Also by 2D isometric, people don't mean that the entire world needs to be 2D flat like the project eternity engine.
People would be fine with a 3D engine locked into a 2D isometric view like DAO and Magicka. The only issue I tend to have with such engines is that they never allow you to zoom out enough though.
Also by 2D isometric, people don't mean that the entire world needs to be 2D flat like the project eternity engine.
People would be fine with a 3D engine locked into a 2D isometric view like DAO and Magicka. The only issue I tend to have with such engines is that they never allow you to zoom out enough though.
Err, Dragon Age: Orgins was a fully 3D game, not 2D/isometric.
Edit: I actually think that Project Eternity sounds more like what you're talking about. It uses the Unity engine, which is 3D, but they're tweaking it so that it will play like a 2D isometric game, to better recreate the Infinity Engine/Old-school RPG feel.
Yeah, and you only had 3 party members as a result. 2D Isometric works much better for controlling parties of 6, which is how many you should be able to have in any game that is intended as the sequel to the BG series (whether it's called BG3 or not). That seems like a pretty clear cut requirement.
Also by 2D isometric, people don't mean that the entire world needs to be 2D flat like the project eternity engine.
People would be fine with a 3D engine locked into a 2D isometric view like DAO and Magicka. The only issue I tend to have with such engines is that they never allow you to zoom out enough though.
Err, Dragon Age: Orgins was a fully 3D game, not 2D/isometric.
Edit: I actually think that Project Eternity sounds more like what you're talking about. It uses the Unity engine, which is 3D, but they're tweaking it so that it will play like a 2D isometric game, to better recreate the Infinity Engine/Old-school RPG feel.
MWO tactics uses unity and is an isometric game.
I like the infinity engine, would rather a game in it if they make a new one. Apparently they can do everything needed to make a game in the engine so they should stick with that rather than spending time and money learning a new game engine.
Also by 2D isometric, people don't mean that the entire world needs to be 2D flat like the project eternity engine.
People would be fine with a 3D engine locked into a 2D isometric view like DAO and Magicka. The only issue I tend to have with such engines is that they never allow you to zoom out enough though.
Edit: I actually think that Project Eternity sounds more like what you're talking about. It uses the Unity engine, which is 3D, but they're tweaking it so that it will play like a 2D isometric game, to better recreate the Infinity Engine/Old-school RPG feel.
Actually I believe that what Obsidian is doing is creating backgrounds that are 2D, artist rendered just like Baldur's Gate did. But there will be more 3D objects placed in those environments to really bring them to life.
Take the same approach BG used, but fast forward technology 13/14 years, and this is what you get:
Project Eternity is entirely 2D without any polygons, they revealed a flat scale model for that screenshot in a video and its actually entirely flat.
A better example of 3D locked into Iso view would be Path of Exile, DAO was a bad example, although you absolutely can play it in top down iso view as I always do.
Only thing I dont like about Project Eternity is that it wont have the a similar class system, or as wide a variety of spells as BG. No other game has come close to capturing the mage gameplay of BG.
I recently played Avernum 1, but I hate that they reduced the party size to just 4 in that series. My first ever RPG I played was a shareware version of Exile 2 when I was just 8 years old on my school's computers. I was hooked since my first day playing it, and that game was even more hardcore than BG is.
I'm not arguing for 3D locked. I'm arguing for wanting to see 2D Isometric, so that's why I showed the PE picture. That approach for me would be ideal. I like DAO alot, but didn't like the reduction to a 4 person party that was largely necessary due to the games 3D configuration.
Path of Exile has a party size of 6, and the devs stated it can support up to 12 players, but they arent implementing that. Most MMOs have massive party sizes too, the party size has nothing to do with whether or not the game is 3D or 2D.
Even better example is the Storm of Zephyr expansion to NWN2 which included the leadership feat to increase your party size from 4 to 6.
12 players? MMOs? I'm talking about how many party members (not other players) can feasibly be controlled by a single player. 2D Isometric seems to lend itself better to controlling larger parties.
I don't care if an MMO can support 1,000 players in a group. I don't play MMOs (anymore).
I agree with OP. Project Eternity looks incredible and it got the funding to do this through the means of kickstarter. I know personally, I'd spend $200+ on my favourite gaming series of all time. And I know there's a lot of people out there who would also
Path of Exile has a party size of 6, and the devs stated it can support up to 12 players, but they arent implementing that. Most MMOs have massive party sizes too, the party size has nothing to do with whether or not the game is 3D or 2D.
Even better example is the Storm of Zephyr expansion to NWN2 which included the leadership feat to increase your party size from 4 to 6.
I agree with OP. Project Eternity looks incredible and it got the funding to do this through the means of kickstarter. I know personally, I'd spend $200+ on my favourite gaming series of all time. And I know there's a lot of people out there who would also
I'm a little embarrassed how much I dropped on Project Eternity and Torment Tides of Numenera. The best Beamdog can likely expect to get with this approach is a million or two, maybe a bit more, but that should be enough to make the game most of us want.
I agree with OP. Project Eternity looks incredible and it got the funding to do this through the means of kickstarter. I know personally, I'd spend $200+ on my favourite gaming series of all time. And I know there's a lot of people out there who would also
I'm a little embarrassed how much I dropped on Project Eternity and Torment Tides of Numenera. The best Beamdog can likely expect to get with this approach is a million or two, maybe a bit more, but that should be enough to make the game most of us want.
I'd dump a couple hundred dollars into a BG3 Kickstarter, but only if it wasn't by Overhaul.
