127 réponses à ce sujet

[MayCaesar]

But from a game design standpoint 3D graphics should only be used if they are needed for or complement the game play. If it is unnecessary, it is better to leave it out and go with 2D or ISO or some other simpler style of presentation that makes more sense for what the game is.

 

I do not quite understand why you take 2D as some sort of golden standard and 3D as a deviation, not vise versa. It takes roughly the same amount of time to create beautiful 2D models and animations as 3D, since all the models are pre-made in 3D anyway. In fact, all those 2D and iso games you are referring to are actually drawn in 3D (at least, models are), so I could argue that 2D is an unnecessary reduction of a full project caused in older times solely by the need for the games to run on those old PCs. If, say, Baldur's Gate 1 could be run in 3D on PCs of that time without much trouble, you bet the developers would go for it.

 

I don't see any reason to purposefully make 2D/iso games nowadays when high quality 3D games run on modern PCs with little trouble, except for solely the nostalgic purposes (and games like Divinity: Original Sin or Pillars of Eternity were actually done in iso out of nostalgia - the developers made it very clear).

 

That said, I don't see why 3D games should necessarily be better looking than 2D games, or vise versa. It all depends not on the method but on the execution.

 

---

 

On a side note, I do think that NWN1 looks horrible, both technologically and aesthetically. Graphical quality has nothing to do with the reason for me to play this game.

[Tchos]

I don't see any reason to purposefully make 2D/iso games nowadays when high quality 3D games run on modern PCs with little trouble, except for solely the nostalgic purposes (and games like Divinity: Original Sin or Pillars of Eternity were actually done in iso out of nostalgia - the developers made it very clear).

 
What, all of the members of those teams did it just because it made them feel young, and not because it's a valid gameplay presentation style?  What about the gamers who play and enjoy these and other modern pseudo-isometric games (the ones cited are not isometric).  All blinded by this nostalgia?  I absolutely hated isometric-style games for most of my gaming life, and refused to play them.  The first one that I did play was Torchlight, which I got somewhere in 2010, and that was a good game to get me used to it so that I could eventually appreciate Baldur's Gate and the other Infinity Engine games.  Now I see that it's a perfectly valid game presentation type, and I very much enjoy it.
 
How about other presentation styles?  There's no reason to make any more side-scrolling platformers, or overhead 4X turn based strategy games, because it all has to be 1st person 3D?  What if I want to play something that looks like it was hand drawn instead of a 3D Pixar-looking thing or a hyper-realistic thing?
 
There are different kinds of games, and good reasons to make them in different ways.  Vive la différence!

[henesua]

I never "took 2D as a golden standard". Not sure where you got that. What I said was that the presentation should fit the needs of game play. Not all games need to be 3D to be good and many would be worse if they were fully 3D games.

 

In the case of POE or the Shadowrun series they are good because they are not fully 3D. It enabled the developers to focus on game play and story rather than get lost in the details. The design also allows the player to focus on the game play rather than getting lost in the world - which is not the point of those games.

 

If it helps allow me to oversimplify my point:

no one would like a world in which all games are cutting edge 3D first person shooters. For awhile this is how aspiring game devs thought. No matter what the kind of game people were obsessed with first person 3D environments for everything. For many kinds of games it does not work though, and so I am glad that say turn based global strategy games don't limit the view to 3D first person perspective. ITs just crazy to look at that sort of thing as the end all be all of game design.

 

Another example board game ports are best done as top down 2D games with very clearly designed icons.

 

RPGs can be done in a variety of ways. The fully realized 3D view doesn't work for many fo them however. If its a single player RPG focused on world exploration then yes it makes lots of sense. For a party management game with lots of tactics it sucks. If its a game that is not about being immersed in the world but instead story focused with lots of complexity there it also doesn't make sense because that takes lots of work and you need to put your resources into that rather than wasting 90% of your budget on the graphics and distracting your players from what you actually want them to focus on.

[MayCaesar]

 
What, all of the members of those teams did it just because it made them feel young, and not because it's a valid gameplay presentation style?  What about the gamers who play and enjoy these and other modern pseudo-isometric games (the ones cited are not isometric).  All blinded by this nostalgia?

