Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Heresy: There is no reason to expect a 2D-isometric engine again. But now we do have one...

asper

Arcane
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
2,207
Project: Eternity
Generally speaking, it is a lot cheaper for someone to paint a background than to create a 3D scene.

This is actually not true. One of the reasons games moved to 3D is that creating assets is much faster, cheaper and easier. 2D art is time-consuming and expensive.

Maybe this isn't the case anymore today, but remember that the engines on the market are almost all 3D, if you're developing for PC. To write your own 2D engine is really a thing that is time-consuming and probably only possible with a Kickstarter fund.

About 2D backgrounds; for me, apart from being much nicer and with more style, is the fact that navigating them doesn't get in the way of playing the game. 2D maps are nice and simple. They PLAY well.
3D is an annoying mess, totally unergonomic. Rotating, zooming, panning... From a usability perspective I don;t see how anyone can prefer 3D.
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,616
Generally speaking, it is a lot cheaper for someone to paint a background than to create a 3D scene.

This is actually not true. One of the reasons games moved to 3D is that creating assets is much faster, cheaper and easier. 2D art is time-consuming and expensive.

Maybe this isn't the case anymore today, but remember that the engines on the market are almost all 3D, if you're developing for PC. To write your own 2D engine is really a thing that is time-consuming and probably only possible with a Kickstarter fund.
3D is only cheaper when it comes to animations. Additionally, it makes doing things like showing equipment changes easier. That is why you often used to see 3D characters on a 2D background.

That should have been obvious if you just stopped to think about it. All of those 3D models need textures, which are 2D and need to be painted by someone.
 

Twinkle

Liturgist
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
1,426
Location
Lands of Entitlement
I don't care whether it's 3d or 2d tbh. Whatever enables developers to implement the intended gameplay concepts while keeping graphics quality at acceptable level (aka no animu shit, no pissfilters to hide the lack of detail or eye-raping contrast) while being relatively cheap and fast to produce.

3d does have inherent advantages. Of course physics calculations *can* be way more complex, also it allows for more realistic landscapes. Except not a single true or hybrid "RPG" of the last decade actually used that to any advantage. Yes, we had Men of War and Silent Storm but they belong to a different genre. For a more abstract concepts, I want to be in control of my dudes without shit obscuring my view, rather than LARP eye in the sky.

Modding potential for 3d stuff is also much higher (as in creating new areas rather than altering base game).

Of course there are bastards like NWN2 engine or Eclipse/Lycium that essentially operate under 2d logic (you can't even have true room-over-room in them iirc) but use 3d renderer to showcase emotionally engaging mannequins in low-poly environments without ever actually utilizing third dimension for anything gameplay-related. The worst of both worlds.
 

MetalCraze

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
21,104
Location
Urkanistan
About 2D backgrounds; for me, apart from being much nicer and with more style, is the fact that navigating them doesn't get in the way of playing the game. 2D maps are nice and simple. They PLAY well.
3D is an annoying mess, totally unergonomic. Rotating, zooming, panning... From a usability perspective I don;t see how anyone can prefer 3D.

Why do you rotate, zoom and pan then?

There's one thing you hipsters can't understand. Obsidian being so fucking bad it can't make a working camera has nothing to do with 3D.
You playing nothing but games for 7 years old console and complaining they look like shit (like your GOTY 2009 DAO) also has nothing to do with 3D

Starcraft 2 - looks much better than SC1 - no need to rotate, zoom, pan anything (you can't even rotate and pan to begin with).

There's a shitton of rotating in Impressions' 2D games as well because in isometric view a lot of objects obscure what's behind them just as well as they do it in 3D. Except in their 2D games you rotate in 90 degree jumps. Very smooth and comfortable and totally not disorienting.
 

Zboj Lamignat

Arcane
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
5,523
The problem with 3d is the fact that games that employ it to actually make gameplay mechanic more fun and interesting and not "omg bloom and look at the 3d tits on that chick!" are very few. This is especially true for crpgs. I mean, the only examples of crpgs actually using 3d to impact gameplay that come to my mind are allowing cheesy instawin tactics in Might and Magic games or Morrowind.

What looks better is preferential. I personally am yet to see a 3d game that would come at least a bit close to looking as pleasing to my eyes as Heroes of Might and Magic II, which was released in 1996 and run in what, 640x480?

