tend to have busy visuals.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

There's a reason most of the issues being pointed out are from BG1 and not the other IE games or later fixed-camera style games.

 

[Testownia]

also im not sure why that guy is complaining about Gloomworld so much. personally I think those late 90's early 2000's graphic engines have a cool look. If they have good high resolution textures, mixed with modern post processing effects, it looks cool

I agree, although Gloomwood in particular is too minimalistic in terms of objects cluttering the world. We don't have the bad with the good when it comes to retro games.

Also, verticality is possible in isometric games. Pillars of Eternity II is a good example.

EDIT: I live in a big city. There's a family of boars outside my house. Help.

 

[Kliwer]

What nonsense. Of course 2D (or 2.5D) games have a future. Or at least they should have.


Each project has a budget. Each project has limited resources. It is foolish to waste these resources on meaningless things.


Creating a 3D RPG is more expensive and more complicated. If you can give up 3D - and instead add more content to the game, more dialogues, more mechanics, etc. - it should be done this way. A similar problem is dubbing of dialogues. It adds little to the gameplay, but it greatly limits the amount of text you can implement.


Games with relatively primitive, minimalistic graphics often offer us more possibilities than graphically advanced games. For example, in Divine Divinity we can destroy or move most of the objects in the game world: barrels, chests, boxes, apples on the table and dishes in the cupboard. At the same time, the geometry in 3D games from the same era is completely static: most of the boxes and crates are just decorations. Even today's 3D cRPGs are often much less interactive than many old games. Ultima 7, Divine Divinity, Dark Sun or ADOM allow us to perform a much larger number of activities than Skyrim or Witcher 3. Of course - do not overdo it. Not every game should be a roguelike. Nevertheless, I would postulate a general rule: graphics in cRPG should be primitive enough to not limit gameplay.


Pillars of Eternity is not a perfect game, but I like it anyway. I don't really see how 3D graphics could improve this. Art-style would probably be uglier, the locations would probably be less numerous, the fights would not change (except that we would play with unnecessary maneuvering the camera - exactly as in NWN2).


3D RPGs are fine, but only if designers have an idea how to use 3D. And this happens rarely, I believe.


How many cRPGs actually makes use of three dimensions? For example, Wizards and Warriors comes to mind. The dungeons in this game are designed with three dimensions in mind - there are plenty of elevators, bridges over chasms, underwater corridors etc. These dungeons could not be transferred to a 2D engine.


Another example is Divinity 2: Ego Draconis. The exploration in this game is both vertical and horizontal. We visit external locations on foot or as a dragon. We fly up and down to get to hidden places. Many dungeons have a tower-like structure where platforming elements are an important part of exploration. Even some puzzles are based on the players ability to move in three axes.


But these are exceptions. Most of the 3D RPGs are in 3D for purely decorative reasons. Games like NWN 1 and 2, Drakensang, Original Sin, Dragon Age - get nothing from being in 3D. Every dungeon and every fight in these games would be easily transferred to a 2D engine.


TL; DR: If game developers have an idea how to use 3D to improve gameplay - that's okay. But if 3D is just an ornament, it is a waste of time and resources and it disrupts gameplay.

 

[urmom]

There are games with bad 2D and games with bad 3D, and there will be games with bad 4D whenever that happens. (You will need a math degree to play those.)

Every graphics technology has associated trendy gimmicks(TM). Off the top of my head I can't name examples of radiosity being misused/abused though. Anyone know of any?

Other than the fact that radiosity is largely faked and real radiosity requires general purpose CPU not a limited purpose GPU. But even hacky radiosity can look good?

 

[Drop Duck]

Another example is Divinity 2: Ego Draconis. The exploration in this game is both vertical and horizontal. We visit external locations on foot or as a dragon. We fly up and down to get to hidden places. Many dungeons have a tower-like structure where platforming elements are an important part of exploration. Even some puzzles are based on the players ability to move in three axes.

TL; DR: If game developers have an idea how to use 3D to improve gameplay - that's okay. But if 3D is just an ornament, it is a waste of time and resources and it disrupts gameplay.

Even in those cases the tradeoff often isn't worth it. Divinity 2 looked terrible compared to the first two games and the graphical downgrade wasn't made up for with a few jumping puzzles or letting the player pretend to be super mario. Are there any RPGs that have introduced verticality and done something worthwhile with it? I can't think of any. Silent Storm did destructible environments and was brought up in this thread but it was no RPG.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

I sort of see the point (although he doesn't actually mention it), There's a veritable plague of games that are made to be nostalgic, and usually offer nothing of value otherwise. A lot of the recent boomer shooters are like this - offering competently made experiences that remind you of games like Doom, but they really aren't very fun. Games like Strafe. (Obviously there are still good ones).

But harping on about "graphics" is stupid. There are plenty of excellent looking 2D graphics cRPGs that still look decent today. Even BG1:EE and IWD:EE look good to me, far better than many of the older 3D RPGs.