 

Err, that is not what I was trying to say at all. Not "blinded" by nostalgia, but driven by it. The developers of, say, Pillars of Eternity made it clear in interviews multiple times that they wanted to bring back the feel of Baldur's Gate games. Hence the isometric perspective, since Baldur's Gate had it. People funded this kickstarter project mostly exactly because they liked old school Infinity Engine games and wanted more games of similar design. That was the main and, perhaps, the only reason of the game being isometric. It is not good or bad, it is just what it is.

 

 

 There are different kinds of games, and good reasons to make them in different ways.  Vive la différence!

 

Which is exactly what I was saying.

 

 

I never "took 2D as a golden standard". Not sure where you got that. What I said was that the presentation should fit the needs of game play. Not all games need to be 3D to be good and many would be worse if they were fully 3D games.

 

What you said was that 3D graphics should only be used when they are needed to complement the gameplay; if they are not, then, apparently, they shouldn't be used. Quote: "If it is unnecessary, it is better to leave it out and go with 2D or ISO or some other simpler style of presentation that makes more sense for what the game is. ". What if I turn it around and say that 2D graphics should only be used when they are needed to complement the gameplay, and otherwise 3D graphics should always be used?

 

My point is, 2D and 3D are just different styles, totally and equally viable. You said that none of the games you mentioned would be better in full 3D. How do you know? And what if they originally were released in 3D and you would be used to them in this form - would you be saying then that none of them would be better in 2D? And how can you even know how they would be in 3D if they haven't been in 3D and no one could experience what they would be like in 3D?

 

However, like I mentioned, all the models even in 2D and iso games originally are drawn in 3D. It doesn't make 3D the golden standard, but it does mean that 2D games are essentially simply a way of presenting 3D worlds. 2D that you see in, say, Diablo 2 is simply 3D projected to a 2D plane. Since modern computers are able to easily handle most 3D graphics, I don't see the need to project anything on a 2D plane when you can just release it in full 3D and let the player adjust the camera to be isometric (like many people playing NWN1/2 with isometric camera, having the same experience as they would if these games were exclusively isometric). If someone wants to do so, I don't mind, it is a viable way of doing things - but saying that it is somehow more "natural" contradicts basic facts about the way the games are designed. "Natural" would be 2D in a game like Dune 2 which was developed in pure 2D - but such games are next to non-existent in modern production.

[henesua]

You are wandering far away from my point so I am not going to follow you there.

 

2D and 3D are indeed different styles of presentation as I mentioned. But there are also different ways of using each. And the way you use them should meet the needs of the game. 2D worked far better in the games I mentioned than a 3D presentation and rotational or first person cameras would have.

 

You are wrong in your assumptions about graphics pipelines in game dev. It is not necessarily all 3D and then worked down to something else. It may have been in Diablo and similar games. But that is irrelevant. Its not how all game art is worked on.

[Tchos]

The developers of, say, Pillars of Eternity made it clear in interviews multiple times that they wanted to bring back the feel of Baldur's Gate games. Hence the isometric perspective, since Baldur's Gate had it. People funded this kickstarter project mostly exactly because they liked old school Infinity Engine games and wanted more games of similar design. That was the main and, perhaps, the only reason of the game being isometric. It is not good or bad, it is just what it is.

 

However, like I mentioned, all the models even in 2D and iso games originally are drawn in 3D.

 

I don't see the need to project anything on a 2D plane when you can just release it in full 3D and let the player adjust the camera to be isometric (like many people playing NWN1/2 with isometric camera, having the same experience as they would if these games were exclusively isometric).

 

I know, I've seen people use the "nostalgia" bandwagon to market their work, but do you really think they would bank everything solely on an older demographic which was already niche to begin with, if it weren't actually a good and useful presentation style as well?  If you're saying that everyone funded it because they like the design, that's one thing, but to claim that they all like the design solely because it gives them warm fuzzy memories and not because it's a good, valid presentation that serves its purpose well is demonstrably false, and frankly unbelievable.  I truly cannot believe anyone would continue to make that claim when there's someone right here saying it doesn't apply to them.