And let me yet again point you to a fact that game series undergoing 2d=>3d transition really tend to turn shit from the aesthetic and/or functional perspective. Fallout, Paradox games, HoM&M.

Starcraft 2 - looks much better than SC1.
Actually they both look like poo so that's a piss poor example and one thing you hipster can't understand is that Blizzard being so fucking bad they can't make a game that looks good since Diablo and Warcraft II has nothing to do with 2d, 3d or anything whatsoever apart from the fact that they know they don't need to make any effort to milk retards.

There's a shitton of rotating in Impressions' 2D games
Wait, what?
 

Johannes

Arcane
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
10,487
Location
casting coach
Since the results are still good looking (and graphics isn't the main thing I look for in a game) I would prefer more 2D games. Generally speaking, it is a lot cheaper for someone to paint a background than to create a 3D scene.

Additionally, creating a static 3D shot and rendering it out is a lot cheaper than worrying about poly counts, UVs, graphics pipeline tools, things looking good from every angle, etc.

Less money spent on graphics = a good thing. Lower budgets mean more room for risk and creativity and more dollars available for something else, like AI or other aspects of game design.
No. It's generally more costly to make those 2D renders than just keep the same scene in 3D - it's an an extra step to the work process so it'll naturally take a moment more every time you want to change something.

"Isometric" is just a perspective. It's not an excuse for games to look shitty and be outdated in everything.
No, isometric is not a perspective. In an isometric scene there is no perspective.
 

Johannes

Arcane
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
10,487
Location
casting coach
It's pretty obvious reading Skyways posts (not just the latest one) that he doesn't really know what isometric is or isn't. And not the only technical word he throws around mindlessly while trying to appear as some kind of expert on these matters.

Like, "Switch to 3rd person, move your mouse up a bit = voila Bloodlines is an isometric game." :retarded:
 

Gord

Arcane
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
7,049
To be fair, I think he's not alone with this.
The term "isometric" is used in a number of ways (on both sides of the argument) and not all of them are correct.
Also, "perspective" instead of projection is used together with isometric often enough for it to be considered at least common usage (if probably not entirely correct, but I'm not sure about it myself).
 

IDtenT

Menace to sobriety!
Patron
Joined
Jan 21, 2012
Messages
14,365
Location
South Africa; My pronouns are: Banal/Shit/Boring
Divinity: Original Sin
You can however have isometric projection within a 3D engine. There is no need to give the isometric projection a single rotation or keep it in an 2D engine. Absolutely None. It's pure and simple nostalgia. That is, if the game is not artistic/cartoony in nature, which again Eternity is not.
 

Gord

Arcane
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
7,049
Sure, in principle there's nothing preventing you from doing a game in 3D but give it a fixed (isometric or not) projection/perspective, and limit camera interaction to, say, zooming and moving along the x and y axis.
You could potentially get the benefits of modern 3D graphics (which can be made detailed enough for years now to easily compete with 2D on the level of IE games, fuck the haters), like flexibility, better effects&lighting, better scaling to high resolutions, zoom levels, etc. and still maintain a clear representation, without having to bother with obscured stuff, as you can optimize the scenes for that one camera perspective.
Although personally I never had too much problems with camera-controlls in most games, there have been some that solved it better than others.
How good the game will look depends ultimately only on the talent of the devs and their artists.
 

FeelTheRads

Arcane
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
13,716
Wait, what?

Games like Caesar, Pharaoh etc. You could change the view.

which again Eternity is not.

You keep saying this, but how do you know what are their intentions? And I assume you know they're going for 2D backgrounds? Guess we can expect a 2D... well 2.5 engine today. Too bad it's gonna be from Obsidian so it's gonna suck.
 

IDtenT

Menace to sobriety!
Patron
Joined
Jan 21, 2012
Messages
14,365
Location
South Africa; My pronouns are: Banal/Shit/Boring
Divinity: Original Sin
which again Eternity is not.