In the past, I believed they could pull it off, but now, after having played through a lot of the Enhanced Edition content, I don't think so. It's not that they don't have the chops, rather, the game *feels* different. If they did BG3, it wouldn't feel like BG3, but something else. And this is perfectly logical since the people who made BG1 and BG2 were a different team, had different writers, went about content creation in a different way, and, ultimately, their own unique style can't be replicated.
Look how much gnashing of teeth something as minor as portraits causes. Many, many people were pissed, stating that the Enhanced Edition portraits (Dorn, Hexxat, etc.) didn't look 'Baldur-y' enough. And those are just static pics - imagine what would happen, and how much divergence from the original would ensue, if Overhaul attempted to fashion an entire game from scratch. I'm not doubting their passion or ability, just the fact that they can replicate the Baldur's Gate formula. And they shouldn't be forced to. They could try, but it wouldn't be genuine.
In all honesty, I think they should stay as far away from BG3 as possible, and just focus on doing Enhanced Editions for the other Infinity Engine games in order to accrue money and sharpen their development chops. Once they're comfortable with their finances, they can then start thinking about a brand new game.
They have the talent, and shouldn't let the BG license constrain them.
This is why I believe they should do their own, unique IP.
I'm pretty glad I put in money for the Project Eternity kick starter actually. I'm looking forward to that but with work, school and kids etc, I don't have the time to play much anymore so I hope I have a chance to get 1-2 play throughs of bg2ee before then.
I actually really liked DAO and thought it was the best spiritual successor to BG for a long time but it was way too easy and powergameable... I played it fairly easily solo on insane with I think the Mage, rogue and fighter archetypes... I do like AD&D style multi and dual classes for more variation though...
I'm just stepping off a long dev cycle that used Unity 3D. Our studio's soon-to-release RPG, The Shadow Sun (http://ossianstudios.com/tss), was built on it. Like any other engine, Unity 3D has its own share of "treats" for the would-be developer. (Fortunately, not as many as the old Infinity Engine.) But, I do agree that it is a perfectly viable plaform for developing an RPG (3D or 2D/iso, whatever the case may be). Obviously, other independent developers (like Obsidian e.g.) agree. It's very well-supported, has an active development team and very helpful community base. I've seen it continually improve in both quality and capability as time progresses. Quick with hotfix patches when needed. I'm fairly confident we'd use it a second time.
Comments
People would be fine with a 3D engine locked into a 2D isometric view like DAO and Magicka. The only issue I tend to have with such engines is that they never allow you to zoom out enough though.
Edit: I actually think that Project Eternity sounds more like what you're talking about. It uses the Unity engine, which is 3D, but they're tweaking it so that it will play like a 2D isometric game, to better recreate the Infinity Engine/Old-school RPG feel.
I like the infinity engine, would rather a game in it if they make a new one. Apparently they can do everything needed to make a game in the engine so they should stick with that rather than spending time and money learning a new game engine.
Who says you have to use it? Go with Unity - they're building Eternity and Torment with it.
Take the same approach BG used, but fast forward technology 13/14 years, and this is what you get:
http://media.obsidian.net/eternity/media/screenshots/0001/PE-TempleEntrance01-2560x1440.jpg
A better example of 3D locked into Iso view would be Path of Exile, DAO was a bad example, although you absolutely can play it in top down iso view as I always do.
Only thing I dont like about Project Eternity is that it wont have the a similar class system, or as wide a variety of spells as BG. No other game has come close to capturing the mage gameplay of BG.
I recently played Avernum 1, but I hate that they reduced the party size to just 4 in that series. My first ever RPG I played was a shareware version of Exile 2 when I was just 8 years old on my school's computers. I was hooked since my first day playing it, and that game was even more hardcore than BG is.
If you never heard of those games - http://www.spidweb.com
The graphics and sound are entirely minimal, they are based entirely around text based story telling and turn based strategic combat.
Even better example is the Storm of Zephyr expansion to NWN2 which included the leadership feat to increase your party size from 4 to 6.
I don't care if an MMO can support 1,000 players in a group. I don't play MMOs (anymore).
In the past, I believed they could pull it off, but now, after having played through a lot of the Enhanced Edition content, I don't think so. It's not that they don't have the chops, rather, the game *feels* different. If they did BG3, it wouldn't feel like BG3, but something else. And this is perfectly logical since the people who made BG1 and BG2 were a different team, had different writers, went about content creation in a different way, and, ultimately, their own unique style can't be replicated.
Look how much gnashing of teeth something as minor as portraits causes. Many, many people were pissed, stating that the Enhanced Edition portraits (Dorn, Hexxat, etc.) didn't look 'Baldur-y' enough. And those are just static pics - imagine what would happen, and how much divergence from the original would ensue, if Overhaul attempted to fashion an entire game from scratch. I'm not doubting their passion or ability, just the fact that they can replicate the Baldur's Gate formula. And they shouldn't be forced to. They could try, but it wouldn't be genuine.
In all honesty, I think they should stay as far away from BG3 as possible, and just focus on doing Enhanced Editions for the other Infinity Engine games in order to accrue money and sharpen their development chops. Once they're comfortable with their finances, they can then start thinking about a brand new game.
They have the talent, and shouldn't let the BG license constrain them.
This is why I believe they should do their own, unique IP.
And I'd gladly support them in that endeavor.
Oh my... It seems 'Project Eternity' has its official name...
I actually really liked DAO and thought it was the best spiritual successor to BG for a long time but it was way too easy and powergameable... I played it fairly easily solo on insane with I think the Mage, rogue and fighter archetypes... I do like AD&D style multi and dual classes for more variation though...
See my OP to the following link:
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/2708/the-redundancy-of-baldur-s-gate-3#latest