 

I hope you're only saying the ones mentioned above are originally 3D models flattened to 2D, and aren't actually claiming that all modern 2D games are done that way.  They're not.

 

Just so you know, "isometric" has a very specific meaning.  It doesn't just mean "overhead at a slight angle."  There is no parallax or 3D perspective in an isometric projection, so they cannot have the exact same experience as they would if the games were exclusively isometric (though personally, I prefer them not to be true isometric as the Infinity Engine games are).

[MayCaesar]

 

2D worked far better in the games I mentioned than a 3D presentation and rotational or first person cameras would have.

 

This is precisely the point I was criticizing. I see no reason for these games to be better in 2D than in 3D. I think that Baldur's Gate 2 in quality 3D wouldn't be any worse than in 2D, and that Dragon Age: Origins in quality 2D wouldn't be any worse than in 3D. And, really, in all RPGs I know characters, in the end, move on 2D surfaces. There might be multiple levels of those surfaces, but in the end they move on individual surfaces or, at best, can jump a bit above them. So in these games functionally 3D isn't any different from 2D, the difference is only in the looks, not in the gameplay.

 

It is quite different from, say, FPS games, or flight simulators - those in 2D wouldn't work very well. But RPGs can work equally well in both. And, since people in 3D RPGs mostly can adjust the camera in such a way that they are essentially played like 2D (not precisely, but you get my point), while in 2D the opposite rotation is not possible - I'd generally prefer 3D to 2D of similar quality. But it is not really critical for me, as long as I enjoy the aesthetics.

 

 

I know, I've seen people use the "nostalgia" bandwagon to market their work, but do you really think they would bank everything solely on an older demographic which was already niche to begin with, if it weren't actually a good and useful presentation style as well?  If you're saying that everyone funded it because they like the design, that's one thing, but to claim that they all like the design solely because it gives them warm fuzzy memories and not because it's a good, valid presentation that serves its purpose well is demonstrably false, and frankly unbelievable. 

 

I don't remember saying that 2D wasn't a valid presentation; in fact, I specifically said the opposite a few times. But, once again, 2D is simply a projection of 3D. You can project 3D into 2D, but you cannot project 2D into 3D. A person enjoying 2D games can simulate similar to 2D look in 3D with proper camera setting, while a person enjoying 3D games cannot simulate similar to 3D look in a 2D game. Just like you can buy a $1,000 car having $10,000 on your bank account, but you cannot buy a $10,000 car having $1,000 on your account, 3D is more potent than 2D. It doesn't necessarily apply to particular games, since the implementation always varies; there are a lot of 2D games played much better than a lot of 3D games. But you can do in 3D what you cannot do in 2D, while you can do in 2D only what you can do in 3D.

 

One thing I haven't touched here is convenience of development. Of course 2D games are much easier to develop than 3D. You don't need to adjust terrain levels in 2D, you don't need to draw everything in 3D initially and can use some 2D visual effects / models. This might be looked at as advantage of 2D, indeed.

 

Just so you know, "isometric" has a very specific meaning.  It doesn't just mean "overhead at a slight angle."  There is no parallax or 3D perspective in an isometric projection, so they cannot have the exact same experience as they would if the games were exclusively isometric (though personally, I prefer them not to be true isometric as the Infinity Engine games are).

 

I use a common (although technically incorrect) terminology here. Strictly speaking, isometric is 2D, and what you can get from, say, Dragon Age: Origins by using tactical camera is still 3D. Even developers sometimes confuse the terminology. For example, the upcoming game Sword Coast: Legends is positioned as isometric, while it is actually just 3D with a certain camera positioning.

[Tchos]

I don't remember saying that 2D wasn't a valid presentation; in fact, I specifically said the opposite a few times.

 

What you said, which I quoted and which I am objecting to, is your statement: "I don't see any reason to purposefully make 2D/iso games nowadays when high quality 3D games run on modern PCs with little trouble, except for solely the nostalgic purposes".  I presented reasons.

[MayCaesar]

What you said, which I quoted and which I am objecting to, is your statement: "I don't see any reason to purposefully make 2D/iso games nowadays when high quality 3D games run on modern PCs with little trouble, except for solely the nostalgic purposes".  I presented reasons.

 

Alright, I must admit, that statement was a bit shortsighted. But I think I explained in my latest post what I really meant by it.

[Tchos]

Alright, I must admit, that statement was a bit shortsighted. But I think I explained in my latest post what I really meant by it.

 

Then I'll let it rest.  Your latest post seemed to be talking about something quite different, which I also find needlessly restrictive, but not something I consider worth disputing.

[henesua]

Yeah, no point in talking to a wall.

[MayCaesar]

Yeah, no point in talking to a wall.

 

Very nice way to end the discussion. 

[SeverusSewer]

NWN1 is the best gaming investment I have made in this new century. Between the Official material, a five year on-line campaign, hundreds of Player created mods, and continued occasional play on a current PW, this game still has much to offer. And it is available on GOG.com.

 

This games looks **** mate. It looked like it was made in the 80's compared to bg. It is the problem from the games from that generation (Morrowind, soul reaver, deus ex). I can belive i played it when it came out. Nowdays i cannot even look at it, square looking characters.

Compared to nwn 2, it looks like decades old.

[Elhanan]

This games looks **** mate. It looked like it was made in the 80's compared to bg. It is the problem from the games from that generation (Morrowind, soul reaver, deus ex). I can belive i played it when it came out. Nowdays i cannot even look at it, square looking characters.
Compared to nwn 2, it looks like decades old.

I disagree:

http://cf.shacknews....or003_large.jpg

http://www.amethyst-..._halfdrow_f.jpg

http://www.amethyst-...truefeather.jpg

[LastBard]

I disagree:

http://cf.shacknews....or003_large.jpg

http://www.amethyst-..._halfdrow_f.jpg

http://www.amethyst-...truefeather.jpg

 

Me too.

 

 - Edit -

 

And just watch it:

 

http://neverwinterva...3037fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...3112fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...3186fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...3238fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...3250fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...3268fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...1803fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...1859fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...1891fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...1907fullres.jpg

 

http://neverwinterva...2056fullres.jpg

 

Oh, yes...still NWN 1.

[icywind1980]

@ Hesuna: We shouldn't be having this conversation on a thread that asks the question, ''Is NEVERWINTER NIGHTS still worth playing?'' I agree with you there.

 

All the rest of both of our comments are personal preference and I don't have to explain myself to you or any other gamer. I play for me and for my enjoyment, not yours. I prefer 3D games and I always will. I don't care if the game has a ''compelling story'' (Which most don't). It's lost on me if I feel I can't experience it, the case being especially in RPGmaker games that look like NES games. They feel empty, even if there is 100,000 words of dialog in them.

 

As for those games mentioned above, how do you know they wouldn't be better in full 3D? It's not really something either of us could truly know, cos it's not how they're made. You say they would bog down system specs, but is that really an issue on a newer computer? I guess I was just speculating that the games you mentioned would be better in 3D- my apologies for that, but I don't understand why you think it's better for games in general to be iso or 2D as you didn't actually support your argument. Perhaps you could clarify.

 

Edit: I didn't realise this spilled over to the 2nd page when I posted.

 

Also you were incredibly rude with your post about talking to a wall. If you don't enjoy the conversation, simply don't talk.

Modifié par icywind1980, 20 août 2015 - 02:55 .

[henesua]

You may find my response rude, but I can't understand how anyone would consider my response there unjustified. I have lost patience with people who rudely go with their own incorrect assumptions instead of actually reading what the other person wrote.

 

My point was two fold:

(1) I think you, Icy, are missing out on great games, but I already made that point and am not going to bother you on those grounds anymore. Play what you like. I dropped this after one post. I have not been belittling anyone for playing 3D games.

(2) The claim that all games should be 3D however is a bad assertion and worthy of being challenged because its not about personal preference, but instead about game design and development. I challenged it on the following grounds:

   - high fidelity 3D graphics and cutting edge engines detract (during game development) from more meaningful aspects of game development - design of the game itself

   - not all games need the same presentation and better games appropriately match presentation with game play. 3D implies different types of play than 2D does or the thing that we call "ISO".

 

I provided examples as to why the games I chose are better in their current implementations than as truly 3D. And I'm tired of repeating myself.

[Tchos]

It's lost on me if I feel I can't experience it, the case being especially in RPGmaker games that look like NES games.

 

You're about 2 generations off.  The colour depth and resolution of RPG Maker games wasn't achieved in consoles until 5th generation consoles (NES is third).

[kamal_]

If I wanted to complain about graphics ruining a game I would complain about the terrible graphics of chess. One single flat empty map thats got a two color 8x8 texture. You get six unit types and that's it, the factions don't even have different units!

/ I played wearing an onion on my belt, as was the style at the time. Also, I wasnt very good.

[MayCaesar]

If I wanted to complain about graphics ruining a game I would complain about the terrible graphics of chess. One single flat empty map thats got a two color 8x8 texture. You get six unit types and that's it, the factions don't even have different units!

/ I played wearing an onion on my belt, as was the style at the time. Also, I wasnt very good.

 

This is not the best example, since Chess by its very design does not try to emulate anything from the real world: it is just a competitive game. RPGs, on the other hand, try to emulate roleplaying, roleplaying of a fictional character in a fictional world at that. In Chess, better graphics wouldn't benefit the gaming experience in any way, it would be obsolete functionally. In RPGs - at the very least, it depends on the game.

 

On a different note, there have been countless attempts to try to diversify Chess. I used to play Chess semi-professionally, and, you know, playing the same 8 moves long variation of French defense the 1000th time isn't fun. The problem is, the Chess community is so big and influential, it is basically a monopoly, and trying to popularize games offering more diversity encounters a massive opposition from millions of devoted players. I believe, for example, this "extension" would really benefit Chess, both in terms of diversity and skill required:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960

[icywind1980]

You're about 2 generations off.  The colour depth and resolution of RPG Maker games wasn't achieved in consoles until 5th generation consoles (NES is third).

 

It really still looks like NES to me.

[Tchos]

I wish NES games could look as good as that.

(16.7 million colours, alpha transparency, 640x480 resolution, I mean.)

[Elhanan]

FYI - Big sale at GOG for NWN and other D&D titles

[MagicalMaster]

It might be hard getting into NWN1 since the game, let's be honest, is extremely outdated by modern standards.

 

Are you mainly referring to the graphics here?  I mean, for the record, I recently tried Dragon Age: Inquisition's single player campaign (I've beaten both DA:O and DA2) and...the controls are significantly worse than NWN, to be frank.  Because the game expects you to control the whole party while having terrible party controls and default companion behavior that might be worse than NWN's all told...

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think NWN looks all that bad. I mean ofc it's not amazing graphics like in Witcher 3, but it is still a quite serviceable game.

 

I agree.  I think it's aged pretty well overall -- yeah, if you zoom in and nitpick certain stuff is ridiculous but looking at the screen doesn't make me wince in general or anything.

 

This is one reason why I still play NWN. Its almost as developed graphically as it would ever need to be. NWN2 took it too far in my opinion for what this is. The only thing NWN would really need is modern shaders and perhaps better lighting, but its otherwise perfect for what it needs to be. I can live with out postprocessing affects like bloom and blur and all that. And I don't need really complex environments. The 2.5 D environments are actually fine for what we do. It would be nice if it was a real 3D thing, but I'm not sure how this would affect modding or the speed at which the level information is translated from server to client.

 

Also agreed.

[Grani]

One thing I'm wondering, given that I'm a noob when it comes to all these technicalities...

 

Why hasn't NWN graphics been improved as much as some other games with comparable visuals? Take Morrowind, for example.

 

 

I mean, I don't need such graphics. But just... why? Was it impossible to achieve? Or is it that just nobody cared enough?