You keep saying this, but how do you know what are their intentions? And I assume you know they're going for 2D backgrounds? Guess we can expect a 2D... well 2.5 engine today. Too bad it's gonna be from Obsidian so it's gonna suck.
We have character art of a dwarf to go by, and it is not cartoony/artistic, so I doubt there will be change. I know that they're going for 2D backgrounds, which is a retarded choice for a non-cartoony game.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
To be fair, I think he's not alone with this.
The term "isometric" is used in a number of ways (on both sides of the argument) and not all of them are correct.
Also, "perspective" instead of projection is used together with isometric often enough for it to be considered at least common usage (if probably not entirely correct, but I'm not sure about it myself).
Technically, the term "isometric perspective" is only correct for some of the older games like some of SSIs where you got a perfect 30°/30° split looking down between x/y-axes and all axes have the same equal measure e.g. 1:1:1.
1298379__1.jpg

tp1.gif


But it has been used so often it has naturalized in common usage.

Ultima Online was already called that even though the z-axis was distorted:
uo5.jpg

Technically it is the typical "Militärperspektive" (I don't know if there's an english name for it, but they used to draw military plans like that in good ol' Germany)
Milit%C3%A4rperspektive.PNG


And some of the other games like Fallout and whatnot without a perfect degree split between x/y/z axes are actually axonometric, in the case of Fallout I believe cavalier oblique or other perspective types.

download.phpid1352678ley7j.png

download.phpid1352678vkbib.png


I think there was a thread on the Codex a bit back: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/just-what-is-isometric.69829/

I know that they're going for 2D backgrounds, which is a retarded choice for a non-cartoony game.

:rage:
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,616
Since the results are still good looking (and graphics isn't the main thing I look for in a game) I would prefer more 2D games. Generally speaking, it is a lot cheaper for someone to paint a background than to create a 3D scene.

Additionally, creating a static 3D shot and rendering it out is a lot cheaper than worrying about poly counts, UVs, graphics pipeline tools, things looking good from every angle, etc.

Less money spent on graphics = a good thing. Lower budgets mean more room for risk and creativity and more dollars available for something else, like AI or other aspects of game design.
No. It's generally more costly to make those 2D renders than just keep the same scene in 3D - it's an an extra step to the work process so it'll naturally take a moment more every time you want to change something.
:what:
 

Johannes

Arcane
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
10,487
Location
casting coach
Since the results are still good looking (and graphics isn't the main thing I look for in a game) I would prefer more 2D games. Generally speaking, it is a lot cheaper for someone to paint a background than to create a 3D scene.

Additionally, creating a static 3D shot and rendering it out is a lot cheaper than worrying about poly counts, UVs, graphics pipeline tools, things looking good from every angle, etc.

Less money spent on graphics = a good thing. Lower budgets mean more room for risk and creativity and more dollars available for something else, like AI or other aspects of game design.
No. It's generally more costly to make those 2D renders than just keep the same scene in 3D - it's an an extra step to the work process so it'll naturally take a moment more every time you want to change something.
:what:
You're shocked because you don't believe it or because you're disturbed by this revelation?
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,616
Since the results are still good looking (and graphics isn't the main thing I look for in a game) I would prefer more 2D games. Generally speaking, it is a lot cheaper for someone to paint a background than to create a 3D scene.

Additionally, creating a static 3D shot and rendering it out is a lot cheaper than worrying about poly counts, UVs, graphics pipeline tools, things looking good from every angle, etc.

Less money spent on graphics = a good thing. Lower budgets mean more room for risk and creativity and more dollars available for something else, like AI or other aspects of game design.
No. It's generally more costly to make those 2D renders than just keep the same scene in 3D - it's an an extra step to the work process so it'll naturally take a moment more every time you want to change something.
:what:
You're shocked because you don't believe it or because you're disturbed by this revelation?
Disturbed that you clung to this idea after having the situation explained. It sounds like you think CPU cycles are powered by $100 bills or something. Have you worked on a game or mod before?
 

Johannes

Arcane
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
10,487
Location
casting coach
Pfft. Explained the situation where? By you in that post? :lol:

It's not about CPU power but just about time. I guess you could go without post-processing and all that jazz and end up about even with the 3D in regards to dev time, but what's the advantage then over just using the 3D scene as is...


And yeah, I have. Whatever that's supposed to be worth, never specifically done 2D images out of 3D renders. Now go quote anything that says 2D pre-rendering is a time-efficient method of making graphics.
 

Misconnected

Savant
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
Messages
587
My preference for 2D graphics actually has nothing to do with 2D or 3D. It's based entirely on the fact that 3D makes it easy for developers to do a lot of things that annoy me, while 2D makes it very hard for them to do those things. My inner graphics whore loves 3D. Enough so that half the reason I hate fucking consoles, is because they hold back the shiny-shiny 3D tech. But visuals are a secondary concern for me, and I'd much rather play something fugly that doesn't annoy the shit out of me than have something lovely that's full of annoyances.

You're shocked because you don't believe it or because you're disturbed by this revelation?

Your logic is perfectly sound, but the assumption your conclusion is based on is wrong. Chances are he's shocked that a nerdy gamer would be so ignorant of the processes involved. At least, it surprises me.

The "scene you just keep in 3D" is not how it works. Not even remotely. Perhaps in Ideal Theory Land it is, but in the present-day real world, 3D game asset creation is generally at least several times as much work as 2D game asset creation. And the same goes for the game engines.

To use your own example: To get the 3D scene into the 2D game, you just render it and use the image. To get it into the 3D game you render the scene a couple of different ways, cut the resulting images into pieces, and stitch those pieces onto a primitive model of the original scene. The stitching part of that process alone is probably two orders of magnitude more time consuming than the creation and rendering of the original scene. It's all the work you had to do for the 2D game, plus many, many, many times more work.

3D makes certain things much, much easier than 2D. But on the whole, it is enormously much more complicated and time consuming.
 

FeelTheRads

Arcane
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
13,716
To get it into the 3D game you render the scene a couple of different ways, cut the resulting images into pieces, and stitch those pieces onto a primitive model of the original scene.

What now? The hell are you talking about? You don't render anything. The 3D engine renders. You just assemble the scene from 3D models. That's why it's easier in 3D. You don't need to re-render an image (that maybe was retouched in Photoshop too as it's the case with the IE games for example) just to move or rotate an object. You just move and rotate that object and you're done.
I'm not sure about what process you're talking about or if you're using some backwards analogies that I can't understand.
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,616
Pfft. Explained the situation where? By you in that post? :lol:

It's not about CPU power but just about time. I guess you could go without post-processing and all that jazz and end up about even with the 3D in regards to dev time, but what's the advantage then over just using the 3D scene as is...


And yeah, I have. Whatever that's supposed to be worth, never specifically done 2D images out of 3D renders. Now go quote anything that says 2D pre-rendering is a time-efficient method of making graphics.
lol, "go quote something". Have you missed a decade of lamentations by developers about the rising cost of games as they are forced to create higher quality 3D assets?

You are completely ignoring the entire content pipleline. When rendering for 2D you set the camera in the position you want and lighting where you want it and it is done. You drop the complete image into the assets folder and use it as a background. If it is going to take a long time you set it to render on a different machine. A designer paints a quick mask for it representing the area the player is blocked by.

In 3D you have to create all the same pieces as 2D, except you also have to do the following, which is time consuming:
-make sure the models fit polygon restrictions
-make sure the models look good from every angle
-adhere to texture size restrictions
-export the models and textures through your content pipeline and import them into your level editor
-generate and check the low-poly mesh for collision detection
-place the completed pieces in the level editor (which is almost always slower than placing them in the 3D program)
-design your levels and set pieces so that you can never see anything of consequence in the distance and hallways have detours in the middle of them to cut draw distance
-limit usage of foliage and water

The only place this ends up saving you time is when it comes to animation and characters that change their appearance by more than a palette swap. Creating the 2D equipment system that blizzard did for Diablo 2 is complicated and prone to small errors.
 

Gord

Arcane
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
7,049
And yet, although 3D is supposedly so muh more time consuming, expensive and difficult, most games use a 3D engine...
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
To get it into the 3D game you render the scene a couple of different ways, cut the resulting images into pieces, and stitch those pieces onto a primitive model of the original scene.

What now? The hell are you talking about? You don't render anything. The 3D engine renders. You just assemble the scene from 3D models. That's why it's easier in 3D. You don't need to re-render an image (that maybe was retouched in Photoshop too as it's the case with the IE games for example) just to move or rotate an object. You just move and rotate that object and you're done.
I'm not sure about what process you're talking about or if you're using some backwards analogies that I can't understand.
I believe he is talking about all the different rendering steps, shaders and post processing stages games nowadays go through to reach the final image.

There were some pretty good videos from Johan Andersson, the Rendering Architect behind Battlefield 3 about which singular steps they take to be able to get the final image and how many different texture maps and assets they require:
This is mostly about lighting and texture components etc.:

This is about Post-Processing required, at about 5 minutes in he goes through the steps required for them to render some of the levels:
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom